國小攜手計畫數學補救教學課程決定與教學實施之探究

Investigation on Curriculum Decision and Instruction Implementation of Mathematics Remedial Instruction at After-school Alternative Program in Elementary Schools

10.6151/CERQ.2015.2301.04

徐偉民(Wei-Min Hsu)；劉曼麗(Man-Li Liu)

國小 ； 數學補救教學 ； 數學課程決定 ； Elementary school ； Mathematics remedial instruction ； Mathematics curriculum decision

當代教育研究季刊

23卷1期（2015 / 03 / 01）

113 - 147

繁體中文

本研究採用教學觀察與訪談、問卷調查的方法，來瞭解教師在攜手計畫數學補救教學中，其課程決定與教學實施的情況。有8位、300位高屏地區教師分別接受觀察訪談與問卷調查。在觀察與訪談中發現，教師補救教學時，以使用概念與計算的問題為主，先進行全班例題的講解，再讓學生個別練習與進行指導，以達熟練的目標。在實施過程中教師表示會根據學生程度來決定課程，但由於學生程度落差大，所以採用學生原年級的數學教科書為補救教學之主要內容，而學生程度的落差也讓教師在教學時感到困難。問卷調查的結果與觀察訪談的結果相當一致，約8成左右教師表示在課程決定和教學實施上有困難，未來研究者宜針對補救課程教材與教學策略兩方面來提供現場教師的協助。

This study aimed at understanding the curriculum decision and instruction implementation of mathematics remedial instruction (MRI) in elementary schools. Classroom observation, interview, and survey data were collected from 8 case teachers, and 300 teachers who taught the After-School Alternative Program (ASAP) in Kaohsiung and Pingtung County of Southern Taiwan, respectively. Analyses of classroom observation and interview data indicated that the main foci of MRI were conceptual understanding and algorithmic practice. Teachers demonstrated how to solve an example task, and then provided similar tasks for students to practice while providing individual guidance for students as needed. Mastering mathematics skills was the primary goal of MRI. Teachers expressed that they diagnosed ASAP students' mathematical competence before selecting MRI curriculum. However, due to the diversity in students' competence levels, they chose the original mathematics textbook as teaching materials. Teachers also struggled with addressing the different learning needs of students, and they needed more time to implement individualized instruction. Survey responses revealed consistency with findings from observations and interviews. About 80% of teachers reported difficulties in decisions related to curriculum materials and instruction implementation of MRI. In the future, researchers should develop curriculum materials and instructional strategies of MRI that assist teachers in implementation of teaching materials and methods.

1. 李孟峰、連廷嘉(2010)。「攜手計畫－課後輔助方案」實施歷程與成效之研究。教育實踐與研究，23(1)，115-144。
   連結：
2. 徐偉民(2011)。數學課程實施：一位國小資深教師的個案研究。科學教育學刊，19(2)，101-122。
   連結：
3. 徐偉民(2011)。三位六年級教師數學課程實施之比較。教育研究集刊，57(2)，85-120。
   連結：
4. 徐偉民(2013)。國小教師數學教科書使用之初探。科學教育學刊，21(1)，25-48。
   連結：
5. 陳淑麗(2008)。國小弱勢學生課業輔導現況調查之研究。臺東大學教育學報，19(1)，1-32。
   連結：
6. 盧威志(2008)。「攜手計畫課後扶助」之政策過程與執行評析。學校行政雙月刊，56，140-154。
   連結：
7. 教育部 （ 2007 ） 。 教育部辦理攜手計畫課後扶助補助要點 。 取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/WEB/EJE/index.php。 [Ministry of Education. (2007). Principals of financial support for school implementing After-School Alternative Program. Retrieved from http://www.edu. tw/EDU_WEB/WEB/EJE/index.php]
8. 教育部（2008）。「97 年攜手計畫擴大辦理受惠人數突破 20 萬人次近 3 千校開辦比率達 86對象擴及單 親及隔代教養子女 」 。 取自http://www.edu.tw/eje/news.aspx?news_sn=1692&pages=7&site_content_sn=4414 [Ministry of Education. (2008). There are about 3000 schools and 200000 students participated in 2008 After-School Alternative Program. http://www.edu.tw/eje/ news.aspx?news_sn=1692&pages=7&site_content_ sn=4414]
9. Artzt, A.,Armour-Thomas, E.(2002).Becoming a reflective mathematics teacher: A guide for observations and self-assessment.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Burke, M. J.(Ed.),Curcio, F. R.(Ed.)(2000).Learning mathematics for a new century.Reston, VA:NCTM.
11. Doabler, C. T.,Fien, H.,Nelson-Walker, N. J.,Baker, S. K.(2012).Evaluating three elementary mathematics programs for presence of eight research-based instructional design principles.Learning Disabilities Quarterly,35(4),200-211.
12. Fuchs, L. S.,Powell, S. R.,Seethaler, P. M.,Fuchs, D.,Hamlett, C. L.,Cirino, P. T.,Flecher, J. M.(2010).A framework for remediating number combination deficits.Exceptional Children,76,135-156.
13. Gamoran, A.(Ed.)(2003).Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change.New York, NY:Teachers College.
14. Gersten, R.,Chard, D. J.,Jayanthi, M.,Baker, S. K.,Morphy, P.,Flojo, J.(2009).Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components.Review of Educational Research,79(3),1202-1242.
15. Gersten, R.,Jordan, N. C.,Flojo, J. R.(2005).Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities,38,293-304.
16. Gutstein, E.(2003).Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban Latino school.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,34(1),37-73.
17. Henningsen, M.,Stein, M. K.(1997).Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhabit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,28(5),524-549.
18. Huang, T. H.,Liu, Y. C.,Chang, H. C.(2012).Learning achievement in solving word-based mathematical questions through a computer-assisted learning system.Educational Technology & Society,15(1),248-259.
19. Kilpatrick, J.,Swafford, J.,Findell, B.(2001).Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.Washington DC:Mathematics Learning Study Committee.
20. Kloosterman, P.(Ed.),Lester, F.(Ed.)(2004).The 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessments of the national assessment of educational progress: Results and interpretations.Reston, VA:NCTM.
21. Kroesbergen, E.,Van Luit, J.,Maas, C.(2004).Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands.The Elementary School Journal,104,233-252.
22. Leh, J. M.,Jitendra, A. K.(2012).Effects of computer-madiated versus teacher- mediated instruction on the mathematical word problem-solving performance of third-grade students with mathematical difficulities.Learning Disabilities Quarterly,36(2),68-79.
23. Lester, Frank K., Jr.(Ed.)(2007).Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.Charlotte, NC:Information Age.
24. Lin, C. H.,Liu, Z. F.,Chen, Y. L.,Liou, P. Y.,Chang, M.,Wu, C. H.,Yuan, S. Y.(2013).Game-based remedial instruction in mastery learning for upper-primary schools students.Educational Technology & Society,16(2),271-281.
25. Lloyd, G.(2008).Curriculum use while learning to teach: One student teacher's appropriation of mathematics curriculum materials.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,39(1),63-94.
26. Mong, M. D.,Mong, K. W.(2010).Efficacy of two mathematics interventions for enhancing fluency with elementary students.Journal of Behavioral Education,19(4),273-288.
27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:NCTM.
28. Piper, L.,Marchand-Martella, N,Martella, R.(2010).Use of explicit instruction and double-dosing to teach ratio, propositions, and percentages to at-risk middle school students.Journal of At-Risk Issues,15(1),9-17.
29. Remillard, J.(2005).Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricular.Review of Educational Research,75(2),211-246.
30. Remillard, J.,Bryans, M.(2004).Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,35(5),352-388.
31. Rodriguez , A. J.(Ed.),Kitchen, R. S.(Ed.)(2005).Preparing Mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Royer, J. M. (Ed.)(2003).Mathematical cognition.Greenwich, CT:Information Age.
33. Shih, S. C.,Kuo, B. C.,Liu, Y. L.(2012).Adaptively ubiquitous learning in campus math path.Educational Technology & Society,15(2),298-308.
34. Sierpinska, A (Ed.),Kilpatrick, J. (Ed.)(1998).Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identify.Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35. Tarr, J.,Reys, R.,Reys, B.,Chavez, O.,Shih, J.,Osterlind, S.(2008).The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,39(3),247-280.
36. 林寶山(1998)。教學論：理論與方法。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南= Wunan。
37. 徐偉民(2011)。行政院國科會科學委員會專題研究行政院國科會科學委員會專題研究,桃園市=Taoyuan, Taiwan:中原大學=Chung Yuan Christian University。
38. 翁福元、黃彥超、陳正專(2009)。「攜手計畫－課後扶助」政策評析：正義與均等之觀點。「2009 年教育部攜手計畫課後扶助『提升弱勢兒童學習之課程與教學』研討會」論文集，臺南市=Tainan, Taiwan:
39. 張新仁(2001)。實施補救教學之課程與教學設計。教育學刊，17，85-106。
40. 張嘉寧(2007)。嘉義縣=Chiayi, Taiwan，國立嘉義大學=National Chiayi University。
41. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要：數學學習領域。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=Ministry of Education。
42. 陳淑麗、熊同鑫(2007)。臺東地區弱勢國中學生課輔現況與困境之探究。教育資料與研究，76，128-130。
43. 傅正敏(2009)。桃園市=Taoyuan, Taiwan，中原大學=Chung Yuan Christian University。
44. 曾昱螢(2009)。嘉義縣=Chiayi, Taiwan，國立嘉義大學=National Chiayi University。
45. 劉瑞珠(2009)。新竹縣攜手計畫課後扶助方案學生學習情形之研究。「2009 年教育部攜手計畫課後扶助『提升弱勢兒童學習之課程與教學』研討會」論文集，臺南市=Tainan, Taiwan:
46. 鄭鈴華、吳昭容(2013)。與八年級課程同步實施的數學補救教學：成效與反思。臺東大學教育學報，24(2)，1-31。
47. 羅玉霞(2009)。「攜手計畫課後扶助」方案實施現況與成效分析。「2009 年教育部攜手計畫課後扶助『提升弱勢兒童學習之課程與教學』研討會」論文集，臺南市=Tainan, Taiwan:

1. 陳琦媛(2016)。「平板電腦補救教學計畫」執行情形之探討。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，9(2)，113-140。
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。
3. 蕭新雄,郭文金,徐偉民(2019)。以奠基活動進行七年級一元一次方程式補救教學之行動研究。課程與教學，22(2)，107-144。
4. 張裕程(2017)。新移民子女對國民小學運用數位線上學 習融入補救教學之知覺與認同度之探究。學校行政，108，119-136。
5. 趙筱屏(2023)。權力與課程決定之研究：以一所國小課程發展委員會為例。學校行政，145，183-205。
6. (2016)。歐盟與臺灣補救教學政策之比較研究：以中輟為例。教育研究月刊，267，110-121。