臺灣數學領域課程研究方法論之探討

A Study on Research Methodologies in Taiwan’s Mathematics Curriculum

有鑑於臺灣中小學數學課程歷經多次修訂，並從教師中心轉向學生中心，強調數學素養與跨領域整合，本研究透過分析「臺灣博碩士論文加值系統」中7篇涵蓋「數學」與「課程」關鍵字的博士論文，深入了解現場教育研究者對臺灣數學課程發展的研究重點、所採用之研究方法及其演變趨勢。
研究結果顯示，臺灣數學領域課程的博士論文研究主題多元，均衡探討學生、教師及課程/教科書等面向，與我國數學課程以學生為中心的目標相符。在研究方法上，質性研究使用頻率最高，其次為量化研究與混合研究。年代分析指出，2014年後，質性與量化研究均受到研究者青睞，其中質性研究篇數較多，此趨勢符合教育研究典範的轉變，預估未來仍將以質性研究為主。
本研究進一步分析論文資料蒐集方法，發現量化研究多採用測驗與問卷，質性研究則利用訪談、觀察和文件分析。然而，多數論文未明確闡述其研究方法論，僅少數論文清晰呈現，顯示研究者在方法論論述方面仍有加強空間。
總之，臺灣數學領域課程的博士研究在議題廣度、方法論派典多元性及典範演變趨勢上均有良好表現。本研究建議未來應鼓勵更多相關研究，並特別強調提升研究者對研究方法論的理解與敘明，以期深化研究品質與學術嚴謹性。

Taiwan’s primary and secondary mathematics curriculum has undergone successive revisions, transitioning from a teacher-centered model to a studentcentered one that emphasizes mathematical literacy and interdisciplinary integration. To analyze the evolving research landscape, this study systematically examined seven doctoral dissertations retrieved from the“Taiwan Dissertations and Theses Value- Added System”using keywords such as“mathematics”and“curriculum.”The primary aim was to gain in-depth understanding of the research foci, methodologies, and evolving trends adopted by educational researchers in this field.
The results indicate that doctoral dissertations in Taiwan’s mathematics education exhibit diverse research themes, with balanced exploration across the student, teacher, and curriculum/textbook dimensions. This breadth directly aligns with the student-centered goal of Taiwan’s revised mathematics curriculum. Regarding research methodologies, qualitative research was the most frequently used approach, followed by quantitative and mixed methods. A temporal analysis reveals that after 2014, both qualitative and quantitative studies gained favor, with qualitative approaches remaining dominant. This paradigm shift is consistent with broader trends in educational research and suggests qualitative methods will maintain their prevalence.
Further analysis of data collection showed that quantitative research primarily employed tests and questionnaires, while qualitative research utilized interviews, observations, and document analysis. A key finding, however, was the lack of explicit articulation of research methodologies in the majority of dissertations. Only a few studies clearly delineated their methodological framework, indicating a pressing need for researchers to strengthen their discourse on research methodology.
In conclusion, doctoral research in Taiwan’s mathematics education demonstrates robust performance in thematic breadth and methodological diversity. This study strongly recommends encouraging future research, with a particular emphasis on enhancing researchers’understanding and explicit articulation of their research methodology to deepen overall research quality and academic rigor.