國小加減法數學文字題歷程導向解題診斷評量題組之編製發展與功能分析研究

The Development and Function of Process-Oriented Diagnostic Assessment Battery for First Graders' Learning on Word Problem Solving

10.6251/BEP.20080912

許家驊(Chia-Hua Hsu)

後設認知 ； 測驗信效度 ； 解題評量 ； 解題歷程 ； 解題學習診斷處方 ； diagnosis and prescription in mathematical problem solving MPS ； metacognition ； reliability and validity of test ； the process of MPS ； the assessment of MPS

教育心理學報

40卷4期（2009 / 06 / 01）

683 - 706

繁體中文

本研究旨在參照數學解題歷程模式進行成份（認知、後設認知）分析，並搭配學習內容分析，編製歷程導向單步驟加減法文字題解題診斷評量題組。採合目標與叢集取樣抽取嘉義縣市一年級學生共477人，施測後進行統計分析。在項目分析方面，平均表現水準約75%，單題、各成份及全題組的內部相關與極端組t考驗結果良好。在效度分析方面，主成份、試探性及驗證性因素分析均發現題組的二成份三因子結構（認知成份含基本解題及數量辨識技巧、後設認知成份含檢核技巧），且共同向度性、因素萃取、抽取變異比及模式適配度均屬良好，並具良好之效標關聯及預測效度。在信度分析方面，內部一致性係數及組合信度亦屬良好。而在個案剖面訊息方面，亦具診斷處方功能。

The purpose of this study was to develop the Process-Oriented Diagnostic Assessment Battery (PODAB) for single-step word problem of addition and subtraction through componential and content analyses. Participants were composed of 477 first graders from Chiayi by convenient and cluster sampling. Participants were administered the PODAB. Item analysis suggested good passing percentage, internal correlation and critical ratio, regardless whether in single items, sub-battery or the whole battery. As for construct validity, three factors were suggested by exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (basic solving, quantity identification, and checking skills), and there were appropriate dimentionality, variance proportions of factor extraction, model fit, as well as criterion-related and predictive validity. For reliability, results showed appropriate internal consistency coefficient and composite reliability. Finally, because of individualized information, the battery could provide diagnostic profile and subsequent prescriptions.

1. 陳密桃、李新民、黃秀霜(2007)。台灣地區國民小學教師實用智能、情緒智能與專業表現之相關研究。教育心理學報，39(2)，295-316。
   連結：
2. Bandalos, D. L.,Finney, S. J.,G. A. Marcoulides(Eds.),R. E. Schumacker (Eds.)(2001).New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling.NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Byrne, B. M.(2001).Structural equation modeling with Amos: basic concepts, applications and programming.NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Crocker, L.,Algina, J.(1986).Introduction to classical and modern test theory.Orlando, Florida:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
5. Desoete, A.,Roeyers, H.(2005).Cognitive skills in mathematical problem solving in grade 3.British Journal of Educational Psychology,75,119-138.
6. Fuson, K. C.(Eds.),D. A. Grouws (Eds.)(1992).Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics.NY:Macmillan.
7. Gagne'', E. D.,Yekovich, C. K.,Yekovich, F. R.(1993).The cognitive psychology of school learning.NY:HarperCollins College.
8. Garofalo, J.,Lester, F. K.(1985).Metacogniton, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,16(3),163-176.
9. Hair, J. F.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.,Black(1998).Multivariate data analysis.NJ:Prentice-Hall International.
10. 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.
11. Joreskog, K. G.,Sorbom, D.(1993).Structural equation modeling with SIMPLIS command language.Chicago:Scientific Software International.
12. Kaiser, H. F.(1960).The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.Psychometrika Educational and Psychological Measurement,20,141-151.
13. Kaiser, H. F.(1974).An index of factorial simplicity.Psychometrika,39,31-36.
14. Krulik, S. K.,Rudnick, J. A.(1989).Problem solving: A handbook for senior high school teachers.Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
15. 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.
16. Polya, G.(1957).How to solve it.Princeton NJ:Princeton University Press.
17. Schurter, W. A.(2002).Comprehension monitoring: An aid to mathematical problem solving.Journal of Developmental Education,26(2),22-33.
18. Snow, R. E.,Lohman, D. F.,R. L. Linn (Ed.)(1993).Educational Measurement.Phoenix, Indiana:Oryx Press.
19. Verschaffel, L.,Greer, B.,DeCorte, E.,F. K. Lester (Eds.)(2007).Second Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics.Charlotte, NC:Information Age Publishing Inc.
20. 王保進(2004)。多變量分析－套裝程式與資料分析。台北:五南。
21. 余民寧(2006)。潛在變項模式：SIMPLIS的應用。台北:高等教育。
22. 李茂能(2006)。結構方程式模式軟體Amos之簡介及其在測驗編製上之應用。台北:心理。
23. 邱皓政(2001)。社會與行為科學的量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。台北:五南。
24. 邱皓政(2003)。結構方程模式：LISREL的理論、技術與應用。台北:雙葉。
25. 張英傑編(2007)。國小數學課本。台南:南一。
26. 許瑛珍編(2006)。國小數學課本。台南:翰林。
27. 許瑛珍編(2007)。國小數學課本。台南:翰林。
28. 陳冒海編(2006)。國小數學課本。台南:南一。
29. 楊瑞智編(2007)。國小數學課本。台北:康軒。
30. 楊瑞智編(2006)。國小數學課本。台北:康軒。
31. 鄭國順編(2007)。國小數學課本。台北:國立教育研究院籌備處/翰林。
32. 鄭國順編(2006)。國小數學課本。台北:國立教育研究院籌備處/翰林。

1. 許家驊(2011)。國小中低年級學生解題檢核能力與自我調節表現之關係研究。教育學誌，25，91-137。
2. 許家驊(2011)。歷程導向設計及學習策略中介教導對個體不同層次數學解題學習潛能開展效益影響之動態評量研究。教育心理學報，43(1)，127-154。
3. 林葙葙、林娟如(2014)。幼兒數學認知診斷評量工具初探。教育學誌，32，1-44。
4. 張建妤、柯華葳(2012)。數學成就表現與閱讀理解的關係：以TIMSS 2003數學試題與PIRLS 2006閱讀成就測驗為工具。教育心理學報，44(1)，95-116。
5. (2010)。國小學生運作記憶、自我調節表現與數學解題能力關係之研究。教育研究學報，44(2)，55-84。