化学教科书学习难度评估工具的开发与应用
|
摘要
中小学生课业负担过重,多年来一直是社会广泛关注的热点问题,而课程难度过大也被认为是导致课业负担过重的重要原因之一。由于课程难度是国家教育水准的反映,影响国家教育竞争力,如何科学评估课程难度以剔除不合理的难度因素,在不降低教育水准的情况下切实减轻学生的课业负担就成为当前课程改革必须回答的问题。而教科书作为课程的载体和学生重要的学习资源,具体体现着课程的难度并极大的影响着学生的学习方式和学习质量,教科书的学习难度研究就成为解决上述问题的必经之路。
然而,综观古今中外有关科学课程和教科书难度的研究发现,从关注教科书的可读性到可理解性和可接受性并最终聚焦于可学习性,人们不断寻求着教科书自身特点导致的学习困难所在,并为此开发了众多的难度评估工具。但是由于影响教科书难度的因素多而复杂,各种评估工具又各有局限,加之研究方法上的不足,目前理科教科书学习难度评估仍缺乏科学有效的手段,由此极大影响了科学课程难度评估的科学性和教科书品质的提高。基于以上迫切需要解决的现实问题,本研究聚焦于中学化学课程,进行了化学教科书学习难度评估工具的开发与应用研究,共分5章完成。
第1章在界定研究核心概念基础上对教科书难度研究进行了历史追踪,并从产品取向和接受取向两个研究角度对已有教科书难度评估方法进行了分析,由此确定研究目标和研究路径为：从动态和静态两条研究路径全面探索化学教科书学习难度影响因素并厘清难度因素间关系,以此为基础构建系统考察化学教科书学习难度所在的评估框架,综合运用多种方法建立化学教科书学习难度评估工具,并将之应用于教科书学习难度的国际比较。
第2章在分析化学教科书文本构成及特点的基础上,结合相关文献和调查研究,进行了化学教科书学习难度影响因素的分析,确定了有关化学教科书内容、组织和表征三方面的八个学习难度影响因素,分别是：“内容广度难度”、“内容深度难度”、“内容定量化程度难度”、“组织逻辑性难度”、“组织引导性难度”、“文字表征难度”、“图像表征难度”和“图文表征难度”。
第3章和第4章通过对化学教科书学习难度影响因素的内涵进行界定和分析初步建立了化学教科书难度评估的各级指标,并通过内容效度指数筛选、标准研制和信度检验几个环节对评估维度指标的有效性、可操作性和可靠性进行了检验,最后应用专家咨询法和层次分析法(AHP)进行了各级指标的权重分配,并尝试采用以学生和教师评估结果为效标初步验证了指标体系的使用者效度。
第5章应用建立的化学教科书学习难度评估指标体系对“化学反应速率与化学平衡”主题进行了五个国家的教科书难度评估。评估结果从微观与整体两个层面揭示了我国化学教科书在该主题与其他版本教科书的学习难度差异及改进方向,进一步证实了所构建的评估指标体系在教科书学习难度诊断上的科学有效性。
以教科书学习难度影响因素的提取、教科书学习难度评估工具的开发、检验及应用为主线,本研究形成了一套完整、可操作的方法论体系并深入探索了各国高中化学教科书重要主题上的学习难度特点、共性与差异,研究不仅具有理论与实践意义,还具有方法论意义。然而,在教科书学习难度研究的广阔领域,本研究仅仅只是一个开始,不仅评估工具还需进一步接受实践检验与修订,工具应用也需进一步开拓,如教科书学习难度的个别差异适应性研究、整体连续性研究以及基于更为广阔国际视野的比较研究等都是值得不断探索的方向。
Academic overburden of primary and middle school students has been the focus of attention of the public for years, and the curriculum difficulty has been considered one of the important reasons. Considering that curriculum difficulty is a reflection of the national education level and affects the education competition, how to scientifically evaluate the curriculum difficulty to eliminate unreasonable factors and alleviate academic burden becomes the urgent question that current curriculum reform must answer. As the carrier of curriculum and the most important learning resources, textbook embodies the difficulty of the courses and greatly affects students'learning methods and quality, thus research of the textbook learning difficulty becomes the only way to solve the above problem.
From the readability to the comprehensibility and acceptability and finally focused on the learnability of curriculum and textbook difficulty, people has been constantly looking for the textbook characteristics which result in learning difficulties, and developed numerous difficulty assessment tools for this purpose. But because the factors which affect the difficulty of textbooks are so many and complicated, the assessment tools have various limitations, and the research methods have some shortcomings, that the evaluation of science textbook learning difficulty still lacks scientific and effective means until now, thus greatly influenced the science curriculum evaluation and textbook quality enhancement. Based on these practical problems needs to be solved, this study is focused on the middle school chemistry curriculum and conducted the instrument development and application of the chemistry textbook learning difficulty evaluation, which is divided into five chapters as follows.
In the first chapter, after the definition of the core concept and review of literature about the history and evaluation methods of textbook difficulty at home and abroad, the research determined the study paths and objectives as follows:followed the dynamic and static orientation, the research conducted comprehensive exploration of the factors that influence chemistry textbook learning difficulty, and clarified their relationships;on this basis, integrated various methods to establish a systematic assessment framework, then applied it in international comparison.
In the second chapter, based on the analysis of chemistry textbook structure and characteristics, both the literature and investigation study were conducted, from the study result the main factors that affecting the learning difficulty of chemistry textbook were extracted. They were relevant to the content, organization, and characterization of textbook,such as "difficulty of content breadth","difficulty of content depth""difficulty of content quantitative degree","difficulty of organizational logic","difficulty of organization leading","difficulty of text characterization","difficulty of image characterization" and "difficulty of text-image characterization"
In Chapter three and Chapter four, evaluation indicators at all levels has been gradually established by the following steps:connotation analysis on influencing factors, content validity index selection, standards development and reliability test.Such process ensured the effectiveness, operability and reliability of the evaluation indicators. Finally, expert consulting method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were applied to the assigned weights of indicators at all levels, and the student and teacher evaluation criterion was adopted to demonstrate the user validity of the index system.
In the fifth chapter, the evaluation instrument was applied to assess the difficulty in "chemical reaction rate and chemical equilibrium" theme of textbooks from five countries. The evaluation results revealed the differences between china and other countries in middle school chemistry curriculum difficulty from micro and whole aspects and further confirmed the scientificity and validity of the evaluation instrument.
Following the main line of extraction of learning difficulty factors, development of assessment instrument, and testing and application of the instrument, this study formed a set of complete and operational methodology system and explored the international trend of chemistry textbook compilation, the similarity and differences between china and other countries on important theme in middle school chemistry textbooks, thus the current study not only has theoretical and practical significance, but also methodological meaning. However, in the vast field of textbook learning difficulty research, this study is just a start, not only the evaluation instrument should accept practical test and revision, its application also needs to be further developed, such as the individual difference of adaptive research, the overall continuity research and comparative study based on a more broad international vision, etc.
然而,综观古今中外有关科学课程和教科书难度的研究发现,从关注教科书的可读性到可理解性和可接受性并最终聚焦于可学习性,人们不断寻求着教科书自身特点导致的学习困难所在,并为此开发了众多的难度评估工具。但是由于影响教科书难度的因素多而复杂,各种评估工具又各有局限,加之研究方法上的不足,目前理科教科书学习难度评估仍缺乏科学有效的手段,由此极大影响了科学课程难度评估的科学性和教科书品质的提高。基于以上迫切需要解决的现实问题,本研究聚焦于中学化学课程,进行了化学教科书学习难度评估工具的开发与应用研究,共分5章完成。
第1章在界定研究核心概念基础上对教科书难度研究进行了历史追踪,并从产品取向和接受取向两个研究角度对已有教科书难度评估方法进行了分析,由此确定研究目标和研究路径为：从动态和静态两条研究路径全面探索化学教科书学习难度影响因素并厘清难度因素间关系,以此为基础构建系统考察化学教科书学习难度所在的评估框架,综合运用多种方法建立化学教科书学习难度评估工具,并将之应用于教科书学习难度的国际比较。
第2章在分析化学教科书文本构成及特点的基础上,结合相关文献和调查研究,进行了化学教科书学习难度影响因素的分析,确定了有关化学教科书内容、组织和表征三方面的八个学习难度影响因素,分别是：“内容广度难度”、“内容深度难度”、“内容定量化程度难度”、“组织逻辑性难度”、“组织引导性难度”、“文字表征难度”、“图像表征难度”和“图文表征难度”。
第3章和第4章通过对化学教科书学习难度影响因素的内涵进行界定和分析初步建立了化学教科书难度评估的各级指标,并通过内容效度指数筛选、标准研制和信度检验几个环节对评估维度指标的有效性、可操作性和可靠性进行了检验,最后应用专家咨询法和层次分析法(AHP)进行了各级指标的权重分配,并尝试采用以学生和教师评估结果为效标初步验证了指标体系的使用者效度。
第5章应用建立的化学教科书学习难度评估指标体系对“化学反应速率与化学平衡”主题进行了五个国家的教科书难度评估。评估结果从微观与整体两个层面揭示了我国化学教科书在该主题与其他版本教科书的学习难度差异及改进方向,进一步证实了所构建的评估指标体系在教科书学习难度诊断上的科学有效性。
以教科书学习难度影响因素的提取、教科书学习难度评估工具的开发、检验及应用为主线,本研究形成了一套完整、可操作的方法论体系并深入探索了各国高中化学教科书重要主题上的学习难度特点、共性与差异,研究不仅具有理论与实践意义,还具有方法论意义。然而,在教科书学习难度研究的广阔领域,本研究仅仅只是一个开始,不仅评估工具还需进一步接受实践检验与修订,工具应用也需进一步开拓,如教科书学习难度的个别差异适应性研究、整体连续性研究以及基于更为广阔国际视野的比较研究等都是值得不断探索的方向。
Academic overburden of primary and middle school students has been the focus of attention of the public for years, and the curriculum difficulty has been considered one of the important reasons. Considering that curriculum difficulty is a reflection of the national education level and affects the education competition, how to scientifically evaluate the curriculum difficulty to eliminate unreasonable factors and alleviate academic burden becomes the urgent question that current curriculum reform must answer. As the carrier of curriculum and the most important learning resources, textbook embodies the difficulty of the courses and greatly affects students'learning methods and quality, thus research of the textbook learning difficulty becomes the only way to solve the above problem.
From the readability to the comprehensibility and acceptability and finally focused on the learnability of curriculum and textbook difficulty, people has been constantly looking for the textbook characteristics which result in learning difficulties, and developed numerous difficulty assessment tools for this purpose. But because the factors which affect the difficulty of textbooks are so many and complicated, the assessment tools have various limitations, and the research methods have some shortcomings, that the evaluation of science textbook learning difficulty still lacks scientific and effective means until now, thus greatly influenced the science curriculum evaluation and textbook quality enhancement. Based on these practical problems needs to be solved, this study is focused on the middle school chemistry curriculum and conducted the instrument development and application of the chemistry textbook learning difficulty evaluation, which is divided into five chapters as follows.
In the first chapter, after the definition of the core concept and review of literature about the history and evaluation methods of textbook difficulty at home and abroad, the research determined the study paths and objectives as follows:followed the dynamic and static orientation, the research conducted comprehensive exploration of the factors that influence chemistry textbook learning difficulty, and clarified their relationships;on this basis, integrated various methods to establish a systematic assessment framework, then applied it in international comparison.
In the second chapter, based on the analysis of chemistry textbook structure and characteristics, both the literature and investigation study were conducted, from the study result the main factors that affecting the learning difficulty of chemistry textbook were extracted. They were relevant to the content, organization, and characterization of textbook,such as "difficulty of content breadth","difficulty of content depth""difficulty of content quantitative degree","difficulty of organizational logic","difficulty of organization leading","difficulty of text characterization","difficulty of image characterization" and "difficulty of text-image characterization"
In Chapter three and Chapter four, evaluation indicators at all levels has been gradually established by the following steps:connotation analysis on influencing factors, content validity index selection, standards development and reliability test.Such process ensured the effectiveness, operability and reliability of the evaluation indicators. Finally, expert consulting method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were applied to the assigned weights of indicators at all levels, and the student and teacher evaluation criterion was adopted to demonstrate the user validity of the index system.
In the fifth chapter, the evaluation instrument was applied to assess the difficulty in "chemical reaction rate and chemical equilibrium" theme of textbooks from five countries. The evaluation results revealed the differences between china and other countries in middle school chemistry curriculum difficulty from micro and whole aspects and further confirmed the scientificity and validity of the evaluation instrument.
Following the main line of extraction of learning difficulty factors, development of assessment instrument, and testing and application of the instrument, this study formed a set of complete and operational methodology system and explored the international trend of chemistry textbook compilation, the similarity and differences between china and other countries on important theme in middle school chemistry textbooks, thus the current study not only has theoretical and practical significance, but also methodological meaning. However, in the vast field of textbook learning difficulty research, this study is just a start, not only the evaluation instrument should accept practical test and revision, its application also needs to be further developed, such as the individual difference of adaptive research, the overall continuity research and comparative study based on a more broad international vision, etc.
引文
① 付宜红.负担重在哪儿?——高中课改实验区课业负担的调研与分析[J].人民教育.2009(5)：35-37.
② 董辉,杨兰.课业负担的学校层面变量研究综述[J].全球教育展望.2012,41(12)：4048.
③ 中共中央国务院.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020)OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07-29/content_1666937.htm.2010-7-29.
④ 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育语文等学科课程标准(2011版)[OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-02/08/content_2060805.htm.2011-12-28.
⑤ 黄甫全,王晶.课程难度刍论[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版).1995(4)：91-96.
① 钟启泉.教材概念与教学创新[J].教育探究.2010,5(1)：5-9.
② 张廷凯.教材改革观念变革与教材开发[N].中国图书商报.2003-11-28第011版.
① 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
② 周佩仪,郑长明.教科书研究方法论之探究[J].课程与教学.2008,11(1)：193-222.
③ 靳玉乐,王洪席.十年教材建设：成就、问题及建议[J].课程.教材.教法.2012(1)：12-16.
① 新牛津英汉双解大辞典编译出版委员会.新牛津英汉双解大辞典[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007：2193.
② 英国培生教育出版社出版有限公司编.朗文当代英语辞典(第4版)[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004：1714.
③ 刘继和.解读日本教科书审定制度[J1.全球教育展望.2004(4)：19-22.
④ 王道俊,王汉澜.教育学：新编本[M].人民教育出版社,1989：168.
⑤ 杜明荣.高中物理试题难度的影响因素研究[D].西南大学,2008.
① 苏国章.应用认知负荷理论于资讯融入教学多媒体设计之分析—以自然与生活科技领域“电子教科书”为例[J].生活科技教育月刊.2011,44(2)：44-61.
② 孔凡哲,史宁中.教科书质量及其影响因素[J].教育发展研究.2007(12)：13-17.
① Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
② Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Some Recent Textbooks for Science[J]. School Science and Mathematics,1957,57(5):364-366.
③ Herrington R L, Mallinson G G. An Investigation of Two Methods of Measuring the Reading Difficulty of Materials for Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,1958,42(5):385-390.
① Wood T L, Wood W L. Assessing Potential Difficulties in Comprehending Fourth grade Science Textbooks[J]. Science Education,1988,72(5):561-574.
① Graesser A C, Leon J A, Otero J. Introduction to the Psychology of Science Text Comprehension[J]. The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension,2002:1-25.
② 廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2003：315-316.
① B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社,1989：257-268.
② 热拉尔.弗朗索瓦-玛丽,罗日叶易克萨维耶.为了学习的教科书：编写、评估和使用[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：1.
③ 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
④ 孔凡哲,史宁中.现行教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析——以初中数学课程标准实验教科书“不等式”“四边形”课程内容为例[J].教育科学.2006(3)：40-43.
⑤ 杨承印,程雷.高中化学教材难度的定量分析与评价——以三套化学教科书选修4之“溶液中的离子平衡”主题为例[J].化学教学.2009(9)：29-31.
⑥ 邱红娜.中新初中地理教科书学习难度比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2011.
⑦ 张娅妮.高中物理新课程教材共同必修模块难度的比较分析[D].西南大学,2012.
① 张研.“物质结构与性质”教科书学习难度的国际比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2010.
② 霍秉坤,叶慧虹,黄显华.香港教科书的编辑：提升质量的建议[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版).2010(4)：72-76.
③ Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6):522-549.
① Mccarthy P M, Lightman E J, Dufty D F, et al. Using Coh-Metrix to Assess Cohesion and Difficulty in High-School Textbooks [C]. Vancouver.Canada:2006.
② Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2010,47(1):47-70.
Duran N D, Bellissens C, Taylor R S, et al. Quantifying text difficulty with automated indices of cohesion and semantics[C]. Austin, TX:2007.
① 郭望皓.对外汉语文本易读性公式研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2010.
② Novota M. Evaluation of the Textbook Fundamentals of Electrotechnics I[Z].2010:2011-10-29.
③ Vachon M, Haney R. A procedure for determining the level of abstraction of science reading material[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.1991.28(4):343-352.
④ Ulusoy M. Readability approaches:Implications for Turkey[J]. International Education Journal,2006,7(3):323-332.
① Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
② 鲍建生.中英两国初中数学期望课程综合难度的比较[J].全球教育展望.2002(9)：48-52.
③ 张辅.上海与美国加州小学数学期望课程的比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2007.
④ 何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
② Kuwabara T. Relationship between complexity of information and difficulty of example-oriented textbooks[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,1998,29(8):9-18.
⑥ 李淑文.中日两国初中几何课程难度的比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2006.
⑦孔凡哲,史宁中.现行教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析——以初中数学课程标准实验教科书“不等式”、“四边形”课程内容为例[J].教育科学.2006(3)：40-43.
① 何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
② 李高峰.课程难度模型运用中的偏差及其修正——与史宁中教授等商榷[J].上海教育科研.2010(3)：46-49.
③ 仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论”为例[J].课程·教材·教法.2010,3(4)：67-70.
④ Chall J S, Bissex G L, Conard S S, et al. Qualitative assessment of text difficulty:A practical guide for teachers and writers [M]. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Books,1996.
① 张研.“物质结构与性质”教科书学习难度的国际比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2010.
① Mikk J. Experimental evaluation of textbooks and multimedia[C]. Estonia:Stockholm Institute of Education Press, 2002.
② Kahveci A. Quantitative Analysis of Science and Chemistry Textbooks for Indicators of Reform:A complementary perspective[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2010,32(11):1495-1519.
① Muther C, Conrad M. Kid-Rating:An In-depth Textbook Evaluation Technique[J]. Educational Leadership,1988, 46(2):79-80.
② Henno I, Reiska P. Difficulty of text in upper-secondery school biology textbook——using concept maps for analyzing students new knowledge[C]. Chile:2010:181-187.
① 王道俊,王汉澜.教育学：新编本[M].人民教育出版社,1989：168.
② 王策三.教学论稿[M].第2版.北京：人民教育出版社,2005：209.
① 吴也显.教学论新编[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,1991：299-301.
② 范印哲.教材设计导论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003：8-9.
③ 丁朝蓬.教科书结构分析与内容质量评价[J].教育理论与实践.2001,21(08)：61-64.
④ 廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2003：315-316.
⑤ 苏鸿.论中小学教材结构的建构[J].课程.教材.教法.2003(2)：9-13.
⑥ 毕华林.走向生本的教科书设计研究[D].山东师范大学,2006.
① 李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].西南大学,2011.
② 罗士琴.高中地理教科书呈现方式转变对教与学方式的影响研究[D].华中师范大学,2011.
③ 吴瑞祥.关于教科书分析与评价的理论探讨[D].华东师范大学,2003.
① 王德胜.化学方法论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,2007：43.
② Hofstein A, Lunetta V N. The laboratory in science education:Foundations for the twenty-first century[J]. Science Education,2004,88(1):28-54.
③ Tamir P, Lunett A V N. Inquired-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks[J]. Science Education, 1981,65:477-484.
④ Tamir P, Garcia M P. Characteristics of laboratory exercises included in science textbooks in Catalonia (Spain)[J]. International Journal of Science Education,1992,14(4):381-392.
⑤ Fisher D H, A. H Enderson D, Hofst Ein A. Laboratory learning environments and practical tasks in senior secondary science classes[J]. Research in Science Education,1999,28:353-363.
⑥ Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6):522-549.
① Johnstone A H, Wham A J B. The demands of practical work[J]. Education in Chemistry,1982,71(R):73.
② 刘继和.从中日比较省思我国《科学》教科书编制的基本课题[J].全球教育展望.2008(5)：77-80.
③ 《化学思想史》编写组编著.化学思想史[M].湖南教育出版社,1986.108-109.
① 江水法.学科难度与专业劳动复杂程度模糊谱系的建构--以中国大学本科教育为例[J].南昌航空工业学院学报(社会科学版).2004,6(2)：9-14.
② Dori Y J, Hameiri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems:Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(3):278-302.
③ 王祖浩等.化学教育心理学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2007：70.
④ Johnston A H. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem[J]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,1991(7):75-83.
① Gkitzia V, Salta K, Tzougraki C. Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks[J]. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,2011.12(1):5-14.
② Kozma R, Russell J. Students becoming chemists:developing representational competence[C]. London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.2005.
③ Kahveci A. Quantitative Analysis of Science and Chemistry Textbooks for Indicators of Reform:A complementary perspective[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2010,32(11):1495-1519.
④ Gillespie R J. Commentary:Reforming the general chemistry textbook[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1997, 74(5):484.
① 邵瑞珍.教育心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988：126.
② B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社.1989：257-268.
③ Nohara, D. (2001). A comparison of the national assessment of educational progress (NAEP), the third international mathematics and science study repeat (TIMSS-R), and the program for international student assessment (Working Paper No.2001-07). Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.
④ Nakamura Y, Kuwabara T, Takeda K. Factors determining the difficulty of practice problems in a computer language textbook[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,2000,31 (4):87-97.
⑤ 鲍建生.中英两国初中数学课程综合难度的比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002.
⑥ 何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
⑦ 陈燕,王祖浩..高考实验题“绝对难度”评估工具的研究[J].全球教育展望.2013,42(02)：45-53.
① Mikk J. Textbook:Research and Writing[M]. New York:Peter Lang GmbH,2000,94-96.
② Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
③ Berkeley S, King-Sears M E, Hott B L, et al. Are History Textbooks More "Considerate" After 20 Years?[J]. The Journal of Special Education.2012.
④ Mccrudden M, Schraw G, Hartley K, et al. The influence of presentation, organization, and example context learning[J]. Journal of Experimental Education,2004,72(4):289-306.
⑤ Roseman J E, Linn M C, Koppal M. Characterizing curriculum coherence[J]. Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy,2008:13-36.
⑥ Schmidt W H, Wang H C, Mcknight C C. Curriculum coherence:an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. [J]. Journal of Curriculum Studies,2005,37(5):525-559.
⑦ Mcnamara D S. Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts:Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge[J]. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,2001,55(1):51-62.
⑧ Ainsworth S, Burcham S. The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation[J]. Learning and Instruction.2007,17:,2007,17:286-303.
① Armbruster B B, Anderson T H. On Selecting "Considerate" Content Area Textbooks [J]. Remedial and Special Education,1988,9(1):47-52.
② Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6):522-549.
① D.P.奥苏伯尔等.教育心理学：认知观点[Z].佘星南,宋均.北京：人民教育出版社,1994：67.
② Kesidou S, Roseman J E. Project 2061 analyses of middle-school science textbooks:A response to holliday[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(5):535-543.
③ 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
① Griggs R A. Introductory psychology textbooks:Assessing levels of difficulty[J]. Teaching of Psychology,1999, 26(4):248-253.
② Irwin J W, Davis C A. Assessing Readability:The Checklist Approach[J]. Journal of Reading,1980.24(2): 124-130.
③ Da vila K, Talanquer V. Classifying End-of-Chapter Questions and Problems for Selected General Chemistry Textbooks Used in the United States[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,2009,87(1):97-101.
④ 陈月茹.中小学教科书改革研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009：84-85.
① 沈晓敏.关于新媒体时代教科书的性质与功能之研究[J].全球教育展望.2001(3)：23-27.
② Pedrosa M A, Dias M H. Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions[J]. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice in Europe,2000,1(2):227-236.
③ Ryu O H, Paik S H, Kim D U. The Analysis of Concepts Related to Basic Unit of Matter Properties and Matter Change in Science Textbooks[J]. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society,2004,48(1):53-65.
④.Nam M, Chae H K. Reading the High School Science with Inorganic Chemical Terminologies:A Case Study in Korean Textbooks:Proceeding of the 2nd NICE Symposium[Z]. Taipei, TAIWAN:200730-31.
① Carney R N, Levin J R. Pictorial IllustrationsStill Improve Students'Learning From Text[J]. Educational Psychology Review,2002,14(1):5-26.
② Kozma R B, Russell J. Multimedia and Understanding:Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1997,34(9):949-968.
③ Pinto R, Ametller J. Students'difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2002,24(3):333-341.
④ 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
① 余孟孟.历史教科书语言表述研究[D].西北师范大学,2010.
① 戴海琦,张锋,陈雪枫.心理与教育测量(修订本)[M].广州：暨南大学出版社,2007：59-65.
② 史静琤,莫显昆,孙振球.量表编制中内容效度指数的应用[J].中南大学学报(医学版).2012,37(4)：152-155.
① Polit D F, Beck C T. The Content Validity Index:Are You Sure You Know What's Being Reported? Critique and Recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2006,29(5):489-497.
② Polit D F, Beck C T, Owen S V. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2007,30(4):459-467.
① 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,2008：72-73.
① 李淑文.中日两国初中几何课程难度的比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2006.
② 王建国,刘彬.高中数学算法教学内容难度比较与研究[J].北京教育学院学报(自然科学版).2006,1(3)：10-15.
① B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社,1989：257-268.
② 热拉尔.弗朗索瓦-玛丽,罗日叶易克萨维耶.为了学习的教科书：编写、评估和使用[Z].汪凌,周振平.华东师范大学出版社,2009：1-34.
① 张新宇,王祖浩.国外关于“探究水平”研究的述评[J].教育科学研究.2009(5)：72-75.
② Aderson L.W.布鲁姆教育目标分类学：分类学视野下的学与教及其测评：完整版[z].蒋小平,张琴美,罗晶晶.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2009：30-47.
③ 雷新勇.基于标准的考试命题技术(一)[J].考试研究.2011(1)：36-46.
① Dori Y J, Hameiri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems:Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003.40(3):278-302.
① Roseman J E, Linn M C, Koppal M. Characterizing curriculum coherence[J]. Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy.2008:13-36.
① Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2010,47(1):47-70.
① 李朝东,何涛.知识的语言表述和逻辑表述[J].哲学研究.2011(12)：93-97.
② 吴庆麟.认知教学心理学[M].上海市：上海科学技术出版社,2000：376.
① Gkitzia V, Salta K, Tzougraki C. Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks[J]. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,2011,12(1):5-14.
① 郭望皓.对外汉语文本易读性公式研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2010.
① Mikk J. Experimental evaluation of textbooks and multimedia[C]. Estonia:Stockholm Institute of Education Press, 2002.
② 邓雪,李家铭,曾浩健等.层次分析法权重计算方法分析及其应用研究[J].数学的实践与认识.2012(7)：93-100.
① 人民教育出版社课程教材研究所,化学课程教材研究开发中心.普通高中课程标准实验教科书化学1必修[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2007：11-13.
③ Phillips J.S.科学发现者.化学概念与应用[Z].王祖浩等.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2008.424-433.
① Johnstone A H. Teaching of Chemistry-Logical or Psychological?[J]. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice in Europe.2000:9-15.
② Reid N. A Scientific Approach to the Teaching of Chemistry[J]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,2008, 9(1):51-59.
③ Dori Y J, Hamciri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems:Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(3):278-302.
④ 陈为霞.量化方法在教科书研究中运用的现状分析及问题反思[D].东北师范大学,2009.
①Gabel D L,Bunce D M.Rescarch on problem solving:Chemistry.[C].New York:1994:301-326.
① Martin M O, Mullis I V S, Foy P, et al. TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science [Z].2012:2013.
① 任丽曼.高中生化学平衡学习困难的因素分析[D].上海：上海师范大学,2010.
① 张磊,姜孟瑞,刘文贤.等级成绩数量化与数量成绩等级化[J].山东师范大学学报(自然科学版).2006(2)：139-141.
1.中共中央国务院.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020)[OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07-29/content_1666937.htm.2010-7-29.
2.中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育语文等学科课程标准(2011版)[OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-02/08/content_2060805.htm.2011-12-28.
3.黄甫全,王晶.课程难度刍论[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版).1995(4)： 91-96.
4.周佩仪,郑长明.教科书研究方法论之探究[J].课程与教学.2008,11(1)： 193-222.
5.张廷凯.教材改革观念变革与教材开发[N].中国图书商报.2003-11-28第011版.
6.钟启泉.教材概念与教学创新[J].教育探究.2010,5(1)： 5-9.
7.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(4)：1-6.
8.曹培英.试析课程编制过程中的落差---现象学视角[J].课程.教材.教法.2011,31(11)：23-29.
9.王云生.学案·学案导学断想[J].基础教育课程.2012(5)：37-38.
10.曾懋华,陈艳玲.化学新教材在山区中学实施情况的调查与思考[J].化学教育.2005,26(5)：48-50.
11.汪易坤.浅谈人教版高中化学新教材的特点及困惑[J].教育教学论坛.2011(17)： 77.
12.何穗,王祖浩.基于理解的科学教科书要素研究——以美国教科书Chemistry:Concept and Application为例[J].全球教育展望.2008(11)：77-81.
13.黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
14.靳玉乐,王洪席.十年教材建设：成就、问题及建议[J].课程.教材.教法.2012(1)：12-16.
15.李宗薇.教科书的编辑机制[J].课程与教学.1998,1(1)： 41-56.
16.张玉芳,吴萼洲.国小英语教师教材选用及高使用率教科书之内容分析[J].中等教育.2004,55(2)：82-94.
17.颜杰.高中化学新教材改进之我见[J].大连教育学院学报.2003,19(3)： 15-16.
18.刘继和.从中日比较省思我国《科学》教科书编制的基本课题[J].全球教育展望.2008(5)：77-80.
19.孔凡哲,史宁中.教科书质量及其影响因素[J].教育发展研究.2007(12)： 13-17.
20.新牛津英汉双解大辞典编译出版委员会.新牛津英汉双解大辞典[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007：2193.
21.英国培生教育出版社出版有限公司编.朗文当代英语辞典(第4版)[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004：1714.
22.刘继和.解读日本教科书审定制度[J].全球教育展望.2004(4)： 19-22.
23.谢小芸.教科书“学材化”研究[D].浙江师范大学,2006.
24.王道俊,王汉澜.教育学：新编本[M].人民教育出版社,1989： 168.
25.王策三.教学论稿[M].第2版.北京：人民教育出版社,2005： 209.
26.杜明荣.高中物理试题难度的影响因素研究[D].西南大学,2008.
27.苏国章.应用认知负荷理论於资讯融入教学多媒体设计之分析—以自然与生活科技领域“电子教科书”为例[J].生活科技教育月刊.2011,44(2)：44-61。
28.廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2003： 315-316.
29.B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社,1989：257-268.
30.高凌飚.基础教育教材评价：理论与工具[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002： 58.
31.吴也显.教学论新编[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,1991：299-301.
32.丁朝蓬.教科书结构分析与内容质量评价[J].教育理论与实践.2001,21(08)：61-64.
33.苏鸿.论中小学教材结构的建构[J].课程.教材.教法.2003(2)： 9-13.
34.范印哲.教材设计导论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003：8-9.
35.毕华林.走向生本的教科书设计研究[D].山东师范大学,2006.
36.邓小丽.中美两国现代中学化学教材的比较研究[J].上海师范大学学报(教育科学版).2000,29(1)：104-110.
37.李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].西南大学,2011.
38.罗士琴.高中地理教科书呈现方式转变对教与学方式的影响研究[D].华中师范大学,2011.
39.吴瑞祥.关于教科书分析与评价的理论探讨[D].华东师范大学,2003.
40.邵瑞珍.教育心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988： 126.
41.杨承印,程雷.高中化学教材难度的定量分析与评价——以三套化学教科书选修4之“溶液中的离子平衡”主题为例[J].化学教学.2009(9)： 29-31.
42.王后雄,黄郁郁.高中化学新课程教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析[J].教育理论与实践.2007(24)：27-29.
43.张研.“物质结构与性质”教科书学习难度的国际比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2010.
44.霍秉坤,叶慧虹,黄显华.香港教科书的编辑：提升质量的建议[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版).2010(4)：72-76.
45.江水法.学科难度与专业劳动复杂程度模糊谱系的建构--以中国大学本科教育为例[J].南昌航空工业学院学报(社会科学版).2004,6(2)： 9-14.
46.鲍建生.中英两国初中数学课程综合难度的比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002.
47.陈允成,理查德·帕森斯,斯蒂法妮·刘易斯·亨森,等.教育心理学：实践者—研究者之路(亚洲版)[M].上海人民出版社,2007：229.
48.陈月茹.中小学教科书改革研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009：84-85.
49.郭望皓.对外汉语文本易读性公式研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2010.
50.余孟孟.历史教科书语言表述研究[D].西北师范大学,2010.
51.戴海琦,张锋,陈雪枫.心理与教育测量(修订本)[M].广州：暨南大学出版社,2007：59-65.
52.史静琤,莫显昆,孙振球.量表编制中内容效度指数的应用[J].中南大学学报(医学版).2012,37(4)：152-155.
53.鲍建生.中英两国初中数学期望课程综合难度的比较[J].全球教育展望.2002(9)：48-52.
54.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： 72-73.
55.李淑文.中日两国初中几何课程难度的比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2006.
56.孔凡哲,史宁中.现行教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析——以初中数学课程标准实验教科书“不等式”、“四边形”课程内容为例[J].教育科学.2006(3)：40-43.
57.何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
58.李高峰.课程难度模型运用中的偏差及其修正——与史宁中教授等商榷[J].上海教育科研.2010(3)：46-49.
59.仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论”为例[J].课程·教材·教法.2010,3(4)：67-70.
60.沈晓敏.关于新媒体时代教科书的性质与功能之研究[J].全球教育展望.2001(3)：23-27.
61.王建国,刘彬.高中数学算法教学内容难度比较与研究[J].北京教育学院学报(自然科学版).2006,1(3)：10-15.
62.热拉尔·弗朗索瓦-玛丽,罗日叶易克萨维耶.为了学习的教科书：编写、评估和使用[Z].汪凌,周振平.华东师范大学出版社,2009：1-34.
63.张新宇,王祖浩.国外关于“探究水平”研究的述评[J].教育科学研究.2009(5)：72-75.
64. Aderson L. W.布鲁姆教育目标分类学：分类学视野下的学与教及其测评：完整版[Z].蒋小平,张琴美,罗晶晶.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2009：30-47.
65.雷新勇.基于标准的考试命题技术(二)[J].考试研究.2011(2)：35-46.
66.雷新勇.基于标准的考试命题技术(—)[J].考试研究.2011(1)：36-46.
67.李朝东,何涛.知识的语言表述和逻辑表述[J].哲学研究.2011(12)：93-97.
68.吴庆麟.认知教学心理学[M].上海市：上海科学技术出版社,2000： 376.
69.王祖浩等.化学教育心理学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2007：70.
70.邓雪,李家铭,曾浩健等.层次分析法权重计算方法分析及其应用研究[J].数学的实践与认识.2012(7)：93-100.
71.陈为霞.量化方法在教科书研究中运用的现状分析及问题反思[D].东北师范大学,2009.
72.人民教育出版社课程教材研究所,化学课程教材研究开发中心.普通高中课程标准实验教科书化学1必修[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2007：11-13.
73. Phillips J. S.科学发现者.化学概念与应用[Z].王祖浩等.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2008：424-433.
74.邱红娜.中新初中地理教科书学习难度比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2011.
75.何自航.高中化学教科书实验难度的国际比较[D].华东师范大学,2012.
76.张娅妮.高中物理新课程教材共同必修模块难度的比较分析[D].西南大学,2012.
77.沈善良,李高峰,张迎春.基于课程标准的多版本教材课程难度的定量分析——以初中生物学课程标准实验教科书“生物的遗传和变异”内容为例[J].西安文理学院学报(自然科学版).2009(1)：65-70.
78.周文波,黄晓.中、美初中科学教材课程难度的比较与分析——以“地球、月球与太阳”主题为例[J].江苏教育研究.2011(22)： 17-20.
79.黄丽虹.初中数学新教材“空间与图形”难度比较[D].浙江师范大学,2009.
80.胡莉莉.中美初中数学教材难度的比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2008.
81.邓昭春,段方,张萍.大学英语教材难度比较研究[J].中国大学教学.2002(Z2)：57-59。
82.李燕,张英伟.《博雅汉语》教材语料难度的定量分析——兼谈影响教材语言难度的因素和题材的选择[J].云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版).2010(1)：39-43.
83.黄甫全.关于课程难度阶梯的初步探讨[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版).1995(2)：104-108.
84.杨治平.面向个体的教科书设计[D].华东师范大学,2006.
85.林玉体.台湾中学教材及教法之分析研究[J].中等教育.2000,51(4)：2-10.
86.钟启泉.从《课程标准》的要素谈什么是“好教材”[J].基础教育课程.2011(9)：67-70.
87.钱扬义.中学化学教材评价工具的制定[J].化学教育.2004,25(1)： 13-18.
88.今井重孝,沈晓敏.关于比较教育方法论的考察——探求共性抑或差异性[J].外国教育资料.1992(1)：49-53.
89.陈昆.内容分析法及其在比较教育学中的应用[J].文教资料.2009(22)：161-162.
90.赵杰,刘继和.化学教科书评价指标体系的制定[J].沈阳师范大学学报(自然科学版).2005(2)：220-222.
91.王小莎.国际教科书评价方法研究[D].山东师范大学,2010.
92.张颖.美国“2061计划”教材评价工具简介[J].课程.教材.教法.2009(3)：82-85.
93.潘丽娜,蔡敏.美国基础教育阶段的教材评价——以佛罗里达州为例[J].外国中小学教育.2007(3)：59-61.
94.任亚南.质化方法在教科书研究中运用的现状分析及问题反思[D].东北师范大学,2009.
95.周佩仪.我国教科书研究的分析：1979-2004[J].课程与教学.2005,8(4).91-116.
96.刘玉凤.高中地理教科书呈现方式变化对学习方式转变的影响研究[D].华中师范大学,2011.
97.宋振韶.教科书插图的认知心理学研究[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版).2005(6)：24-28.
98.隙庆民,廖柏森.科学教科书翻译方法对读者理解程度的影响[J].翻译学研究集刊.2011(14)：169-215.
99.王蓝亭,卢伊君.书籍编排之视觉图像呈现研究——以国小六年级自然科教科书为例[J].中华印刷科技年报.2010：578-587.
100.张怡纳,王祖浩.基于MAS问题编码的化学知识多重表征研究[J].化学教学.2008(3)：11-14.
101.王世光.探究设计的误区——反思新课程社会科教科书[J].教育学报.2007(2)：50-54.
102.吴俊明,李艳灵.关于高中化学新教材练习设计和练习教学的思考[J].课程.教材.教法.2005(11)：56-60.
103.邵志芳,余岚.试题难度的事前认知任务分析[J].心理科学.2008(3)： 696-698.
104.黄党令.中学化学教科书中问题设计的研究[D].山东师范大学,2011.
105.张磊,姜孟瑞,刘文贤.等级成绩数量化与数量成绩等级化[J].山东师范大学学报(自然科学版).2006(2)：139-141.
106.黄甫全.课程难度“过高过低矛盾并存”现象及其原因和实质[J].现代中小学教育.1994(5)：32-35.
107。李瑾坤.知识作业过程及难度描述[D].电子科技大学,2009.
108.付宜红.负担重在哪儿?——高中课改实验区课业负担的调研与分析[J].人民教育.2009(5)35-37.
109.董辉,杨兰.课业负担的学校层面变量研究综述[J].全球教育展望.2012,41(12)：40-48.
110.王德胜.化学方法论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,2007：43.
111.《化学思想史》编写组编著.化学思想史[M].湖南教育出版社,1986.108-109.
112.任丽曼.高中生化学平衡学习困难的因素分析[D].上海：上海师范大学,2010.
113.陈燕,王祖浩.高考实验题“绝对难度”评估工具的研究[J].全球教育展望.2013,42(02)：45-53.
114.D.P.奥苏伯尔等.教育心理学：认知观点[Z].佘星南,宋均.北京：人民教育出版社,1994：67.
1. Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
2. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Some Recent Textbooks for Science[J]. School Science and Mathematics,1957,57(5):364-366.
3. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Patton R E. The Reading Difficulty of Textbooks in Elementary Science[J]. The Elementary School Journal,1950,49 (7):460-463.
4. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Textbooks for High-school Physics [J]. Science Education,1952,36(1):19-23.
5. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Textbooks for High-school Chemistry [J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1952:629-631.
6. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Unit-type Textbooks for Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,1955,39(5):406-410.
7. Herrington R L, Mallinson G G. An Investigation of Two Methods of Measuring the Reading Difficulty of Materials for Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,1958,42(5):385-390.
8. Wood T L, Wood W L. Assessing Potential Difficulties in Comprehending Fourth grade Science Textbooks[J]. Science Education,1988,72(5):561-574.
9. Graesser A C, Leon J A, Otero J. Introduction to the Psychology of Science Text Comprehension[J]. The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension,2002:1-25.
10. Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6): 522-549.
11. Mccarthy P M, Lightman E J, Dufty D F, et al. Using Coh-Metrix to Assess Cohesion and Difficulty in High-School Textbooks [C]. Vancouver,Canada:2006.
12. Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2010,47(1):47-70.
13. Duran N D, Bellissens C, Taylor R S, et al. Quantifying text difficulty with automated indices of cohesion and semantics[C]. Austin, TX:2007.
14. Novota M. Evaluation of the Textbook Fundamentals of Electrotechnics I[Z].2010:2011-10-29.
15. Vachon M, Haney R. A procedure for determining the level of abstraction of science reading material[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1991,28(4):343-352.
16. Ulusoy M. Readability approaches:Implications for Turkey[J]. International Education Journal, 2006,7(3):323-332.
16. Kuwabara T. Relationship between complexity of information and difficulty of example-oriented textbooks[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,1998,29(8):9-18.
17. Chall J S, Bissex G L, Conard S S, et al. Qualitative assessment of text difficulty:A practical guide for teachers and writers[M]. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Books,1996.
18. Mikk J. Experimental evaluation of textbooks and multimedia[C]. Estonia:Stockholm Institute of Education Press,2002.
19. Kahveci A. Quantitative Analysis of Science and Chemistry Textbooks for Indicators of Reform:A complementary perspective[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2010,32(11): 1495-1519.
20. Muther C, Conrad M. Kid-Rating:An In-depth Textbook Evaluation Technique[J]. Educational Leadership,1988,46(2):79-80.
21. Henno I, Reiska P. Difficulty of text in upper-secondary school biology textbook——using concept maps for analyzing students new knowledge[C]. Chile:2010:181-187.
22. Gillespie R J. Commentary:Reforming the general chemistry textbook[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1997,74(5):484.
23. Dori Y J, Hamciri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems: Symbol,Macro,Micro,and Process Aspects[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003, 40(3):278-302.
24. Hofstein A, Lunetta V N. The laboratory in science education:Foundations for the twenty-first century[J]. Science Education,2004,88(1):28-54.
25. Tamir P, Lunett A V N. Inquired-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks[J]. Science Education,1981,65:477-484.
26. Fisher D H, A. H Enderson D, Hofst Ein A. Laboratory learning environments and practical tasks in senior secondary science classes[J]. Research in Science Education,1999,28:353-363.
27. Tamir P, Garcia M P. Characteristics of laboratory exercises included in science textbooks in Catalonia (Spain)[J]. International Journal of Science Education,1992,14(4):381-392.
28.Johnstone A H, Wham A J B. The demands of practical work[J]. Education in Chemistry,1982, 71(R):73.
29. Mikk J. Textbook:Research and Writing[M]. New York:Peter Lang GmbH,2000.94-96.
30. Berkeley S, King-Sears M E, Hott B L, et al. Are History Textbooks More "Considerate" After 20 Years?[J]. The Journal of Special Education,2012.
31. Polit D F, Beck C T. The Content Validity Index:Are You Sure You Know What's Being Reported? Critique and Recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2006,29(5):489-497.
32. Mccrudden M, Schraw G, Hartley K, et al. The influence of presentation, organization, and example context learning[J]. Journal of Experimental Education,2004,72(4):289-306.
33. Roseman J E, Linn M C, Koppal M. Characterizing curriculum coherence[J]. Designing coherent science education:Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy,2008:13-36.
34. Schmidt W H, Wang H C, Mcknight C C. Curriculum coherence:an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective.[J]. Journal of Curriculum Studies,2005,37(5):525-559.
35. Mcnamara D S. Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts:Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge[J]. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,2001,55(1):51-62.
36. Ainsworth S, Burcham S. The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation[J]. Learning and Instruction.2007,17:,2007,17:286-303.
37. Armbruster B B, Anderson T H. On Selecting "Considerate" Content Area Textbooks [J]. Remedial and Special Education,1988,9(1):47-52.
38. Johnstone A H. Teaching of Chemistry-Logical or Psychological?[J]. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe.2000:9-15.
39. Kesidou S, Roseman J E. Project 2061 analyses of middle-school science textbooks:A response to Holliday[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(5):535-543.
40. Reid N. A Scientific Approach to the Teaching of Chemistry[J]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,2008,9(1):51-59.
41. Griggs R A. Introductory psychology textbooks:Assessing levels of difficulty [J]. Teaching of Psychology,1999,26(4):248-253.
42. Irwin J W, Davis C A. Assessing Readability:The Checklist Approach[J]. Journal of Reading, 1980,24(2):124-130.
43. Davila K, Talanquer V. Classifying End-of-Chapter Questions and Problems for Selected General Chemistry Textbooks Used in the United States[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,2009,87(1): 97-101.
44. Polit D F, Beck C T, Owen S V. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2007,30(4):459-467.
45. Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.2010,47(1):47-70.
46. Pedrosa M A, Dias M H. Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions[J]. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice in Europe,2000,1(2): 227-236.
47. Ryu O H, Paik S H, Kim D U. The Analysis of Concepts Related to Basic Unit of Matter Properties and Matter Change in Science Textbooks[J]. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society,2004, 48(1):53-65.
48. Nam M, Chae H K. Reading the High School Science with Inorganic Chemical Terminologies:A Case Study in Korean Textbooks:Proceeding of the 2nd NICE Symposium[Z]. Taipei, TAIWAN: 2007:30-31.
49. Carney R N, Levin J R. Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students'Learning from Text[J]. Educational Psychology Review,2002,14(1):5-26.
50. Gkitzia V, Salta K, Tzougraki C. Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks[J]. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,2011,12(1):5-14.
51. Johnston A H. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem[J]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,1991(7):75-83.
52. Kozma R B, Russell J. Multimedia and Understanding:Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1997, 34(9):949-968.
53. Kozma R, Russell J. Students becoming chemists:developing representational competence[C]. London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,2005.
54. Pinto R, Ametller J. Students'difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2002,24(3):333-341.
55. Martin M O, Mullis I V S, Foy P, et al. TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science [Z].2012: 2013.
56. Michael Vokins. Nuffield Advanced Chemistry [M]. England:Pearson Education Limited,2008.
57. Faye Jeffery. Chemistry Dimensions [M]. Australia:Pearson Education Australia,2007.
58.斋藤烈·山本隆一.高等学校化学改订[M].东京：新兴出版社启林馆,2007
59. Naughton W, Schreck J, Heikkinen H. Seeking evidence for "curricular relevancy" within undergraduate, liberal arts chemistry textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2008, 45(2):174-196.
60. Vanlehn K, Graesser A C, Jackson G T, et al. When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?[J]. Cognitive Science,2007,31(1):3-62.
61. Abd-El-Khalick F, Waters M, Le A. Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2008,45(7): 835-855.
62. Holliday W G. Comment:Methodological concerns about AAAS's Project 2061 study of science textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(5):529-534.
63. Hawkes S J, Fisher S J, Hill R. Reforming the general chemistry textbook[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1998,75(1):10-26.
64. Ruis S P. Something's wrong with chemistry textbooks[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1988, 65(8):720.
65. Sanger M J, Greenbowe T J. An Analysis of College Chemistry Textbooks as Sources of Misconceptions and Errors in Electrochemistry[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1999,76(6): 853.
66. Leivas Pozzer L, Roth W. Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(10):1089-1114.
67. Mayer R E, Bove W, Bryman A, et al. When less is more:Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons.[J]. Journal of Educational Psychology,1996,88(1): 64-73.
68. Han J, Roth W. Chemical Inscriptions in Korean Textbooks:Semiotics of Macro-and Micro world[Z]. Wiley Inter Science,2005:2012.
69. Reid D J, Beveridge M. Effects of Text Illustration on Children's Learning of a School Science Topic[J]. British Journal of Educational Psychology,1986,56(3):294-303.
70. Carney R N, Levin J R. Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students'Learning from Text[J]. Educational Psychology Review,2002,14(1):5-26.
71. Farris P J, Others. Text Organization and Structure in Science Textbooks.[J]. Reading Horizons, 1988,28(2):123-130
72. Nohara, D. (2001). A comparison of the national assessment of educational progress (NAEP), the third international mathematics and science study repeat (TIMSS-R), and the program for international student assessment (Working Paper No.2001-07). Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.
73. Kuwabara T. Relationship between complexity of information and difficulty of example-oriented textbooks[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,1998,29(8):9-18
74.Nakamura Y, Kuwabara T, Takeda K. Factors determining the difficulty of practice problems in a computer language textbook[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,2000,31(4):87-97.
75. Gabel D L,Bunce D M. Research on problem solving:Chemistry.[C]. New York:1994:301-326.
② 董辉,杨兰.课业负担的学校层面变量研究综述[J].全球教育展望.2012,41(12)：4048.
③ 中共中央国务院.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020)OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07-29/content_1666937.htm.2010-7-29.
④ 中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育语文等学科课程标准(2011版)[OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-02/08/content_2060805.htm.2011-12-28.
⑤ 黄甫全,王晶.课程难度刍论[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版).1995(4)：91-96.
① 钟启泉.教材概念与教学创新[J].教育探究.2010,5(1)：5-9.
② 张廷凯.教材改革观念变革与教材开发[N].中国图书商报.2003-11-28第011版.
① 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
② 周佩仪,郑长明.教科书研究方法论之探究[J].课程与教学.2008,11(1)：193-222.
③ 靳玉乐,王洪席.十年教材建设：成就、问题及建议[J].课程.教材.教法.2012(1)：12-16.
① 新牛津英汉双解大辞典编译出版委员会.新牛津英汉双解大辞典[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007：2193.
② 英国培生教育出版社出版有限公司编.朗文当代英语辞典(第4版)[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004：1714.
③ 刘继和.解读日本教科书审定制度[J1.全球教育展望.2004(4)：19-22.
④ 王道俊,王汉澜.教育学：新编本[M].人民教育出版社,1989：168.
⑤ 杜明荣.高中物理试题难度的影响因素研究[D].西南大学,2008.
① 苏国章.应用认知负荷理论于资讯融入教学多媒体设计之分析—以自然与生活科技领域“电子教科书”为例[J].生活科技教育月刊.2011,44(2)：44-61.
② 孔凡哲,史宁中.教科书质量及其影响因素[J].教育发展研究.2007(12)：13-17.
① Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
② Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Some Recent Textbooks for Science[J]. School Science and Mathematics,1957,57(5):364-366.
③ Herrington R L, Mallinson G G. An Investigation of Two Methods of Measuring the Reading Difficulty of Materials for Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,1958,42(5):385-390.
① Wood T L, Wood W L. Assessing Potential Difficulties in Comprehending Fourth grade Science Textbooks[J]. Science Education,1988,72(5):561-574.
① Graesser A C, Leon J A, Otero J. Introduction to the Psychology of Science Text Comprehension[J]. The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension,2002:1-25.
② 廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2003：315-316.
① B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社,1989：257-268.
② 热拉尔.弗朗索瓦-玛丽,罗日叶易克萨维耶.为了学习的教科书：编写、评估和使用[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2009：1.
③ 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
④ 孔凡哲,史宁中.现行教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析——以初中数学课程标准实验教科书“不等式”“四边形”课程内容为例[J].教育科学.2006(3)：40-43.
⑤ 杨承印,程雷.高中化学教材难度的定量分析与评价——以三套化学教科书选修4之“溶液中的离子平衡”主题为例[J].化学教学.2009(9)：29-31.
⑥ 邱红娜.中新初中地理教科书学习难度比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2011.
⑦ 张娅妮.高中物理新课程教材共同必修模块难度的比较分析[D].西南大学,2012.
① 张研.“物质结构与性质”教科书学习难度的国际比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2010.
② 霍秉坤,叶慧虹,黄显华.香港教科书的编辑：提升质量的建议[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版).2010(4)：72-76.
③ Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6):522-549.
① Mccarthy P M, Lightman E J, Dufty D F, et al. Using Coh-Metrix to Assess Cohesion and Difficulty in High-School Textbooks [C]. Vancouver.Canada:2006.
② Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2010,47(1):47-70.
Duran N D, Bellissens C, Taylor R S, et al. Quantifying text difficulty with automated indices of cohesion and semantics[C]. Austin, TX:2007.
① 郭望皓.对外汉语文本易读性公式研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2010.
② Novota M. Evaluation of the Textbook Fundamentals of Electrotechnics I[Z].2010:2011-10-29.
③ Vachon M, Haney R. A procedure for determining the level of abstraction of science reading material[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.1991.28(4):343-352.
④ Ulusoy M. Readability approaches:Implications for Turkey[J]. International Education Journal,2006,7(3):323-332.
① Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
② 鲍建生.中英两国初中数学期望课程综合难度的比较[J].全球教育展望.2002(9)：48-52.
③ 张辅.上海与美国加州小学数学期望课程的比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2007.
④ 何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
② Kuwabara T. Relationship between complexity of information and difficulty of example-oriented textbooks[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,1998,29(8):9-18.
⑥ 李淑文.中日两国初中几何课程难度的比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2006.
⑦孔凡哲,史宁中.现行教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析——以初中数学课程标准实验教科书“不等式”、“四边形”课程内容为例[J].教育科学.2006(3)：40-43.
① 何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
② 李高峰.课程难度模型运用中的偏差及其修正——与史宁中教授等商榷[J].上海教育科研.2010(3)：46-49.
③ 仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论”为例[J].课程·教材·教法.2010,3(4)：67-70.
④ Chall J S, Bissex G L, Conard S S, et al. Qualitative assessment of text difficulty:A practical guide for teachers and writers [M]. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Books,1996.
① 张研.“物质结构与性质”教科书学习难度的国际比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2010.
① Mikk J. Experimental evaluation of textbooks and multimedia[C]. Estonia:Stockholm Institute of Education Press, 2002.
② Kahveci A. Quantitative Analysis of Science and Chemistry Textbooks for Indicators of Reform:A complementary perspective[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2010,32(11):1495-1519.
① Muther C, Conrad M. Kid-Rating:An In-depth Textbook Evaluation Technique[J]. Educational Leadership,1988, 46(2):79-80.
② Henno I, Reiska P. Difficulty of text in upper-secondery school biology textbook——using concept maps for analyzing students new knowledge[C]. Chile:2010:181-187.
① 王道俊,王汉澜.教育学：新编本[M].人民教育出版社,1989：168.
② 王策三.教学论稿[M].第2版.北京：人民教育出版社,2005：209.
① 吴也显.教学论新编[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,1991：299-301.
② 范印哲.教材设计导论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003：8-9.
③ 丁朝蓬.教科书结构分析与内容质量评价[J].教育理论与实践.2001,21(08)：61-64.
④ 廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2003：315-316.
⑤ 苏鸿.论中小学教材结构的建构[J].课程.教材.教法.2003(2)：9-13.
⑥ 毕华林.走向生本的教科书设计研究[D].山东师范大学,2006.
① 李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].西南大学,2011.
② 罗士琴.高中地理教科书呈现方式转变对教与学方式的影响研究[D].华中师范大学,2011.
③ 吴瑞祥.关于教科书分析与评价的理论探讨[D].华东师范大学,2003.
① 王德胜.化学方法论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,2007：43.
② Hofstein A, Lunetta V N. The laboratory in science education:Foundations for the twenty-first century[J]. Science Education,2004,88(1):28-54.
③ Tamir P, Lunett A V N. Inquired-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks[J]. Science Education, 1981,65:477-484.
④ Tamir P, Garcia M P. Characteristics of laboratory exercises included in science textbooks in Catalonia (Spain)[J]. International Journal of Science Education,1992,14(4):381-392.
⑤ Fisher D H, A. H Enderson D, Hofst Ein A. Laboratory learning environments and practical tasks in senior secondary science classes[J]. Research in Science Education,1999,28:353-363.
⑥ Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6):522-549.
① Johnstone A H, Wham A J B. The demands of practical work[J]. Education in Chemistry,1982,71(R):73.
② 刘继和.从中日比较省思我国《科学》教科书编制的基本课题[J].全球教育展望.2008(5)：77-80.
③ 《化学思想史》编写组编著.化学思想史[M].湖南教育出版社,1986.108-109.
① 江水法.学科难度与专业劳动复杂程度模糊谱系的建构--以中国大学本科教育为例[J].南昌航空工业学院学报(社会科学版).2004,6(2)：9-14.
② Dori Y J, Hameiri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems:Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(3):278-302.
③ 王祖浩等.化学教育心理学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2007：70.
④ Johnston A H. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem[J]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,1991(7):75-83.
① Gkitzia V, Salta K, Tzougraki C. Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks[J]. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,2011.12(1):5-14.
② Kozma R, Russell J. Students becoming chemists:developing representational competence[C]. London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.2005.
③ Kahveci A. Quantitative Analysis of Science and Chemistry Textbooks for Indicators of Reform:A complementary perspective[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2010,32(11):1495-1519.
④ Gillespie R J. Commentary:Reforming the general chemistry textbook[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1997, 74(5):484.
① 邵瑞珍.教育心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988：126.
② B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社.1989：257-268.
③ Nohara, D. (2001). A comparison of the national assessment of educational progress (NAEP), the third international mathematics and science study repeat (TIMSS-R), and the program for international student assessment (Working Paper No.2001-07). Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.
④ Nakamura Y, Kuwabara T, Takeda K. Factors determining the difficulty of practice problems in a computer language textbook[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,2000,31 (4):87-97.
⑤ 鲍建生.中英两国初中数学课程综合难度的比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002.
⑥ 何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
⑦ 陈燕,王祖浩..高考实验题“绝对难度”评估工具的研究[J].全球教育展望.2013,42(02)：45-53.
① Mikk J. Textbook:Research and Writing[M]. New York:Peter Lang GmbH,2000,94-96.
② Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
③ Berkeley S, King-Sears M E, Hott B L, et al. Are History Textbooks More "Considerate" After 20 Years?[J]. The Journal of Special Education.2012.
④ Mccrudden M, Schraw G, Hartley K, et al. The influence of presentation, organization, and example context learning[J]. Journal of Experimental Education,2004,72(4):289-306.
⑤ Roseman J E, Linn M C, Koppal M. Characterizing curriculum coherence[J]. Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy,2008:13-36.
⑥ Schmidt W H, Wang H C, Mcknight C C. Curriculum coherence:an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. [J]. Journal of Curriculum Studies,2005,37(5):525-559.
⑦ Mcnamara D S. Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts:Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge[J]. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,2001,55(1):51-62.
⑧ Ainsworth S, Burcham S. The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation[J]. Learning and Instruction.2007,17:,2007,17:286-303.
① Armbruster B B, Anderson T H. On Selecting "Considerate" Content Area Textbooks [J]. Remedial and Special Education,1988,9(1):47-52.
② Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6):522-549.
① D.P.奥苏伯尔等.教育心理学：认知观点[Z].佘星南,宋均.北京：人民教育出版社,1994：67.
② Kesidou S, Roseman J E. Project 2061 analyses of middle-school science textbooks:A response to holliday[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(5):535-543.
③ 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
① Griggs R A. Introductory psychology textbooks:Assessing levels of difficulty[J]. Teaching of Psychology,1999, 26(4):248-253.
② Irwin J W, Davis C A. Assessing Readability:The Checklist Approach[J]. Journal of Reading,1980.24(2): 124-130.
③ Da vila K, Talanquer V. Classifying End-of-Chapter Questions and Problems for Selected General Chemistry Textbooks Used in the United States[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,2009,87(1):97-101.
④ 陈月茹.中小学教科书改革研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009：84-85.
① 沈晓敏.关于新媒体时代教科书的性质与功能之研究[J].全球教育展望.2001(3)：23-27.
② Pedrosa M A, Dias M H. Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions[J]. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice in Europe,2000,1(2):227-236.
③ Ryu O H, Paik S H, Kim D U. The Analysis of Concepts Related to Basic Unit of Matter Properties and Matter Change in Science Textbooks[J]. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society,2004,48(1):53-65.
④.Nam M, Chae H K. Reading the High School Science with Inorganic Chemical Terminologies:A Case Study in Korean Textbooks:Proceeding of the 2nd NICE Symposium[Z]. Taipei, TAIWAN:200730-31.
① Carney R N, Levin J R. Pictorial IllustrationsStill Improve Students'Learning From Text[J]. Educational Psychology Review,2002,14(1):5-26.
② Kozma R B, Russell J. Multimedia and Understanding:Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1997,34(9):949-968.
③ Pinto R, Ametller J. Students'difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2002,24(3):333-341.
④ 黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
① 余孟孟.历史教科书语言表述研究[D].西北师范大学,2010.
① 戴海琦,张锋,陈雪枫.心理与教育测量(修订本)[M].广州：暨南大学出版社,2007：59-65.
② 史静琤,莫显昆,孙振球.量表编制中内容效度指数的应用[J].中南大学学报(医学版).2012,37(4)：152-155.
① Polit D F, Beck C T. The Content Validity Index:Are You Sure You Know What's Being Reported? Critique and Recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2006,29(5):489-497.
② Polit D F, Beck C T, Owen S V. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2007,30(4):459-467.
① 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,2008：72-73.
① 李淑文.中日两国初中几何课程难度的比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2006.
② 王建国,刘彬.高中数学算法教学内容难度比较与研究[J].北京教育学院学报(自然科学版).2006,1(3)：10-15.
① B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社,1989：257-268.
② 热拉尔.弗朗索瓦-玛丽,罗日叶易克萨维耶.为了学习的教科书：编写、评估和使用[Z].汪凌,周振平.华东师范大学出版社,2009：1-34.
① 张新宇,王祖浩.国外关于“探究水平”研究的述评[J].教育科学研究.2009(5)：72-75.
② Aderson L.W.布鲁姆教育目标分类学：分类学视野下的学与教及其测评：完整版[z].蒋小平,张琴美,罗晶晶.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2009：30-47.
③ 雷新勇.基于标准的考试命题技术(一)[J].考试研究.2011(1)：36-46.
① Dori Y J, Hameiri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems:Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003.40(3):278-302.
① Roseman J E, Linn M C, Koppal M. Characterizing curriculum coherence[J]. Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy.2008:13-36.
① Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks [J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2010,47(1):47-70.
① 李朝东,何涛.知识的语言表述和逻辑表述[J].哲学研究.2011(12)：93-97.
② 吴庆麟.认知教学心理学[M].上海市：上海科学技术出版社,2000：376.
① Gkitzia V, Salta K, Tzougraki C. Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks[J]. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,2011,12(1):5-14.
① 郭望皓.对外汉语文本易读性公式研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2010.
① Mikk J. Experimental evaluation of textbooks and multimedia[C]. Estonia:Stockholm Institute of Education Press, 2002.
② 邓雪,李家铭,曾浩健等.层次分析法权重计算方法分析及其应用研究[J].数学的实践与认识.2012(7)：93-100.
① 人民教育出版社课程教材研究所,化学课程教材研究开发中心.普通高中课程标准实验教科书化学1必修[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2007：11-13.
③ Phillips J.S.科学发现者.化学概念与应用[Z].王祖浩等.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2008.424-433.
① Johnstone A H. Teaching of Chemistry-Logical or Psychological?[J]. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice in Europe.2000:9-15.
② Reid N. A Scientific Approach to the Teaching of Chemistry[J]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,2008, 9(1):51-59.
③ Dori Y J, Hamciri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems:Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(3):278-302.
④ 陈为霞.量化方法在教科书研究中运用的现状分析及问题反思[D].东北师范大学,2009.
①Gabel D L,Bunce D M.Rescarch on problem solving:Chemistry.[C].New York:1994:301-326.
① Martin M O, Mullis I V S, Foy P, et al. TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science [Z].2012:2013.
① 任丽曼.高中生化学平衡学习困难的因素分析[D].上海：上海师范大学,2010.
① 张磊,姜孟瑞,刘文贤.等级成绩数量化与数量成绩等级化[J].山东师范大学学报(自然科学版).2006(2)：139-141.
1.中共中央国务院.国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020)[OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07-29/content_1666937.htm.2010-7-29.
2.中华人民共和国教育部.义务教育语文等学科课程标准(2011版)[OB/OL]. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-02/08/content_2060805.htm.2011-12-28.
3.黄甫全,王晶.课程难度刍论[J].东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版).1995(4)： 91-96.
4.周佩仪,郑长明.教科书研究方法论之探究[J].课程与教学.2008,11(1)： 193-222.
5.张廷凯.教材改革观念变革与教材开发[N].中国图书商报.2003-11-28第011版.
6.钟启泉.教材概念与教学创新[J].教育探究.2010,5(1)： 5-9.
7.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(4)：1-6.
8.曹培英.试析课程编制过程中的落差---现象学视角[J].课程.教材.教法.2011,31(11)：23-29.
9.王云生.学案·学案导学断想[J].基础教育课程.2012(5)：37-38.
10.曾懋华,陈艳玲.化学新教材在山区中学实施情况的调查与思考[J].化学教育.2005,26(5)：48-50.
11.汪易坤.浅谈人教版高中化学新教材的特点及困惑[J].教育教学论坛.2011(17)： 77.
12.何穗,王祖浩.基于理解的科学教科书要素研究——以美国教科书Chemistry:Concept and Application为例[J].全球教育展望.2008(11)：77-81.
13.黄显华,霍秉坤.寻找课程论和教科书设计的理论基础[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002：80-135.
14.靳玉乐,王洪席.十年教材建设：成就、问题及建议[J].课程.教材.教法.2012(1)：12-16.
15.李宗薇.教科书的编辑机制[J].课程与教学.1998,1(1)： 41-56.
16.张玉芳,吴萼洲.国小英语教师教材选用及高使用率教科书之内容分析[J].中等教育.2004,55(2)：82-94.
17.颜杰.高中化学新教材改进之我见[J].大连教育学院学报.2003,19(3)： 15-16.
18.刘继和.从中日比较省思我国《科学》教科书编制的基本课题[J].全球教育展望.2008(5)：77-80.
19.孔凡哲,史宁中.教科书质量及其影响因素[J].教育发展研究.2007(12)： 13-17.
20.新牛津英汉双解大辞典编译出版委员会.新牛津英汉双解大辞典[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007：2193.
21.英国培生教育出版社出版有限公司编.朗文当代英语辞典(第4版)[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2004：1714.
22.刘继和.解读日本教科书审定制度[J].全球教育展望.2004(4)： 19-22.
23.谢小芸.教科书“学材化”研究[D].浙江师范大学,2006.
24.王道俊,王汉澜.教育学：新编本[M].人民教育出版社,1989： 168.
25.王策三.教学论稿[M].第2版.北京：人民教育出版社,2005： 209.
26.杜明荣.高中物理试题难度的影响因素研究[D].西南大学,2008.
27.苏国章.应用认知负荷理论於资讯融入教学多媒体设计之分析—以自然与生活科技领域“电子教科书”为例[J].生活科技教育月刊.2011,44(2)：44-61。
28.廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,2003： 315-316.
29.B B克拉耶夫斯,H R莱纳,等.普通中等教育内容的理论基础[Z].金世伯,马宝兰,王孟春.北京：人民教育出版社,1989：257-268.
30.高凌飚.基础教育教材评价：理论与工具[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002： 58.
31.吴也显.教学论新编[M].第1版.北京：教育科学出版社,1991：299-301.
32.丁朝蓬.教科书结构分析与内容质量评价[J].教育理论与实践.2001,21(08)：61-64.
33.苏鸿.论中小学教材结构的建构[J].课程.教材.教法.2003(2)： 9-13.
34.范印哲.教材设计导论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003：8-9.
35.毕华林.走向生本的教科书设计研究[D].山东师范大学,2006.
36.邓小丽.中美两国现代中学化学教材的比较研究[J].上海师范大学学报(教育科学版).2000,29(1)：104-110.
37.李佳.高中物理教科书评价指标体系构建研究[D].西南大学,2011.
38.罗士琴.高中地理教科书呈现方式转变对教与学方式的影响研究[D].华中师范大学,2011.
39.吴瑞祥.关于教科书分析与评价的理论探讨[D].华东师范大学,2003.
40.邵瑞珍.教育心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1988： 126.
41.杨承印,程雷.高中化学教材难度的定量分析与评价——以三套化学教科书选修4之“溶液中的离子平衡”主题为例[J].化学教学.2009(9)： 29-31.
42.王后雄,黄郁郁.高中化学新课程教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析[J].教育理论与实践.2007(24)：27-29.
43.张研.“物质结构与性质”教科书学习难度的国际比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2010.
44.霍秉坤,叶慧虹,黄显华.香港教科书的编辑：提升质量的建议[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版).2010(4)：72-76.
45.江水法.学科难度与专业劳动复杂程度模糊谱系的建构--以中国大学本科教育为例[J].南昌航空工业学院学报(社会科学版).2004,6(2)： 9-14.
46.鲍建生.中英两国初中数学课程综合难度的比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002.
47.陈允成,理查德·帕森斯,斯蒂法妮·刘易斯·亨森,等.教育心理学：实践者—研究者之路(亚洲版)[M].上海人民出版社,2007：229.
48.陈月茹.中小学教科书改革研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2009：84-85.
49.郭望皓.对外汉语文本易读性公式研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2010.
50.余孟孟.历史教科书语言表述研究[D].西北师范大学,2010.
51.戴海琦,张锋,陈雪枫.心理与教育测量(修订本)[M].广州：暨南大学出版社,2007：59-65.
52.史静琤,莫显昆,孙振球.量表编制中内容效度指数的应用[J].中南大学学报(医学版).2012,37(4)：152-155.
53.鲍建生.中英两国初中数学期望课程综合难度的比较[J].全球教育展望.2002(9)：48-52.
54.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： 72-73.
55.李淑文.中日两国初中几何课程难度的比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2006.
56.孔凡哲,史宁中.现行教科书课程难度的静态定量对比分析——以初中数学课程标准实验教科书“不等式”、“四边形”课程内容为例[J].教育科学.2006(3)：40-43.
57.何穗.上海、加州两地化学课程内容的微观比较[D].上海：华东师范大学,2009.
58.李高峰.课程难度模型运用中的偏差及其修正——与史宁中教授等商榷[J].上海教育科研.2010(3)：46-49.
59.仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论”为例[J].课程·教材·教法.2010,3(4)：67-70.
60.沈晓敏.关于新媒体时代教科书的性质与功能之研究[J].全球教育展望.2001(3)：23-27.
61.王建国,刘彬.高中数学算法教学内容难度比较与研究[J].北京教育学院学报(自然科学版).2006,1(3)：10-15.
62.热拉尔·弗朗索瓦-玛丽,罗日叶易克萨维耶.为了学习的教科书：编写、评估和使用[Z].汪凌,周振平.华东师范大学出版社,2009：1-34.
63.张新宇,王祖浩.国外关于“探究水平”研究的述评[J].教育科学研究.2009(5)：72-75.
64. Aderson L. W.布鲁姆教育目标分类学：分类学视野下的学与教及其测评：完整版[Z].蒋小平,张琴美,罗晶晶.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2009：30-47.
65.雷新勇.基于标准的考试命题技术(二)[J].考试研究.2011(2)：35-46.
66.雷新勇.基于标准的考试命题技术(—)[J].考试研究.2011(1)：36-46.
67.李朝东,何涛.知识的语言表述和逻辑表述[J].哲学研究.2011(12)：93-97.
68.吴庆麟.认知教学心理学[M].上海市：上海科学技术出版社,2000： 376.
69.王祖浩等.化学教育心理学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社,2007：70.
70.邓雪,李家铭,曾浩健等.层次分析法权重计算方法分析及其应用研究[J].数学的实践与认识.2012(7)：93-100.
71.陈为霞.量化方法在教科书研究中运用的现状分析及问题反思[D].东北师范大学,2009.
72.人民教育出版社课程教材研究所,化学课程教材研究开发中心.普通高中课程标准实验教科书化学1必修[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2007：11-13.
73. Phillips J. S.科学发现者.化学概念与应用[Z].王祖浩等.杭州：浙江教育出版社,2008：424-433.
74.邱红娜.中新初中地理教科书学习难度比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2011.
75.何自航.高中化学教科书实验难度的国际比较[D].华东师范大学,2012.
76.张娅妮.高中物理新课程教材共同必修模块难度的比较分析[D].西南大学,2012.
77.沈善良,李高峰,张迎春.基于课程标准的多版本教材课程难度的定量分析——以初中生物学课程标准实验教科书“生物的遗传和变异”内容为例[J].西安文理学院学报(自然科学版).2009(1)：65-70.
78.周文波,黄晓.中、美初中科学教材课程难度的比较与分析——以“地球、月球与太阳”主题为例[J].江苏教育研究.2011(22)： 17-20.
79.黄丽虹.初中数学新教材“空间与图形”难度比较[D].浙江师范大学,2009.
80.胡莉莉.中美初中数学教材难度的比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2008.
81.邓昭春,段方,张萍.大学英语教材难度比较研究[J].中国大学教学.2002(Z2)：57-59。
82.李燕,张英伟.《博雅汉语》教材语料难度的定量分析——兼谈影响教材语言难度的因素和题材的选择[J].云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版).2010(1)：39-43.
83.黄甫全.关于课程难度阶梯的初步探讨[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版).1995(2)：104-108.
84.杨治平.面向个体的教科书设计[D].华东师范大学,2006.
85.林玉体.台湾中学教材及教法之分析研究[J].中等教育.2000,51(4)：2-10.
86.钟启泉.从《课程标准》的要素谈什么是“好教材”[J].基础教育课程.2011(9)：67-70.
87.钱扬义.中学化学教材评价工具的制定[J].化学教育.2004,25(1)： 13-18.
88.今井重孝,沈晓敏.关于比较教育方法论的考察——探求共性抑或差异性[J].外国教育资料.1992(1)：49-53.
89.陈昆.内容分析法及其在比较教育学中的应用[J].文教资料.2009(22)：161-162.
90.赵杰,刘继和.化学教科书评价指标体系的制定[J].沈阳师范大学学报(自然科学版).2005(2)：220-222.
91.王小莎.国际教科书评价方法研究[D].山东师范大学,2010.
92.张颖.美国“2061计划”教材评价工具简介[J].课程.教材.教法.2009(3)：82-85.
93.潘丽娜,蔡敏.美国基础教育阶段的教材评价——以佛罗里达州为例[J].外国中小学教育.2007(3)：59-61.
94.任亚南.质化方法在教科书研究中运用的现状分析及问题反思[D].东北师范大学,2009.
95.周佩仪.我国教科书研究的分析：1979-2004[J].课程与教学.2005,8(4).91-116.
96.刘玉凤.高中地理教科书呈现方式变化对学习方式转变的影响研究[D].华中师范大学,2011.
97.宋振韶.教科书插图的认知心理学研究[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版).2005(6)：24-28.
98.隙庆民,廖柏森.科学教科书翻译方法对读者理解程度的影响[J].翻译学研究集刊.2011(14)：169-215.
99.王蓝亭,卢伊君.书籍编排之视觉图像呈现研究——以国小六年级自然科教科书为例[J].中华印刷科技年报.2010：578-587.
100.张怡纳,王祖浩.基于MAS问题编码的化学知识多重表征研究[J].化学教学.2008(3)：11-14.
101.王世光.探究设计的误区——反思新课程社会科教科书[J].教育学报.2007(2)：50-54.
102.吴俊明,李艳灵.关于高中化学新教材练习设计和练习教学的思考[J].课程.教材.教法.2005(11)：56-60.
103.邵志芳,余岚.试题难度的事前认知任务分析[J].心理科学.2008(3)： 696-698.
104.黄党令.中学化学教科书中问题设计的研究[D].山东师范大学,2011.
105.张磊,姜孟瑞,刘文贤.等级成绩数量化与数量成绩等级化[J].山东师范大学学报(自然科学版).2006(2)：139-141.
106.黄甫全.课程难度“过高过低矛盾并存”现象及其原因和实质[J].现代中小学教育.1994(5)：32-35.
107。李瑾坤.知识作业过程及难度描述[D].电子科技大学,2009.
108.付宜红.负担重在哪儿?——高中课改实验区课业负担的调研与分析[J].人民教育.2009(5)35-37.
109.董辉,杨兰.课业负担的学校层面变量研究综述[J].全球教育展望.2012,41(12)：40-48.
110.王德胜.化学方法论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,2007：43.
111.《化学思想史》编写组编著.化学思想史[M].湖南教育出版社,1986.108-109.
112.任丽曼.高中生化学平衡学习困难的因素分析[D].上海：上海师范大学,2010.
113.陈燕,王祖浩.高考实验题“绝对难度”评估工具的研究[J].全球教育展望.2013,42(02)：45-53.
114.D.P.奥苏伯尔等.教育心理学：认知观点[Z].佘星南,宋均.北京：人民教育出版社,1994：67.
1. Dubay W H. The principles of readability[J]. Impact Information,2004:1-76.
2. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Some Recent Textbooks for Science[J]. School Science and Mathematics,1957,57(5):364-366.
3. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Patton R E. The Reading Difficulty of Textbooks in Elementary Science[J]. The Elementary School Journal,1950,49 (7):460-463.
4. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Textbooks for High-school Physics [J]. Science Education,1952,36(1):19-23.
5. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Textbooks for High-school Chemistry [J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1952:629-631.
6. Mallinson G G, Sturm H E, Mallinson L M. The Reading Difficulty of Unit-type Textbooks for Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,1955,39(5):406-410.
7. Herrington R L, Mallinson G G. An Investigation of Two Methods of Measuring the Reading Difficulty of Materials for Elementary Science[J]. Science Education,1958,42(5):385-390.
8. Wood T L, Wood W L. Assessing Potential Difficulties in Comprehending Fourth grade Science Textbooks[J]. Science Education,1988,72(5):561-574.
9. Graesser A C, Leon J A, Otero J. Introduction to the Psychology of Science Text Comprehension[J]. The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension,2002:1-25.
10. Kesidou S, Roseman J E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2002,39(6): 522-549.
11. Mccarthy P M, Lightman E J, Dufty D F, et al. Using Coh-Metrix to Assess Cohesion and Difficulty in High-School Textbooks [C]. Vancouver,Canada:2006.
12. Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2010,47(1):47-70.
13. Duran N D, Bellissens C, Taylor R S, et al. Quantifying text difficulty with automated indices of cohesion and semantics[C]. Austin, TX:2007.
14. Novota M. Evaluation of the Textbook Fundamentals of Electrotechnics I[Z].2010:2011-10-29.
15. Vachon M, Haney R. A procedure for determining the level of abstraction of science reading material[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1991,28(4):343-352.
16. Ulusoy M. Readability approaches:Implications for Turkey[J]. International Education Journal, 2006,7(3):323-332.
16. Kuwabara T. Relationship between complexity of information and difficulty of example-oriented textbooks[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,1998,29(8):9-18.
17. Chall J S, Bissex G L, Conard S S, et al. Qualitative assessment of text difficulty:A practical guide for teachers and writers[M]. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Books,1996.
18. Mikk J. Experimental evaluation of textbooks and multimedia[C]. Estonia:Stockholm Institute of Education Press,2002.
19. Kahveci A. Quantitative Analysis of Science and Chemistry Textbooks for Indicators of Reform:A complementary perspective[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2010,32(11): 1495-1519.
20. Muther C, Conrad M. Kid-Rating:An In-depth Textbook Evaluation Technique[J]. Educational Leadership,1988,46(2):79-80.
21. Henno I, Reiska P. Difficulty of text in upper-secondary school biology textbook——using concept maps for analyzing students new knowledge[C]. Chile:2010:181-187.
22. Gillespie R J. Commentary:Reforming the general chemistry textbook[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1997,74(5):484.
23. Dori Y J, Hamciri M. Multidimensional Analysis System for Quantitative Chemistry Problems: Symbol,Macro,Micro,and Process Aspects[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003, 40(3):278-302.
24. Hofstein A, Lunetta V N. The laboratory in science education:Foundations for the twenty-first century[J]. Science Education,2004,88(1):28-54.
25. Tamir P, Lunett A V N. Inquired-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks[J]. Science Education,1981,65:477-484.
26. Fisher D H, A. H Enderson D, Hofst Ein A. Laboratory learning environments and practical tasks in senior secondary science classes[J]. Research in Science Education,1999,28:353-363.
27. Tamir P, Garcia M P. Characteristics of laboratory exercises included in science textbooks in Catalonia (Spain)[J]. International Journal of Science Education,1992,14(4):381-392.
28.Johnstone A H, Wham A J B. The demands of practical work[J]. Education in Chemistry,1982, 71(R):73.
29. Mikk J. Textbook:Research and Writing[M]. New York:Peter Lang GmbH,2000.94-96.
30. Berkeley S, King-Sears M E, Hott B L, et al. Are History Textbooks More "Considerate" After 20 Years?[J]. The Journal of Special Education,2012.
31. Polit D F, Beck C T. The Content Validity Index:Are You Sure You Know What's Being Reported? Critique and Recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2006,29(5):489-497.
32. Mccrudden M, Schraw G, Hartley K, et al. The influence of presentation, organization, and example context learning[J]. Journal of Experimental Education,2004,72(4):289-306.
33. Roseman J E, Linn M C, Koppal M. Characterizing curriculum coherence[J]. Designing coherent science education:Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy,2008:13-36.
34. Schmidt W H, Wang H C, Mcknight C C. Curriculum coherence:an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective.[J]. Journal of Curriculum Studies,2005,37(5):525-559.
35. Mcnamara D S. Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts:Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge[J]. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,2001,55(1):51-62.
36. Ainsworth S, Burcham S. The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation[J]. Learning and Instruction.2007,17:,2007,17:286-303.
37. Armbruster B B, Anderson T H. On Selecting "Considerate" Content Area Textbooks [J]. Remedial and Special Education,1988,9(1):47-52.
38. Johnstone A H. Teaching of Chemistry-Logical or Psychological?[J]. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe.2000:9-15.
39. Kesidou S, Roseman J E. Project 2061 analyses of middle-school science textbooks:A response to Holliday[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(5):535-543.
40. Reid N. A Scientific Approach to the Teaching of Chemistry[J]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,2008,9(1):51-59.
41. Griggs R A. Introductory psychology textbooks:Assessing levels of difficulty [J]. Teaching of Psychology,1999,26(4):248-253.
42. Irwin J W, Davis C A. Assessing Readability:The Checklist Approach[J]. Journal of Reading, 1980,24(2):124-130.
43. Davila K, Talanquer V. Classifying End-of-Chapter Questions and Problems for Selected General Chemistry Textbooks Used in the United States[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,2009,87(1): 97-101.
44. Polit D F, Beck C T, Owen S V. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations[J]. Research in Nursing & Health,2007,30(4):459-467.
45. Roseman J E, Stern L, Koppal M. A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.2010,47(1):47-70.
46. Pedrosa M A, Dias M H. Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions[J]. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice in Europe,2000,1(2): 227-236.
47. Ryu O H, Paik S H, Kim D U. The Analysis of Concepts Related to Basic Unit of Matter Properties and Matter Change in Science Textbooks[J]. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society,2004, 48(1):53-65.
48. Nam M, Chae H K. Reading the High School Science with Inorganic Chemical Terminologies:A Case Study in Korean Textbooks:Proceeding of the 2nd NICE Symposium[Z]. Taipei, TAIWAN: 2007:30-31.
49. Carney R N, Levin J R. Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students'Learning from Text[J]. Educational Psychology Review,2002,14(1):5-26.
50. Gkitzia V, Salta K, Tzougraki C. Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks[J]. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,2011,12(1):5-14.
51. Johnston A H. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem[J]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,1991(7):75-83.
52. Kozma R B, Russell J. Multimedia and Understanding:Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1997, 34(9):949-968.
53. Kozma R, Russell J. Students becoming chemists:developing representational competence[C]. London:Kluwer Academic Publishers,2005.
54. Pinto R, Ametller J. Students'difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2002,24(3):333-341.
55. Martin M O, Mullis I V S, Foy P, et al. TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science [Z].2012: 2013.
56. Michael Vokins. Nuffield Advanced Chemistry [M]. England:Pearson Education Limited,2008.
57. Faye Jeffery. Chemistry Dimensions [M]. Australia:Pearson Education Australia,2007.
58.斋藤烈·山本隆一.高等学校化学改订[M].东京：新兴出版社启林馆,2007
59. Naughton W, Schreck J, Heikkinen H. Seeking evidence for "curricular relevancy" within undergraduate, liberal arts chemistry textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2008, 45(2):174-196.
60. Vanlehn K, Graesser A C, Jackson G T, et al. When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?[J]. Cognitive Science,2007,31(1):3-62.
61. Abd-El-Khalick F, Waters M, Le A. Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2008,45(7): 835-855.
62. Holliday W G. Comment:Methodological concerns about AAAS's Project 2061 study of science textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(5):529-534.
63. Hawkes S J, Fisher S J, Hill R. Reforming the general chemistry textbook[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1998,75(1):10-26.
64. Ruis S P. Something's wrong with chemistry textbooks[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1988, 65(8):720.
65. Sanger M J, Greenbowe T J. An Analysis of College Chemistry Textbooks as Sources of Misconceptions and Errors in Electrochemistry[J]. Journal of Chemical Education,1999,76(6): 853.
66. Leivas Pozzer L, Roth W. Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks[J]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,2003,40(10):1089-1114.
67. Mayer R E, Bove W, Bryman A, et al. When less is more:Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons.[J]. Journal of Educational Psychology,1996,88(1): 64-73.
68. Han J, Roth W. Chemical Inscriptions in Korean Textbooks:Semiotics of Macro-and Micro world[Z]. Wiley Inter Science,2005:2012.
69. Reid D J, Beveridge M. Effects of Text Illustration on Children's Learning of a School Science Topic[J]. British Journal of Educational Psychology,1986,56(3):294-303.
70. Carney R N, Levin J R. Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students'Learning from Text[J]. Educational Psychology Review,2002,14(1):5-26.
71. Farris P J, Others. Text Organization and Structure in Science Textbooks.[J]. Reading Horizons, 1988,28(2):123-130
72. Nohara, D. (2001). A comparison of the national assessment of educational progress (NAEP), the third international mathematics and science study repeat (TIMSS-R), and the program for international student assessment (Working Paper No.2001-07). Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.
73. Kuwabara T. Relationship between complexity of information and difficulty of example-oriented textbooks[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,1998,29(8):9-18
74.Nakamura Y, Kuwabara T, Takeda K. Factors determining the difficulty of practice problems in a computer language textbook[J]. Systems and Computers in Japan,2000,31(4):87-97.
75. Gabel D L,Bunce D M. Research on problem solving:Chemistry.[C]. New York:1994:301-326.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |