“教师使用教科书水平”与课堂教学效果之间关系的实证研究
|
摘要
教科书是课程的重要物化形式和载体，“教师使用教科书”隶属于课程实施领域。随着2001年开始的新一轮基础教育课程改革的实施，尤其是“一标多本”教科书政策的确立，教师与教科书、课程标准之间的关系重新得到审视。教师如何使用教科书，涉及到新课程实施质量的好坏。人们通常在关注课程实施过程的同时，更关注课程实施的结果。“教师使用教科书水平”与课堂教学效果之间的关系，至今尚无人涉及。
本研究将“教师使用教科书水平与课堂教学效果之间的关系”作为研究主题，并认同“通过全国中小学教材审定委员会审查的教科书，符合（基本符合）相应学科的课程标准”。研究以北师版教科书为例，经过理论分析和实践调研，提出以下研究假设：
前提性假设：在一定时间范围内，研究对象的“教科书使用水平”基本趋于稳定；
关系性假设1：“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生课堂参与度越高，学生的数学课堂情感越积极，学生对新知的关系性理解程度越高，但学生对新知的操作性理解程度未必更高；
关系性假设2：“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的数学学习态度较为积极，数学观比较开阔，问题解决能力比较强，但学生的数学期末测试成绩未必更有优势。
研究主要采用质化分析方法，并辅以量化分析方法。综合运用课堂观察法、聚焦式访谈法、问卷调查法、测试法、建模法等进行资料的收集，同时采用编码分析、项目分析、验证性因子分析、方差分析等手段进行资料的整理与假设的验证。
研究过程包括五个阶段：（1）研究工具的制定。通过理论建构、文献梳理、课堂观察、课后访谈、专家咨询等手段，修订、开发、选择恰当的研究工具；（2）前提性假设的验证过程。采取随机分层抽样方法，抽取研究对象，在第一学期和第二学期分别听一次课（常规新授课），比较教师两次测评的“教科书使用水平”前后是否具有差异；（3）针对全体研究对象的“教师使用教科书水平”的评定；（4）从“当堂效果”和“学期效果”两个维度刻画课堂教学效果。当堂教学效果包括学生的课堂参与度，学生的数学课堂情感，学生对新知的操作性理解程度以及关系性理解程度，学期教学效果包括学生的数学学习态度、数学观、问题解决能力以及数学期末测试成绩；（5）从“当堂效果”和“学期效果”两个维度，探究“教师使用教科书水平”与课堂教学效果之间的关系，验证关系性假设1和关系性假设2。
（一）研究获得的直接结论：
1．凭借自主开发的“学生课堂参与度”测评工具及测试题，对“教科书使用较低水平”、“教科书使用中等水平”和“教科书使用较高水平”的“当堂教学效果”进行追踪考察。结果表明，关系性假设1大部分成立：
（1）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的课堂参与度越高，且“中等水平”和“较高水平”教师的“学生课堂参与度”逐渐趋于稳定；（2）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的数学课堂情感越积极；（3）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生对新知的操作性理解程度越高；（4）对相同的教学内容来说，“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生对新知的关系性理解程度越高。
2．研究利用《数学学习态度量表》、《数学观量表》、编制的开放测试题以及期末统考成绩，对30个班的“学期教学效果”进行了考察和分析，发放问卷1550份，回收有效问卷1533份，结果表明，关系性假设2部分成立：
（1）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学学习态度”没有显著的正向预测作用；（2）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学观”没有显著的正向预测作用；（3）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生问题解决能力”存在显著的正向预测作用；（4）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学期末测试成绩”没有显著的正向预测作用。
（二）研究获得的其它相关结论
3.从个案校随机选择三位数学教师，对其“教科书使用水平”进行测试，结果表明，细化后的“教师使用教科书水平”测量模型具有良好的信度和效度；
4.采取随机分层抽样方法，从个案校三、四、五年级中选出三位教师，前后两次“教科书使用水平”的测评结果表明，前提性假设成立，即在一定时间范围内，研究对象的“教师使用教科书水平”基本趋于稳定；
5.自主开发的“学生课堂参与度”刻画方法和比较模型，能较为客观地刻画学生在一堂课中的参与状况，以及实现不同课堂“学生参与度”的横向比较。
综上研究，教师在课堂上能否创造性地使用教科书，对促进学生数学学习的操作性理解和关系性理解、提高学生数学课堂参与度、提高学生的问题解决能力，以及形成积极的数学情感和开阔的数学观有重要作用，因而，提高教师使用教科书的水平，是十分必要的。
对个案校的相关建议：学校需要进一步完善教学评价机制，进一步完善与教科书配套的软硬件设施，学校领导应积极关注新课程的实施过程，加强教学研讨的针对性，进一步调整学生作息制度，改善学校周边环境。
对课程实施质量保障的相关启示有：提高课程标准自身的清晰度，提高教科书与课程标准的吻合度，提高“教师使用教科书”的水平，提高数学学业评价与课程标准的一致性。
“Textbook” is one important materialized form and carrier of curriculum.“Textbook useby teacher” belongs to curriculum implementation area. Along with the implementation ofNew Round Basic Education Curriculum Reform which officially started in2001, especiallywith the affirmation of “one unified syllabus, multiple textbook versions” textbook policy,relations between teachers, textbooks and syllabus have been reexamined and reconsideredby people since then. How teachers use textbook in classroom is critical to quality ofcurriculum implementation. As we all know, when people focus on the process of curriculumimplementation, they are more concerned with the results of curriculum implementation.However, relations between “levels of textbook use by teacher” and teaching effects have notbeen studied until now.
Therefore, the research theme is,“relations between ‘levels of textbook use by teacher’and teaching effects”. We assume that textbooks having passed censorship of NationalPrimary and Middle School Textbook Review Committee accord with the CurriculumStandards of corresponding subject. Taking example of textbooks released by Beijing NormalUniversity Press, based on the theoretical analysis and survey, the study put forward threehypotheses:
Prevailing hypothesis: within a certain period of time,“levels of textbook use” byteachers from the school tended to be stable;
Relation hypothesis1: if “levels of textbook use by teacher” were higher, then students’classroom participation would be more active, students’ classroom affections would be morepositive, students’ relational understanding of new knowledge would be more profound andlasting, but students’ operational understanding of new knowledge would make no difference.
Relation hypothesis2: if “levels of textbook use by teacher” were higher, then students’mathematics learning attitudes would be more positive, students’ mathematics views wouldbe more open, students’ problem-solving abilities would be stronger, but students’mathematics academic achievements would make no difference.
In this study, qualitative analysis methods were primary and quantitative analysismethods were auxiliary. Comprehensively applied methods of classroom observation, focusedinterview, questionnaire survey, test and modeling to collect data we needed. Besides, weadopted coding analysis, project analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, variance analysis andother means for data sorting and hypotheses verification.
There were five stages in the research:(1) establishment of research tools. Through theoretical construction, literature review, classroom observation, interviews and expertconsultation to select appropriate research tools;(2) verification of prevailing hypothesis.Taking the stratified sampling and random sampling methods to select several teachers fromthe school, then researchers used the model to measure teachers’ levels of textbook use, eachtwice, one was in the first semester and the other was in the second semester. After that,compared each teacher’s twice measurement results to find that if levels of textbook use werestable;(3) the measurement of “levels of textbook use by teacher” for all the research objects;(4) teaching effects measurement from classroom and term dimensions. Classroom teachingeffects included degrees of students’ classroom participation, students’ classroom affections,students’ operational understanding and relational understanding of new knowledge. Termteaching effects included students’ mathematics learning attitudes, students’ mathematicsviews, students’ problem-solving abilities and mathematics academic achievements;(5)exploration of relations between “levels of textbook use by teachers” and teaching effects,from classroom and term dimensions.
Direct conclusions of the study were as follows:
1. We conducted microanalyses of classroom teaching effects of typical lessons fromteachers with “lower textbook use level”,“average textbook use level” and “higher textbookuse level” with the self-developed students’ classroom participation measurement tool andtests. We found that most of hypothesis1was established.
(1) The higher were “levels of textbook use by teacher”, the more active would bestudents’ classroom participation, and degrees of students’ participation would tend to bestable at average and higher textbook use level;(2) if teachers embodied higher “levels oftextbook use”, students would have more positive classroom affections, and the hypothesiswas established;(3) if teachers embodied higher “levels of textbook use”, students’operational understanding levels of new knowledge would be higher, and the hypothesis wasnot established;(4) as to the same content, the higher were “levels of textbook use byteacher”, the higher would be students’ relational understanding levels of new knowledge,and the hypothesis was mainly established.
2. The study used Mathematics Learning Attitudes Scale and Mathematics Views Scale,open-ended tests and final tests to obtain30classes’ term teaching results. In total, the studyhanded out1550questionnaires and recycled1533effective questionnaires. The explorationof relations between “levels of textbook use by teacher” and term teaching effects showedthat part of relation hypothesis2was established.
(1)“Levels of textbook use by teachers” had no significant positive prediction effects onstudents’ mathematics learning attitudes;(2)“levels of textbook use by teachers” had nosignificant positive prediction effects on students’ mathematics views;(3)“levels of textbookuse by teachers” had significant positive prediction effects on students’ problem-solving abilities;(4)“levels of textbook use by teachers” had no significant positive prediction effectson students’ mathematics academic achievements.
Other relevant conclusions were:
3. Randomly selected three teachers from the school, and their test results of “levels oftextbook use” showed that the revised “levels of textbook use by teachers” measurementmodel had a good reliability and validity;
4. Taking the stratified sampling and random sampling methods, selected three teachersfrom grade3to grade5, their twice measurement results of “levels of textbook use” showedthat hypothesis1was established, that was, levels of textbook use by teachers from theselected school tended to be stable;
5. The self-developed “students’ classroom participation measurement and comparativemodel” could objectively describe students’ classroom participation of one lesson, andconduct a horizontal comparison between different lessons.
In conclusion, whether teachers can creatively use mathematics textbooks in theclassroom will be critical to students’ operational understanding and relational understandingof mathematics, active participation in mathematics class, problem-solving abilities andpositive mathematics affections. Therefore, it is very necessary for teachers to improve theirlevels of textbook use.
In addition, there are some suggestions for the research school: the school needs tofurther improve the teaching evaluation mechanism, further improve supporting hardware andsoftware facilities of textbooks; school leaders should pay more attentions to implementationof new curriculum reform, strengthen the teaching pertinence, further adjust students’ studyand rest system, and improve school peripheral environment.
There are some inspirations for quality assurance of curriculum implementation: toimprove clarity of curriculum standards, to improve the consistency of textbooks andcurriculum standards, to improve the level of textbook use by teacher, to improve theconsistency of academic evaluations and curriculum standards.
本研究将“教师使用教科书水平与课堂教学效果之间的关系”作为研究主题，并认同“通过全国中小学教材审定委员会审查的教科书，符合（基本符合）相应学科的课程标准”。研究以北师版教科书为例，经过理论分析和实践调研，提出以下研究假设：
前提性假设：在一定时间范围内，研究对象的“教科书使用水平”基本趋于稳定；
关系性假设1：“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生课堂参与度越高，学生的数学课堂情感越积极，学生对新知的关系性理解程度越高，但学生对新知的操作性理解程度未必更高；
关系性假设2：“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的数学学习态度较为积极，数学观比较开阔，问题解决能力比较强，但学生的数学期末测试成绩未必更有优势。
研究主要采用质化分析方法，并辅以量化分析方法。综合运用课堂观察法、聚焦式访谈法、问卷调查法、测试法、建模法等进行资料的收集，同时采用编码分析、项目分析、验证性因子分析、方差分析等手段进行资料的整理与假设的验证。
研究过程包括五个阶段：（1）研究工具的制定。通过理论建构、文献梳理、课堂观察、课后访谈、专家咨询等手段，修订、开发、选择恰当的研究工具；（2）前提性假设的验证过程。采取随机分层抽样方法，抽取研究对象，在第一学期和第二学期分别听一次课（常规新授课），比较教师两次测评的“教科书使用水平”前后是否具有差异；（3）针对全体研究对象的“教师使用教科书水平”的评定；（4）从“当堂效果”和“学期效果”两个维度刻画课堂教学效果。当堂教学效果包括学生的课堂参与度，学生的数学课堂情感，学生对新知的操作性理解程度以及关系性理解程度，学期教学效果包括学生的数学学习态度、数学观、问题解决能力以及数学期末测试成绩；（5）从“当堂效果”和“学期效果”两个维度，探究“教师使用教科书水平”与课堂教学效果之间的关系，验证关系性假设1和关系性假设2。
（一）研究获得的直接结论：
1．凭借自主开发的“学生课堂参与度”测评工具及测试题，对“教科书使用较低水平”、“教科书使用中等水平”和“教科书使用较高水平”的“当堂教学效果”进行追踪考察。结果表明，关系性假设1大部分成立：
（1）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的课堂参与度越高，且“中等水平”和“较高水平”教师的“学生课堂参与度”逐渐趋于稳定；（2）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的数学课堂情感越积极；（3）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生对新知的操作性理解程度越高；（4）对相同的教学内容来说，“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生对新知的关系性理解程度越高。
2．研究利用《数学学习态度量表》、《数学观量表》、编制的开放测试题以及期末统考成绩，对30个班的“学期教学效果”进行了考察和分析，发放问卷1550份，回收有效问卷1533份，结果表明，关系性假设2部分成立：
（1）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学学习态度”没有显著的正向预测作用；（2）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学观”没有显著的正向预测作用；（3）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生问题解决能力”存在显著的正向预测作用；（4）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学期末测试成绩”没有显著的正向预测作用。
（二）研究获得的其它相关结论
3.从个案校随机选择三位数学教师，对其“教科书使用水平”进行测试，结果表明，细化后的“教师使用教科书水平”测量模型具有良好的信度和效度；
4.采取随机分层抽样方法，从个案校三、四、五年级中选出三位教师，前后两次“教科书使用水平”的测评结果表明，前提性假设成立，即在一定时间范围内，研究对象的“教师使用教科书水平”基本趋于稳定；
5.自主开发的“学生课堂参与度”刻画方法和比较模型，能较为客观地刻画学生在一堂课中的参与状况，以及实现不同课堂“学生参与度”的横向比较。
综上研究，教师在课堂上能否创造性地使用教科书，对促进学生数学学习的操作性理解和关系性理解、提高学生数学课堂参与度、提高学生的问题解决能力，以及形成积极的数学情感和开阔的数学观有重要作用，因而，提高教师使用教科书的水平，是十分必要的。
对个案校的相关建议：学校需要进一步完善教学评价机制，进一步完善与教科书配套的软硬件设施，学校领导应积极关注新课程的实施过程，加强教学研讨的针对性，进一步调整学生作息制度，改善学校周边环境。
对课程实施质量保障的相关启示有：提高课程标准自身的清晰度，提高教科书与课程标准的吻合度，提高“教师使用教科书”的水平，提高数学学业评价与课程标准的一致性。
“Textbook” is one important materialized form and carrier of curriculum.“Textbook useby teacher” belongs to curriculum implementation area. Along with the implementation ofNew Round Basic Education Curriculum Reform which officially started in2001, especiallywith the affirmation of “one unified syllabus, multiple textbook versions” textbook policy,relations between teachers, textbooks and syllabus have been reexamined and reconsideredby people since then. How teachers use textbook in classroom is critical to quality ofcurriculum implementation. As we all know, when people focus on the process of curriculumimplementation, they are more concerned with the results of curriculum implementation.However, relations between “levels of textbook use by teacher” and teaching effects have notbeen studied until now.
Therefore, the research theme is,“relations between ‘levels of textbook use by teacher’and teaching effects”. We assume that textbooks having passed censorship of NationalPrimary and Middle School Textbook Review Committee accord with the CurriculumStandards of corresponding subject. Taking example of textbooks released by Beijing NormalUniversity Press, based on the theoretical analysis and survey, the study put forward threehypotheses:
Prevailing hypothesis: within a certain period of time,“levels of textbook use” byteachers from the school tended to be stable;
Relation hypothesis1: if “levels of textbook use by teacher” were higher, then students’classroom participation would be more active, students’ classroom affections would be morepositive, students’ relational understanding of new knowledge would be more profound andlasting, but students’ operational understanding of new knowledge would make no difference.
Relation hypothesis2: if “levels of textbook use by teacher” were higher, then students’mathematics learning attitudes would be more positive, students’ mathematics views wouldbe more open, students’ problem-solving abilities would be stronger, but students’mathematics academic achievements would make no difference.
In this study, qualitative analysis methods were primary and quantitative analysismethods were auxiliary. Comprehensively applied methods of classroom observation, focusedinterview, questionnaire survey, test and modeling to collect data we needed. Besides, weadopted coding analysis, project analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, variance analysis andother means for data sorting and hypotheses verification.
There were five stages in the research:(1) establishment of research tools. Through theoretical construction, literature review, classroom observation, interviews and expertconsultation to select appropriate research tools;(2) verification of prevailing hypothesis.Taking the stratified sampling and random sampling methods to select several teachers fromthe school, then researchers used the model to measure teachers’ levels of textbook use, eachtwice, one was in the first semester and the other was in the second semester. After that,compared each teacher’s twice measurement results to find that if levels of textbook use werestable;(3) the measurement of “levels of textbook use by teacher” for all the research objects;(4) teaching effects measurement from classroom and term dimensions. Classroom teachingeffects included degrees of students’ classroom participation, students’ classroom affections,students’ operational understanding and relational understanding of new knowledge. Termteaching effects included students’ mathematics learning attitudes, students’ mathematicsviews, students’ problem-solving abilities and mathematics academic achievements;(5)exploration of relations between “levels of textbook use by teachers” and teaching effects,from classroom and term dimensions.
Direct conclusions of the study were as follows:
1. We conducted microanalyses of classroom teaching effects of typical lessons fromteachers with “lower textbook use level”,“average textbook use level” and “higher textbookuse level” with the self-developed students’ classroom participation measurement tool andtests. We found that most of hypothesis1was established.
(1) The higher were “levels of textbook use by teacher”, the more active would bestudents’ classroom participation, and degrees of students’ participation would tend to bestable at average and higher textbook use level;(2) if teachers embodied higher “levels oftextbook use”, students would have more positive classroom affections, and the hypothesiswas established;(3) if teachers embodied higher “levels of textbook use”, students’operational understanding levels of new knowledge would be higher, and the hypothesis wasnot established;(4) as to the same content, the higher were “levels of textbook use byteacher”, the higher would be students’ relational understanding levels of new knowledge,and the hypothesis was mainly established.
2. The study used Mathematics Learning Attitudes Scale and Mathematics Views Scale,open-ended tests and final tests to obtain30classes’ term teaching results. In total, the studyhanded out1550questionnaires and recycled1533effective questionnaires. The explorationof relations between “levels of textbook use by teacher” and term teaching effects showedthat part of relation hypothesis2was established.
(1)“Levels of textbook use by teachers” had no significant positive prediction effects onstudents’ mathematics learning attitudes;(2)“levels of textbook use by teachers” had nosignificant positive prediction effects on students’ mathematics views;(3)“levels of textbookuse by teachers” had significant positive prediction effects on students’ problem-solving abilities;(4)“levels of textbook use by teachers” had no significant positive prediction effectson students’ mathematics academic achievements.
Other relevant conclusions were:
3. Randomly selected three teachers from the school, and their test results of “levels oftextbook use” showed that the revised “levels of textbook use by teachers” measurementmodel had a good reliability and validity;
4. Taking the stratified sampling and random sampling methods, selected three teachersfrom grade3to grade5, their twice measurement results of “levels of textbook use” showedthat hypothesis1was established, that was, levels of textbook use by teachers from theselected school tended to be stable;
5. The self-developed “students’ classroom participation measurement and comparativemodel” could objectively describe students’ classroom participation of one lesson, andconduct a horizontal comparison between different lessons.
In conclusion, whether teachers can creatively use mathematics textbooks in theclassroom will be critical to students’ operational understanding and relational understandingof mathematics, active participation in mathematics class, problem-solving abilities andpositive mathematics affections. Therefore, it is very necessary for teachers to improve theirlevels of textbook use.
In addition, there are some suggestions for the research school: the school needs tofurther improve the teaching evaluation mechanism, further improve supporting hardware andsoftware facilities of textbooks; school leaders should pay more attentions to implementationof new curriculum reform, strengthen the teaching pertinence, further adjust students’ studyand rest system, and improve school peripheral environment.
There are some inspirations for quality assurance of curriculum implementation: toimprove clarity of curriculum standards, to improve the consistency of textbooks andcurriculum standards, to improve the level of textbook use by teacher, to improve theconsistency of academic evaluations and curriculum standards.
引文
①严家丽，孔凡哲.附：东北地区“教师使用教科书”的现状调查[J].上海教育科研，2011（5）：53-55.
①朱慕菊.从“一纲一本”到“一纲多本”的历史跨越[N].中国教育报，2009-11-05.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①王光明.关于学生数学认知理解的调查和思考[J].当代教育科学，2005（23）：62.
①数学建模法是把实际问题抽象成数学语言的符号，通过结构建数学模型进而解决实际问题的方法。这是一种极其重要的模式、方法。研究者基于已有研究，从学生课堂参与的深度、广度和长度三个维度构建了“学生课堂参与度”模型，有效刻画和比较了不同教师不同课堂之间的学生参与程度。
①中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育数学课程标准（2011年版）[S].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2012.2-3.
②中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育数学课程标准（2011年版）[S].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2012.2-3.
①王光明.关于学生数学认知理解的调查和思考[J].当代教育科学，2005（23）：62.
①王光明.关于学生数学认知理解的调查和思考[J].当代教育科学，2005（23）：62.
①沈林.小学数学教师教科书解读的影响因素及调控策略研究[D]:[博士学位论文].西南大学，2011.
①沈林.小学数学教师教科书解读的影响因素及调控策略研究[D]:[博士学位论文].西南大学，2011.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.国内“教师使用教科书”研究现状及其反思[J].上海教育科研，2011（05）：48-52.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①张莉，芦咏莉.论教师的教材加工能力[J].北京师范大学学报（社会科学版），2012（01）：58-64.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[D]:[博士学位论文].华东师范大学，2004.
①齐次.信息技术与阅读教学的整合刍议[D]:[硕士学位论文].东北师范大学，2003.
①孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[D]:[博士学位论文].华东师范大学，2004.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.“教师使用教科书水平模型”测定的过程分析[J].教育测量与评价（理论版）.2013(07):29-35。同时该文被人大报刊复印资料《中小学教育》2013年12期全文转载。
①严家丽.例说数学符号教学“三步曲”——基于“中括号”的教学思考[J].中小学数学（小学版），2013（10）：48-49.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.论“课程标准-教科书-教师”关系理解的三境界[J].中国教育学刊，2014（02）：39-43.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.附：东北地区“教师使用教科书”的现状调查[J].上海教育科研，2013（05）：53-55.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.国内“教师使用教科书”的研究现状及其反思[J].上海教育科研，2013（05）：48-52.
[1]黄政杰.多元社会课程取向[M].台北市：师大书苑，1995.88.
[2]杨爱玲.基础教育课程改革存在缺憾的原因反思[J].教育学报，2007，3（1）：24-31.
[3]钟启泉.一纲多本：教育民主的诉求——我国教科书政策述评[J].教育发展研究，2009（04）:1-6
[4][25][30]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育数学课程标准（2011年版）[S].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2012.50,2-3,45-46.
[5]教育部“新课程实施与实施过程评价”课题组.基础教育课程改革的成就、问题与对策[J].中国教育学刊，2003（12）：35-39.
[6]靳玉乐，张丽.我国基础教育新课程改革的回顾与反思[J].课程·教材·教法，2014，24（10）：9-14.
[7][10]石鸥.关于基础教育课程改革的几点认识[J].教育研究，2005（09）：28-31.
[8]温欣荣，薛国凤.课程改革背景下基础教育问题的反思[J].课程·教材·教法，2005（08）：11-17.
[9]中国教育科学研究院课程教学研究中心课题组.基础教育课程改革十年：经验、问题与对策[J].教育科学研究，2012（09）：5-13.
[11] Aiken L. Attitudes toward mathematics and science in Iranian middle school[J]. Schoolscience and mathematics,1979(79):229-234.
[12]全美数学教师理事会.美国学校数学课程与评价标准[M].人民教育出版社数学室译.北京：人民教育出版社，1994.
[13]任子朝，孔凡哲.数学教育评价新论[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2010.132.
[14][15][39][62]【美】吉纳·E.霍尔，雪莱·M.霍德.实施变革：模式、原则与困境[M].吴晓玲译.杭州：浙江教育出版社，2004：130,131-140,83,13.
[16]新世纪小学数学教材编写组.新世纪小学数学教材特点介绍[EB/OL].北京师范大学出版社基础教育分社http://gbjc.bnup.com/index.php?id=200&my_index_id=1946，2013-09-09.
[17]丁锐.中国内地小学数学课堂环境探究[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社，2010.
[18][207] Wong N Y, Lam C C,&Wong K M P. Students’ and teachers’ conception of mathematicslearning: A Hong Kong study[J]. In: Park H S, Choe Y H, Shin H,&Kim S H, eds. Proceedingsof the ICMI-East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematical Education,1998,(02):275-404.Cheongju, Korea.
[19] Wong N Y, Lam C C, Leung F K S, et al. An analysis of the views of various sectorson the mathematics curriculum[EB/OL]. http://cd1.emb.hkedcity.net/cd/maths/en/ref_res/document/Research2.htm,2006-08-10.
[20] Cai J. A cognitive analysis of U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical performanceon tasks involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving[J].Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series7. Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics,1995.
[21] Cai J&Cifarelli V. Thinking mathematics by Chinese learners: A cross-nationalcomparative perspective[J]. In: Fan L, Wong N Y, Cai J,&Li S, eds. How Chinese learnmathematics: Perspectives from insiders. Singapore: World Scientific，2004,71-106.
[22]裴娣娜.论我国教学论学科建设与发展[J].中国教育学刊，1998（06）：36-39.
[23]北京师范大学教育系，河南安阳人民大道小学联合课题组.小学生主体性发展实验与指标体系的建立测评研究[J].教育研究,1994(12):53-59.
[24] Levin B. Putting students at the centre in education reform[J]. Journal of EducationalChange,2000(01):155-172.
[26] Marks H M. Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,middle, and high school years[J]. American Educational Research Journal,2000,37(01):153–184.
[27] Kuh G D, Cruce T M, Shoup R, et al. Unmasking the effects of student engagement onfirst-year college grades and persistence[J]. Journal of Higher Education,2008,79:540-563.
[28]孔企平.“有效教学”的几个理论问题[J].上海教育科研，2007（2）：33.
[29][31][32][33]孔凡哲，曾峥.数学学习心理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2009.147,144,161,103.
[34]蓝顺德.教科书政策与制度[M].台北市：五南图书出版股份有限公司，2006.3.
[35][35][38][61][64][71][80][160][186][188]孔凡哲.教科书质量研究方法的探索——以义务教育数学课程标准实验教科书为例[M].北京：人民教育出版社，2008.38,151,161,158,158,158,158,147,84,84.
[37]夏雪梅.教师课程实施程度的评估：一种整合架构[J].教育发展研究，2009(22):19-24.
[40] Cronbach L J. The text in use[C]. In: Cronbach L J, ed. Text materials in moderneducation: A comprehensive theory and platform for research. Urbana, IL: University ofIllinois Press,1955.188-216.
[41] Sepulveda S M, Manuel A,&Farrell J P. The use of Textbooks and Students in Learningand Teaching[J].In: Schiefelbein E, Farrell J P,&Sepulveda S M, eds. The Influence ofSchool Resources in Chile: Their Effect on Educational Achievement and OccupationalAttainment. Washington, D C: The Word Bank,1983.
[42] Gilbert R. Text analysis and ideology critique of curricular content[C]. In: CastellS, et al, eds. Language, authority and criticism: readings on the school textbook. London:Falmer Press,1989.61-73.
[43] McCutcheon G. Textbook use in a central Ohio elementary school[C]. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York,1982.
[44] Stodolsky S S. Is teaching really by the book?[C].In: Jackson P W&Haroutunian G S,eds.From Socrates to software: The teacher as text and the text as teacher. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989.159-184.
[45] Krammer H P M. The textbook as classroom context variable[J]. Teaching and TeacherEducation,1985,1(4):273–278.
[46] Freeman D J&Porter A C. Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instructionin elementary schools?[J]. American Educational Research Journal,1989,26(3):403–421.
[47] Grant N. Making the most of your textbook[M]. New York: Longman,1991.
[48] Kon J H. The Thud at the classroom door：teachers’ curriculum decision making inresponse to a new textbook[D]:[博士学位论文].Stanford University,1993.
[49] Remillard J T. Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework forexamining teachers’ curriculum development[J]. Curriculum Inquiry,1999,29:315–342.
[50] Zhu Y,&Fan L. Textbook use by Singaporean mathematics teachers at lower secondarylevel[C]. In: Edge D&Har Y B, eds. Mathematics education for a knowledge-based era.Singapore: AME,2002,2:194-201.
[51] Nicol C C,&Crespo S M. Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How pre-serviceteachers interpret and use curriculum materials[J]. Educational Studies in Mathematics,2006,62(3):331–355.
[52] McNaught M D, Tarr J E,&Sears R. Conceptualizing and measuring fidelity ofimplementation of secondary mathematics textbooks: Results of a three-year study[C]. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver,CO,2010.
[53] Eisenmann T&Even R. Enacted types of algebraic activity in different classes taughtby the same teacher[J]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2011,9(4):867–891.
[54] Pepin B,&Haggarty L. Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and Germanclassrooms: A way to understand teaching and learning cultures[J]. Zentralblatt for theDidactics of Mathematics,2001,33(5):158–175.
[55] Remillard J T. Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematicscurricula[J].Review of Educational Research,2005,75(2):211–246.
[56] Rezat S. A model of textbook use[C]. In: Novotna J, Kratka H,&Stehlikova N, eds.Proceedings of the30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychologyof Mathematics Education. Prague: PME,2006,4:409-416.
[57] Love E,&Pimm D.This is so: A text on texts[C]. In: Bishop A J, Clements K, KeitelC, et al, eds. International handbook of mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer,1996,1:371-409.
[58]沈林.小学数学教师教科书解读的影响因素及调控策略研究[D]:[博士学位论文].西南大学，2011.
[59]温建红.谈数学教师如何有效使用教科书[J].西北成人教育学报，2011（01）：44-46.
[60]邓凯.让教师“用教材教”不如“把教材教好”[J].广东教育，2011（02）：49-50.
[63]赵永胜，朱莉.基于教材的教学走向基于课程标准的教学[J].化学教育，2012（06）：9-12.
[65]吕谦.教材文本的三级研读[J].四川教育，2006（2-3）：42.
[66]王世伟.论教师使用教科书的原则：基于教学关系的思考[J].课程·教材·教法，2008，28（05）：13-18.
[67]梁靖云.教材解读——有效教学的前提[J].教育理论与实践，2009（12）：46.
[68]张平.解读教材，我们应把握什么——以苏教版国标本小学数学教材为例谈教材解读策略[J].教育研究论坛，2010（12）：16-17.
[69]曹爱淑.用好手中教材整合其他教材[N].中国教育报，2008-09-05（5）.
[70]钟毅.教材整合如何有效[J].中小学管理，2009（10）：34-36.
[72]周坤亮.教师如何用教材教学：基于儿童经验的视角[J].当代教育科学，2010（10）：13-15.
[73]付宜红.兼顾城乡差异中教师与教科书的责任[J].基础教育课程，2005（10）：47-29.
[74]肖华.在“改造”教材中实施课堂教学[J].思想政治课教学，2011（3）：19-20.
[75]吴建平.激活思品教材插图催生有效课堂教学[J].教学月刊（中学版），2011（9）：15-16.
[76]王正标.高中物理教科书插图的潜在功能[J].教学与管理，2010（5）：72-73.
[77]广新梅.应用教材特色小栏目优化课堂教学[J].生物学教学，2009，34（2）：80.
[78]徐圣伦.课堂教学中如何用好教科书的辅助版块——以岳麓版历史必修一为例[J].历史教学，2009（21）：60-62.
[79]方精忠.引导学生学习高中数学教科书中的“阅读材料”浅谈[J].数学通报，2005，44（3）：20-22.
[81]孔凡哲，汲长艳.数学教师如何提高教科书评判水平[J].中学数学月刊，2012（05）：1-4.
[82]孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研,2008(3):4-9.Kong, F Z&Shi N Z. Process analysis and level measurement of textbooks use byteachers[J].Frontiers of Education in China,2009,4(2):268–285.
[83]张莉，芦咏莉.论教师的教材加工能力[J].北京师范大学学报（社会科学版），2012（01）：58-64.
[84]商务印书馆辞书研究中心.新华词典[M].北京：商务印书馆，2001.1086.
[85]吴君民，魏晓卓，宁宣熙.经济效益的理性思考：效果、效率与效益[J].会计研究，2007（03）:27.
[86]孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社，2005.15.
[87][199]孔凡哲，王威威，李莹.改善课堂教学有效性的若干对策[J].湖南教育，2008（01）：4.
[88]陈力.数学有效教学：效果、效率、效益[J].基础教育课程，2009（08）：38.
[89] Brophy J.Teacher influences on students achievement[J].American Psychologist,1986,41(10):1069-1077.
[90] Cattell R B. The assessment of teaching ability[J].British Journal of EducationalPsychology,1931,1:48-72.
[91] Ryan D. Characteristics of teachers[M]. Washington DC: American Council on Education,1960.
[92] Getzels J W&Jackson P W. The teacher’s personality and characteristics[C].In: GageN L, ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally,1963:506-582.
[93]邓金主编.培格曼最新国际教师百科全书[M].王金波，邓军，程方平等译.北京：学苑出版社，1989.153.
[94]王光明.数学教学效率研究[D]:[博士学位论文].南京师范大学，2004.
[95] Cantrell R P, et al. Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and classroom teaching correlatesof student achievement[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,1977,69(2):172-179.
[96] Alexander L, Frankiewicz R,&Williams R. Facilitation of learning and retention oforal instruction using advance and post organizers[J]. Journal of Educational Psychology,1979,71:701-707.
[97] Kallison J M. Effects of lesson organization on achievement[J]. American EducationalResearch Journal,1986,23（2）:337-347.
[98] Anderson L, Evertson C,&Brophy J. An experimental study of effective teaching infirst-grade reading groups[J].Elementary School Journal,1979,79:193-223.
[99] Evertson C, Anderson C, Anderson L, et al. Relationships between classroom behaviorsand student outcomes in junior high mathematics and English classes[J]. AmericanEducational Research Journal,1980,17:43-60.
[100] Smith L&Land M. Low-inference verbal behaviors related to teacher clarity[J].Journal of Classroom Interaction,1981,17:37-42.
[101] Stallings J, Cory, R, et al. A Study of Basic Reading Skills Taught in SecondarySchool[M]. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International,1978.
[102][140] Soar R S&Soar R M. Emotional Climate and Management[C]. In: Peterson P&WalbergH, eds. Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan,1979.
[103] Tobin K&Capie W. Relationships between classroom process variables and middle-schoolscience achievement[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,1982,74:441-454.
[104] Shulman L S. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching[J].EducationalResearch,1986,15:4-14.
[105] Wilson S M&Wineburg S. Peering at history through different lenses: The role ofdisciplinary perspectives in teaching history[J].Teachers College Record,1988,89:525-39.
[106] Ball D L. Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospectiveteachers bring to teacher education[D]:[博士学位论文].Michigan State University,1988.
[107] Grossman, P L. The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education[M].New York: Teachers College Press,1990.
[108] Leinhardt G&Smith D A.Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matterknowledge[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,1985,77:247-271.
[109] Ma L.Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding offundamental mathematics in China and the United States[M].Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,1999.
[110] Ball D L.The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teachereducation[J].Elementary School Journal,1990,90:449-466.
[111][114] Ball D L,&Bass H. Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learningto teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In: Boaler J, ed. Multiple perspectives on theteaching and learning of mathematics. Westport, CT: Ablex.2000.83-104.
[112] Hill H C, Rowan B&Ball D L. Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teachingon Student Achievement[J]. American Educational Research Journal,2005,42(2):371-406.
[113] Anthony G&Walshaw M. Effective pedagogy in mathematics/Pāngarau: Best evidencesynthesis iteration [M].Wellington: Learning Media,2007.
[115] Margaret W. Teacher knowledge as fundamental to effective teaching practice[J].Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,2012,15:181-185.
[116][117]陈琦，刘儒德.当代教育心理学[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2006.93.
[118]【美】布鲁纳著，邵瑞珍译.教育过程[M].北京：文化教育出版社，1982.33.
[119] Borg W. Teacher coverage of academic content and pupil achievement[J].Journal ofEducational Psychology,1979,71（5）:653-645.
[120] Brooks C&Rebeta J L. College classroom ecology: the relation of sex of student toclassroom performance and seating preference[J].Environment and Behavior,1991,23:305-313.
[121] Fisher C, Berliner D, et al. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and studentachievement: An overview[C]. In: Denham&A. Lieberman, eds. Time to learn. Washington,DC: National Institute of Education,1980.7-32.
[122] Sithole N L&Dlamini B M. Examined the factors related to agriculture studentsacademic performance in Swaziland[M].Swaziland:University Of Swaziland P/Bag Luyengo,1997.
[123]【美】梅里尔·哈明.教学的革命——创新教育课程设计[M].罗德荣译.北京：宇航出版社，2002.112.
[124][126] Den Brok P, Brekelmans M,&Wubbels T. Interpersonal teacher behavior and studentoutcomes[J].School Effectiveness and School Improvement,2004,15:407–442.
[125] Henderson D, Fisher D L,&Fraser B J. Interpersonal behavior, laboratory learningenvironments, and student outcomes in senior biology classes[J]. Journal of Research inScience Teaching,2000,37:26–43.
[127] Brekelmans M, Sleegers P,&Fraser B J. Teaching for active learning[J]. In: SimonsP R J, Van Der Linden J L,&Duffy T, Eds. New Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.2000,227-242.
[128] Flanders N. Analyzing teaching behavior[M].MA: Addison-Wesley,1970.
[129]高文.现代教学的模式化研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社，2000.96.
[130] Galton M, Simon B&Call P. Inside the primary classroom[M].London: Routledge andKegan Paul,1980.
[131] Doyle W. Recent research on classroom management: implications for teacherpreparation[J].Journal of Teacher Education,1985,36(3):31-35.
[132] Nisbet J&Shucksmith J. Learning strategies[M]. London&New York: Routledge,1986.vii.
[133] Anderson L, Evertson C,&Brophy J. An experimental study of effective teaching infirst-grade reading groups[J].Elementary School Journal,1979,79:193-223.
[134] Glass G V, Cahen L S, et al. School, class size: research and policy[M]. New York:Sage Publications,1982.
[135] Young D J. A comparison of student performance in western Australian schools: Ruraland urban differences[J].The Australian Educational Researcher,1994,21(2):87-105.
[136] Reaves W E.&Larmer W G. The effective schools project: School improvement in ruralsettings through collaborative professional development[J].Rural Educator,1998,18(1):29-33.
[137] Ewington J H. Parents perceptions of school effectiveness: An investigation intoparents perceptions of the effectiveness of Tasmanian public schools[D]:[博士论文].University of Tasmania: Launceston,1996.
[138] Evertson C, et al. Relationships between classroom behaviors and student outcomesin junior high mathematics and English classes[J].American Educational Research Journal,1980,17:43-60.
[139] Turanli A S. Students’ perceptions of teachers’ behaviors of social-emotionalsupport and students’ satisfaction with the classroom atmosphere[J].Eurasian Journal ofEducational Research,2009,35:129-146.
[141] Kindsvatter R, Wilen W,&Ishler M. Dynamics of effective teaching[M].New York&London:Longman, c2000.
[142] Bransford J, Brown A J,&Cocking R. How people learn: Brain, Mind, Experience andSchool[M].Washington D C: National Academy Publisher,1999.
[143] Wolery M, et al. Effective teaching: principles and procedures of applied behavioranalysis with exceptional students[M].Boston and London: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.1988.
[144] Sewell W&Shaw V. Parents’ education and children’s educational aspirations andachievements[J].American Sociological Review,1968,33:191-209.
[145] Durden G C&Ellis L V. The effects Of attendance on student learning in principlesOf Economics[J].American Economic Review,1995,85:343-346.
[146] Good T&Grouws D.Teaching effects: A process-product study in fourth grademathematics classrooms[J]. Journal of Teacher Education,1977,28:49-54.
[147]杨骞.论认知结构对数学学习的影响——影响数学学习的心理因素探究之一[J].数学教育学报，1993，2（01）：66-70.
[148]罗少成，景敏.小学数学学困生的学习情感心理特征及影响因素研究[J].数学教育学报，2011，20（02）：34-36.
[149]王爱平，车宏生.学习焦虑、学习态度和投入动机与学业成绩关系的研究[J].心理发展与教育，2005（1）：55-60.
[150]罗润生，申继亮，王孟成.影响高中生数学学业成绩的主因素分析[J].数学教育学报，2006，15（2）：57-60.
[151]沈德立，李洪玉，庄素芳等.中小学生的智力、学习态度与其数学学业成就的相关性研究[J].天津师范大学学报（基础教育版），2000，1（02）：1-5.
[152]范晓玲，李勇波，李佳.5-6年级低成就学生学习的影响因素及对策研究[J].教育测量与评价，2010（09）：39-43.
[153]沈德立，白学军.高效率学习的心理机制研究[J].心理科学，2006，29（1）：2-6.
[154]贾庆菊，崔彩霞.学校环境对数学学习的影响[J].数学教育学报，2002，11（04）：42-44.
[155][200]孔凡哲，王威威，李莹.改善课堂教学有效性的若干对策[J].湖南教育，2008（01）：4-9.
[156]邓玉成.新课改下数学教师影响学生数学学习的几个因素[J].教育教学论坛，2010（32）：190.
[157]李明.论影响数学学习的因素和对策[J].数学学习与研究，2011（01）：117.
[158]周娟娟.影响高中生数学概念学习的因素分析[D]：[硕士学位论文].华中师范大学，2011.
[159]卢俊勇，陶青.教材、教学与教师之间的关系——论课堂教学中教师的中介作用[J].教师教育研究，2011，23（3）：36-40.
[161]孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J].上海教育科研，2008（03）：4.
[162] Astin A W. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education[J].Journal of College Student Personnel,1984,25:297-308.
[163][178]孔企平.数学教学过程中的学生参与[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社，2003.
[164] Attard C. Influences on student engagement during the middle years of schooling[D]:[博士学位论文].Sydney: University of Western Sydney,2011.
[165]刘丽娜.学生课堂参与研究[D]：[硕士学位论文].华东师范大学，2012.
[166] Chapman E. Assessing Student Engagement Rates[J].Clearinghouse on Assessment andEvaluation，2003（9）:1-7.
[167]李银玲，张超.教师远程培训中在线参与度的分析与计算[J].中国远程教育，2008（2）:60-64.
[168] Michael A K. Student involvement as a dimension of the student-perceived teachingbehavior of post secondary educators[J]. Adult Education,1981,31(2):85-92.
[169]王甘霖.数学课堂教学中学生情感参与的探究[J].教育实践与研究，2009（1）:40-41.
[170] Chapman E. Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates[DB/OL].http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13,2013-09-10.
[171] Nikos M, George P. Students’ motivational beliefs, self-regulation strategies andmathematics achievement [J].Department of Education, University of Cyprus，2005，（29）:321-328.
[172] Allwright D, Bailey M. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to ClassroomResearch for Language Teachers [M].CUP,1991.119-137.
[173]赵晓阳，刘金兰.学生参与度评价：一种学生主体的教育质量评价方法[J].高教探索，2012（06）：21-26.
[174]陆璟.PISA学习参与度评价[J].上海教育科研，2009（12）：3-8.
[175] Questionnaire Framework for PISA2003[DB/OL].https://mypisa.acer.edu.au/images/mypisadoc/questionnaires/pisa2003_questionnaire_framework.pdf,2013-09-10.
[176]张烨，周大军.大学英语学生课堂参与模式研究[J].外语界，2004（06）：28-33.
[177]陈焕新.谈课堂教学中“参与度”的数学模型[J].教育科学研究，2001（05）：31-32.
[179]王旭，李淑杰，曹静.学生课堂参与程度的评价方式[J].中国成人教育，2009（02）：102-103.
[180] Sami N, Tomi J. The Open University Malaysia Learning Management System: A Study ofInteraction in the Asynchronous Forum Board [J]. International Journal Of InstructionalTechnology And Distance Learning，2005（11）:1-61.
[181]杨九民，黄磊，李文昊.对话型同步网络课堂中学生参与度研究[J].中国电化教育，2010（11）：47-51.
[182]何绍滨.网络学习参与度与学业成绩的相关研究[D]：[硕士学位论文].武汉：华中师范大学，2010.1-19.
[183]严家丽，孔凡哲.东北地区“教师使用教科书”的现状调查[J].上海教育科研，2013（5）：53-55.
[184]姜澎.“偏食”教参“拐杖”难丢[N].文汇报，2001-5-16（001）.
[185]史宁中，宋乃庆，曹一鸣，孔凡哲等.中小学数学教材难度比较研究的总体设计与实施策略[R].国家社科基金教育学重点项目《中小学数学教材国际比较研究》测算结果研讨会.重庆：西南大学，2013-4-28.
[187]严家丽，孔凡哲.国内“教师使用教科书”的研究现状及其反思[J].上海教育科研，2013（05）：48-52.
[189]史宁中，马云鹏，刘晓玫.义务教育数学课程标准修订过程与主要内容[J].课程·教材·教法，2012，32（03）：50-56.
[190]孔凡哲.完善基础教育课程标准的若干思路——来自中小学教科书实验的启示[J].教育研究，2008（4）：56-62.
[191] Snyder J, Bolin F, Zumwalt K. Curriculum Implementation [Z].Jackson P W. Handbookof Research on Curriculum[C].New York： Macmillan Pub. Co.,1992.402-435.
[192] House E R. Three Perspectives on Innovation：Technological, Political and Culture
[Z].Lehming R, Kane M. Improving Schools：Using What We Know[C]. Beverly Hills： SagePublications,1981.17-41.
[193]徐小容，朱德全.课程实施：忠实取向与创生取向相统一[J].中国教育学刊，2011（08）：42-48.
[194]沈剑平.课程编制的目标模式和过程模式述评[J].课程·教材·教法，1988（06）：53-57.
[195]任景业.研究课标的建议——“换个角度看课标”系列之一[J].小学教学（数学版），2012（5）：8-10.
[196]孔凡哲.教科书研究方法与质量保障研究[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社，2007.32-42.
[197]孙晓天.读懂学生（上）——从重视学生的活动经验谈起[J].小学教学（数学版），2008（12）：8-9.
[198] National Governors Association&the Council of Chief State School Officers. CommonCore State Standards for Mathematics [EB/OL].http：//www.corestandards.org,2013-10-29.
[200][201] Finn J D, Cox. Participation and withdrawal among fourth-gradepupils[J].American Education Research Journal,1992(29):141-162.
[202] Jeremy D. Classroom organization and student behavior in kindergarten[J].The Journalof Educational Research,2004,98(2):79-91.
[203] Morganett. Good teacher-student relationships: a key element in classroom motivationand management[J].Education,2001,112(02):260-265.
[204][207]黄毅英，黄家鸣，林智中，等.学生数学问题解决观的个案刻画[J].数学教育学报，2004，13（02）：3-4.
[205]臧向红，王晓阳.中学生数学学习态度刍议[J].数学教育学报，1993，2（2）：67-72.
[208]张永雪.新课改下小学生数学真实性问题解决能力的调查研究[J].数学教育学报，2011，20（2）：45-48.
[209]辛自强.知识构建研究：从主义到实证[M].北京：教育科学出版社，2006.
[210]张庆林.怎样掌握知识才能提高解决问题的能力[J].课程·教材·教法，1992（08）：12-15.
[211]夏雪梅，崔允漷.基于课程标准的教学：历史考察与现实追问[J].全球教育展望，2006，3（03）：62-66.
[212]郑富芝.全面深化基础教育课程改革[N].中国教育报，2014-01-13（002）.
[213]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D]:[博士学位论文].长春：东北师范大学，2008.
①朱慕菊.从“一纲一本”到“一纲多本”的历史跨越[N].中国教育报，2009-11-05.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①王光明.关于学生数学认知理解的调查和思考[J].当代教育科学，2005（23）：62.
①数学建模法是把实际问题抽象成数学语言的符号，通过结构建数学模型进而解决实际问题的方法。这是一种极其重要的模式、方法。研究者基于已有研究，从学生课堂参与的深度、广度和长度三个维度构建了“学生课堂参与度”模型，有效刻画和比较了不同教师不同课堂之间的学生参与程度。
①中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育数学课程标准（2011年版）[S].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2012.2-3.
②中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育数学课程标准（2011年版）[S].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2012.2-3.
①王光明.关于学生数学认知理解的调查和思考[J].当代教育科学，2005（23）：62.
①王光明.关于学生数学认知理解的调查和思考[J].当代教育科学，2005（23）：62.
①沈林.小学数学教师教科书解读的影响因素及调控策略研究[D]:[博士学位论文].西南大学，2011.
①沈林.小学数学教师教科书解读的影响因素及调控策略研究[D]:[博士学位论文].西南大学，2011.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.国内“教师使用教科书”研究现状及其反思[J].上海教育科研，2011（05）：48-52.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①张莉，芦咏莉.论教师的教材加工能力[J].北京师范大学学报（社会科学版），2012（01）：58-64.
①孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研，2008(3):4-9.KONG Fanzhe, SHI Ningzhong.Process analysis and level measurement of textbook use by teacher[J].Frontiersof Education in China,2009,4(2):268-285.
①孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[D]:[博士学位论文].华东师范大学，2004.
①齐次.信息技术与阅读教学的整合刍议[D]:[硕士学位论文].东北师范大学，2003.
①孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[D]:[博士学位论文].华东师范大学，2004.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.“教师使用教科书水平模型”测定的过程分析[J].教育测量与评价（理论版）.2013(07):29-35。同时该文被人大报刊复印资料《中小学教育》2013年12期全文转载。
①严家丽.例说数学符号教学“三步曲”——基于“中括号”的教学思考[J].中小学数学（小学版），2013（10）：48-49.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.论“课程标准-教科书-教师”关系理解的三境界[J].中国教育学刊，2014（02）：39-43.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.附：东北地区“教师使用教科书”的现状调查[J].上海教育科研，2013（05）：53-55.
①严家丽，孔凡哲.国内“教师使用教科书”的研究现状及其反思[J].上海教育科研，2013（05）：48-52.
[1]黄政杰.多元社会课程取向[M].台北市：师大书苑，1995.88.
[2]杨爱玲.基础教育课程改革存在缺憾的原因反思[J].教育学报，2007，3（1）：24-31.
[3]钟启泉.一纲多本：教育民主的诉求——我国教科书政策述评[J].教育发展研究，2009（04）:1-6
[4][25][30]中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育数学课程标准（2011年版）[S].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2012.50,2-3,45-46.
[5]教育部“新课程实施与实施过程评价”课题组.基础教育课程改革的成就、问题与对策[J].中国教育学刊，2003（12）：35-39.
[6]靳玉乐，张丽.我国基础教育新课程改革的回顾与反思[J].课程·教材·教法，2014，24（10）：9-14.
[7][10]石鸥.关于基础教育课程改革的几点认识[J].教育研究，2005（09）：28-31.
[8]温欣荣，薛国凤.课程改革背景下基础教育问题的反思[J].课程·教材·教法，2005（08）：11-17.
[9]中国教育科学研究院课程教学研究中心课题组.基础教育课程改革十年：经验、问题与对策[J].教育科学研究，2012（09）：5-13.
[11] Aiken L. Attitudes toward mathematics and science in Iranian middle school[J]. Schoolscience and mathematics,1979(79):229-234.
[12]全美数学教师理事会.美国学校数学课程与评价标准[M].人民教育出版社数学室译.北京：人民教育出版社，1994.
[13]任子朝，孔凡哲.数学教育评价新论[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2010.132.
[14][15][39][62]【美】吉纳·E.霍尔，雪莱·M.霍德.实施变革：模式、原则与困境[M].吴晓玲译.杭州：浙江教育出版社，2004：130,131-140,83,13.
[16]新世纪小学数学教材编写组.新世纪小学数学教材特点介绍[EB/OL].北京师范大学出版社基础教育分社http://gbjc.bnup.com/index.php?id=200&my_index_id=1946，2013-09-09.
[17]丁锐.中国内地小学数学课堂环境探究[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社，2010.
[18][207] Wong N Y, Lam C C,&Wong K M P. Students’ and teachers’ conception of mathematicslearning: A Hong Kong study[J]. In: Park H S, Choe Y H, Shin H,&Kim S H, eds. Proceedingsof the ICMI-East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematical Education,1998,(02):275-404.Cheongju, Korea.
[19] Wong N Y, Lam C C, Leung F K S, et al. An analysis of the views of various sectorson the mathematics curriculum[EB/OL]. http://cd1.emb.hkedcity.net/cd/maths/en/ref_res/document/Research2.htm,2006-08-10.
[20] Cai J. A cognitive analysis of U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical performanceon tasks involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving[J].Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series7. Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics,1995.
[21] Cai J&Cifarelli V. Thinking mathematics by Chinese learners: A cross-nationalcomparative perspective[J]. In: Fan L, Wong N Y, Cai J,&Li S, eds. How Chinese learnmathematics: Perspectives from insiders. Singapore: World Scientific，2004,71-106.
[22]裴娣娜.论我国教学论学科建设与发展[J].中国教育学刊，1998（06）：36-39.
[23]北京师范大学教育系，河南安阳人民大道小学联合课题组.小学生主体性发展实验与指标体系的建立测评研究[J].教育研究,1994(12):53-59.
[24] Levin B. Putting students at the centre in education reform[J]. Journal of EducationalChange,2000(01):155-172.
[26] Marks H M. Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary,middle, and high school years[J]. American Educational Research Journal,2000,37(01):153–184.
[27] Kuh G D, Cruce T M, Shoup R, et al. Unmasking the effects of student engagement onfirst-year college grades and persistence[J]. Journal of Higher Education,2008,79:540-563.
[28]孔企平.“有效教学”的几个理论问题[J].上海教育科研，2007（2）：33.
[29][31][32][33]孔凡哲，曾峥.数学学习心理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2009.147,144,161,103.
[34]蓝顺德.教科书政策与制度[M].台北市：五南图书出版股份有限公司，2006.3.
[35][35][38][61][64][71][80][160][186][188]孔凡哲.教科书质量研究方法的探索——以义务教育数学课程标准实验教科书为例[M].北京：人民教育出版社，2008.38,151,161,158,158,158,158,147,84,84.
[37]夏雪梅.教师课程实施程度的评估：一种整合架构[J].教育发展研究，2009(22):19-24.
[40] Cronbach L J. The text in use[C]. In: Cronbach L J, ed. Text materials in moderneducation: A comprehensive theory and platform for research. Urbana, IL: University ofIllinois Press,1955.188-216.
[41] Sepulveda S M, Manuel A,&Farrell J P. The use of Textbooks and Students in Learningand Teaching[J].In: Schiefelbein E, Farrell J P,&Sepulveda S M, eds. The Influence ofSchool Resources in Chile: Their Effect on Educational Achievement and OccupationalAttainment. Washington, D C: The Word Bank,1983.
[42] Gilbert R. Text analysis and ideology critique of curricular content[C]. In: CastellS, et al, eds. Language, authority and criticism: readings on the school textbook. London:Falmer Press,1989.61-73.
[43] McCutcheon G. Textbook use in a central Ohio elementary school[C]. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York,1982.
[44] Stodolsky S S. Is teaching really by the book?[C].In: Jackson P W&Haroutunian G S,eds.From Socrates to software: The teacher as text and the text as teacher. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1989.159-184.
[45] Krammer H P M. The textbook as classroom context variable[J]. Teaching and TeacherEducation,1985,1(4):273–278.
[46] Freeman D J&Porter A C. Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instructionin elementary schools?[J]. American Educational Research Journal,1989,26(3):403–421.
[47] Grant N. Making the most of your textbook[M]. New York: Longman,1991.
[48] Kon J H. The Thud at the classroom door：teachers’ curriculum decision making inresponse to a new textbook[D]:[博士学位论文].Stanford University,1993.
[49] Remillard J T. Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework forexamining teachers’ curriculum development[J]. Curriculum Inquiry,1999,29:315–342.
[50] Zhu Y,&Fan L. Textbook use by Singaporean mathematics teachers at lower secondarylevel[C]. In: Edge D&Har Y B, eds. Mathematics education for a knowledge-based era.Singapore: AME,2002,2:194-201.
[51] Nicol C C,&Crespo S M. Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How pre-serviceteachers interpret and use curriculum materials[J]. Educational Studies in Mathematics,2006,62(3):331–355.
[52] McNaught M D, Tarr J E,&Sears R. Conceptualizing and measuring fidelity ofimplementation of secondary mathematics textbooks: Results of a three-year study[C]. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver,CO,2010.
[53] Eisenmann T&Even R. Enacted types of algebraic activity in different classes taughtby the same teacher[J]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,2011,9(4):867–891.
[54] Pepin B,&Haggarty L. Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and Germanclassrooms: A way to understand teaching and learning cultures[J]. Zentralblatt for theDidactics of Mathematics,2001,33(5):158–175.
[55] Remillard J T. Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematicscurricula[J].Review of Educational Research,2005,75(2):211–246.
[56] Rezat S. A model of textbook use[C]. In: Novotna J, Kratka H,&Stehlikova N, eds.Proceedings of the30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychologyof Mathematics Education. Prague: PME,2006,4:409-416.
[57] Love E,&Pimm D.This is so: A text on texts[C]. In: Bishop A J, Clements K, KeitelC, et al, eds. International handbook of mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer,1996,1:371-409.
[58]沈林.小学数学教师教科书解读的影响因素及调控策略研究[D]:[博士学位论文].西南大学，2011.
[59]温建红.谈数学教师如何有效使用教科书[J].西北成人教育学报，2011（01）：44-46.
[60]邓凯.让教师“用教材教”不如“把教材教好”[J].广东教育，2011（02）：49-50.
[63]赵永胜，朱莉.基于教材的教学走向基于课程标准的教学[J].化学教育，2012（06）：9-12.
[65]吕谦.教材文本的三级研读[J].四川教育，2006（2-3）：42.
[66]王世伟.论教师使用教科书的原则：基于教学关系的思考[J].课程·教材·教法，2008，28（05）：13-18.
[67]梁靖云.教材解读——有效教学的前提[J].教育理论与实践，2009（12）：46.
[68]张平.解读教材，我们应把握什么——以苏教版国标本小学数学教材为例谈教材解读策略[J].教育研究论坛，2010（12）：16-17.
[69]曹爱淑.用好手中教材整合其他教材[N].中国教育报，2008-09-05（5）.
[70]钟毅.教材整合如何有效[J].中小学管理，2009（10）：34-36.
[72]周坤亮.教师如何用教材教学：基于儿童经验的视角[J].当代教育科学，2010（10）：13-15.
[73]付宜红.兼顾城乡差异中教师与教科书的责任[J].基础教育课程，2005（10）：47-29.
[74]肖华.在“改造”教材中实施课堂教学[J].思想政治课教学，2011（3）：19-20.
[75]吴建平.激活思品教材插图催生有效课堂教学[J].教学月刊（中学版），2011（9）：15-16.
[76]王正标.高中物理教科书插图的潜在功能[J].教学与管理，2010（5）：72-73.
[77]广新梅.应用教材特色小栏目优化课堂教学[J].生物学教学，2009，34（2）：80.
[78]徐圣伦.课堂教学中如何用好教科书的辅助版块——以岳麓版历史必修一为例[J].历史教学，2009（21）：60-62.
[79]方精忠.引导学生学习高中数学教科书中的“阅读材料”浅谈[J].数学通报，2005，44（3）：20-22.
[81]孔凡哲，汲长艳.数学教师如何提高教科书评判水平[J].中学数学月刊，2012（05）：1-4.
[82]孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J]，上海教育科研,2008(3):4-9.Kong, F Z&Shi N Z. Process analysis and level measurement of textbooks use byteachers[J].Frontiers of Education in China,2009,4(2):268–285.
[83]张莉，芦咏莉.论教师的教材加工能力[J].北京师范大学学报（社会科学版），2012（01）：58-64.
[84]商务印书馆辞书研究中心.新华词典[M].北京：商务印书馆，2001.1086.
[85]吴君民，魏晓卓，宁宣熙.经济效益的理性思考：效果、效率与效益[J].会计研究，2007（03）:27.
[86]孙亚玲.课堂教学有效性标准研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社，2005.15.
[87][199]孔凡哲，王威威，李莹.改善课堂教学有效性的若干对策[J].湖南教育，2008（01）：4.
[88]陈力.数学有效教学：效果、效率、效益[J].基础教育课程，2009（08）：38.
[89] Brophy J.Teacher influences on students achievement[J].American Psychologist,1986,41(10):1069-1077.
[90] Cattell R B. The assessment of teaching ability[J].British Journal of EducationalPsychology,1931,1:48-72.
[91] Ryan D. Characteristics of teachers[M]. Washington DC: American Council on Education,1960.
[92] Getzels J W&Jackson P W. The teacher’s personality and characteristics[C].In: GageN L, ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally,1963:506-582.
[93]邓金主编.培格曼最新国际教师百科全书[M].王金波，邓军，程方平等译.北京：学苑出版社，1989.153.
[94]王光明.数学教学效率研究[D]:[博士学位论文].南京师范大学，2004.
[95] Cantrell R P, et al. Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and classroom teaching correlatesof student achievement[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,1977,69(2):172-179.
[96] Alexander L, Frankiewicz R,&Williams R. Facilitation of learning and retention oforal instruction using advance and post organizers[J]. Journal of Educational Psychology,1979,71:701-707.
[97] Kallison J M. Effects of lesson organization on achievement[J]. American EducationalResearch Journal,1986,23（2）:337-347.
[98] Anderson L, Evertson C,&Brophy J. An experimental study of effective teaching infirst-grade reading groups[J].Elementary School Journal,1979,79:193-223.
[99] Evertson C, Anderson C, Anderson L, et al. Relationships between classroom behaviorsand student outcomes in junior high mathematics and English classes[J]. AmericanEducational Research Journal,1980,17:43-60.
[100] Smith L&Land M. Low-inference verbal behaviors related to teacher clarity[J].Journal of Classroom Interaction,1981,17:37-42.
[101] Stallings J, Cory, R, et al. A Study of Basic Reading Skills Taught in SecondarySchool[M]. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International,1978.
[102][140] Soar R S&Soar R M. Emotional Climate and Management[C]. In: Peterson P&WalbergH, eds. Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan,1979.
[103] Tobin K&Capie W. Relationships between classroom process variables and middle-schoolscience achievement[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,1982,74:441-454.
[104] Shulman L S. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching[J].EducationalResearch,1986,15:4-14.
[105] Wilson S M&Wineburg S. Peering at history through different lenses: The role ofdisciplinary perspectives in teaching history[J].Teachers College Record,1988,89:525-39.
[106] Ball D L. Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospectiveteachers bring to teacher education[D]:[博士学位论文].Michigan State University,1988.
[107] Grossman, P L. The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education[M].New York: Teachers College Press,1990.
[108] Leinhardt G&Smith D A.Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matterknowledge[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,1985,77:247-271.
[109] Ma L.Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding offundamental mathematics in China and the United States[M].Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,1999.
[110] Ball D L.The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teachereducation[J].Elementary School Journal,1990,90:449-466.
[111][114] Ball D L,&Bass H. Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learningto teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In: Boaler J, ed. Multiple perspectives on theteaching and learning of mathematics. Westport, CT: Ablex.2000.83-104.
[112] Hill H C, Rowan B&Ball D L. Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teachingon Student Achievement[J]. American Educational Research Journal,2005,42(2):371-406.
[113] Anthony G&Walshaw M. Effective pedagogy in mathematics/Pāngarau: Best evidencesynthesis iteration [M].Wellington: Learning Media,2007.
[115] Margaret W. Teacher knowledge as fundamental to effective teaching practice[J].Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,2012,15:181-185.
[116][117]陈琦，刘儒德.当代教育心理学[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社，2006.93.
[118]【美】布鲁纳著，邵瑞珍译.教育过程[M].北京：文化教育出版社，1982.33.
[119] Borg W. Teacher coverage of academic content and pupil achievement[J].Journal ofEducational Psychology,1979,71（5）:653-645.
[120] Brooks C&Rebeta J L. College classroom ecology: the relation of sex of student toclassroom performance and seating preference[J].Environment and Behavior,1991,23:305-313.
[121] Fisher C, Berliner D, et al. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and studentachievement: An overview[C]. In: Denham&A. Lieberman, eds. Time to learn. Washington,DC: National Institute of Education,1980.7-32.
[122] Sithole N L&Dlamini B M. Examined the factors related to agriculture studentsacademic performance in Swaziland[M].Swaziland:University Of Swaziland P/Bag Luyengo,1997.
[123]【美】梅里尔·哈明.教学的革命——创新教育课程设计[M].罗德荣译.北京：宇航出版社，2002.112.
[124][126] Den Brok P, Brekelmans M,&Wubbels T. Interpersonal teacher behavior and studentoutcomes[J].School Effectiveness and School Improvement,2004,15:407–442.
[125] Henderson D, Fisher D L,&Fraser B J. Interpersonal behavior, laboratory learningenvironments, and student outcomes in senior biology classes[J]. Journal of Research inScience Teaching,2000,37:26–43.
[127] Brekelmans M, Sleegers P,&Fraser B J. Teaching for active learning[J]. In: SimonsP R J, Van Der Linden J L,&Duffy T, Eds. New Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.2000,227-242.
[128] Flanders N. Analyzing teaching behavior[M].MA: Addison-Wesley,1970.
[129]高文.现代教学的模式化研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社，2000.96.
[130] Galton M, Simon B&Call P. Inside the primary classroom[M].London: Routledge andKegan Paul,1980.
[131] Doyle W. Recent research on classroom management: implications for teacherpreparation[J].Journal of Teacher Education,1985,36(3):31-35.
[132] Nisbet J&Shucksmith J. Learning strategies[M]. London&New York: Routledge,1986.vii.
[133] Anderson L, Evertson C,&Brophy J. An experimental study of effective teaching infirst-grade reading groups[J].Elementary School Journal,1979,79:193-223.
[134] Glass G V, Cahen L S, et al. School, class size: research and policy[M]. New York:Sage Publications,1982.
[135] Young D J. A comparison of student performance in western Australian schools: Ruraland urban differences[J].The Australian Educational Researcher,1994,21(2):87-105.
[136] Reaves W E.&Larmer W G. The effective schools project: School improvement in ruralsettings through collaborative professional development[J].Rural Educator,1998,18(1):29-33.
[137] Ewington J H. Parents perceptions of school effectiveness: An investigation intoparents perceptions of the effectiveness of Tasmanian public schools[D]:[博士论文].University of Tasmania: Launceston,1996.
[138] Evertson C, et al. Relationships between classroom behaviors and student outcomesin junior high mathematics and English classes[J].American Educational Research Journal,1980,17:43-60.
[139] Turanli A S. Students’ perceptions of teachers’ behaviors of social-emotionalsupport and students’ satisfaction with the classroom atmosphere[J].Eurasian Journal ofEducational Research,2009,35:129-146.
[141] Kindsvatter R, Wilen W,&Ishler M. Dynamics of effective teaching[M].New York&London:Longman, c2000.
[142] Bransford J, Brown A J,&Cocking R. How people learn: Brain, Mind, Experience andSchool[M].Washington D C: National Academy Publisher,1999.
[143] Wolery M, et al. Effective teaching: principles and procedures of applied behavioranalysis with exceptional students[M].Boston and London: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.1988.
[144] Sewell W&Shaw V. Parents’ education and children’s educational aspirations andachievements[J].American Sociological Review,1968,33:191-209.
[145] Durden G C&Ellis L V. The effects Of attendance on student learning in principlesOf Economics[J].American Economic Review,1995,85:343-346.
[146] Good T&Grouws D.Teaching effects: A process-product study in fourth grademathematics classrooms[J]. Journal of Teacher Education,1977,28:49-54.
[147]杨骞.论认知结构对数学学习的影响——影响数学学习的心理因素探究之一[J].数学教育学报，1993，2（01）：66-70.
[148]罗少成，景敏.小学数学学困生的学习情感心理特征及影响因素研究[J].数学教育学报，2011，20（02）：34-36.
[149]王爱平，车宏生.学习焦虑、学习态度和投入动机与学业成绩关系的研究[J].心理发展与教育，2005（1）：55-60.
[150]罗润生，申继亮，王孟成.影响高中生数学学业成绩的主因素分析[J].数学教育学报，2006，15（2）：57-60.
[151]沈德立，李洪玉，庄素芳等.中小学生的智力、学习态度与其数学学业成就的相关性研究[J].天津师范大学学报（基础教育版），2000，1（02）：1-5.
[152]范晓玲，李勇波，李佳.5-6年级低成就学生学习的影响因素及对策研究[J].教育测量与评价，2010（09）：39-43.
[153]沈德立，白学军.高效率学习的心理机制研究[J].心理科学，2006，29（1）：2-6.
[154]贾庆菊，崔彩霞.学校环境对数学学习的影响[J].数学教育学报，2002，11（04）：42-44.
[155][200]孔凡哲，王威威，李莹.改善课堂教学有效性的若干对策[J].湖南教育，2008（01）：4-9.
[156]邓玉成.新课改下数学教师影响学生数学学习的几个因素[J].教育教学论坛，2010（32）：190.
[157]李明.论影响数学学习的因素和对策[J].数学学习与研究，2011（01）：117.
[158]周娟娟.影响高中生数学概念学习的因素分析[D]：[硕士学位论文].华中师范大学，2011.
[159]卢俊勇，陶青.教材、教学与教师之间的关系——论课堂教学中教师的中介作用[J].教师教育研究，2011，23（3）：36-40.
[161]孔凡哲，史宁中.教师使用教科书的过程分析与水平测定[J].上海教育科研，2008（03）：4.
[162] Astin A W. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education[J].Journal of College Student Personnel,1984,25:297-308.
[163][178]孔企平.数学教学过程中的学生参与[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社，2003.
[164] Attard C. Influences on student engagement during the middle years of schooling[D]:[博士学位论文].Sydney: University of Western Sydney,2011.
[165]刘丽娜.学生课堂参与研究[D]：[硕士学位论文].华东师范大学，2012.
[166] Chapman E. Assessing Student Engagement Rates[J].Clearinghouse on Assessment andEvaluation，2003（9）:1-7.
[167]李银玲，张超.教师远程培训中在线参与度的分析与计算[J].中国远程教育，2008（2）:60-64.
[168] Michael A K. Student involvement as a dimension of the student-perceived teachingbehavior of post secondary educators[J]. Adult Education,1981,31(2):85-92.
[169]王甘霖.数学课堂教学中学生情感参与的探究[J].教育实践与研究，2009（1）:40-41.
[170] Chapman E. Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates[DB/OL].http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13,2013-09-10.
[171] Nikos M, George P. Students’ motivational beliefs, self-regulation strategies andmathematics achievement [J].Department of Education, University of Cyprus，2005，（29）:321-328.
[172] Allwright D, Bailey M. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to ClassroomResearch for Language Teachers [M].CUP,1991.119-137.
[173]赵晓阳，刘金兰.学生参与度评价：一种学生主体的教育质量评价方法[J].高教探索，2012（06）：21-26.
[174]陆璟.PISA学习参与度评价[J].上海教育科研，2009（12）：3-8.
[175] Questionnaire Framework for PISA2003[DB/OL].https://mypisa.acer.edu.au/images/mypisadoc/questionnaires/pisa2003_questionnaire_framework.pdf,2013-09-10.
[176]张烨，周大军.大学英语学生课堂参与模式研究[J].外语界，2004（06）：28-33.
[177]陈焕新.谈课堂教学中“参与度”的数学模型[J].教育科学研究，2001（05）：31-32.
[179]王旭，李淑杰，曹静.学生课堂参与程度的评价方式[J].中国成人教育，2009（02）：102-103.
[180] Sami N, Tomi J. The Open University Malaysia Learning Management System: A Study ofInteraction in the Asynchronous Forum Board [J]. International Journal Of InstructionalTechnology And Distance Learning，2005（11）:1-61.
[181]杨九民，黄磊，李文昊.对话型同步网络课堂中学生参与度研究[J].中国电化教育，2010（11）：47-51.
[182]何绍滨.网络学习参与度与学业成绩的相关研究[D]：[硕士学位论文].武汉：华中师范大学，2010.1-19.
[183]严家丽，孔凡哲.东北地区“教师使用教科书”的现状调查[J].上海教育科研，2013（5）：53-55.
[184]姜澎.“偏食”教参“拐杖”难丢[N].文汇报，2001-5-16（001）.
[185]史宁中，宋乃庆，曹一鸣，孔凡哲等.中小学数学教材难度比较研究的总体设计与实施策略[R].国家社科基金教育学重点项目《中小学数学教材国际比较研究》测算结果研讨会.重庆：西南大学，2013-4-28.
[187]严家丽，孔凡哲.国内“教师使用教科书”的研究现状及其反思[J].上海教育科研，2013（05）：48-52.
[189]史宁中，马云鹏，刘晓玫.义务教育数学课程标准修订过程与主要内容[J].课程·教材·教法，2012，32（03）：50-56.
[190]孔凡哲.完善基础教育课程标准的若干思路——来自中小学教科书实验的启示[J].教育研究，2008（4）：56-62.
[191] Snyder J, Bolin F, Zumwalt K. Curriculum Implementation [Z].Jackson P W. Handbookof Research on Curriculum[C].New York： Macmillan Pub. Co.,1992.402-435.
[192] House E R. Three Perspectives on Innovation：Technological, Political and Culture
[Z].Lehming R, Kane M. Improving Schools：Using What We Know[C]. Beverly Hills： SagePublications,1981.17-41.
[193]徐小容，朱德全.课程实施：忠实取向与创生取向相统一[J].中国教育学刊，2011（08）：42-48.
[194]沈剑平.课程编制的目标模式和过程模式述评[J].课程·教材·教法，1988（06）：53-57.
[195]任景业.研究课标的建议——“换个角度看课标”系列之一[J].小学教学（数学版），2012（5）：8-10.
[196]孔凡哲.教科书研究方法与质量保障研究[M].长春：东北师范大学出版社，2007.32-42.
[197]孙晓天.读懂学生（上）——从重视学生的活动经验谈起[J].小学教学（数学版），2008（12）：8-9.
[198] National Governors Association&the Council of Chief State School Officers. CommonCore State Standards for Mathematics [EB/OL].http：//www.corestandards.org,2013-10-29.
[200][201] Finn J D, Cox. Participation and withdrawal among fourth-gradepupils[J].American Education Research Journal,1992(29):141-162.
[202] Jeremy D. Classroom organization and student behavior in kindergarten[J].The Journalof Educational Research,2004,98(2):79-91.
[203] Morganett. Good teacher-student relationships: a key element in classroom motivationand management[J].Education,2001,112(02):260-265.
[204][207]黄毅英，黄家鸣，林智中，等.学生数学问题解决观的个案刻画[J].数学教育学报，2004，13（02）：3-4.
[205]臧向红，王晓阳.中学生数学学习态度刍议[J].数学教育学报，1993，2（2）：67-72.
[208]张永雪.新课改下小学生数学真实性问题解决能力的调查研究[J].数学教育学报，2011，20（2）：45-48.
[209]辛自强.知识构建研究：从主义到实证[M].北京：教育科学出版社，2006.
[210]张庆林.怎样掌握知识才能提高解决问题的能力[J].课程·教材·教法，1992（08）：12-15.
[211]夏雪梅，崔允漷.基于课程标准的教学：历史考察与现实追问[J].全球教育展望，2006，3（03）：62-66.
[212]郑富芝.全面深化基础教育课程改革[N].中国教育报，2014-01-13（002）.
[213]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D]:[博士学位论文].长春：东北师范大学，2008.