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：33

、訪客IP：3.14.248.158

姓名	黃佩岑(Pei-Tsen Huang)  查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	學習與教學研究所
論文名稱	數學自由擬題之困境歷程與擁有感轉變 (Process Difficulties and Transformation of Psychological Ownership in Free Math Problem-Posing)
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 ★ 數學擬題活動的合作效果─五年級學童之經驗 ★ 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
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)	培養學生喜愛數學是教育事業的核心關切。臺灣地區國民小學學生的數學國際排名名列前茅，然而學生在自信心與喜歡數學的程度卻持續殿後，似乎學生有著不錯的解題能力、卻不甚喜歡「解題」這種活動。因此，本研究採數學自由擬題的一題多磨活動，不僅了解學生的困境歷程為何，而且透過學生對題目的擁有感，進而探討擁有感的轉變為何。 研究場域為北台灣一間國小，研究對象為兩班五年級共56位學生。本研究設計採數學自由擬題的課程，施測時間各班總計長達十堂課，共計400分鐘。採用混合研究法，探討研究問題一：在數學自由擬題的困境歷程為何，分別有擬題、建議和修改等三類困境。資料蒐集有題目卷、建議卷、學習單、田野筆記以及訪談。資料分析以逐字稿為主，輔以相關文件；逐字稿的編碼系統採紮根精神的開放性編碼。探討研究問題二：在數學自由擬題歷程的擁有感轉變為何，以個人與集體擁有感問卷調查為主，統計分析採相依樣本 t 檢定、單因子重複測量變異數分析比較差異。 研究結果有五：一、知易行難的擬題困境：想法實現在題目、數學概念融入題目、出不來具挑戰性的題目，以及自擬的題目卻不會解題的困境。二、難掌握複雜型的建議困境：試答遇上數字大計算困難、自認能力不足、題目的字數多，以及題目問題多連帶計算步驟也多的困境。三、建議分歧不易採納的修改困境：自認能力不足、增加題目內容、難解題、數字安排的修改、琢磨題目的完整性，以及無幫助的建議內容。四、在數學自由擬題的四個階段內整體集體擁有感都顯著高於個人擁有感，且達顯著差異。五、個人擁有感的發展在第三階段開始有顯著上升；集體擁有感的發展則是在四階段無顯著差異。 本文的具體貢獻：本研究證實擬題活動打破學生不喜愛的刻板印象，雖然在擬題、建議與修改上會帶些困境和負面情感，但是從生產題目到答題來看，學生投入班級題庫與擂臺賽情形仍是熱絡參與，足以作為教學現場的參考與啟發。研究侷限在所難免，未來研究可以朝向擁有感量表的翻修與檢驗；探究給建議的鷹架設計。
摘要(英)	Motivating students to enjoy learning math is one of the main objectives of compulsory education in Taiwan. A recent assessment conducted by the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) shows that primary school students in Taiwan are at a top-performed level, but their level of confidence in math is lower than most of other countries. This result implies that primary school students in Taiwan may not enjoy solving math problems even though they are able to apply their knowledge in a variety of relatively complex math problems. To further understand this challenge facing the students, this study adopts the free math problem-posing curricular – specifically, the one problem, many revised versions – activities in two classrooms and explores the transition of psychological ownership during the problem-posing. The fieldwork, the free math problem-posing activities (10 classes, total 400 minutes to each class), was conducted in two 5th grade classrooms that comprise 56 students (the subjects) of a primary school in Northern Taiwan. Using mixed research methods, this study first explores the difficulties at the stage of posing, suggesting, and modifying during the problem-posing activities. Data was collected from the answered questionnaire, feedback notes, fieldwork memos, and it was analyzed mainly through the transcriptions from the interviews. Open coding system based on the grounded theory was adopted for the transcriptions. The second inquiry of this study is to examine the transition of psychological ownership during the free math problem-posing activities. Data analyzed was collected from the surveys of individual and collective psychological ownership during the problem-posing activities. As for the quantitative analysis, the dependent sample t-test and the one-way repeated measures ANOVA were conducted. The main findings from this study: 1) Difficulties of problem-posing , students encountered difficulties in posing advanced math problems and embedding mathematic concepts into the questions they posed as well as in solving the problem they posed, even they have understood well those concepts; 2) Difficulties of making good suggestions, students were not able to give constructive suggestions especially when they encountered math problems that have large numbers for calculation, they lack of confidence to solve, have long descriptions as well as have a lot of sub-questions and need more steps to solve; 3) Difficulties of making the modifications, students faced difficulties to harmonize disagreements due to the lack of confidence, adding contents of the problems, difficult posed-questions, changing of numeric arrangements, consideration of the completeness of the problems, and useless feedback; 4) During the problem-posing, collective psychological ownership was significantly higher than the individual psychological ownership; 5) Individual psychological ownership significantly increased since phase three but collective psychological ownership remained unchanged throughout the posing activities. In summary, as the main contribution, this study shows that although students experienced difficulties and challenges at the stage of posing, feedback and revision, they were still enthusiastically participating in the activities of generating and solving math problems. This finding is opposite from implication according to TIMSS that primary school students in Taiwan may not enjoy solving math problems, and can also serve as a reference for practitioners teaching the related subjects. It is also unavoidable of the research limitation in this study. For future study, it is suggested to improve and further examine the application of the questionnaire regarding psychological ownership as well as the research design for inquiring suggestion, and modification during the problem-posing.
關鍵字(中)	★ 數學自由擬題 ★ 情意面 ★ 集體擁有感 ★ 擬題困境 ★ 同儕互評	關鍵字(英)	★ free math problem-posing ★ affection ★ collective psychological ownership ★ difficulties ★ peer assessment
論文目次	目錄 圖目錄 XIV 表目錄 XVI 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究重要性 4 第三節 研究問題 6 第四節 名詞釋義 8 一、擬題 8 二、困境歷程 8 三、擁有感 8 第二章 文獻評述 11 第一節 數學自由擬題的意涵與相關研究 11 一、定義 11 二、自由類型 11 三、特徵 16 四、活動設計與設計效果 18 五、遭遇的困難 21 第二節 集體擁有感的意涵與相關研究 24 一、擁有感的定義 24 二、集體擁有感的構念定義及其測量工具 25 三、小組合作學習裡的集體擁有感 33 第三節 數學自由擬題與擁有感的關係 37 第三章 研究方法 39 第一節 研究場域 39 一、研究場域：小學 39 二、校方支持 39 三、共同目標：全校擂臺賽 41 第二節 研究對象 43 一、班級導師 43 二、研究對象 43 第三節 活動設計 44 一、實施時程與次數 44 二、活動設計 46 第四節 資料蒐集 61 一、資料蒐集的種類 61 二、依研究問題所蒐集的資料 72 第五節 資料分析 76 第六節 研究信實度 80 第四章 結果與討論 81 第一節 數學自由擬題的困境歷程 81 一、擬題困境：知易行難 81 二、建議困境：難掌握複雜型 91 第二節 數學自由擬題中擁有感的轉變 125 一、在數學自由擬題的四階段內比較個人擁有感與集體擁有感的差異 125 二、個人擁有感與集體擁有感各自在數學自由擬題的四個階段之差異 131 第三節 討論 135 一、在四階段的困境歷程與擁有感轉變 135 二、每個階段都有困境，卻有集體擁有感穩住士氣 136 三、迎向朝陽的個人擁有感 137 第五章 結論與建議 139 第一節 結論 139 第二節 研究限制與建議 141 一、困境歷程的建樹 139 二、擁有感帶動擬題 140 三、數學自由擬題的未來啟發 141 參考文獻 143 一、中文部分 143 二、英文部分 145 附錄一：教師同意研究調查表 155 教師同意研究調查表 155 附錄二：學生同意書 157 附錄三：「我是小小數學老師」活動進班規劃簡介 158 附錄四：擁有感量表各個構念的題目 163 附錄五：我是小小數學老師「出題的感覺」1 169 附錄六：我是小小數學老師「出題的感覺」2 171 附錄七：我是小小數學老師「出題的感覺」3 173 附錄八：我是小小數學老師「出題的感覺」4 175
參考文獻	一、中文部分 王美娟、許立偉（2015）。探討臺灣及芬蘭四年級學生閱讀與數學的態度、信心、課堂興趣對數學能力的影響。國教新知，62（3），79-90。doi:10.6701/TEEJ.201509_62(3).0007 王韻齡（2016年11月28日）。TIMSS國際評比臺灣學生數學、科學成績佳，熱情自信敬陪末座。【新聞】。取自https://flipedu.parenting. com.tw/article/2960 江家瑋（2014）。數學擬題活動的合作效果--五年級學童之經驗（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。 余民寧、韓珮華（2009）。教學方式對數學學習興趣與數學成就之影 響:以TIMSS 2003臺灣資料為例。測驗學刊，56（1），19-48。 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。 林雅雯、江柏叡、曾志隆（2015）。應用合作學習於國中數學課程之前實驗研究。臺灣數學教師，36（2），13-25。 林碧珍（2003）。發展國小教師之學生數學認知知識—理論結合實務研究取向的教師專業發展。臺北：師大師苑。 徐文鈺（1996）。不同擬題教學策略對兒童分數概念、解題能力與擬題能力之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 馬秀蘭（2004）。數學乘除問題情境發展之研究－以BBS爲管道。科學教育學刊，12(1)，53-81。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2004.1201.03 馬秀蘭（2007）。學生思考過程之探究－以實務推理為例。科學教育學刊，15(4)，387-416。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2007.1504.02 單維彰、許哲毓、陳斐卿（2018）。以學前診測與自由擬題探討九年級學生的自發性機率概念。臺灣數學教育期刊，5（2），39-64。 張宜馨（2016）。基於雙層次擬題引導策略之翻轉學習模式對學生學習成效之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣科技大學，臺北市。 張鐵懷、陳斐卿（2016）。小學生玩家展現的電玩實踐社群知識—以數學自由擬題為例。科學教育學刊，24（1），31-55。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2016.2401.02 梁淑坤（1996）。從佈題談數學教科書的評鑑。教育論壇國民小學教科書之評鑑研討會之三（國語、數學、道德與健康科教科書之評鑑），20-23，國立臺北師範學院。 陳大魁（2002）。談從9年一貫到12年一貫數學銜接的幾個面向。科學教育月刊，253，51-57。 陳斐卿（2019）。協作學習與知識共構之課程大綱。取自http://lain.atm.ncu.edu.tw/fcc/download/syl_2018_CLKB_20180911.pdf 陳斐卿、江家瑋、張鐵懷、黃佩岑、單維彰（2015）。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，23（2），185-211。 曾雅君（2013）。轉換型領導、集體組織擁有感、組織承諾和組織公民行為關係之研究—以餐旅業為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。 黃永和、李佳潔（2013）。營造討論的學習環境：一個班級的教學實踐經驗。新竹教育大學教育學報，30（2），29-64。 黃佩岑、陳斐卿（2020）。國小學生數學自由擬題困難之初探。弘光學報，85，59-80。doi: 10.6615/HAR.202003_(85).0005 黃佩岑、陳斐卿（2017）。擁有感的變化－以建立班級數學題庫之過程為例。清華教育學報，34（2），131-172。doi:10.3966/252190062017123402004 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，臺灣墾丁。 廖遠光、張澄清（2016）。學生擬題教學對情意學習成效及學業成就影響之後設分析。教育科學研究期刊，61（3），1-42。   二、英文部分 Abu-Elwan, R. (1999). The development of mathematical problem posing skills for prospective middle school teachers. In A. Rogerson (Ed.) Proceedings of the international conference on mathematical education into the 21st century: Social challenges, Issues and approaches, 2, 1-8, Cairo, Egypt. Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13-17. Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(2), 173-191. Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 21–34. Balka, D. S. (1974). The development of an instrument to measure creative ability in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36(1), 98. (UMI No. AAT 7515965). Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy and health behaviour. In A. Baum, S. Newman, J. Wienman, R. West, & C. McManus (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, health and medicine (pp. 160-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bonotto, C. (2010). Realistic mathematical modeling and problem posing. In R. Lesh, P. Galbraith, C. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (ICTMA 13) (pp. 399–408). New York, NY: Springer. Bonotto, C. (2011). Engaging students in mathematical modeling and problem posing activities. Journal of Mathematical Modeling and Application, 1(3), 18–32. Bonotto, C. (2013). Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 37–55. Bonotto, C. (2015). On the relationship between problem posing, problem solving, and creativity in the primary school. In C. Bonotto & L. D. Santo (Eds. ). Mathematical Problem Posing (pp. 103-123). Springer, New York, NY. Brown, G., & Crossley, C. (2008). What about psychological ownership and territoriality? Questions we are starting to ask. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Los Angeles. Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 577-594. Cai, J., & Leikin, R. (2018). Call for papers: Educational studies in mathematics special issue. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(3), 243-244. Cankoy, O. (2014). Interlocked problem posing and children’s problem posing performance in free structured situations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 219-238. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2011). Collaboration and psychological ownership: How does the tension between the two influences perceived learning? Social Psychology of Education, 14(2), 283-298. Chang, N. (2007). Responsibilities of a teacher in a harmonic cycle of problem solving and problem posing. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(4), 265–271. Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Weng, S. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2012). Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), 775-786. Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM, 37(3), 149-158. Contzen, N., & Marks, S. J. (2018). Increasing the regular use of safe water kiosk through collective psychological ownership: A mediation analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 45-52. Cram, F., & Paton, H. (1993). Personal possessions and self‐identity: The experiences of elderly women in three residential settings. Australian Journal on Ageing, 12(1), 19-24. Crespo, S., & Sinclair, N. (2008). What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 395-415. Dawkins, S., Tian, A., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, , 38(2), 163-183. Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Hamer, J. (2008). Student use of the PeerWise system. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 73-77. Dirks, R. P., Kraft, H. J., Van Genesen, S. T., Klok, E. J., Pfundt, R., Schoenmakers, J. G., & Lubsen, N. H. (1996). The cooperation between two silencers creates an enhancer element that controls both the lens‐preferred and the differentiation stage‐specific expression of the rat βB2‐crystallin gene. European Journal of Biochemistry, 239(1), 23-32. Dittmar, H. (1992). Perceived material wealth and first impressions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 379-392. Dunker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 270. Ellerton, N. F. (1986). Children’s made-up mathematics problems—A new perspective on talented mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 261–271. Ellerton, N. F. (2013). Engaging pre-service middle-school teacher-education students in mathe-matical problem posing: Development of an active learning framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 87–101. English, L. D. (1997). The development of fifth-grade children’s problem-posing abilities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 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. Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 465–468. Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 6(1), 49-64. Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 457. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 443-471. Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. G. (2015). Unpacking the mechanism by which psychological ownership manifests at the level of the individual: A dynamic model of identity and self. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 148-165. Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Series in applied psychology: Social issues and questions. Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 115–129). Philadelphia, PA, US: Taylor & Francis. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt. Jussila, I., & Tuominen, P. (2008, August). Collective feelings of possession: Territorial group behaviors in organizations. In Conference paper, presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting (AOM). Anaheim (CA/USA). Jussila, I., Tarkiainen, A., Sarstedt, M., & Hair, J. F. (2015). Individual psychological ownership: Concepts, evidence, and implications for research in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 121-139. Karahanna, E., Xu, S. X., & Zhang, N. (2015), Psychological ownership motivation and use of social media. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 185-207. Koichu, B., & Kontorovich, I. (2013). Dissecting success stories on mathematical problem posing: A case of the Billiard Task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 71-86. Kontorovich, I., & Koichu, B. (2009). Towards a comprehensive framework of mathematical problem posing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 401-408). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME. Kontorovich, I., Koichu, B., Leikin, R., & Berman, A. (2012). An exploratory framework for handling the complexity of mathematical problem posing in small groups. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 149-161. Kostova, T. (1996). Success of the transnational transfer of organizational practices within multinational companies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2019). Understanding the participation of passive members in online brand communities through the lens of psychological ownership theory. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 36, 100859. Kwek, M. L. (2015). Using problem posing as a formative assessment tool. In Mathematical problem posing (pp. 273-292). Springer, New York, NY. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press. Lavy, I., & Shriki, A. (2010). Engaging in problem posing activities in a dynamic geometry setting and the development of prospective teachers’ mathematical knowledge. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(1), 11-24. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123. Lee, J. & Such, A. (2015). How do virtual community members develop psychological ownership and what are the effects of psychological ownership in virtual communities? Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 382-391. Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255-275. Leung, S. S. (1997). On the role of creative thinking in problem posing. Zentralbatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (ZDM), 29, 81–85. Leung, S. S. (2013). Teachers implementing mathematical problem posing in the classroom: Challenges and strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 103–116. doi:10.1007/ s10649-012-9436-4. Leung, S. S. (2016). Mathematical problem posing: A case of elementary school teachers developing tasks and designing instructions in Taiwan. In Felmer P., Pehkonen E., ＆ Kilpatrick J. (Series Ed.), Posing and Solving Mathematical Problems: Advances and New Perspectives (pp.327-344). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28023-3 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. Lowrie, T. (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 (pp. 328–335). Sydney, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Lowrie, T. (2002a). Designing a framework for problem posing: Young children generating open-ended tasks. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 354–364. Lowrie, T. (2002b). Young children posing problems: The influence of teacher intervention on the type of problems children pose. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(2), 87–98. Mallart, S. A., Font, M. V., & Díez Palomar, F. J. (2018). Case study on mathematics pre-service teachers′ difficulties in problem posing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1465-1481. Maslach, C. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Matilainen, A., Pohja-Mykrä, M., Lähdesmäki, M., & Kurki, S. (2017). “I feel it is mine!”–Psychological ownership in relation to natural resources. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 31-45. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS advanced 2015 international results in advanced mathematics and physics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: : TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. O’driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A. M. (2006). The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 388-416. Olckers, C. (2013). Psychological ownership: Development of an instrument. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 39(2), 1-13. Olckers, C., & Du Plessis, Y. (2012). The role of psychological ownership in retaining talent: A systematic literature review. SA Journal of Human Resource Management/SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 10(2), 1-18. doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.v10i2.415 Pelczer, I., & Gamboa, F. (2009, July). Problem posing: Comparison between experts and novices. In Proceedings of the 33th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 353-360). Pelczer, I., Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013a). Cognitive framing: A case in problem posing. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 195–199. Pelczer, I., Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013b). Teaching highly able students in a common class: Challenges and limits. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 8 (pp. 1235–1244). Antalya, Turkey: ERME. Pickford, H. C., Joy, G., & Roll, K. (2016). Psychological ownership: Effects and applications. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2893092 Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 810-834. Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence, and application. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Cummings, A. (2009). Psychological ownership within the job design context: Revision of the job characteristics model. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(4), 477-496. Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Li, D. (2018). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(6), 776-792. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Acedemy of Management Review, 26, 298-310. Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K.T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. Poincare, H. (1948). Science and method. New York: Dover Rousseau, R. (1998). Jaccard similarity leads to the Marczewski-Steinhaus topology for information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 34(1), 87-94. 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, 467-486. Saxe, B. G. (2002). Children’s developing mathematics in collective practices: A framework for analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2/3), 275–300. Schliemann, A. D. (2002). Representational tools and mathematical understanding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2/3), 301–316. Sieger P., Zellweger T., & Aquino K. (2013). Turning agents into psychological principals: Aligning interests of non-owners through psychological ownership. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 361-388. doi:10.1111/joms.12017 Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 19-28. 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., & Cai, J. (2005). Assessing students’ mathematical problem posing. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(3), 129-135. Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N. F., & Cai, J. (2015). Mathematical problem posing. New York, NY: Springer. Silver, E. A. & Mamona, J. (1989). Problem posing by middle school teachers. In C. A. Maher, G. A. Goldin, & R. B. Davis (EDs.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting, North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.263-269). New Brunswick, NJ: Author. Stoyanova, E. & Ellerton, N.F. (1996). A framework for research into student’s problem posing in school mathematics. Technology in mathematics education. Mel bourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia. Su, X. (2017). Collective psychological ownership: An emerging construct for workplace well-being. HKU Theses Online (HKUTO). Su, X., & Ng, S. M. (2018a). The Differential Impacts of Collective Psychological Ownership and Membership Identification on Work Burnout and Engagement. Journal of Social Service Research, 45(1), 44-58. Su, X., & Ng, S. M. (2018b). Development and validation of the collective psychological ownership scale in organizational contexts. International Social Work, 62(5), 1431-1443. Tichá, M., & Hošpesová, A. (2013). Developing teachers’ subject didactic competence through problem posing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 133-143. Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norm-technical manual, bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (1993). Employee ownership: Empirical support for mediated relationships. In 8th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, May. Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439-459. 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. Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group & Organization Management, 20(2), 210-226. Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2017). Collective psychological ownership and intergroup relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1021-1039. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological review, 66(5), 297-333. Wilson, E. V. (2004). ExamNet asynchronous learning network: Augmenting face-to-face courses with student-developed exam questions. Computers & Education, 42(1), 87-107. Xie, J., & Masingila, J. O. (2017). Examining interactions between problem posing and problem solving with prospective primary teachers: A case of using fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 101-118. 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	2020-7-30
推文	facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare