知識表徵觀點在博物館教育上之應用：以「神奇幾何數學夏令營」為例

The View of Knowledge Representation in Museum Education: The Case Study of "Magical Geometry Math Camp"

麥綉婉(Hsiu-Wan Mai)

認知學習 ； 知識表徵 ； 先備知識 ； cognitive learning ； knowledge representation ； prior knowledge

科技博物

17卷3期（2013 / 09 / 01）

33 - 57

繁體中文

從博物館、主題公園或藝廊等機構中，可以發現如此運用圖像和文物表徵的博物館教育，其透過觀眾置身於充滿圖像與文物的學習，以及回憶的知識表徵形式之應用，也是培養 其知識技能之關鍵策略。鑒於國內許多的學生皆有數學學習上的障礙，林迺超（2001）便指出數學學習的障礙可能的特徵，包括數學符號及概念認知有困難，以及對各項運算法則無法了解與正確運用。而為了探究學生置身於博物館的數學學習之中，是否能提供適性的教學方法，本研究採 個案研究、觀察法及內容分析法，以101年報名參加國立科學工藝博物館（以下簡稱科工館）的「神奇幾何數學」夏令營的35位國小三年級學生為研究對象的單一個案研究，進入教學現場，觀察與記錄教師的教學表徵與學生的學習行為。以學童分組的「數學小書（繪本）」作品內容作為研究工具，探討與分析其繪本內容所呈現的知識表徵類型，各類型表徵所傳達的認知學習與先備知識，以及對於博物館數學教學上之應用提出建議。本研究發現：一、學童表徵形態的特質符合年齡發展。二、七巧板創作繪本有融入學生的先備經驗。三、學童認知表徵形態與數學教學表徵具多元性應用。

Using images and artifacts to display ideas and knowledge can be found among museums, theme parks or art galleries. Application of images, artifacts and knowledge representation in the form of memories are key strategies for museum education to cultivate audiences' knowledge and skills.In view of many domestic students have difficulties in learning mathematics, Lin Nai-Chao (2001) pointed out that the math learning disabilities may have characteristics which included mathematical symbols and concepts of cognitive difficulties and the algorithm cannot be understood and correctly used. In order to evaluate whether the museum can provide adaptive teaching methods to explore students' math learning, this case study used observation and content analysis and took 35 third-grade students who participated in the ”Magical Geometry Math Camp” at the National Science and Technology Museum as a single case study. And characterization of teachers' teaching representation and students' learning behavior were both observed and recorded. Grouped students' ”math picture books” were used as a research tool to discuss and analyze types of knowledge representation and various types of cognitive learning and prior knowledge, as well as to make recommendations for math teaching in museums.The results were summarized as follows:1.Characterizations of morphological traits were consistent with the students' age of development.2.The jigsaw puzzle for picture books did merge into students' prior knowledge and experience.3.Students' cognitive representation of morphology and characterization of math teaching had multiple applications.

1. 左台益、蔡志仁(2001)。高中生建構橢圓多重表徵之認知特性。科學教育學刊，9(3)，281-297。
   連結：
2. (1990).What research says about learning in science museum.Washington, D. C.:ASTC.
3. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Anderson, J. R.(1990).The adaptive character of thought.New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Anderson, M.(Ed.),Meyer, B.(Ed.),Olivier, P.(Ed.)(2002).Diagrammatic representation and reasoning.New York:Springer.
6. Ashcraft, M. H.、陳學志譯(2004)。認知心理學。台北:學富。
7. Berelson, B.(1952).Content analysis in communication research.New York:Free Press.
8. Bloom, B. S.(1982).Human characteristics and school learning.New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company.
9. Borko, H.,Livingston, C.(1989).Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by exert and novice teacher.American Educational Research Journal,26(4),473-498.
10. Bruner, J. G.(1966).Toward a theory of instruction.New York:Norton.
11. Cronbach, L. J.,Snow, R. E.(1977).Aptitudes and instructional methods.New York:Irvington.
12. Dochy, F.,Segers, M.,Buehl, M. M.(1999).The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge.Review of Educational Research,69(2),145-186.
13. Eisner, E.(1994).Revisionism in art education: Some comments on the preceding articles.Studies in Art Education,35(3),188-191.
14. Falk, J. H.,Dierking, L. D.(1992).Museum experience.Washington, D. C.:Whalesback Books.
15. Gagne, E. D.、Yekovich, C. W.、Yekovich, F. R.、岳修平譯(1998)。教學心理學：學習的認知基礎。台北:遠流。
16. Greenberg, R.(Ed.),Ferguson, B.(Ed.),Nairne, S.(Ed.)(1996).Thinking about exhibitions.London:Routledge.
17. Greeno, J. G.,Roger, B. H.(1997).Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms.Phi Delta Kappan,79,361-367.
18. Jackson, P.W.(Ed.)(1992).Handbook on research on curriculum.New York:Macmillan.
19. Jonassen, D. H.,Grabowski, B. L.(1993).Handbook of individual differences learning, and instruction.New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Jones, J. D.(2006).A different paradigm for expert systems: An introduction to logic programming and related knowledge representation issues.Expert Systems,23,342-355.
21. Lee, C. D.(1992).Literacy, cultural diversity, and instruction.Education and Urban Society,24(2),279-291.
22. Lesh, R.(1979).Mathematical learning disabilities: Considerations for identification, diagnosis, and remediation.Applied mathematical problem solving,Columbus, OH:
23. Livingston, C.,Borko, H.(1989).Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education,40,36-42.
24. Lord, T. R.(1990).Enhancing learning in the life sciences through spatial perception.Innovative Higher Education,15(1),5-16.
25. Mandler, J. M.(1984).Stroies, scripts and scenes: Aspects of schema theory.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
26. Moreno, R.,Mayer, R. E.(1999).Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics.Cognition and Instruction,17,215-248.
27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000).The principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:NCTM.
28. Protheroe, N. J.,Barsdate, K. J.(1992).Culturally Sensitive Instruction.Streamlined Seminar,10(4),1-4.
29. Shulamn, L. S.(1986).Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.American Educational Research Journal,15(2),4-14.
30. Tilley, C.(Ed.),Keane, W.(Ed.),Kuchler, S.(Ed.),Rowlands, M.(Ed.),Spyer, P.(Ed.)(2006).Handbook of material culture.London:Sage.
31. 何三本(1995)。幼兒故事學。台北:五南。
32. 吳貞祥(1978)。兒童數、量與空間概念的發展。台北:台北市立女子師專。
33. 李彩瑩(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。新竹，國立新竹教育大學數位學習科技研究所。
34. 沈佩芳(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所。
35. 林迺超(2001)。淺談數學學習障礙。障礙者理解，1(2)，43-47。
36. 林曉雯(1994)。博士論文(博士論文)。台北，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
37. 凌久原(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台南，國立成功大學教育所。
38. 徐友漁(1994)。羅素。香港:中華書局。
39. 郝廣才(2006)。好繪本 如何好。台北:格林文化。
40. 張春興(1994)。教育心理學─三化取向的理論與實際。台北:東華。
41. 莊育承(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。高雄，國立中山大學資訊管理研究所。
42. 郭重吉(1988)。從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報，13，335-363。
43. 陳品玲(1996)。護理研究導論─事後回溯研究法。台北:華杏。
44. 陳霈頡、楊德清(2005)。數學表徵應用在教學上的探究。科學教育研究與發展，40，48-61。
45. 陳嬿如(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
46. 彭聃齡、張必隱(2000)。認知心理學。台北:東華書局。
47. 黃光雄、簡茂發(1991)。教育研究法。台北:師大書苑。
48. 黃朝湖(1970)。談兒童繪畫的心理投影。師友月刊，35，14-15。
49. 劉麗玲(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。彰化，國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
50. 潘淑滿(2003)。質性理論與應用。台北:心理。
51. 霍秉坤(2003)。從理論基礎探討「校本課程剪裁計劃」的成功因素。第一屆世界課程大會，上海:

1. (2019)。兒童益智營隊指導員專業知能指標及其權重建構。教育與心理研究，42(1)，71-103。