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

The Differentiated Effects of Process-Oriented Design and Learning Strategy Instruction in Dynamic Assessment for First Graders' Learning on Word Problem Solving

10.6251/BEP.20100512

許家驊(Chia-Hua Hsu)

可能發展區間 ； 解題自我調節 ； 解題歷程動態評量 ； 學習策略 ； 學習潛能 ； dynamic assessment DA of mathematical problem solving MPS ； learning potential ； learning strategy ； self-regulation in MPS ； zone of proximal development ZPD

教育心理學報

43卷1期（2011 / 09 / 01）

127 - 154

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討不同歷程導向設計（歷程導向及非歷程導向）及學習策略中介教導（認知整合後設認知及歸因、認知整合歸因、認知）動態評量設計對不同層次（認知及高層心智）個體解題潛能開展效益之影響，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。結果發現在不同層次表現，兩因子間雖無整體交互作用，然各具主要效果，歷程導向顯著優於非歷程導向且有助於解題及遷移，認知整合後設認知及歸因顯著優於餘二者，且有助於解題及自我調節表現，但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。故採歷程導向、認知整合後設認知及歸因中介設計，其不同層次促進效益優於其他中介形式。

ANOVA with a 2×3 factorial experimental design was used to examine effects of the independent variables of xxx and xxx on the dependent variables of xxx and xxx. A contingent control group was added to clarify the effects of treatment vs. no-treatment. No interaction effect was reported. However, the main effects of the variables of xxx and xxx were found on xxx as well as the simple gain scores, deferred gain scores and transfer performances except for the scores of self-regulated learning (SRL) in process-oriented design (POD). The effects of POD are better than counterpart both on solving and transfer scores, the effects of cognitive integrated metacognitive with attribution strategy instruction are better than others both on solving and SRL scores, but there are no differences on the scores of cognitive integrated attribution and cognitive strategy instruction. Finally, the effects of all treatment groups are better than control group.

1. 許家驊(2010)。國小解題運作記憶表現作業之編製發展與實測分析研究。教育學刊，34，143-177。
   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(2009)。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。教育心理學報，40(4)，683-706。
   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. Allsopp, D. H.,Kyger, M. M.,Lovin, L.,Gerretson, H.,Carson, K. L.,Ray, S.(2008).Mathematics dynamic assessment.Teaching Exceptional Children,40(3),6-16.
6. Berman, J.(2003).An application of dynamic assessment within school psychology.Australian Journal of Psychology,55,100-103.
7. Boekaerts, M.,Corno, L.(2005).Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention.Applied Psychology: An International Review,54(2),199-231.
8. Borkowski, J. G.(1992).Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills.Journal of Learning Disabilities,25(4),253-257.
9. Caffrey, E.,Fuchs, D.,Fuchs, L. S.(2008).The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review.Journal of Special Education,41(4),254-270.
10. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Cornford, L. R.(2002).Learning-to-learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning.International Journal of Lifelong Education,21(4),357-368.
12. Desoete, A.,Roeyers, H.(2005).Cognitive skills in mathematical problem solving in grade 3.British Journal of Educational Psychology,75,119-138.
13. Elliott, J.(2003).Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential.Educational Review,55(1),15-32.
14. Fuchs, L. S.,Fuchs, D.,Hamlett, C. L.,Hope, S. K.,Hollenbeck, K. N.,Capizzi, A. M.(2006).Extending resposiveness-to-intervention to math problem-solving at third grade.Teaching Exceptional Children,38(4),59-63.
15. Gagne'', E. D.,Yekovich, C. K.,Yekovich, F. R.(1993).The cognitive psychology of school learning.New York, NY:HarperCollins College.
16. Garofalo, J.,Lester, F. K.(1985).Metacogniton, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance.Jourrnal for Research in Mathematics Education,16(3),163-176.
17. Haywood, H. c.,Tzuriel, D.(2002).Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment.Peabody Journal of Education,77(2),40-63.
18. Holschuh, J. P.,Nist, S. L.,Olejnik, S.(2001).Attributions to failure: The effect of effort ability, and learning strategy use on perceptions of future goals and emotional responses.Reading Psychology,22,153-173.
19. Hutchinson, N. L.(1992).The challenges of componential analysis: Cognitive and metacognitive in struction in mathematical problem solving.Journal of Learning Disabilities,25(4),249-252|257.
20. Jitendra, A. K.,Kameenul, E.J.(1996).Experts' and novices' error patterns in solving part-whole mathematical word problems.Journal of Educational Research,90(1),42-52.
21. Jitendra, A. K.,Sczesniak, E.,Griffin, C. C.,Deatline-Buchman, A.(2007).Mathematical word problem solving in third-grade classrooms.Journal of Educational Research,100(5),283-302.
22. Kirk, R. E.(1995).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences.Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.
23. Lester, F. K.(ed.)(2007).Second Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics.Charlotte, NC:Information Age.
24. Lidz, C. S.(ed.),Elliot, J. G.(ed.)(2000).Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications.Amsterdam:JAI.
25. Monlaglle, M.,Dietz, S.(2009).Evaluating the evidence base for cognilive strategy in struction and mathematical problem solving.Exceptional Children,755(3),285-302.
26. Montague, M.(2008).Self-regulation strategies to improve mahtematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly,31(1),37-44.
27. 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.
28. Owen, R. L.,Fuchs, L. S.(2002).Mathematical problem-solving strategy instruction for third-grade strudents with learning disabilities.Remedial and Special Education,23(5),268-278.
29. Peltenburg, M.,van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M.,Doig, B.(2009).Mathematical power of special-needs pupils: an ICT-based dynamic assessment format to reveal weak pupils' learning potential.British Journal of Educational Technology,40(2),273-284.
30. Pintrich, P. R.(2004).A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students.Educalional Psychology Review,16(4),385-407.
31. Polya, G.(1957).How to solve it.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
32. Schurter, W. A.(2002).Comprehension monitoring: An aid to mathematical problem solving.Journal of Developmental Education,26(2),22-33.
33. Sperling, R. A.,Howard, B. C.,Stanley, R.(2004).Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs.Educational Research and Evaluation,10(2),117-139.
34. Swanson, H. L.,Lussier, C. M.(2001).A selective synthesis of experimental literature on dynamic assessment.Review of Educational Research,71(2),321-363.
35. Vygotsky, L. S.,Cole, M.(ed.),Steiner, V. J.(ed.),Scribner, S.(ed.),Souberman, E.(ed.)/(trans.)(1978).Mind in sociely: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
36. 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。
37. 張英傑編(2007)。國小數學課本（第二冊）。台南:南一。
38. 張新仁(2003)。學習與教學新越勢。台北:心理。
39. 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。
40. 許家驊(2008)。國小數學解題自我調節表現重表之編製發展與實測分析研究。教育與心理研究，31(4)，115-146。
41. 許瑛珍編(2006)。國小數學課本（第一冊）。台南:翰林。
42. 許瑛珍編(2007)。國小數學課本（第二冊）。台南:翰林。
43. 陳冒海編(2006)。國小數學課本（第一冊）。台南:南一。
44. 黃靖淑、黃珊紋、洪碧霞(2000)。強化數學學養的補救教學設計。九年一貫課程改革下補救教學方案研習手冊暨論文彙編，高雄:
45. 楊瑞智編(2007)。國小數學課本（第二冊）。台北:康軒。
46. 楊瑞智編(2006)。國小數學課本（第一冊）。台北:康軒。
47. 鄭國順編(2007)。國小數學課本（第二冊）。台北:國立教育研究院籌備處。
48. 鄭國順編(2006)。國小數學課本（第一冊）。台北:國立教育研究院籌備處。

1. 黃儒傑(2012)。國小弱勢學生數學教科書轉化及教學介入之研究─以成就目標導向與學習成就之改變為例。教科書研究，5(3)，59-98。
2. 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。
3. 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。
4. 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。
5. 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。
6. 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。