不同策略教學及鷹架中介設計對個體數學文字題解題學習潛能開展效益影響之動態評量研究

The Effects of Strategy Instruction and Scaffolding Mediation in Dynamic Assessment for Facilitating First Graders' Learning Potential on Mathematical Problem Solving

10.6251/BEP.20070926

許家驊(Chia-Hua Hsu)

可能發展區間ZPD ； 動態評量 ； 解題策略教學 ； 學習潛能開展 ； 鷹架教學中介 ； dynamic assessment DA ； learning potential facilitation ； mediation of scaffolding instruction ； strategy instruction of mathematical problem solving MPS ； zone of proximal development ZPD

教育心理學報

39卷4期（2008 / 06 / 01）

513 - 532

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討不同策略教學（認知解題與整合解題）及鷹架中介（漸進提示、解題歷程教學與連續中介）動態評量設計對未曾學過二步驟加減法解題個體之潛能開展效益影響，採二因子2×3變異數實驗設計外加參照組進行，實驗細格施予不同處理組合，參照組給予自我練習。結果發現不論在二步驟解題立即獲益、延宕獲益及三步驟解題（遷移）表現上，兩個因子間雖無整體交互作用，然除策略教學之遷移表現外，均各具主要效果，整合解題顯著優於認知解題，連續中介顯著優於漸進提示及解題歷程教學，後二者間無顯著差異，各組均顯著優於參照組並具大幅效果值及關聯強度。故採檢核教導融入認知解題整合策略或連續中介，其效益優於認知解題或其他中介形式。

This study examined the effects of strategy instruction and scaffolding mediation in dynamic assessment through a two-way ANOVA (2×3) factorial experimental design. In addition, a contingent control group was used to clarify the effects of each group more precisely. Overall, the results indicate significant main effects of the factorial design without interaction effects, and such findings were the same in all analyzed scores except for the transfer performances of strategy instruction. Furthermore, the effects of integrated-form were better than the effects of cognitive-form in strategy instruction. The effects of continuum of assessment model were better than the others, but there were no differences between graduated prompting hierarchy and process-oriented instruction. The performances of all treatment groups were better than the contingent control group. Finally, there were large effect size and strength of association in almost all analyses.

1. 江淑卿(2001)。兒童類比推理能力的學習潛能評估研究。教育心理學報，33(1)，47-64。
   連結：
2. 許家驊(2005)。開展個體數學解題檢核能力之動態評量研究。教育心理學報，36(3)，287-309。
   連結：
3. 許家驊(2005)。鷹架個體數學解題與遷移學習潛能延展性之動態評量研究。教育心理學報，36(4)，311-333。
   連結：
4. 許家驊、邱上真、張新仁(2003)。多階段動態評量對國小學生數學學習促進與補救效益之分析研究。教育心理學報，35(2)，141-166。
   連結：
5. Budoff, M.,C. S. Lidz (Ed.)(1987).Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential.New York:The Guilford Press.
6. Campione, J. C.,Brown, A. L.,C. S. Lidz (Ed.)(1987).Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential.New York:The Guilford Press.
7. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Feuerstein, R.,Rand, Y.,Jensen, M. R.,Kaniel, S.,Tzuriel, D.,C. S. Lidz (Ed.)(1987).Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential.New York:The Guilford Press.
9. Fuson, K. C.,D. A. Grouws (Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics.New York:Macmillan.
10. Garofalo, J.,Lester, F. K.(1985).Metacogniton, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance.Journal for Reaserch in Mathematics Education,16(3),163-176.
11. Haywood, H. C.,Tzuriel, D.,Vaught, S.(1992).Interactive assessment.New York:Springer-Verlag.
12. Hutchinson, N. L.(1992).The challenges of componential analysis: Cognitive and metacognitive instruction in mathematical problem solving.Journal of Learning Disabilities,25(4),249-252,257.
13. Jitendra, A. K.,Kameenui, E. J.(1993).Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment approach: A description and analysis.Remedical and Special Education,14(5),6-18.
14. Kirk, R. E.(1995).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences.Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company.
15. Kroesbergen, E. H.,Van Luit, J. E. H.(2003).Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta analysis.Remidial and Special Education,24(2),97-114.
16. Krulik, S. K.,Rudnick, J. A.(1989).Problem solving: A handbook for senior high school teachers.Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
17. Lester, F. K.,Garofalo, J.,Kroll, D. L.(1989).Bloomington, Indiana University, School of Education, Mathematics Education Development Center.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
18. Lidz, C. S.(1991).Practitioner`s guide to dynamic assessment.New York:The Guilford Press.
19. Montague, M.,Warger, C.,Morgan, T. H.(2000).Solve it! strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem solving.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,15(2),110-116.
20. Pugalee, D. K.(2001).Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: looking for connections through students` work in mathematical problem solving.School Science and Mathematics,101(5),236-244.
21. Schurter, W. A.(2002).Comprehension monitoring: An aid to mathematical problem solving.Journal of Developmental Education,26(2),22-33.
22. Swanson, H. L.,Lussier, C. M.(2001).A selective synthesis of experimental literature on dynamic assessment.Review of Educational Research,71(2),321-363.
23. Vye, N. J.,Burns, M. S.,Delclos, V. R.,Bransford, J. D.,C. S. Lidz (Ed.)(1987).Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential.New York:The Guilford Press.
24. Vygotsky, L. S.,M. Cole,V. J. Steiner,S. Scribner,E. Souberman, (Eds.,Trans.)(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
25. 古明鋒(1998)。加減法應用題語文知識對問題難度之影響暨動態評量在應用問題之學習與遷移歷程上研究。新竹師院學報，11，391-420。
26. 朱經明、蔡玉瑟(2000)。動態評量在診斷國小五年級數學障礙學生錯誤類型之應用成效。特殊教育研究學刊，18，173-189。
27. 吳國銘、洪碧霞、邱上真(1995)。國小學童在動態評量中數學解題學習歷程與遷移效益之探討。測驗年刊，42，61-84。
28. 康軒文化事業股份有限公司(2005)。一下國小數學課本（第二冊）及教學手冊。台北市:
29. 許家驊(2001)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學教育學系。
30. 許家驊(2004)。多階段動態評量在現行國小課程數學文字題單元教學中之應用效益探析。教育與心理研究，27(4)，721-749。
31. 許家驊(2006)。應用多階段動態評量發展國小數學文字題解題補救教學模式之效益分析研究。教育與心理研究，29(4)，655-686。

1. 陳穎謙、陳清檳、張仁誠、李靜儀(2010)。電腦輔助製造2D 技術學習評量系統之建構。數位學習科技期刊，2(2)，50-64。
2. 林意雪(2010)。文化工具做爲教與學之分析架構：一個文學圈的實例探討。當代教育研究，18(4)，79-119。
3. 劉玉玲(2016)。國中生數學學業情緒及數學學習策略與數學學業成就之研究。課程與教學，19(2)，161-192。
4. 劉玉玲(2021)。運用MSE模式於國中數學補救教學之合作式行動研究。教育心理學報，53(2)，407-435。
5. 劉玉玲,沈淑芬(2019)。國中生數學自我概念、數學學習策略與數學學業成就之模式建構。課程與教學，22(3)，187-214。
6. 劉玉玲、沈淑芬(2015)。數學自我概念、數學學習策略、數學學業情緒與數學學業成就之研究－自我提升模式觀點。教育心理學報，46(4)，491-516。
7. 孫慧茹、洪碧霞(2013)。國民小學代數動態評量的發展與應用。數位學習科技期刊，5(2)，59-82。
8. 薛岳、劉玉玲(2013)。國中生數學學業自我概念及數學學習策略與數學學業成就之研究-自我提升模式觀點。課程與教學，16(1)，179-208。
9. 鍾怡臻、蕭輔萱、蕭劭芬、張芸瑄、張云綺、王文伶(2014)。非標準化學習潛能中介模式動態評量對國中資源班學生數學學習成效初探。特殊教育季刊，131，23-32。