本研究旨在探討國小平行四邊形面積單元教科書，以了解三個版本教材內容的差異、各版本所需先備知識、課本與習作的試題分析。研究對象為九年一貫課程三個版本的五上數學教科書。
本研究採用內容分析法，試圖分析三個版本教科書在本單元中內容的差異，以及分別如何教授本單元的概念，而試題分析的部分參考其他研究以比較三個版本習作題目的線段複雜性與解題複雜性。
研究結果發現三個版本平行四邊形面積單元在以下四個項目皆有所差異：教學內容、教學順序、引導平行四邊形面積公式的方式、所需的先備知識。此外，除了三個版本教材的互相比較，本研究亦追溯先前學過的單元，發現三個版本都未完整提供學生學習此單元所需的先備知識。最後，試題分析的結果顯示，在三個版本中或多或少發生以下情形：示範題與學生練習題目兩者難度有落差、教材涵蓋的題目類型分布不平均、三個版本的題目難度不一致。本研究的結果，或許可供教師教授平行四邊形面積單元時一些參考方向及資料。

The objectives of this study are the comparison of parallelogram area concept in math textbook from different publishers for primary school students, the prior knowledge of this lesson, and item analysis of worked examples and practice problems. The math textbooks and workbooks, which have been published by three different pub-lishers, were the subjects of this research.
Content analysis was carried out on the divergence of text for this lesson in math textbook from three different publishers, and how to teach the concepts of this lesson. Next, the methodology of item analysis including diagram complexity and prob-lem-solving complexity was completed by referring to previous investigations.
The result demonstrated that the three different math textbooks have distinct teaching contents, teaching sequence, the guidance of formula for parallelogram area, and the prior knowledge of this lesson. In addition, the nonuniform difficulty between worked examples and practice problems was found by item analysis, and the similarity of practice problems within the same textbook was high. Moreover, the difficulty of worked examples and practice problems in the three textbooks are not the same. The results of this study could be a reference for teachers to instruct the program of parallel-ogram area.

中文部分
97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要 (民97年5月)。國民教育社群網。取自
http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花 (民94)。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟析。
身心障礙研究季刊，3，122-136。
吳金聰 (民102)。PPt 融入數學教學之研究―以國小五年級「面積公式」單
元教學為例。屏東教大科學教育，，37，34-65。
李昆達 (民93)。從van Hiele 發展層次分析國小六年級學童平行概念之研
究 (碩士論文) 。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。(系統編號
093NTNT5507001)
吳統雄 (民74)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度：理論、應用、反省。民意
學術專刊，29-51。
林宜蓁 (民98)。綜觀總結性評量結果探討兒童分數的學習。取自：
http://jen.naer.edu.tw/A%E8%87%AA%E8%80%95%E5%8D%80/A%20plow%
20area.htm
林美如 (民96)。中國、香港、台灣國小數學教科書幾何教材之內容分析 (碩
士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。(系統編號095NPTTC476013)
徐偉民 (民102)。國小教師數學教科書使用之初探。科學教育學刊，21(1)，
25-48。
國民教育法 (民100年11月3日)
陳嘉皇 (民96)。結合幾何與代數之數學推理教材與活動之設計研究成果報告
(精簡版)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告 (編號：
NSC95-2515-S-168-001-)，未出版。
莊麗娟 (民90)。「多媒體動態評量」低獲益受試者之認知缺陷與協助策略分
析。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系、特殊教育中心特殊教育研究學刊，
21，109-133。
曾千純、謝哲仁 (民92)。面積概念的診斷與電腦動態化補救教學。南師學
報，1，41-61。
喻平、馬再鳴 (民91)。論數學概念學習。數學傳播，26(2)，89-96。
葉乃靜 (民101)。國家教育研究院雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網。民103
年9月20日，http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678711/
董修齊 (民100)。臺灣與芬蘭國小數學教科書幾何教材內容之分析比較 (碩士
論文)。取自http://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/img/18/99-
08.pdf。
解義弘 (民92)。論Marshall對四則運算應用問題做分類的發現─一個隱性建
議使用規則的實驗 (碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。（系統編號
002549716）
歐用生 (民89年)。教育研究法。台北市：師大書院。
鄭福海 (93)。「一綱多本」的議題與思維。取自
http://163.26.20.2/math/03year/%E4%B8%80%E7%B6%B1%E5%A4%9A%E6%9C%
AC%E4%B9%8B%E8%AD%B0%E9%A1%8C.doc
謝貞秀、張英傑 (民92)。國小三四年級平面圖形概念之探究。國立臺北師範
學院學報，16(2)，97-134。
譚寧君 (民87)。國民小學高年級面積教材分析。「國立嘉義師範學院86學年
度數學教育研討會」發表之論文，嘉義師院。
蘇進棻 (民95)。九年一貫「一綱多本」教科書政策衍生問題與因應策略。
教育研究與發展期刊，3，63-91。

 
外文部分
Burger, W. F. & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van
Hiele Levels of Development in Geometry. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Vol. 17, No.1 (Jan., 1986) , pp. 31-48.
Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H.-Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A Comparative
Analysis of the Addition and Subtraction of Fractions in Textbooks from Three
Countries.
Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and Learning Geometry. A Research Companion to
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, 151-178.
Donald, J. F. & Andrew, C. P. (1989). Do Textbooks Dictate the Content of
Mathematics Instruction in Elementary Schools? American Educational Research
Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3. (Autumn, 1989), pp. 403-421.
Epelboim J. & Suppes P. (2001). A Model of Eye Movements and Visual Working
Memory During Problem Solving in Geometry. Vision Research, 41, 1561-1574.
Fischbein E. & Nachlieli T. (2006). Concepts and Figures in Geometrical Reasoning.
International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1193-1211. doi:
10.1080/0950069980201003
Gal, H. & Linchevski, L. (2010). To See or Not to See: Analyzing Difficulties in
Geometry from the Perspective of Visual Perception. Educ Stud Math, 74,163–
183. doi: 10.1007/s10649-010-9232-y
Hsu, H.-Y., & Silver (2014). Cognitive Complexity of Mathematics Instructional
Tasks in a Taiwanese Classroom: An Examination of Task Sources. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4),460-496.
Ina V.S. Mullis, Michael O. Maryin, Pierre Foy, & Alka Arora. (2012). TIMSS 2011
International Results in Mathematics, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study
Center. Lynch school of Education, Boston College.
Jones K. (2000). Critical Issues in the Design of the School Geometry Curriculum.
Readings in Mathematics Education, 75-90.
Monaghan, F. (2000). What Difference Does it Make? Children's Views of the
Differences between Some Quadrilaterals. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
42, 179-196. Doi: 10.1023/A:1004175020394
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics. Virginia: The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Nicol, C. C. & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning To Teach With Mathematics
Textbooks: How Preservice Teachers Interpret And Use Curriculum Materials.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 331-355. Doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-
5423-y
Pass, F., Tuovinnen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003).
Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71
Scott, W.A.(1962). Cognitive Complexity and Cognitive Flexibility. American
Sociological Association, 25(4), 405-414
Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A., & Silver, E.A. (2000). Implementing
standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional
development. NY: Teacher College Press.
Wagner, S. (1983). What Are These Things Called Variables? Mathematics Teacher,
76, 474-479