大概念教学能提升学生的素养吗？——基于小学数学“优化”单元的设计实验研究

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.10.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

大概念教学是落实素养的教学范式，素养的内核是创造性地解决现实世界的问题，因此其形成更符合高通路迁移的机制。在设计实验研究的方法论指导下，以小学数学“优化”单元为例开展研究。首先，通过课例研究等对大概念教学的理论原型进行迭代，从单元教学的各个不同维度对大概念教学与常规教学进行了比较，分别提取了要素及特征，明确了大概念教学的模型并予以实例化呈现。然后，通过对比实验研究对大概念教学模型进行成效检验。多元回归分析结果显示，大概念教学能提升学生的素养，体现为高通路迁移能力的增强。进一步分析不同数学基础的学生数据则发现，大概念教学能在短期内明显提升基础较好学生的素养，并潜在提升基础较弱学生的素养。

关键词: 大概念教学, 素养, 迁移, 单元教学, 设计实验研究

Abstract:

Big idea-based teaching is an instructional paradigm that embodies the cultivation of competencies. The core of competencies is to solve real-world problems creatively, which better aligns with the mechanisms of high-road transfer. Guided by the methodology of the design experiment, the study took the “optimization” unit in elementary mathematics as an example. Firstly, the theoretical prototype of big idea-based teaching was refined through lesson study. A comparison was made between big idea-based teaching and conventional teaching from various dimensions of unit teaching, extracting elements and characteristics, and clarifying the model of big idea-based teaching, which was then exemplified. Subsequently, the effectiveness of the big idea-based teaching model was tested through comparative experimental research. The results of multiple regression analysis indicated that big idea-based teaching enhanced students' competencies, which was reflected in the enhancement of their ability for high-road transfer. Further analysis of students with varying levels of mathematical proficiency revealed that this instructional model could markedly improve the competencies of higher-achieving students in the short term and potentially benefit lower-achieving students over time.

Key words: big idea-based teaching, competencies, transfer, unit teaching, design experiment

刘徽, 蔡小瑛, 徐亚萱, 韩雪, 朱德江, 张朋. 大概念教学能提升学生的素养吗？——基于小学数学“优化”单元的设计实验研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2025, 43(10): 44-63.

Hui Liu, Xiaoying Cai, Yaxuan Xu, Xue Han, Dejiang Zhu, Peng Zhang. Can Big Idea-based Teaching Enhance Students’ Competencies？A Design Experiment Based on the “Optimization” Unit in Elementary Mathematics[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2025, 43(10): 44-63.

图/表 6

图 1

表 1

图 2

表 2

图 3

图 4

参考文献

	埃里克森, 兰宁. (2018). 以概念为本的课程与教学: 培养核心素养的绝佳实践(鲁效孔译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	安桂清. (2013). 以学为中心的课例研究. 教师教育研究, 25 (02), 72- 77.
	奥苏贝尔. (2018). 意义学习新论——获得与保持知识的认知观(毛伟译). 杭州: 浙江教育出版社.
	珀金斯. (2015). 为未知而教, 为未来而学(杨彦捷译). 杭州: 浙江人民出版社.
	布兰思福特等. (2013). 人是如何学习的: 大脑、心理、经验及学校(扩展版)(程可拉等译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	崔允漷. (2019). 学科核心素养呼唤大单元教学设计. 上海教育科研, (04), 1.
	杜威. (2015). 我们如何思维(伍中友译). 北京: 新华出版社.
	焦尔当. (2015). 学习的本质(杭零译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	李刚, 吕立杰. (2018). 大概念课程设计: 指向学科核心素养落实的课程架构. 教育发展研究, 38 (Z2), 35- 42.
	李凯, 吴刚平. (2022). 为素养而教: 大概念教学理论指向与教学意蕴. 比较教育研究, 44 (04), 62- 71.
	刘徽. (2020). “大概念”视角下的单元整体教学构型——兼论素养导向的课堂变革. 教育研究, 41 (06), 64- 77.
	刘徽. (2022). 大概念教学: 素养导向的单元整体设计. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
	罗日叶. (2010). 为了整合学业获得: 情境的设计和开发(汪凌译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	吕立杰. (2020). 大概念课程设计的内涵与实施. 教育研究, 41 (10), 53- 61.
	麦克泰, 西尔维. (2021). 为深度学习而教: 促进学生参与意义建构的思维工具(丁旭译). 北京: 教育科学出版社.
	斯特恩, 费拉多, 邓肯, 阿莱奥. (2023). 可迁移的学习: 为变化的世界设计课程(屠莉娅等译). 杭州: 浙江科学技术出版社.
	索耶. (2010). 剑桥学习科学手册(徐晓东等译). 北京: 教育科学出版社.
	汤蕾. (2016). 学习迁移理论在高中化学教学中的实践研究. 武汉: 华中师范大学硕士学位论文.
	王宽明. (2021). 基于差异化教学的课程设计探索. 教育科学研究, (01), 48- 53.
	威金斯, 麦克泰. (2018). 理解为先模式——单元教学设计指南(一)(盛群力等译). 福州: 福建教育出版社.
	威金斯, 麦克泰. (2021). 理解为先模式——单元教学设计指南(二)(沈祖芸等译). 福州: 福建教育出版社.
	威金斯, 麦克泰格. (2017). 追求理解的教学设计(第二版)(闫寒冰等译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	威金斯, 麦克泰格. (2022). 基于设计的学校教育: 使命、行动与成就(闫寒冰主译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	威廉. (2021). 融于教学的形成性评价(王少非译). 南京: 江苏凤凰科学技术出版社.
	谢尔, 布鲁克斯, 特赖宁, 威尔逊, 考夫曼, 赫尔. (2021). 统一学习模式——从动机、认知及神经生物科学层面理解最佳教学(毛伟译). 杭州: 浙江大学出版社.
	许玮, 陈航, 刘晓. (2023). 融入设计思维的科学大概念单元教学模式构建及应用研究. 全球教育展望, 52 (08), 13- 29.
	于泽元, 那明明. (2023). 情境化学习: 内涵、价值及实施. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 41 (01), 89- 97.
	张华. (2023). 论课程核心素养: 走向“新三维目标”. 教育研究, 44 (09), 76- 85.
	张良, 罗生全. (2021). 论“用以致学”: 指向素养发展的教学认识论. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 39 (02), 40- 49.
	张奇, 张庆翔, 张笑笑, 高超. (2023). 规则变型推理对远迁移问题解决的促进. 心理学报, 55 (01), 117- 128.
	张侨平. (2021). 数学开放性问题和平行任务的设计: 处理数学学习差异的一种途径. 课程. 教材. 教法, 41 (01), 105- 109+137.
	中华人民共和国教育部. (2020). 普通高中课程方案(2017年版2020年修订). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
	中华人民共和国教育部. (2022). 义务教育课程方案(2022年版). 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
	佐藤学. (2010). 学校的挑战: 创建学习共同体(钟启泉译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	Anmarkrud, Ø., Andresen, A., & Bråten, I. (2019). Cognitive load and working memory in multimedia learning: Conceptual and measurement issues. Educational Psychologist, 54 (2), 61- 83.
	Bakker, A. (2018). Design Research in Education: A Practical Guide for Early Career Researchers. New York: Routledge.
	Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141- 178.
	Brünken, R. , Seufert, T. , & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load, In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno & R. Brunken(Eds. ), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 181-202). New York: Cambridge University Press.
	Chalmers, C., Carter, M., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15 (S1), 25- 43.
	Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds. ), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five Years of Progress (pp. 455–478). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
	Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 9- 13.
	Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds. ), New Directions in Educational Technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
	Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 15- 42.
	Confrey, J. , & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds. ), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education(pp. 231-265). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
	Fan, L., Qi, C., Liu, X., Wang, Y., & Lin, M. (2017). Does a transformation approach improve students’ ability in constructing auxiliary lines for solving geometric problems? An intervention-based study with two Chinese classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96, 229- 248.
	Fosnot, C. T. (2007). Our teaching and learning philosophy. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed. ), Investigating Multiplication and Division Grade 3–5 (pp. 13–15). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
	Jaccard, J. , & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
	Kali, Y. , & Hoadley, C. (2021). Design-based research methods in CSCL: Calibrating our epistemologies and ontologies. In U. Cress, C. Rose, A. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds. ), International Handbook of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning(pp. 479-496). Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
	Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (4), 831- 852.
	Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40 (4), 651- 672.
	Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10 (3), 2- 10.
	Lewis, D. R. , Carlson, S. , Riesbeck, C. , Lu, K. , Gerber, E. , & Easterday, M. (2020). The logic of effective iteration in design-based research. In M. Gresalfi & I. S. Horn (Eds. ), The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020, Volume 2 (pp. 1149-1156). Nashville: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
	Marschall, C. & French, R. (2018). Concept-based Inquiry in Action: Strategies to Promote Transferable Understanding. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
	McTighe, J. , & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential Questions: Opening Doors to Student Understanding. Alexandria: ASCD.
	Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
	Olson, J. K. (2008). Concept-focused teaching: Using big ideas to guide instruction in science. Science and Children, 46 (4), 45- 49.
	Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46 (1), 22- 32.
	Perkins, D. N. , & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds. ), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed. , pp. 1–13). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
	Roumell, E. (2019). Priming adult learners for learning transfer: Beyond content and delivery. Adult Learning, 30 (1), 15- 22.
	Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39 (4), 213- 223.
	Seel, N. M. , Lehmann, T. , Blumschein, P. , & Podolskiy, O. A. (2017). Instructional Design for Learning: Theoretical Foundations. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
	Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
	Silverman, H. (2015). Designerly ways for action research. In H. Bradbury (Ed. ), The Sage Handbook of Action Research (pp. 716–723). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
	Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Psychological Science, 10 (2), 176- 199.
	Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Seeking research-grounded solutions to problems of practice: Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education. ZDM, 45, 333- 341.
	Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251- 296.
	Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Alexandria: ASCD.
	Tomlinson, C. A. , & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Alexandria: ASCD.
	Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-component Instructional Design (3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge.

维度	要素	常规教学的特征	大概念教学的特征
单元结构	线索	主题	大概念
单元结构	序列	并行	进阶
单元目标	层次	低阶	高阶
单元目标	形态	分列	整合
单元评价	总结性评价	相似	多元
单元评价	形成性评价	封闭	开放
单元过程	组织	相加	相乘
单元过程	行为	验证	理解

	常数项$ {\beta }_{0} $	期末成绩$ {\beta }_{1} $	前测成绩$ {\beta }_{2} $	实验组别$ {\beta }_{3} $	迁移类型$ {\beta }_{4} $	前测成绩$ \times $ 实验组别$ {\beta }_{5} $	迁移类型$ \times $ 实验组别$ {\beta }_{6} $	F	df	$ {R}^{2} $
主效应模型	−12.81(3.97)**	0.26(0.05)***	0.22(0.13)	1.79(0.85)*	5.72(0.84)***	—	—	23.72	4,151	0.39
交互效应模型	−11.29(3.86)**	0.28(0.05)***	−0.18(0.17)	−4.77(2.82)	7.87(1.12)***	0.79(0.23)***	−4.31(1.59)***	20.69	6,149	0.45

[1]	于金申, [法]瑞尔•米勒（Riel Miller）. 从世界到中国：未来素养何以有必要成为未来教育研究的新视点——于金申与未来学家瑞尔•米勒的对话[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(3): 115-126.
[2]	王晓杰, 宋乃庆. 我国小学生劳动素养现状及其影响因素研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(2): 78-91.
[3]	崔允漷, 周文叶, 雷浩, 郭洪瑞, 张紫红, 王少非, 安桂清, 吴刚平. 中国基础教育课程改革学术话语体系的自主建构[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(11): 154-170.
[4]	钟柏昌, 刘晓凡, 杨明欢. 何谓人工智能素养：本质、构成与评价体系[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(1): 71-84.
[5]	宋萑, 林敏. ChatGPT/生成式人工智能时代下教师的工作变革：机遇、挑战与应对[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(7): 78-90.
[6]	李健, 宋乃庆, 王诗梦, 孙小坚. 一项工具开发：如何才能测评学生美术素养？[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(6): 118-132.
[7]	赵伶俐, 经刚. 美育评价智能化平台与实验教室建构——基于美育教学与美感体验过程[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(6): 92-107.
[8]	郑永和, 杨宣洋, 王晶莹, 李佳, 卢阳旭, 李书惠, 杨玉静, 张晓琳. 我国小学科学教师队伍现状、影响与建议：基于31个省份的大规模调研[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(4): 1-21.
[9]	靳彤, 李亚芬. 理解数字化时代的学校公共空间——教育数字化转型的实践难题[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(3): 45-51.
[10]	朱德全, 彭洪莉. 教师跨学科教学素养测评模型实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(2): 1-13.
[11]	刘宝存, 黄秦辉. PISA高绩效地区学生的全球素养：个体和学校因素的影响[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(2): 38-52.
[12]	沈伟, 陈莞月. 教育与生态文明：基于经合组织教育功能的视角变迁[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(12): 34-45.
[13]	黄声华, 尹弘飚, 靳玉乐. 家长教育卷入类型与中学生学科素养：基于PISA 2018中国香港及澳门数据的潜在类别分析[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(1): 50-59.
[14]	于泽元, 那明明. 情境化学习：内涵、价值及实施[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(1): 89-97.
[15]	李小红, 王杉, 陈晨, 杨婕, 唐向黎. 家庭文化资本对学生阅读素养的影响：基于多层logistic模型的实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2022, 40(8): 57-66.