互動式電子白板融入國小學習障礙學生數學教學與直接教學法之成效比較

A Comparison of Using Interactive Whiteboards and a Direct Instruction Approach for Primary School Students with Learning Disabilities on Mathematics Learning Effects

10.6217/SEQ.202109_(160).15-26

彭慧雯(Huei-Wun Peng)；佘永吉(Yung-Ji Sher)

互動式電子白板 ； 直接教學法 ； 學習障礙 ； 數學學習成效 ； 交替處理設計 ； interactive whiteboard ； direct instruction ； learning disabilities ； mathematics learning effects ； alternating treatments design

特殊教育季刊

160期（2021 / 09 / 01）

15 - 26

繁體中文

本研究旨在比較「互動式電子白板融入教學」與「直接教學法進行教學」對國小學習障礙學生的數學學習、保留成效與感受差異。採用單一受試設計中的交替處理實驗設計，研究對象為三名國小五年級的學習障礙學生，自變項為互動式電子白板融入教學與直接教學法進行教學，依變項為數學之學習成效與保留成效。研究者利用自編之小數乘法測驗與分數乘法測驗得分情形作為比較二種不同教學法之數學學習成效的重要依據，透過視覺分析、C統計，以探討數學學習與保留成效，並藉由訪談以瞭解社會效度。研究結果發現為互動式電子白板融入教學和使用直接教學法進行教學，對國小學習障礙學生數學學習之立即成效無顯著差異，保留成效有個別差異情形。甲生與乙生使用直接教學法進行教學的保留效果較佳，丙生則無無明顯差異，對二者不同教學介入方式的感受有個別差異情形。三位實驗參與者均喜歡使用電子白板教學，但認為直接教學法對自身的學習助益較大。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences between integrating interactive whiteboards into instruction and direct instruction in mathematics learning, retention, and feelings of students with learning disabilities in an elementary school. An alternating treatment design of a single subject was adopted as the research method. Three fifth-grade students with learning disabilities were recruited. The independent variables were the approach of using interactive whiteboard and direct instruction; the dependent variables were immediate and retention effects in mathematics learning. The researchers used the score of the self-made fractions multiplication test and the decimal multiplication test as the important foundations to compare the learning effects of the two different approaches. Visual analysis, C statistics and effect size were used to explore the immediate and retention effects in mathematics learning. The observation data was also supplemented with social validity analysis using interviews. The results were as follows: 1. In terms of the immediate effect in mathematics learning of students with learning disabilities, there was no significant difference between integrating interactive whiteboard into instruction and direct instruction. 2. In terms of retention effects in mathematics learning of students with learning disabilities, the retention effect of direct instruction was better for Students A and B, whereas there was no significant difference for Student C. 3. After applying both integrating interactive whiteboard into instruction and direct instruction in teaching, there were individual differences in the feelings of students with learning disabilities in elementary school. All the participants enjoyed learning by interactive whiteboard into instruction, whereas all of them thought that direct instruction was more beneficial to their own learning. According to the results mentioned above, some suggestions are provided for future studies. For instance, reseachers may consider increasing the number of the research participants, recognizing the selection of participants' conditions and increasing mathematical difficulties in calculation.

1. 王宣惠(2019)。我們真的認識數學障礙嗎？—臺灣數學障礙 20 年研究回顧與問題探究。特殊教育研究學刊，44(1)，59-90。
   連結：
2. 柯華葳(2005)。數學學習障礙學生的診斷與確認。特殊教育研究學刊，29，113-126。
   連結：
3. 袁媛,許錦芳(2007)。資訊融入教學對國中資源班數學低成就學生學習影響之個案研究。教育科學期刊，7(1)，36-57。
   連結：
4. 連文宏,洪儷瑜(2017)。數學學障與數學合併閱讀障礙國中生計算能力表現之特徵及其差異分析。臺灣數學教育期刊，4(1)，35-62。
   連結：
5. Ashcraft, M. H.,Krause, J. A.(2007).Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,14(2),243-248.
6. Ball, B.(2003).Teaching and learning mathematics with an interactive whiteboard.Micromath,19(1),4-7.
7. Brownell, M. T.,Mellard, D. F.,Deshler, D. D.(1993).Winner of CLD's 1992 award for outstanding research: Differences in the learning and transfer performance between students with learning disabilities and other low-achieving students on problem-solving tasks.Learning Disability Quarterly,16,138-156.
8. Carnine, D.(1997).Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities,30(2),130-141.
9. Clemens, A., Moore, T., & Nelson, B. (2001). Math Intervention ‘SMART’ Project (Student mathematical analysis and reasoning with technology). Retrieved from http://www.smarterkids.org/research/paper10.asp.
10. Deshler, D. D.,Schumaker, J. B.,Lenz, B. K.,Bulgren, J. A.,Hock, M. F.,Knight, J.,Ehren, B. J.(2001).Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,16(2),96-108.
11. Elliott, S. N.,Shapiro, E. S.(1990).Intervention techniques and programs for academic performance problems.The handbook of school psychology,Oxford, England:
12. Ellis, E.,Deshler, D.,Lenz, K.,Schumaker, J.,Clark, F.(1991).An instructional model for teaching learning strategies.Focus on Exceptional Children,23,1-24.
13. Heirigs, K.,Thurmon, H.(2008).Elementary science lab outreach efforts: Extending science lessons to support improvements in students’ study skills and math performance in grades 4, 5, and 6. Memphis.Memphis, TN:St. Joseph Catholic School.
14. Kitchen, S., Finch, S., & Sinclair, R. O. (2008). Harnessing technology schools survey 2007. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Harnessing-Technology-Schools-Survey-2007-Kitchen-Finch/3225dafeeeb84c843db140c104747c6d58657207
15. Lerner, J. W.,Johns, B. H.(2015).Learning disabilities and related disabilities.Stamford, CT:Cengage Learning.
16. Önal, N.(2017).Use of interactive whiteboard in the mathematics classroom: Students’ perceptions within the framework of the Technology Acceptance Model.International Journal of Instruction,10(4),67-86.
17. Schumaker, J. B.,Deshler, D. D.(2009).Adolescents with learning disabilities as writers: Are we selling them short?.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,24(2),81-92.
18. Zentall, S. S.(2014).Students with mild exceptionalities: Characteristics and applications.Los Angeles, CA:Sage.
19. 王瓊珠(2018).學習障礙—理念與實務.臺北:心理.
20. 江沚盈(2015)。桃園，中原大學。
21. 江毓鈞(2012)。屏東，國立屏東教育大學。
22. 前瞻基礎建設國民中小學校園數位建設實施計畫(2017)。前瞻基礎建設國民中小學校園數位建設實施計畫（2017）。中華民國一百零六年七月六日院臺科會字第 1060179826F 號函核定。
23. 施又瑀,施喻琁(2019)。善用智慧教室驅動教學變革。臺灣教育評論月刊，8(3)，246-255。
24. 范揚素(2015)。屏東，國立屏東教育大學。
25. 高珮珊(2004)。數學學習障礙之補救教學。南投文教，21，62-95。
26. 張齡友(2015)。臺北，國立臺灣師範大學。
27. 陳惠嫻(2018)。屏東，國立屏東大學。
28. 粘薽云(2017)。高雄，國立高雄師範大學。
29. 賴暄頤(2010)。桃園，中原大學。
30. 戴瑋辰(2012)。屏東，國立屏東教育大學。
31. 謝文錡(2014)。臺北，國立臺北教育大學。
32. 顏三青(2016)。臺北，國立臺灣師範大學。