數學自由擬題之設計與評量－一個合作的取徑

The Design and Evaluation of Free Math Problem Posing: A Collaborative Approach

10.6173/CJSE.2015.2302.04

陳斐卿(Fei-Ching Chen)；江家瑋(Chia-Wei Chiang)；張鐵懷(Tieh-Huai Chang)；黃佩岑(Belle Pei-Tsen Huang)；單維彰(Wei-Chang Shann)

合作 ； 同儕互評 ； 評量規準 ； 數學 ； 擬題 ； Collaboration ； Peer Assessment ； Rubrics ； Mathematics ； Problem Posing

科學教育學刊

23卷2期（2015 / 06 / 01）

185 - 211

繁體中文

解題能力是正式數學課程主要培養的能力，而擬題能力常被忽略。本研究關切融入合作精神以設計自由擬題課程模組之規劃與實施。合作擬題模組共計約400分鐘，國小四年級學生不受課程單元侷限進行自由擬題，歷經同儕給予建議、出題者修改、同儕試答、出題者批閱後再修改、通過班級與專家檢驗等歷程，在多回合的建議修正之合作氛圍下，完成擬出一個題目的活動。本研究針對自由擬題的題目特徵，發展一份包含四個向度的自由擬題品質規準：可解性、可讀性、生活性、與精緻性；在自由擬題的同儕建議方面，在前述四個向度以外又辨識了四個向度：完備性、情意面、雜類與誤導性。結果顯示，在同儕給予建議的幫助下，擬題品質的版本一與最終版本相比，進步達顯著，其中以精緻性進步最多；同儕給予的建議也以精緻性與題目的進步最為相關，其次是情意面的幫助。這些發現建議：擬題活動涉及的面向並不單純只用到數學能力，值得後續更多的探索。本研究對提升擬題能力的課程設計、評量，以及提高學生對於數學活動的興致皆有所探討。

Problem-posing is usually dwarfed by problem-solving in school mathematics curricula. This study attempted to design a free-form problem-posing curricular module that incorporated collaborative strategies into the activities. The module took about 400 minutes to implement. The 4th grade participants were invited to pose a word problem free of any constraints on subjects or contents. Each initial problem would be evaluated through peer comments, trial work-outs, peer and expert inspections, and back-and-forth revisions, before it was considered a collectively owned asset. In order to evaluate the quality of the activities in each phase, this study developed a set of rubrics for the freely posed problems and the comments given by the peers. Dimensions of the rubrics were solvability, readability, reality, and sophistication. There were four types of comments: completeness, emotionality, misleadingness, and miscellany. According to the results, all posed problems were significantly improved through the revisions across all four dimensions of the rubrics, especially in the dimension of delicacy. As for the contribution of peer comments, the type of delicacy helped most, and that of emotionality followed. Findings of this study suggested that problem-posing involves abilities other than those in Mathematics, and is worthy of further investigation. This work also addressed the curriculum and rubrics design that might raise the ability of problem-posing and the enthusiasm of students on mathematical activities.

1. 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。
   連結：
2. Belfleld, H. H. (1888). The revised model elementary arithmetic. Chicago, IL: Geo. Sherwood
3. Poincare, H. (1948). Mathematical creation. Scientific American, 179, 54-57.
4. Balka, D. S.(1974).Creative ability in mathematics.Arithmetic Teacher,21(7),633-636.
5. Chang, K. N.,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.
6. Christou, C.,Mousoulides, N.,Pittalis, M.,Pitta-Pantazi, D.,Sriraman, B.(2005).An empirical taxonomy of problem posing process.International Reviews of Mathematical Education,37(3),149-158.
7. 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.
8. Ellerton, N. F.(2013).Engaging pre-service middle-school teacher-education students in mathematical problem posing: Development of an active learning framework. [PME special issue: Problem posing in mathematics teaching and learning: Establishing a framework for research].Educational Studies in Mathematics,83(1),87-101.
9. Ellerton, N. F.(1986).Children's made-up mathematics problems: A new perspective on talented mathematicians.Educational Studies in Mathematics,17(3),261-271.
10. English, L. D.(1998).Children's problem posing within formal and informal contexts.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,29(1),83-106.
11. Gravemeijer, K.(1994).Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,25(5),443-471.
12. Koichu, B.,Kontorovich, I.(2013).Dissecting success stories on mathematical problem posing: A case of the Billiard Task. [PME special issue: Problem posing in mathematics teaching and learning: Establishing a framework for research].Educational Studies in Mathematics,83(1),71-86.
13. Kontorovich, I.,Koichu, B.(2009).Towards a comprehensive framework of mathematical problem posing.Proceedings of the 33th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education,Thessaloniki, Greece:
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Leung, S. S.(2013).Teachers implementing mathematical problem posing in the classroom: Challenges and strategies. [PME special issue: Problem posing in mathematics teaching and learning: Establishing a framework for research].Educational Studies in Mathematics,83(1),103-116.
17. Lowrie, T.(2002).Young children posing problems: The influence of teacher intervention on the type of problems children pose.Mathematics Education Research Journal,14(2),87-98.
18. 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:Boston College.
19. 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:Boston College.
20. Mullis, V. S. I.,Martin, O. M.,Foy, P.,Arora, A.(2012).TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
21. Pelczer, I.,Gamboa, F.(2009).Problem posing: Comparison between experts and novices.Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education,Thessaloniki, Greece:
22. Perkins, D. N.,Salomon, G.(2012).Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer.Educational Psychologist,47(3),248-258.
23. 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 of Research in Mathematics Education,26(5),467-486.
24. Silver, E. A.(1994).On mathematical problem posing.For the Learning of Mathematics,14(1),19-28.
25. Silver, E. A.,Cai, J.(1996).An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,27(5),521-539.
26. Silver, E. A.,Cai, J.(2005).Assessing students' mathematical problem posing.Teaching Children Mathematics,12(3),129-135.
27. Silver, E. A.,Mamona, J.(1989).Problem posing by middle school teachers.Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education,New Brunswick, NJ:
28. Stoyanova, E.,Ellerton, N. F.(1996).A framework for research into students' problem posing in school mathematics.Technology in mathematics education,Melbourne, Australasia:
29. Tichá, M.,Hošpesová, A.(2013).Developing teachers' subject didactic competence through problem posing. [PME special issue: Problem posing in mathematics teaching and learning: Establishing a framework for research].Educational Studies in Mathematics,83(1),133-143.
30. Torrance, E. P.(1966).Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual.Princeton, NJ:Personnel.
31. Van Harpen, X. Y.,Presmeg, N. C.(2013).An investigation of relationships between students' mathematical problem-posing abilities and their mathematical content knowledge. [PME special issue: Problem posing in mathematics teaching and learning: Establishing a framework for research]..Educational Studies in Mathematics,83(1),117-132.
32. Yu, F. Y.,Tsai, H. C.,Wu, H.-L.(2013).Effects of online procedural scaffolds and the timing of scaffolding provision on elementary Taiwanese students' question-generation in a science class.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,29(3),416-433.
33. 林碧珍(2003)。生活情境中的數學。新竹縣教育研究集刊，3，1-19。
34. 國家教育研究院(2012)。九年一貫數學部編本教科書國小數學課本。新北市:作者。
35. 教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學學習領域。臺北市:作者。
36. 黃光國(2009)。儒家關係主義：哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究。臺北市:心理。

1. 陳斐卿、張鐵懷(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。
2. 單維彰、陳斐卿、許哲毓(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。
3. 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。
4. 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。
5. 蘇嘉鈴、于富雲(2016)。大學生網路出題表現之內容分析與創意指標建立。教育實踐與研究，29(1)，97-138。