Glazov, Izhevsk, Russian Federation
The diffi culty of understanding an educational text primarily depends on the degree of the information concentration in its constituent sentences and mathematical statements. The article analyzes the problem of assessing the density of educational information for the theoretical component of mathematics textbooks in various classes of secondary schools. The purpose of research consists in: 1) developing objective methods for measuring the quantity semantic information in educational text; 2) in determining the information density in theoretical reasoning (defi nitions, theorems, conclusions, etc.) presented in school math textbooks. To determine the density of theoretical information in math textbooks the thesaurus approach and the content analysis method, based on automated counting of words (terms) in the text with the account of their complexity with help of computer, are used. More 15 textbooks and manuals on mathematics were subjected to the analysis of content. At this the sentences and formulas, corresponding 1st, 2nd, ..., 11th grades, were chosen. The dictionary of using terms is created; their complexity is determined by the method of the complex concepts (terms) decomposition into simple ones and by the method of pair comparison. With the help of special computer program, the automatic analysis of the corresponding text fi les was carried out, their informative value is determined, the average values of information density in various classes are calculated, and a graph is presented.
didactic complexity, informative value of the text, mathematics textbook, information minimization, educational text.
1. Alimov Sh.A., Kolyagin Yu.M., Tkacheva M.V. Matematika: algebra i nachala matematicheskogo analiza. 10–11 klassy [Mathematics: algebra and the beginning of mathematical analysis. 10-11 classes]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publ., 2017. 463 p.
2. Gel’fman E.G., Kholodnaya M.A. Psikhodidaktika shkol’nogo uchebnika. Intellektual’noe vospitanie uchashchikhsya [Psychodidactic school textbook. Intellectual education of students]. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ., 2006. 384 p.
3. Gidlevskiy A.V., Zdrikovskaya T.A. Ischislenie trudnosti soderzhaniya i ponimaniya teksta [The calculation of the diffi culty of the content and understanding of the text]. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya [Modern problems of science and education]. 2013, I. 2. Available at: http://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=8617
4. Dorofeev G.V., Peterson L.G. Matematika. 5 klass [Mathamatics. Grade 5]. Moscow: Yuventa Publ., 2006. 176 p.
5. Zhelezovskiy B.E., Belov F.A. Opredelenie informativnosti uchebnogo materiala kak metod semantiko-pragmaticheskoy teorii informatsii [Defi nition of informativeness of educational material as a method of semantic-pragmatic information theory]. Privolzhskiy nauchnyy vestnik [Volga Scientifi c Journal]. 2011, I. 1, pp. 71–76.
6. Zil’bergleyt M.A., Nevdakh M.M., Shpakovskiy Yu.F. Otsenivanie trudnosti ponimaniya uchebnykh tekstov dlya vysshey shkoly [Evaluation of the diffi culty of understanding educational texts for higher education]. Informatika [Informatics]. 2011, I. 2, pp. 111–123.
7. Kisel’nikov A.S. K probleme kharakteristik teksta: chitabel’nost’, ponyatnost’, slozhnost’, trudnost’ [On the problem of text characteristics: readability, clarity, complexity, diffi culty]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice]. 2015, I. 11 (53), pp. 79–84.
8. Kognitivnyy podkhod [Cognitive approach]. Moscow: «Kanon + » ROOI «Reabilitatsiya» Publ., 2008. 464 p.
9. Kokhanovskiy V.A., Sergeeva M.Kh., Komakhidze M.G. Otsenka slozhnosti sistem [Estimation of the complexity of the systems]. Vestnik DGTU [Vestnik DGTU]. 2012, I. 4, pp. 22–26.
10. Krioni N.K., Nikin A.D., Fillipova A.V. Avtomatizirovannaya sistema analiza slozhnosti uchebnykh tekstov [Automated system for analyzing the complexity of educational texts.]. Vestnik UGATU [Vestnik DGTU]. 2008, V. 11, I. 1 (28), pp. 101–107.
11. Lukashevich N.V. Tezaurusy v zadachakh informatsionnogo poiska [Thesauruses in information retrieval tasks]. Moscow, 2010. 396 p.
12. Lukov Val.A., Lukov Vl.A. Metodologiya tezaurusnogo podkhoda: strategiya ponimaniya [The methodology of the thesaurus approach: a strategy of understanding]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie [Knowledge. Understanding. Skill]. 2014, I. 1, pp. 18–35.
13. Mayer R.V. Kontent-analiz shkol’nykh uchebnikov po estestvenno-nauchnym distsiplinam [Content analysis of school textbooks on natural sciences]. Glazov: Glazov. ped. in-t Publ., 2016. 137 p.
14. Mayer R.V. Otsenka urovnya abstraktnosti izlozheniya materiala v shkol’nykh uchebnikakh po estestvennym naukam [Assessment of the level of abstractness of the presentation of material in school textbooks on the natural sciences]. Standarty i monitoring v obrazovanii [Standards and monitoring in education]. 2017, I. 1, pp. 58–63.
15. Makarychev Yu.N., Mindyuk N.G., Neshkov K.I., Suvorova S.B. Algebra. 7 klass [Algebra. Grade 7]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publ., 2013. 256 p.
16. Mizernov I.Yu., Grashchenko L.A. Analiz metodov otsenki slozhnosti [Analysis of methods for assessing the complexity]. Novyy informatsionnye tekhnologii v avtomatizirovannykh sistemakh [New information technologies in automated systems]. 2015, pp. 572–581.
17. Mikk Ya.A. Optimizatsiya slozhnosti uchebnogo teksta: V pomoshch’ avtoram i redaktoram [Optimizing the complexity of the text: To help authors and editors]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publ., 1981. 119 p.
18. Naumov I.S., Vykhovanets V.S. Otsenka trudnosti i slozhnosti uchebnykh zadach na osnove sintaksicheskogo analiza tekstov [Assessing the diffi culty and complexity of learning tasks based on the syntactic analysis of texts]. Upravlenie bol’shimi sistemami [Managing Large Systems]. 2014, I. 48, pp. 97–131.
19. Peterson L.G. Matematika. 2 klass [Mathamatics. 2 class]. Moscow: Yuventa Publ., 2005. 112 p.
20. Chang Ch.Ch., Silalahi S.M. A review and content analysis of mathematics textbooks in educational research // Problems of education in the 21st century. Vol. 75, № 3, 2017. pp. 235 — 251.
