中學生對代數式中文字符號之語意理解研究：不同管道的探討

Using Different Approaches to Discuss Junior High School Students' Semantics Understanding of Algebra Letters

10.6173/CJSE.2009.1701.01

陳彥廷(Yen-Ting Chen)；柳賢(Shian Leou)

文字符號 ； 代數學習 ； 語意理解 ； Algebra Learning ； Letters ； Semantics Understanding

科學教育學刊

17卷1期（2009 / 02 / 01）

1 - 25

繁體中文

本研究的目的是運用「測驗」與「語意流程圖晤談」兩種管道偵測七年級個案學生對代數式中文字符號語意之理解，以及檢視「測驗」與「語意流程圖晤談」兩種管道對個案學生文字符號語意理解表現之一致性。蒐集的資料包括2班7年級76位學生測驗的紙筆文件以及15位個案學生晤談的語料。研究結果發現：一、76位學生對「文字符號代表特定數」類別的理解較穩固，對「文字符號代表特定未知數」與「文字符號代表一般數」類別的理解較不穩固；二、他們在「文字符號代表特定數」、「文字符號代表特定未知數」、「文字符號代表一般數」等類別分別出現2個、6個、4個錯誤；三、在文字符號表現為高層次學生多發展出對「文字符號代表一般數」類別的理解，中層次學生有些發展出對「文字符號代表一般數」類別的理解，有些則發展出對「文字符號代表特定未知數」類別的理解，低層次學生則大多只發展出對「文字符號代表特定數」類別的理解。綜合來說，透過「測驗」與「語意流程圖晤談」二個管道的比較，不同層次學生對代數式中文字符號語意理解的結果具有一致性。

This research used ”tests” and ”flow map interviews” to test seventh grade students' semantics understanding of algebra letters and surveyed the results consistently gathered from ”tests” and ”flow map interviews”. The testing documents and student interviews were the sources of data. The results of this study indicated that seventy-six students had stable understandings of ”Letter evaluated”, but had unstable understandings on ”Letters used as a specific unknown” and ”Letters used as a generalized number”. However, seventy-six students had two mistakes in the ”Letter evaluated” category, six mistakes in the ”Letters used as a specific unknown” category, and four mistakes in the ”Letters used as a generalized number” category. Finally, most of high-level students understood the ”Letters used as a generalized number” category, some of mid-level students understood the ”Letters used as a generalized number”, and some of them understood the ”Letters used as a specific unknown”. Generally speaking, comparisons between ”tests” and ”flow map interviews”, indicated that students in different levels had same semantics understanding results about algebra letters.

1. 吳佳玲、張俊彥(2002)。高一學生地球科學問題解決能力與其先備知識及推理能力關係的初探研究。科學教育學刊，10(2)，135-156。
   連結：
2. 林緯倫、連韻文(2001)。如何能發現隱藏的規則？從科學資優生表現的特色，探索提升規則發現能力的方法。科學教育學刊，9(3)，299-322。
   連結：
3. 林緯倫、連韻文、任純慧(2005)。想得多是想得好的前提嗎？探討發散性思考能力在創意問題解決的角色。中華心理學刊，47(3)，211-227。
   連結：
4. 陳振明(2004)。博士論文(博士論文)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學特殊教育所。
   連結：
5. Alsop, S.,Watts, M.(2003).Science education and affect.International Journal of Science Education,25(9),1043-1047.
6. Amabile, T. M.,Barsade, S. G.,Mueller, J. S.,Staw, B. M.(2005).Affect and creativity at work.Administrative Science Quarterly,50(3),367-403.
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science(1993).enchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061.Washington, DC:AAAS Press.
8. Anderson, J. C.,Gerbing, D. W.(1988).Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommends two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin,103(3),411-423.
9. Arbuckle, J.,Wothke, W.(1999).AMOS 4.0 User's Guide.Chicago:Smallwaters Corporation, Inc..
10. Bentler, P. M.,Chou, C. P.(1987).Practical issues in structural modeling.Sociological Methods and Research,16(1),78-117.
11. Blanchette, I.,Richards, A.(2004).Reasoning about emotional and neutral materials: Is logic affected by emotion.Psychological Science,15(11),745-752.
12. Bransford, J.,Brown, A. M.,Cocking, R.(1999).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington DC:National Academy Press.
13. Burnham, K. P.,Anderson, D. R.(1998).Model selection and inference: A practical information-theoretic approach.New York:Springer.
14. Cacioppo, J. T.,Petty, R. E.,Feinstein, J. A.,Jarvis, W. B. G.(1996).Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition.Psychological Bulletin,119(2),197-253.
15. Cavallo, A. M. L.,Rozman, M.,Potter, W. H.(2004).Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors.School Science & Mathematics,104(6),288-300.
16. Clarke, T. E.(2002).Unique features of an R&D work environment and research scientists and engineers.Knowledge, Technology & Policy,15(3),58-69.
17. Coll, R. K.,Taylor, N.,Lay, M. C.(2008).Scientists' habits of mind as evidenced by the interaction between their science training and religious beliefs.International Journal of Science Education,1-31.
18. De Corte, E.,Verschaffel, L.,Masui, C.(2004).The CLIA-model: A framework for designing powerful learning environments for thinking and problem solving.European Journal of Psychology of Education,19(4),365-384.
19. Dunbar, K.,Fugelsang, J.,K. J. Holyoak,R. Morrison(Eds.)(2005).Cambridge handbook of thinking & reasoning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
20. Feist, G. J.(2006).The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind.New Haven, Connecticut:Yale University Press.
21. Filipowicz, A.(2006).From positive affect to creativity: The surprising role of surprise.Creativity Research Journal,18(2),141-152.
22. Gauld, C. F.(2005).Habits of mind, scholarship and decision making in science and religion.Science & Education,14(3-5),291-308.
23. Gawronski, B.,Bodenhausen, G. V.(2006).Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: Conceptual, empirical, and metatheoretical issues.Psychological Bulletin,132(5),745-750.
24. Hassard, J.(2004).The art of teaching science: Inquiry and innovation in middle school and high School.New York:Oxford University Press.
25. Hirt, E. R.,Levine, G. M.,McDonald, H. E.,Melton, R. J.,Martin, L. L.(1997).The role of mood in quantitative and qualitative aspects of performance: Single or multiple mechanisms.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,33(6),602-629.
26. Hu, W.,Adey, P.(2002).A scientific creativity test for secondary school students.International Journal of Science Education,24(4),389-404.
27. Kuhn, D.,U. Goswami(Ed.)(2002).Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development.Malden, MA:Blackwell.
28. Lawson, A. E.(1995).Science teaching and the development of thinking.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
29. Lawson, A. E.(2003).The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching.International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1387-1408.
30. Louis, K. S.,Holdsworth, J. M.,Anderson, M. S.,Campbell, E. G.(2007).Becoming a scientist: The effects of work-group size and organizational climate.Journal of Higher Education,78(3),311-336.
31. McGrayne, S. B.(1998).Nobel prize women in science.Washington, DC:Joseph Henry Press.
32. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
33. Paul, R.,Elder, L.(2006).A miniature guide for students and faculty to scientific thinking.Dillion Beach, CA:Foundation for Critical Thinking.
34. Perkins, D. N.,Tishman, S.(1998).Dispositional aspects of intelligence.Paper presented at the College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe.
35. Perkins, D.,Tishman, S.,Ritchhart, R.,Donis, K.,Andrade, A.(2000).Intelligence in the wild: a dispositional view of intellectual traits.Educational Psychology Review,12(3),269-293.
36. Roberts, T. G.(2003).Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville City, Gainesville.
37. Schauble, L.(2003).Scientific thinking: More on what develops.Human Development,46(2/3),155-160.
38. Sinatra, G. M.,Southerland, S. A.,McConaughy, F.,Demastes, J. W.(2003).Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(5),510-528.
39. Stanovich, K. E.,West, R. F.(1997).Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking.Journal of Educational Psychology,89(2),342-357.
40. Thagard, P.,P. Carruthers,S. Stich,M. Siegal(Eds.)(2002).The cognitive basis of science.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
41. Tirri, K.,Koro-Ljungberg, M.(2002).Critical incidents in the lives of gifted female Finnish scientists.Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,13(4),151-163.
42. Tishman, S.,Jay, E.,Perkins, D. N.(1993).Teaching thinking dispositions: from transmission to enculturation.Theory into Practice,32(3),147-153.
43. Vartanian, O.,Martindale, C.,Kwiatkowski, J.(2003).Creativity and inductive reasoning: The relationship between divergent thinking and performance on Wason's 2-4-6 task.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56(4),641-655.
44. Venville, G.,Adey, P.,Larkin, S.,Robertson, A.(2003).Fostering thinking through science in the early years of schooling.International Journal of Science Education,25(11),1313-1331.
45. Zimmerman, C.(2007).The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school.Developmental Review,27(2),172-223.
46. 王保進(2004)。多變量分析。台北市:高等教育出版社。
47. 史坦諾維奇、楊中芳譯(2005)。這才是心理學。台北市:遠流出版社。
48. 吳明隆、涂金堂(2007)。SPSS與統計應用分析。台北市:五南出版社。
49. 吳青蓉(2002)。博士論文(博士論文)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導所。
50. 吳裕益(2006)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學特教教育學系博士班。
51. 李新洲(2002)。追尋自然之律：20世紀物理學革命。台北縣:世潮出版社。
52. 林彩梅、賴素鈴、鄧旭茹。我國生育率預測方法之探討－趨勢、解構及ARIMA模式比較。臺北科技大學學報，39(1)，251-261。
53. 邱皓政(1992)。認知需求、刺激尋求動機、社會焦慮與個人創造性之關係研究。應用心理學報，1，155-176。
54. 洪振方、謝甫佩(2008)。科學思考習性量表的編製與測量模式之驗證。教育學刊
55. 胡佛、杜諾萬、張家麟譯(2001)。社會科學方法論的思維。臺北縣:韋伯文化。
56. 張玉成(1998)。資優與普通兒童思考技巧特質之比較。臺北師院學報，11，109-150。
57. 張瓊、于祺明、劉文君(1994)。科學理論模型的建構。台北市:淑馨出版社。
58. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市:教育部。
59. 陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2005)。多變量分析方法－統計軟體應用。台北市:五南出版社。
60. 陳耀茂(2004)。共變異數構造分析的AMOS使用手冊。台北市:鼎茂圖書公司。
61. 黃芳銘(2004)。結構方程模式理論與應用。台北市:五南出版社。
62. 愛因斯坦、英費爾德、郭沂譯(1991)。物理學的進化。台北市:水牛出版社。
63. 蔡啟通、丁興祥、高泉豐(1989)。認知需求、腦力激盪與個人的創造性。中華心理學刊，31(2)，107-117。
64. 蕭瑞麟(2006)。不用數字的研究－鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究。台北市:台灣培生教育出版公司。

1. 陳彥廷、柳賢(2009)。運用提問方法促進中學生對代數式中文字符號語意理解之研究：提問模型建構。科學教育學刊，17(3)，203-231。
2. 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。