This study aims to investigate various and multiple viewpoints of scholars, textbook editors, elementary school teachers, and student parents on the connection issue between different editions of elementary school textbooks, so as to submit our conclusions and suggestions. The concrete purpose of this study is double: a) What are the multiple voices of the connection issue of different textbooks? b) How are these voices formed? In order to reach the above purpose, the research method is mainly qualitative method, complementing by quantitative method. The study subjects are three scholars, three editors of school textbooks, 18 elementary school teachers, and five student parents. We adopt interview method of qualitative research. According to the introductory interviews, the researchers compile preliminary questionnaire, which is distributed to 160 elementary school teachers in all the 16 counties and cities in the Taiwan area. The last open-end question allows the answerers to write down their opinions, which are then used as one part of data analysis of this study. Finally, we conduct our analysis and discussion by means of incessant comparative analysis and type analysis. Synthetically, we then produce the conclusions and suggestions of this study. The following are the conclusions we reached: 1. The connection between the formal outlines and the temporary ones of the nine-year-through consistent policy causes various connection problems of different editions years ago. Take math course for example. This course is being narrowed and regulated owing to the formal outlines' annual details, which, though brings out a converging agreement, still causes some connection problems, though fewer. Even though connection problems remain, teachers should manage to reduce the problems to the minimum when conducting their teachings, so as to make the teachings more favorably. 2. Because of poor understanding towards the present nine-year-through consistent policy curricula outlines, elementary school teachers can not explain the connection problems to the student parents clearly, which makes the latter take dubious stance towards this issue. The nature of elementary school curricula is of the class of starting point of Burner's spiral curriculum; furthermore, the teaching units are circular through the six years. Thus, the negligent and omitting elements can be redressed to some point. On the other hand, whether students' learning contents are negligent or not will be redressed by the "feedback loop" to rectify the teaching objects and complement the teaching materials. 3. Elementary school teachers with teaching experience less than five years are mostly inexperienced teachers who don't understand the curricula outlines. From our interviews we realize that all kinds of selection tests almost never touch issues concerning curricula outlines. Under this vein, the chance to understand the curricula outlines is relatively meager, which is a warning and chasm for elementary teaching staff cultivation curricula. 4. The connection problems of different elementary textbook editions have something to do with the natures of curricula or fields. Curricula of artistic ability have less connection, which might have something to do with having no tests. "Having tests" tops all the connection issues of different elementary school textbooks. 5. The connection issues of different elementary school textbooks manifest the loose joining of "theory and practice" of teaching, which is the chief cause of the long-term negligence of the outcry of elementary school teachers who really do the teachings. On the one hand, the low professional status and image of elementary school teachers partly contribute to the above phenomenon. On the other hand, many elementary school teachers hold the belief that politics is behind education. In the long run, they feel inactive to all the educational issues. 6. Transfer students have to face horizontal transfer of different editions of their textbooks. Various levels of transfer problems occur because of different transfer times during the semester. But connection problems are not unsolvable. The joint cooperation between elementary school teachers and the publishers of elementary school textbooks still can patch up the chasm of connection.

Denna studie syftar till att undersöka vilka möjligheter till lärande genom lärtillfällen (”opportunities to learn” [OTL]) elever ges i mellanstadiet i att utveckla statistisk litteracitet. Statistisk litteracitet beskrivs av forskare som en viktig förmåga för individen som demokratisk rättighet för att, i den allt mer digitala värld vi lever i, kunna föra och följa statistiska argument och kunna fatta välgrundade beslut utifrån statistisk information. I tidigare forskning framkommer det att undervisning i matematik inte sällan baseras på läromedel. Därav görs i denna studie en kvantitativ innehållsanalys av tabeller och diagram i fyra olika läromedelsserier genom årskurs 4–6. Frågeställningarna som avser ge resultat är (1) I vilken omfattning får eleverna möta uppgifter inom de olika nivåerna av statistisk litteracitet i läromedelsserier? samt (2) Hur ser fördelningen och progressionen av nivåerna ut genom årskurs 4–6? Läromedlen analyseras genom Curcios fyra nivåer för kategorisering av statistisk litteracitet. Nivå 1 (N1) “reading the data”, nivå 2 (N2) “reading between the data”, nivå 3 (N3) “reading beyond the data” och nivå 4 (N4) “reading behind the data”. N1 och N2 är de grundläggande nivåerna som innebär att frågorna leder till direkt avläsning, beräkningar eller jämförelser som explicit är uttryckt i datan. Nivåerna N3 och N4 innebär frågor som leder till att dra slutsatser som inte explicit uttrycks i data genom kritisk granskning, förutspå eller generalisera utifrån statistisk information. Kategoriseringen visar att fördelningen av uppgifterna är inom N1 och N2 samt att en tydlig progression saknas i läromedelsserierna. För att utvecklas att bli statistiskt litterat behöver man ges tillräckligt med OTL inom alla dessa nivåer. Studien fann däremot att 99,7% av uppgifterna totalt kategoriserades inom de lägre nivåerna, N1 och N2. Detta kan tolkas som att läromedlen inte ger elever tillräckliga OTL i att utveckla statistisk litteracitet vilket kan påverka elevernas förutsättningar att fatta välgrundade beslut i sin vardag.