Identifying Effective E-Teaching and General Mathematical Teaching Profiles to Predict Student Mathematical Cognition and Affect

辨識可預測學生數學認知和情意的有效E化和一般數學教學法組合

10.6278/tjme.20171018.001

邱美秀(Mei-Shiu Chiu)

e-teaching ； latent profile analysis ； mathematics affect ； mathematics cognition ； mathematics pedagogy ； E化教學 ； 潛在剖面分析 ； 數學情意 ； 數學認知 ； 數學教學法

臺灣數學教育期刊

4卷2期（2017 / 10 / 01）

69 - 94

英文

The aim of this study was to identify the profiles of approaches to e-teaching and general teaching (g-teaching) and to explore the differences between the profiles in terms of student mathematical cognition and affect. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was applied to evaluate 3,978 Taiwanese 15-year-old students’ perceived e-teaching and g-teaching behaviors (formative assessment, student orientation, and teacher direction) in mathematics classrooms. LPA identified four e/g-teaching profiles: parsimony, conservation, moderation, and liberal. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and post hoc tests were used to examine profile differences in each element of cognition and affect; structural equation modeling (SEM) was used in latent constructs of cognition and affect. The combined MANOVA and SEM results indicated that moderation e/g-teaching benefits both cognition and affect, parsimony benefits cognition at the expense of affect, and both conservation and liberal benefit affect.

本研究旨在辨識E化和一般數學教學法的組合類型，並探討所辨識出的教學組合類型在學生數學認知和情意上的差異情形。以潛在剖面分析（LPA）方法分析3,978名臺灣15歲學生在數學教室中的E化數學教學和三項一般性的數學教學法（形成性評量、學生導向和教師指導）。LPA的結果辨識出四種E化與一般數學教學法組合：節約、保守、協調和自由使用E化與一般數學教學法的組合。接著，使用多變量變異數分析（MANOVA）和事後檢驗，來考驗四種教學法組合在學生各數學認知和情意細項內容上的差 異，並且使用結構方程模式（SEM）考驗四種教學法組合在認知和情意二潛在構念上的差異。MANOVA和SEM的分析結果顯示：協調的E化與一般數學教學法組合同時有益於學生認知和情意，節約的E化與一般數學教學組合有利認知但犧牲情意，保守和自由的E化與一般數學教學組合有利於情意。

1. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Benson, R.,Brack, C.(2009).Developing the scholarship of teaching: What is the role of e-teaching and learning?.Teaching in Higher Education,14(1),71-80.
3. Blignaut, A. S.,Hinostroza, J. E.,Els, C. J.,Brun, M.(2010).ICT in education policy and practice in developing countries: South Africa and Chile compared through SITES 2006.Computers & Education,55(4),1552-1563.
4. Bollen, K. A.,Long, J. S.(1993).Testing structural equation models.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
5. Burton, L.(1994).Children learning mathematics: Patterns and relationships.Hertfordshire, UK:Simon & Schuster.
6. Chai, C. S.,Koh, J. H. L.,Ho, H. N. J.,Tsai, C. C.(2012).Examining preservice teachers' perceived knowledge of TPACK and cyberwellness through structural equation modelling.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,28(6),1000-1019.
7. Chai, C. S.,Koh, J. H. L.,Tsai, C. C.(2013).A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge.Educational Technology & Society,16(2),31-51.
8. Chittleborough, C. R.,Mittinty, M. N.,Lawlor, D. A.,Lynch, J. W.(2014).Effects of simulated interventions to improve school entry academic skills on socioeconomic inequalities in educational achievement.Child Development,85(6),2247-2262.
9. Chiu, C. Y.,Douglas, J. A.,Li, X.(2009).Cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: Theory and applications.Psychometrika,74(4),633-665.
10. Chiu, M. S.(2012).The internal/external frame of reference model, big-fish-little-pond effect, and combined model for mathematics and science.Journal of Educational Psychology,104(1),87-107.
11. Chiu, M. S.(2012).Identification and assessment of Taiwanese children's conceptions of learning mathematics.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,10(1),163-191.
12. Chiu, M. S.(2009).Approaches to the teaching of creative and non-creative mathematical problems.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,7(1),55-79.
13. Chiu, M. S.,Whitebread, D.(2011).Taiwanese teachers' implementation of a new 'constructivist mathematics curriculum': How cognitive and affective issues are addressed.International Journal of Educational Development,31(2),196-206.
14. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Costello, A. B.,Osborne, J. W.(2005).Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,10(7),1-9.
16. Cuckle, P.,Clarke, S.(2002).Mentoring student-teachers in schools: Views, practices and access to ICT.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,18(3),330-340.
17. De Corte, E.(2004).Mainstreams and perspectives in research on learning (mathematics) from instruction.Applied psychology,53(2),279-310.
18. Espasa, A.,Meneses, J.(2010).Analysing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environment: An exploratory study.Higher Education,59(3),277-292.
19. Fraley, C.,Raftery, A. E.(2007).Model-based methods of classification: Using the mclust software in chemometrics.Journal of Statistical Software,18(6),1-13.
20. Fraley, C.,Raftery, A.,Scrucca, L.(2015).Package 'mclust' Version 4.4 reference manual.
21. Gómez-Chaćon, I. M.(2000).Affective influences in the knowledge of mathematics.Educational Studies in Mathematics,43(2),149-168.
22. González, C.(2012).The relationship between approaches to teaching, approaches to e-teaching and perceptions of the teaching situation in relation to e-learning among higher education teachers.Instructional Science,40(6),975-998.
23. Green, S. B.,Thompson, M. S.(2006).Structural equation modelling for conducting tests of differences in multiple means.Psychosomatic Medicine,68(5),706-717.
24. Grootenboer, P.,Hemmings, B.(2007).Mathematics performance and the role played by affective and background factors.Mathematics Education Research Journal,19(3),3-20.
25. Grouws, D. A.(Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.New York, NY:Macmilian.
26. Hair, J. F., Jr.,Black, W. C.,Babin, B. J.,Anderson, R. E.(2010).Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.
27. Hannula, M. S.(2002).Attitude towards mathematics: Emotions, expectations and values.Educational Studies in Mathematics,49(1),25-46.
28. Haughton, D.,Legrand, P.,Woolford, S.(2009).Review of three latent class cluster analysis packages: Latent Gold, poLCA, and MCLUST.The American Statistician,63(1),81-91.
29. Hinostroza, J. E.,Labbé, C.,Brun, M.,Matamala, C.(2011).Teaching and learning activities in Chilean classrooms: Is ICT making a difference?.Computers & Education,57(1),1358-1367.
30. Hsu, H. Y.,Zhang, D.,Kwok, O. M.,Li, Y.,Ju, S.(2011).Distinguishing the influences of father's and mother's involvement on adolescent academic achievement: Analyses of Taiwan Education Panel Survey data.The Journal of Early Adolescence,31(5),694-713.
31. Lan, Y. J.,Chang, K. E.,Chen, N. S.(2012).CoCAR: An online synchronous training model for empowering ICT capacity of teachers of Chinese as a foreign language.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,28(6),1020-1038.
32. Lee, Y. H.,Wu, J. Y.(2013).The indirect effects of online social entertainment and information seeking activities on reading literacy.Computers & Education,67,168-177.
33. Leijen, Ä.,Admiraal, W. F.,Wildschut, L.,Robert-Jan Simons, P.(2008).Pedagogy before technology: What should an ICT intervention facilitate in practical dance classes?.Teaching in Higher Education,13(2),219-231.
34. Louw, J.,Brown, C.,Muller, J.,Soudien, C.(2009).Instructional technologies in social science instruction in South Africa.Computers & Education,53(2),234-242.
35. Marsh, H. W.,Lüdtke, O.,Trautwein, U.,Morin, A. J. S.(2009).Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centred approaches to theoretical models of self-concept.Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,16(2),191-225.
36. Mason, J.,Burton, L.,Stacey, K.(1996).Thinking mathematically.Wokingham, UK:Addison-Wesley.
37. McLeod, D. B.(1994).Research on affect and mathematics learning in the JRME: 1970 to the present.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,25(6),637-647.
38. Muthén, L. K.,Muthén, B. O.(2012).Mplus user's guide.Los Angeles, CA:Muthen & Muthen.
39. Nachmias, R.,Mioduser, D.,Forkosh‐Baruch, A.(2010).ICT use in education: Different uptake and practice in Hebrew‐speaking and Arabic‐speaking schools in Israel.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,26(6),492-506.
40. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(2014).PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do - Student performance in mathematics, reading and science.Paris, France:Author.
41. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(2014).PISA 2012 technical report.Paris, France:Author.
42. Park, J. B. H.,Schallert, D. L.,Sanders, A. J.,Williams, K. M.,Seo, E.,Yu, L. T.,Knox, M. C.(2015).Does it matter if the teacher is there?: A teacher's contribution to emerging patterns of interactions in online classroom discussions.Computers & Education,82,315-328.
43. Polya, G.(1962).Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving.New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons.
44. Rappa, N. A.,Yip, D. K. H.,Baey, S. C.(2009).The role of teacher, student and ICT in enhancing student engagement in multiuser virtual environments.British Journal of Educational Technology,40(1),61-69.
45. Roorda, D. L.,Koomen, H. M. Y.,Spilt, J. L.,Oort, F. J.(2011).The influence of affective teacherstudent relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach.Review of Educational Research,81(4),493-529.
46. Sang, G.,Valcke, M.,van Braak, J.,Tondeur, J.(2010).Student teachers' thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology.Computers & Education,54(1),103-112.
47. Shohel, M. M. C.,Kirkwood, A.(2012).Using technology for enhancing teaching and learning in Bangladesh: Challenges and consequences.Learning, Media and Technology,37(4),414-428.
48. Smeets, E.(2005).Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education?.Computers & Education,44(3),343-355.
49. Solimeno, A.,Mebane, M. E.,Tomai, M.,Francescato, D.(2008).The influence of students and teachers characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported collaborative learning.Computers & Education,51(1),109-128.
50. Somyürek, S.,Atasoy, B.,Özdemir, S.(2009).Board's IQ: What makes a board smart?.Computers & Education,53(2),368-374.
51. Tan, C. K.,Tan, C. P.(2015).Effects of the handheld technology instructional approach on performances of students of different achievement levels.Computers & Education,82,306-314.
52. Thorvaldsen, S.,Vavik, L.,Salomon, G.(2012).The use of ICT tools in mathematics: A case-control study of best practice in 9th grade classrooms.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,56(2),213-228.
53. Tømte, C.,Enochsson, A. B.,Buskqvist, U.,Kårstein, A.(2015).Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online.Computers & Education,84,26-35.
54. Vass, E.(2007).Exploring processes of collaborative creativity - The role of emotions in children's joint creative writing.Thinking Skills and Creativity,2(2),107-117.
55. Wang, M. T.,Peck, S. C.(2013).Adolescent educational success and mental health vary across school engagement profiles.Developmental Psychology,49(7),1266-1276.
56. Watts, M.,Lloyd, C.(2004).The use of innovative ICT in the active pursuit of literacy.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,20(1),50-58.
57. Webster, T. E.,Son, J. B.(2015).Doing what works: A grounded theory case study of technology use by teachers of English at a Korean university.Computers & Education,80,84-94.
58. Wilson, K. L.,Boldeman, S. U.(2012).Exploring ICT integration as a tool to engage young people at a Flexible Learning Centre.Journal of Science Education and Technology,21(6),661-668.
59. Wurst, C.,Smarkola, C.,Gaffney, M. A.(2008).Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honours and traditional classrooms.Computers & Education,51(4),1766-1783.