同儕互教對國中生數學學習成效之影響：準備、講解、互動三階段分析

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：50

、訪客IP：3.138.170.96

姓名

潘荐嘉(Chien-Chang Pan) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

同儕互教對國中生數學學習成效之影響：準備、講解、互動三階段分析
(Examining Learning-by-Teaching Effect on Middle School Students’ Math Learning: A Three-Stage Analysis of Preparing-to-Teach, Explanation, and Interaction)

相關論文

★ 社群媒體中結構化知識活動對英文為外語學生預寫成效之研究	★ 認知風格與先備知識於預測、模擬、觀察、解釋科學探究活動之影響
★ 雲端概念構圖結合小組互動於國小六年級自然科學習成效之研究	★ A synthesis of data-driven pattern analysis on co-construction concept map activity and social learning network
★ TIMSS 2015臺灣資料中學生變項與數學成就之關聯：學習分析取向	★ 以行動者網絡理論探究座落於國小的列聯表
★ 多媒體階層圖於商用英文寫作之成效研究	★ 實施課前結構階層圖對於國中生寫作活動成效之研究
★ 學生對於線上概念構圖融入國文科教學的觀點	★ 幼兒數概念體驗的遊戲化學習環境設計
★ 探討國中生應用英語口說對話機器人的學習動機與接受度	★ 一行禪師正念教育思想之研究

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)

本研究旨在探討國中生的數學同儕互教學習成效、高低分群學生的同儕互教學習成效差異、以及國中生在同儕互教中的準備、講解、互動品質與程度，並透過分析準備、講解、互動程度與考試成績之關聯，初探「教中學」產生歷程。
研究對象為桃園市某國中七年級班級23位學生，依數學能力分為12位高分群學生與11位低分群學生。分別於「指數記法與科學記號」、「因數與倍數」、「最大公因數與最小公倍數」、「指數律」、「代數式的化簡」及「一元一次方程式」六個單元實施同儕互教，每單元流程皆相同。數學老師教完單元內容後，進行單元前測，接著實施含準備、講解、互動三個階段的同儕互教，最後進行單元後測。研究工具包含六個數學單元前後測考卷、教學準備學習單（紀錄準備過程）、錄音筆（紀錄講解與互動過程）、及研究者發展之「準備品質」、「講解品質」、「互動品質」評分方法。由於學生進行教學的題數與難易度不一，因此「品質」後續被轉換為「程度」（指某學生在其最多可以獲得的品質分數中，實際達到多少程度），以標準化每位學生的表現。資料分析方法包含以二因子混合設計MANOVA探討六個單元的同儕互教效果（前後測差異）、及數學能力與同儕互教交互作用效果，並以盒鬚圖描述高低分群學生之準備、講解與互動程度分數分布等。研究結果如下：
一、同儕互教後，整體而言，國中生的後測成績顯著高於前測成績，且高、低分群學生提升相似幅度的分數。也就是說，同儕互教有益於國中生的數學學習，且對高、低分群學生有相似的學習成效。
二、同儕互教中，高分群學生平均準備程度高（60%–70%）、內部差異小，低分群學生平均準備程度低（30%）、但內部差異大。高分群學生平均講解程度高（60%–70%）、但內部差異大；低分群學生平均講解程度低（30%）、內部差異亦大。高、低分群學生平均互動程度皆低（高分群：30%；低分群：10%–20%），但高分群學生內部差異大，而低分群學生內部差異小。
三、與後測成績最相關者仍是前測成績；但在準備、講解、互動中，與後測成績最相關者為講解程度，亦即講解程度可能是預測「教中學」效果的重要指標。
最後，綜合研究結果與對現有文獻之探討，提出國中數學同儕教學實施建議與對未來研究之展望。

摘要(英)

The study aimed to examine the effectiveness of reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) on the academic performance of middle school students in mathematics, the differences in the effectiveness of RPT between high and low math-proficiency students, and the qualities/levels of students’ preparation, explanation, and interaction. The study also attempted to explore the learning-by-teaching effect by analyzing the relationships between the levels of preparation, explanation, interaction, and the test scores.
The study was conducted in a seventh-grade math classroom at a public middle school in Taiwan, involving 23 students (12 high math-proficiency students and 11 low math-proficiency students). Six RPT sessions were implemented for six math topics: Introduction to Exponents and Scientific Notation, Factors and Multiples, Greatest Common Factor and Least Common Multiple, Laws of Exponents, Simplification of Algebraic Expressions, and Algebraic Equations. The procedure for each of the six RPT sessions was identical: after the math teacher covered the topic, a pretest was conducted, followed by RPT session with preparing-to-teach, explanation, and interaction phases. Finally, all students completed the posttest. Pretest and posttest scores, students’ preparing-to-teach worksheets, and audio recordings of students’ verbal explanations and interactions were collected. Self-developed criteria for assessing the qualities of preparation, explanation, and interaction were applied. Since the number and difficulty of questions taught by students varied, qualities were later converted into levels (the extent to which a student reached the maximum achievable quality scores) to standardize students’ performance. A two-way mixed design MANOVA was applied to explore the effects of RPT and the interaction effect between students’ math proficiency and the RPT effect. Box plots were also used to illustrate the distribution of students’ preparation levels, explanation levels, and interaction levels. The results are as follows:
Firstly, overall, after the RPT sessions, middle school students’ posttest scores showed a significant improvement compared to their pretest scores, and this improvement was similar for both high and low math-proficiency students.
Second, during the RPT sessions, students with high math proficiency achieved high preparation levels (60%-70%) with low internal variation, while students with low math proficiency had low preparation levels (30%) with high internal variation. High math proficiency students attained high explanation levels (60%-70%) with high internal variation, while low math proficiency students had low explanation levels (30%) with high internal variation. Both high and low math proficiency students exhibited low interaction levels (high: 30%; low: 10%-20%), with high internal variation among high math proficiency students and low internal variation among low math proficiency students.
Last but not least, among preparing-to-teach, explanation, and interaction, explanation levels had the highest correlation with posttest scores, indicating that explanation level may be a crucial indicator for predicting learning-by-teaching effect.

關鍵字(中)

★ 同儕互教
★ 國中數學
★ 準備程度
★ 講解程度
★ 互動程度
★ 教中學

關鍵字(英)

★ Reciprocal peer tutoring
★ Middle school mathematics
★ Preparation level
★ Explanation level
★ Interaction level
★ Learning by teaching

論文目次

摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
謝詞 v
目錄 vi
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 ix
公式目錄 x
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的與問題 4
第三節名詞釋義 5
第二章文獻探討 9
第一節同儕教學的定義與類型 9
第二節影響同儕教學成效的因素 10
第三節國中數學同儕教學 14
第四節教中學歷程 17
第五節研究焦點 26
第三章研究方法 29
第一節研究對象與分組 29
第二節研究流程 30
第三節研究工具 33
第四節資料分析與處理 45
第四章結果與討論 49
第一節國中生在六個數學單元的同儕互教學習成效 49
第二節國中生的準備、講解與互動分析 57
第三節準備、講解、互動程度與前後測之關係 77
第五章結論與展望 83
第一節結論 83
第二節國中數學同儕教學實施建議 85
第三節研究限制與未來展望 87
參考文獻 89
附錄一研究參與者說明及同意書 95
附錄二「我的教學準備」學習單 96
附錄三教學準備說明與示範 98
附錄四題目登記表 100
附錄五教學指導語卡 104

參考文獻

古舒文、洪雅惠（2021）。圖示問題解決循環策略對國中學習障礙學生數學文字題解題成效之研究。溝通障礙教育，8，頁51–80。https://doi.org/10.6933/TJLCD.202109_8.0003
田德群（2018）。台南市某國中二年級學生實施數學科同儕師徒制對數學學業成績及學習態度改變之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學數學系數學教學碩士班，高雄市。
洪進益（2023年5月18日）。難度提升不慌張！跨越小學升國中的數學4大魔王卡關點〔翻轉教育專欄文章〕。擷取自https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/008308
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2018年6月）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校–數學領域〔教育部國民中小學課程與教學資源整合平臺檔案〕。擷取自https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/27338/72246.pdf
梁韻霛（2018）。自發、互動、共好：應用同儕教導於國小六年級數學課室之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學傳播科技研究所課程與教學碩士班，臺北市。
陳詠絜、方德隆（2019）。以學習投入觀點探究不同數學程度國中生之分組合作學習經驗。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，47，頁31–62。
陳德懷（2011）。數位科技與台灣未來二十年教學的趨勢。前瞻科技與管理，1（1），頁1–13。
傅粹馨（1997）。多變量變異數分析的顯著性考驗。教育研究，5，頁1–14。
鄭玉真（2013）。實施同儕交互指導策略對八年級學生數學自我效能與學習成就影響之行動研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所數理教學碩士班，彰化市。
蘇義傑（2013）。應用同儕教學於國中二年級學生的學習成效之研究─以一元二次方程式為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學應用數學系，臺南市。
Alegre, F., Moliner, L., Lorenzo-Valentin, G., & Maroto, A. (2021). Learning statistics and probability through peer tutoring: A middle school experience. South African Journal of Education, 41, S1–S9. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41ns2a1861
Alegre, F., Moliner, L., Maroto, A., & Lorenzo-Valentin, G. (2019a). Peer tutoring and mathematics in secondary education: Literature review, effect sizes, moderators, and implications for practice. Heliyon, 5(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02491
Alegre, F., Moliner, L., Maroto, A., & Lorenzo-Valentin, G. (2019b). Peer tutoring in algebra: A study in middle school. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(6), 693–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1693947
Alegre-Ansuátegui, F. J., Moliner, L., Lorenzo, G., & Maroto, A. (2018). Peer tutoring and academic achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79805
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K., Williams, L., Greenwood, C., & Parker, R. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087490
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Instructional Science, 40, 559–588.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9190-5
Duran, D. (2017). Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717–741.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031001104
Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Huber, J. D. (1992). Mechanisms that generate questions. In T. W. Lauer, E. Peacock, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Questions and information systems (pp. 167–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027004664
Kingsdorf, S., & Krawec, J. (2014). Error analysis of mathematical word problem solving across students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12029
Kobayashi, K. (2022). Learning by teaching face-to-face: The contributions of preparing-to-teach, initial-explanation, and interaction phases. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37, 551–566.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00547-z
Koh, A. W. L., Lee, S. C., & Lim, S. W. H. (2018). The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3410
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Leung, K. C. (2015). Preliminary empirical model of crucial determinants of best practice for peer tutoring on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 558–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037698
Leung, K. C. (2019). An updated meta-analysis on the effect of peer tutoring on tutors’ achievement. School Psychology International, 40(2), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318808832
Maheady, L., & Gard, J. (2010). Classwide peer tutoring: Practice, theory, research, and personal narrative. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210376359
Moliner, L., & Alegre, F. (2020). Peer tutoring effects on students’ mathematics anxiety: A middle school experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1610, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01610
Nestojko, J. F., Bui, D. C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E. L. (2014). Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1038–1048.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0416-z
Olson, C. L. (1974). Comparative robustness of six tests in multivariate analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(348), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10480224
Renkl, A. (1995). Learning for later teaching: An exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learning and Instruction, 5(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)00015-H
Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42, 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534–574. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309920
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5
Song, Y., Loewenstein, G., & Shi, Y. (2018). Heterogeneous effects of peer tutoring: Evidence from rural Chinese middle schools. Research in Economics, 72(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2017.05.002
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172
Topping, K. J., Kearney, M., McGee, E., & Pugh, J. (2004). Tutoring in mathematics: A generic method. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/030910042000275954
Topping, K., Miller, D., Murray, P., & Conlin, N. (2011). Implementation integrity in peer tutoring of mathematics. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.585949
Wang, Y., Lin, L., & Chen, O. (2021). The benefits of teaching on comprehension, motivation, and perceived difficulty: Empirical evidence of teaching expectancy and the interactivity of teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1275-1290. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12416
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1
Yang, E. F. Y., Chang, B., Cheng, H. N. H., & Chan, T. W. (2016). Improving pupils’ mathematical communication abilities through computer-supported reciprocal peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 157–169.

指導教授

張立杰(Li-Chieh Chang)

審核日期

2023-10-31

推文