Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2013.52.1.043

A comparative analysis between Korean mathematics textbooks and U.S.A.'s CMP textbooks -focused on equation and function in middle school-  

Chu, Jae Im (Busan Nakdong Middle School)
Lee, Jong Hak (Daegu National University of Education)
Kim, Won Kyung (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
The Mathematical Education / v.52, no.1, 2013 , pp. 43-63 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to find meaningful implications for developing curriculum and textbooks by comparison between Korean middle school mathematics textbooks and U.S.A.'s CMP textbooks. After comparing and analysing how the contents are composed focusing on the equations and functions and how the contents are presented according to 'Project 2061' mathematical textbook analytical framework, and how the contents ere different in terms of the mathematical connectivity, the research reached the following conclusions. First, compared to Korean textbooks, the CMP textbooks clearly present learners' behavior goals in a detailed way, and emphasize communication and connectivity. Second, Korean textbooks focus on explaining concepts and solving problems related to their concepts and discussion questions are briefly introduced. But all the textbooks contain a lot of problems required to be solved with algorithms. On the other hand, CMP textbooks provide students with opportunities to find the necessary concepts on their own, through problem solving processes, after presenting various real-life problem situations.
Keywords
Connectivity; CMP textbook; Equation; Function;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for research in mathematics education, 34(1), 74-95.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 http://www.project2061.org/tools/textbook/matheval/appendx/appendc.htm.
3 손혜진 (2011). 중학교 3학년과 고등학교 1학년 학생들의 방정식과 함수의 관계에 대한 이해유형 분석. 석사학위논문, 이화여자대학교.(Son, H. (2011). Analysis of understanding type on relation between equation and function of the 3rd grade students in middle school and the 1st grade students in high school. Master's thesis. Ewha Womans University.)
4 신현성, 한혜숙 (2011). 한국과 미국의 교과서 체제 비교분석. 한국학교수학회 논문집, 12(2), 309-325.(Shin, H. & Han, H. (2011). Experimental analysis of Korean CPMP textbooks. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society. 12(2), 309-325.)
5 윤현진, 박선용, 김서령, 이영하 (2009). 수학과 교육내용개선방안 연구 -이산수학, 확률과 통계 영역을 중심으로-, RRC 2009-33. 한국교육과정평가원.(Yoon, H., Park, S., Kim, S., & Lee, Y. (2009). Study on improving mathematics education contents - Discrete mathematics, statistics and probability -, RRC 2009-33. KICE.)
6 이경화, 지은정(2008). 그래프의 교수학적 변환 방식 비교: 우리나라 교과서와 MiC 교과서의 초등 통계 내용을 중심으로. 수학교육학연구, 18(3), 353-372.(Lee, K. & Ji, E. (2008). The study on didactic transposition for teaching statistical graphs - The comparison between the Korean and MiC's textbooks. The journal of educational research in mathematics, 18(3), 353-372.)
7 이용숙, 김영준, 이근님, 양미경, 최성욱, 박순경(1995). 교과서 정책과 내용구성 방식 국제비교 연구. 한국교육개발원 연구보고서 RR95-17.(Lee, Y., Kim, Y., Lee, K., Yang, M., Choi, S., & Park, S. (1995). International comparison study for textbook policy and Content configuration. RR95-17, KEDI.)
8 최병훈, 방정숙, 송근영, 황현미, 구미진, 이성미 (2006). 한국과 싱가포르의 초등 수학 교과서 비교 연구- 도형과 측정 영역을 중심으로-. 학교수학, 8(1), 45-68.(Choi, B., Pang, J., Song, K., Hwang, H., Gu, M., & Lee, S. (2006). A comparative analysis of elementary mathematics textbooks of Korea and Singapore: Focused on the geometry and measurement strand. School Mathematics, 8(1), 45-68.)
9 최선희, 이대현 (2012). 우리나라 초등 교과서와 MIC 교과서의 통계 단원 비교분석. 초등수학교육, 15(1), 41-50.(Choi, S. & Lee, D. (2012). A comparison analysis of the Statistical sections between in the Korean Elementary Mathematics textbooks and the MiC textbooks. Education of primary school mathematics, 15(1), 41-50.)
10 황석근, 윤정호 (2011). 수학적 연결성을 고려한 연속확률분포단원의 지도방안 연구. 학교수학, 13(3), 423-445.(Hwang, S. & Yoon, J. (2011). A study on teaching continuous probability distribution in terms of mathematical connection. School Mathematics, 13(3), 423-445.)
11 Covington C. & Lesa M.(2001). The effects of the Connected Mathematics Project on middle school mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Minnesota.
12 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1992). 수학교육과정과 평가의 새로운 방향 (구광조, 오병승, 류희찬 역), 서울: 경문사. (원저 1989년 출판)
13 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2007). 학교 수학을 위한 원리와 규준 (류희찬, 조완영, 이경화, 나귀수, 김남균, 방정숙 역), 서울: 경문사. (원저 2000년 출판)
14 강옥기 (2007). 수학과 학습지도와 평가론, 서울: 경문사.(Kang, O.K. (2007). Mathematics teaching and assessment, Seoul: Kyowoosa.)
15 교육과학기술부 (2011). 수학과 교육과정, 교육과학기술부, 고시 제2011-361호.(Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2011). Mathematics curriculum, Notification No.2011-361 of the MEST.)
16 김지예 (2012). 수학적 연결성 관점에서의 고등학교 수학교과서 분석. 석사학위논문, 이화여자대학교.(Kim, J. (2012). A Study on analysis of mathematical textbooks in high school based on mathematical connection. Master's thesis. Ewha Womans University.)
17 교육인적자원부 (2007). 수학과 교육과정, 교육인적자원부, 고시 제2007-79호.(Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (2007). Mathematics curriculum, Notification No.2007-79 of the MEHRD.)
18 김남희, 나귀수, 박경미, 이경화, 정영옥, 홍진곤 (2006). 수학교육과정과 교재연구, 서울: 경문사.(Kim, N., Na, K., Park, K., Lee, K., Jung, Y., Hong, J. (2006). Mathematics curriculum and teaching material study, Seoul: Kyowoosa.)
19 김원경,조민식,김영주,김윤희,방환선,윤기원 (2009). 중학교 수학1, 2, 3, 서울: 비유와 상징.(Kim, W., Joe, M., Kim, J., Kim, Y., Pang, H., Yoon, K. (2009). Middle school mathematics 1, 2, 3, Seoul: Visang.)
20 김해규 (2011).시엠피(The Connected Mathematics Project)에 대한 고찰. 수학교육논문집, 25(1), 119-145.(Kim, H. (2011). A survey of the Connected Mathematics Project. Communications of Mathematical Education, 25(11), 119-145.)
21 권오남, 김래형, 박지현, 정호선 (1999). 수학교육에서 휴대용 테크놀로지의 활용: 그래픽계산기와 CBL 및 CBR을 중심으로. 수학교육논문집, 8, 607-622.(Kwon, O., KIm, L., Park, J., & Chung, H. (1999). Application of the portable technology in mathematics education. Communications of Mathematical Education, 8, 607-622.)
22 박경미, 임재훈 (2002). 한국, 일본과 미국, 영국의 수학교과서 비교. 학교수학, 4(2), 317-331.(Park, K. & Yim, J. (2002). Comparative study of the mathematics textbooks of Korea, Japan, the United States and England. School Mathematics, 4(2), 317-331.)
23 박희자, 정은실 (2010). 우리나라 교과서와 미국 MIC 교과서의 비와 비율 관련 단원 비교.분석. 한국초등수학교육학회지, 14(3), 769-788.(Park, H. & Jeong, E. (2010). A comparative analysis on Units about ratio ana rate between Korean mathematics textbook and MiC textbook. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea. 14(3), 769-788.)
24 성홍순 (2008). 함수의 표현에서의 번역활동에 대한 지도방안. 석사학위논문, 서강대학교.(Seong, H. (2008). A proposed method of teaching mathematical translation of functional expressions. Master's thesis. Sogang University.)