數學擬題活動的合作效果─五年級學童之經驗

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：36

、訪客IP：18.218.184.214

姓名

江家瑋(Chia-wei Chiang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

數學擬題活動的合作效果─五年級學童之經驗
(The collaborative effect of the mathematics problem posing activity ─ the fifth graders′ experiences)

相關論文

★ 網路學習社群中的潛水現象：一種被忽略的充分參與	★ 網路學習社群中的共構面貌：以迷思概念為探針
★ 敘說一位研究型大學教師之自我座落	★ 敘說實習教師之教師認同
★ 情意鷹架者的實踐知識－以 LAIN 網路學習社群為例	★ 全控機構的學習－從實踐社群的觀點看海軍義務役男
★ 工科研究生的學習樣貌—一個情境學習的觀點	★ 從學習者成為鷹架者──社群觀點探看身分轉變的學習
★ 網路科學探究的合作學習：小組認同與共同作者的決定歷程	★ 應用搭配字學習工具於網路瀏覽以提升英語學習者對搭配字之察覺能力
★ 節能減碳實踐中教師和行政的矛盾－活動理論觀點	★ 線上小組推進探究的關鍵時刻
★ 以行動者網絡理論探討國小教師在數位閱讀寫作推動初期的困境	★ 看見機動教師-國小校園內的新角色
★ 一對一數位教室的另類學習:設計與湧現的觀點	★ 我的師傅們不教英文：一位國中英語教師在跨領域社群中的學習

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

近年來，擬題活動逐漸受到國際重視。出一個數學題目的歷程，即為數學擬題；其中又以自由擬題的出題形式最無限制。在台灣學童數學學習成就高、興致卻低落的情況之下，數學自由擬題可能是一改善的管道，也可能觸發更主動、深入的思考。

另一方面，長久以來，學術研究者認為合作學習好處多，然而教師在現場卻因為學生的異質性、課程進度壓力或經營的障礙，所以對合作的效果有所保留。因此，在對於擬題與合作效果的兩造關切之下，本研究將探討，在數學自由擬題的合作歷程當中：1)學童所擬題目的進展如何？2)合作效果又是如何？

本擬題活動特色有四─自由、合作、學生主導、一題多磨。研究對象為小五學童。每位學童僅擬「一」個題目，每個題目歷經五個版本的出題，歷經三階段的合作設計，並鼓勵學童互相建議與協助。第四版本出題後，教師會介入引導，故以第一版本至第四版本為「同儕協助階段」，以第四版本至第五版本為「教師引導階段」。

研究方法採質量混合方式。量化部份，自擬「擬題品質評量規準」與「建議品質評量規準」為工具，藉此對題目與建議之品質進行評量；質化部份，採內容分析法以分析學童所擬題目、建議、學習單與訪談內容，進而探索學生擬題之進展與合作效果。搭配兩個研究問題進行資料分析與詮釋。

研究結果發現分成三部分：自由擬題成品特徵、題目進展情形以及合作效果進展。首先，自由擬題的題目成品特徵有三：字數多、數字大又繁以及外部連結性強。第二，學生主導的擬題活動，題目品質於各向度皆有明顯進展。同儕協助階段的進展在生活性、精緻性與年級層次；教師引導階段則在可解性與可讀性。第三，合作時機與建議對象不同會帶來不同的合作效果。自時機來看，「第一次建議」的建議品質最高，「試答後建議與批改歷程」的效果多元，「轉燈建議」最能感受群眾數量壓力。

擬題成品與研究結果為學術與教學現場激起許多討論與應用上之建議。擬題成品的呈現，展現了自由擬題與生活情境題的價值：使學童更投入、主動、深入地學習，並自然而然地發展數學外部連結。合作時機與建議對象帶來的不同效果與互動歷程，也提供教學現場實施之圖像。而兩規準之應用，除了加強數學內部連結之外，建議規準的應用也可使數學溝通能力更有進展。

摘要(英)

Problem-posing and collaboration have been recently considered as two important issues by mathematics education researchers around the world. However, academic researchers address the benefits of collaborative learning while school teachers point out that the students’ widely varied abilities and teachers’ time constraints will have an influence on the quality of the collaborative effects. In addition, “high achievement but low interest” is still an unsolved problem in mathematics education in Taiwan. Therefore, the two research questions are: 1) To what extend do student’s problem-posing improve? 2) What collaborative effects do suggestions from peers and teachers have on the quality of students’ problems?

The major characteristic of this problem-posing activity is “one problem, many revised versions”. There are two stages: the “peer-help” stage is from the first to the fourth version, and the “teacher-guide” stage is between the fourth and the fifth version. Each fifth grader is encouraged to give suggestions to his or her classmates and to help each other pose a mathematic problem. After the fourth version is completed, the teacher will provide guidance to problems that need further improvement.

This study used a mixed method. Two sets of rubrics were generated to evaluate the quality of the problems by posers and suggestions by peers. The results were analyzed in a quantitative fashion. Problems between versions, interviews, and worksheets data were used to analyze qualitatively the progress they made.

The result shows that: 1) The free problem-posing activity produced problems presented with wordiness, inconvenient numbers, and high relations with students’ life experience or other subjects. 2) The student-posed problems made significant progress throughout the five-version process. Each received different kinds of help from the “peer-help” stage and “teacher-guide” stage. In particular, the teacher had a significant influence on solvability and readability of the problems, while peers helped on the connection to their daily life, the refinement, and the concept level of the problems.

Debates and implications for school teaching are provided. The free problem-posing has its virtues in engaging students in more active and deeper thoughts, but has its drawbacks in developing lengthy and context-rich problems which goes against the current practice among professional mathematicians. The different collaborative design and its effects on peer collaboration provide a promising picture for teacher practitioners. Future study can focus on the refinement of the two sets of rubrics. The potential of problem posing on student’s mathematics communication ability is also discussed.

關鍵字(中)

★ 數學
★ 擬題
★ 自由擬題
★ 合作
★ 生活情境題

關鍵字(英)

★ mathematics
★ problem-posing
★ free problem-posing
★ collaboration
★ context-embedded problem

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究的重要性 4
第二章文獻探討 6
第一節擬題活動之效用 7
第二節擬題的自由程度 8
第三節擬題活動設計 10
第四節自由擬題的評量面向 12
第五節合作與擬題 17
第三章研究方法 20
第一節研究對象 20
第二節活動設計 22
第三節研究工具 30
第四節資料蒐集 34
第五節資料分析 38
第四章研究結果 44
第一節自由擬題的題目特徵 44
第二節題目品質的進展 48
第三節題目進展的階段性差異 50
第四節與同儕建議有關之進展 56
第五節合作的時機 61
第六節建議的對象 71
第五章討論與結論 85
第一節討論 85
第二節應用 88
第三節結語 93
參考資料 95
一、中文部分 95
二、英文部分 96

參考文獻

一、中文部分

吳柏儀（2009）。不同型態線上合作擬題解題系統教學在五年級小數除法學習成就及態度之研究。國立嘉義大學教育科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
李承華（2002）。擬題活動對國小五年級學生掌握數學文字題語意結構與解題之影響。國立台北師範學院數學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
李國偉（2012，2月）。TIMSS 2011耐人尋味的問題─如果台灣學生的優良數學成績是在痛苦、挫折中達成，是不是極為得不償失呢？科學人雜誌。取自http://sa.ylib.com/MagCont.aspx？Unit=columns&id=2119
李暉（2011）。PISA理念介紹。載於張惠博、林陳涌（主編），PISA科學素養評量手冊（頁1-7）。台北市：教育部、行政院國家科學委員會。
周幸儀、吳錦松（2002）。合作擬題教學對學生數學概念的發展之探究－以一個國小二年級數學教室為例。多元素養與科學教育。第18 屆科學教育學術研討會，國立彰化師範大學。
洪琮琪（2002）。網路出題與合作學習對學習成效之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所，未出版，臺南。
馬秀蘭（2001）。透過電腦網路來發展數學加減法問題之研究，科學教育學刊，9，(4)， 375-399。
教育部國中小教學資源研發中心（2012）。教育部合作學習工作坊。取自：http://www.coop.ntue.edu.tw/
李國偉（2014）。教育部提升國民素養專案辦公室。取自：http://literacytw.naer.edu.tw/
張俊雄（2010）。國小五年級學生在合作學習下針對數學謎題解題和擬題的研究。國立台南大學數學教育系教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
張惠博、林陳涌（2011）。PISA與科學素養。載於張惠博、林陳涌（主編），PISA科學素養評量手冊（頁i）。台北市：教育部、行政院國家科學委員會。
梁淑坤（1994）。「擬題」的研究及其在課程的角色。國民小學數學科新課程概說(低年級)。台北：台灣省國民學校教師研習彙編。
康滋容（2005）。擬題活動對國小二年級學生解題能力和擬題能力的影響。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所，未出版，屏東。
陳斐卿、江家瑋、張鐵懷、黃佩岑、單維彰（修訂中）。數學自由擬題之設計與評量—一個合作的取徑。科學教育學刊。
張慧淳、林曉芳（2013）。合作學習教學策略對國小五年級學童數學學習成效之影響─以數與量為例，教師專業研究期刊，5，1-30.
葉彥呈，陳蓮儀，鄭年亨，陳斐卿、陳德懷（2012）。支援國小數學文字題之擬題活動設計與評估。第16屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會，台灣墾丁。
二、英文部分

Ahmad, S., Zanzali, A., & Azlan, N. (2006). Problem posing abilities in mathematics of Malaysian primary year 5 children: an exploratory study. Jurnal Pendidikan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 11, 1-9.
Bonotto, C. (2010). Realistic mathematical modeling and problem posing. InModeling Students′ Mathematical Modeling Competencies (pp. 399-408). Springer US.
Bonotto, C. (2011). Engaging students in mathematical modelling and problem posing activities. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(3), 18-32.
Bonotto, C. (2013). Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 37-55.
Cai, J. (1998). An investigation of US and Chinese students’ mathematical problem posing and problem solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(1), 37-50.
Cai, J. (2003). Singaporean students′ mathematical thinking in problem solving and problem posing: An exploratory study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(5), 719-737.
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 401-421.
Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber T. (2013). Mathematical Problem Posing as a Measure of Curricular Effect on Student’s Learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 57-69.
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Hamer, J. (2008, January). The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions. In Proceedings of the tenth conference on Australasian computing education-Volume 78 (pp. 69-74). Australian Computer Society, Inc..
Ellerton, N. F. (1986). Children′s made-up mathematics problems: a new perspective on talented mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(3), 261-271.
English, L. D. (1997). The development of fifth-grade children’s problem-posing abilities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(3), 183–217
English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83–106.
Francisco, J. M. (2013). Learning in collaborative settings: students building on each other’s ideas to promote their mathematical understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 417-438.
Keşan, C., Kaya, D. ve Güvercin, S. (2010). The effect of problem posing approach to the gifted student’s mathematical abilities. International Online Journal of Educational Science, 2(3), 677-787.
Shuk-kwan, S. (1997). On the role of creative thinking in problem posing. ZDM,29(3), 81-85.
Leung, S. S., & Silver, E. A. (1997). The role of task format, mathematics knowledge, and creative thinking on the arithmetic problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 5-24.
Lewis, T., Petrina, S. & Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem Posing-Adding a Creative Increment to Technological Problem Solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(1).
Lin, K. M., & Leng, L. W. (2008). Using problem-posing as an assessment tool. In 10th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, Singapore.
Lowrie, T. J. (1999). Free problem-posing: Year 3/4 students constructing problems for friends to solve. In J. M. Truran & K. M. Truran (Eds.), Making the difference. Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA 22) (pp. 328-335). Adelaide: MERGA.
Lowrie, T. (2002). Young children posing problems: The influence of teacher intervention on the type of problems children pose. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(2), 87-98.
Mullis, V.S. I., Martin, O. M., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007. International Mathematics Report. TIMSS&PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report.
Nakano, A., Hirashima, T., & Takeuchi, A. (2002). An Evaluation of Intelligent Learning Environment for Problem Posing. Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: ITS2002, (pp861-872)
Nicolaou, A. A., & Philippou, G. N. (2007). Efficacy beliefs, problem posing, and mathematics achievement. In Proceedings of the V Congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (pp. 308-317).
Richardson, J., & Williamson, P. (1982). Towards autonomy in infant mathematics′. Research in Mathematics Education in Australia, 109-136.
Rudnitsky, A., Etheredge, S., Freeman, S. J., & Gilbert, T. (1995). Learning to solve addition and subtraction word problems through a structure-plus-writing approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(5), 467-486.
Şengül, S., & Katranci, Y. (2012). Problem solving and problem posing skills of prospective mathematics teachers about the ‘sets’ subject. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1650-1655.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14 (1), 19-28.
Silver, E. A. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: looking back, looking around, and looking ahead. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 157-162.
Silver, E. A, & Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 521-539.
Silver, E. A., Mamona-Downs, J., Leung, S. S., & Kenney, P. A. (1996). Posing mathematical problems: An exploratory study. Journal for research in mathematics Education, 293-309.
Stoyanova, E., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posng in school mathematics. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (pp. 518-525). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. The University of Melbourne.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical-norms manual. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Van Den Brink, J. (1987). Children as arithmetic book authors. For the learning of mathematics, 44-47.
Van Harpen, X. Y., & Presmeg, N. C. (2013). An investigation of relationships between students’ mathematical problem-posing abilities and their mathematical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 117–132.
Van Harpen, X. Y., & Sriraman, B. (2013). Creativity and mathematical problem posing: an analysis of high school students′ mathematical problem posing in China and the USA. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 201-221.
Wilson, E. V. (2004). ExamNet asynchronous learning network: augmenting face-to-face courses with student-developed exam questions. Computers & Education, 42(1), 87-107.
Xia, X., Lü, C., & Wang, B. (2008). Research in mathematics instruction experiment based problem posing. Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 153-163.
Yu, F. Y. (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1129-1138.
Yu, F. Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 56(2), 484-494.

指導教授

陳斐卿(Fei-ching Chen)

審核日期

2014-7-29

推文