A Comparative Study On The Function Of High School Mathematics Textbooks Between China And Australia

Textbooks are commonly used teaching resources for teachers and students in teaching practice,reflecting the country’s educational orientation and curriculum goals,and their importance is self-evident.In 2017,the Ministry of Education released the "General High School Mathematics Curriculum Standards 2017 Edition".New South Wales,Australia,issued the "Mathematics Advanced Stage 6 Syllabus" based on the latest Australian curriculum simultaneously.Subsequently,in 2019,new textbooks from both countries were successively published.Based on this,this paper selects the latest and representative three sets of high school mathematics textbooks,namely,the People’s Education Edition and the Shanghai Education Edition in China,as well as the sixth stage of advanced mathematics in the Cambridge University Edition in Australia.Taking the function content in the three sets of high school mathematics textbooks as an example,it examines the differences and similarities in the setting of function content in the three sets of textbooks,with a view to providing suggestions for the compilation of mathematics textbooks and the teaching of function content in China.The research question of this study is: What are the similarities and differences in the setting of function content among the three sets of textbooks? Drawing on existing research theories and frameworks,the research questions are subdivided into three specific research questions:(1)What are the characteristics of the three sets of textbooks in terms of the layout and structure of function content?(2)What are the characteristics of the presentation of function content in the three sets of textbooks?(3)What are the differences in the comprehensive difficulty of the function content among the three sets of textbooks? At the layout structure level,it examines the three indicators of column design,layout order,and knowledge structure of the three sets of textbooks;At the presentation level,it examines the introduction of chapter headings and knowledge into the functional content of the three sets of textbooks;At the level of comprehensive difficulty,examine the three indicators of content breadth,content depth,and comprehensive difficulty of sample questions in the three sets of textbook functions.Based on the above research framework,this paper draws the following research conclusions through comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis:(1)At the organizational structure level,the overall structure of the column design is similar,all arranged in the order of chapter header(title,picture,introduction),section(text,example,exercise),and chapter end(summary,and review questions).The People’s Education Version A section is the most abundant;In terms of arrangement order,there are significant differences among the three sets of teaching materials.The People’s Education A version is for lower learning,the Shanghai Education version is for parallel combination learning,and the CMA version is for lower learning,using a spiral design;In terms of knowledge structure,the CMA version emphasizes the close relationship between images and functions,and trigonometry is more systematic.(2)At the presentation level,the introduction of the chapter header shows that the three sets of textbooks contain titles,pictures,and introductions.The People’s Education A and Shanghai Education editions pay more attention to the realistic background of functions,while the CMA editions emphasize the integration of functions and information technology;In terms of knowledge introduction,the People’s Education A version and the Shanghai Education version are more similar,both emphasizing inquiry introduction,while the CMA version adopts more direct introduction.(3)At the level of comprehensive difficulty,in terms of content breadth,the order from low to high is People’s Education A version,Shanghai Education version,and CMA version;In terms of content depth,in contrast to content breadth,CMA version,Shanghai Education version,and People’s Education version in descending order;In terms of comprehensive difficulty of example questions,the level of the five difficulty factors in the People’s Education A version is the first,while the CMA version is the lowest.The background and total knowledge of the three sets of textbooks are at a low level.Finally,according to these conclusions,it was suggested as follows:(1)Improve the logical system of knowledge,and emphasize the development and systematization of mathematical knowledge;(2)Enrich the presentation of knowledge and develop students’ critical and creative thinking;(3)Increase the comprehensive difficulty of example questions,and improve students’ transfer ability and problem-solving ability;(4)Emphasize the use and evaluation of information technology and encourage students to selectively use appropriate technical tools.