三至八年級學生數學文字題的表徵轉換與等價能力

Analyzing Representation Transformation and Equivalence Abilities across Students in Grades Three to Eight in Mathematical Word Problems

10.6278/tjme.202310_10(2).001

邱怡靜(Yi-Ching Chiu)；曾建銘(Chien-Ming Cheng)；吳昭容(Chao-Jung Wu)

代數思維 ； 表徵轉換 ； 等價 ； algebraic thinking ； representation transformation ； equivalence

臺灣數學教育期刊

10卷2期（2023 / 10 / 01）

1 - 25

繁體中文;英文

代數思維是算術一般化的歷程，著重數量或變量間的關係，而掌握等價性為算術過渡到代數的關鍵之一。問題情境提供語意脈絡，有助於學生發展等價性。本研究為了瞭解橫跨國小到國中的等價性發展，針對2677位三至八年級學生設計數學文字題解題算式的多重是非題題組，採用認知診斷模型（cognitive diagnostic model [CDM]）界定出表徵轉換能力與等價能力兩種認知屬性，確認學生可分成困難者、單一表徵者、多元表徵者三種類型，並以試題反應理論（item response theory [IRT]）估計學生的能力值，以探究三至八年級學生在三種類型的百分比、能力值及其差異。研究結果顯示，隨著年級的增加，困難者百分比大致呈現下降，單一表徵者、多元表徵者百分比大致呈現上升的趨勢，而國小已有二至六成學生屬於多元表徵者，顯示國小階段即可培養初階代數能力，然而國中學生僅四成為多元表徵者。在能力值方面，困難者最低，單一表徵者居中，多元表徵者最高，且困難者文字題算式判斷能力成長遲滯，單一表徵者的能力隨年級增加明顯些，而多元表徵者的能力則隨年級有更顯著地增長，顯示等價能力會隨等式涉及的數學內涵而呈現多層次。此外，本研究示範了整合CDM與IRT以描繪長期發展之能力的研究方法，並檢討其未來優化的方向。

Algebraic thinking involves generalizing arithmetic principles and focusing on the relationships between quantities or variables. Mastering the concept of equivalence is a key step in transitioning from arithmetic to algebra. Mathematical word problems provide a semantic context and aid in developing equivalence. To investigate the development of mathematical equivalence from elementary to junior high school, the study devised sets of multiple true or false questions based on mathematical word problems and recruited 2,677 students spanning grades three to eight. Based on the cognitive abilities of representation transformation and equivalence ability, students were divided into three groups. The cognitive diagnostic model (CDM) was used to examine the percentages of three ability types within grades three to eight: difficulties, single representations, and multiple representations. The item response theory (IRT) was used to estimate the students' ability levels and discern variances across these three types of abilities for students in grades three to eight. The results showed that as students progressed through higher grade levels, the percentage of those difficult students decreased, while the percentages of students with single representation and multiple representation increased. It was observed that a considerable percentage of elementary students, ranging from 20% to 60%, exhibited proficiency in handling multiple representations, indicating that primary algebraic thinking could be nurtured at the primary school level. However, only about 40% of junior high school students demonstrated competency in multiple representations. In terms of ability levels, difficult students manifested the lowest values, followed by those with single representations; students with multiple representations displayed the highest values. Additionally, the growth of algebraic proficiency among difficult students lagged behind. Students with single representations showed noticeable improvement with increasing grade levels, while those with multiple representations exhibited more significant growth, indicating that equivalence abilities display multilevel characteristics depending on the mathematical content integrated into the equations. Furthermore, this study elucidated the research methodology that combines CDM and IRT to delineate long-term developmental abilities and discussed their potential optimization.

1. 吳宜玲, Y.-L.,楊心怡, H.-I.,吳昭容, C.-J.,陳柏熹, P.-H.(2021)。三至九年級學生數學運算能力等化測量與多向度分析。清華教育學報，38(2)，111-150。
   連結：
2. 吳慧珉, H.-M.,張育蓁, Y.-C.,林宏昇, H.-S.(2012)。結合知識結構之 Q 矩陣設計於 DINA 模式之估計成效探究。測驗統計年刊，20(2)，1-30。
   連結：
3. 吳慧珉, H.-M.,鄭俊彥, C.-Y.,施淑娟, S.-C.(2015)。認知診斷模式之理論與實務。測驗學刊，62(4)，303-328。
   連結：
4. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
5. Abidin, M.,Retnawati, H.(2019).A diagnosis of difficulties in answering questions of circle material on junior high school students.Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan,23(2),144-155.
6. Blanton, M.,Stephens, A.,Knuth, E.,Gardiner, A. M.,Isler, I.,Kim, J. S.(2015).The development of children's algebraic thinking: The impact of a comprehensive early algebra intervention in third grade.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,46(1),39-87.
7. Byrd, C. E.,McNeil, N. M.,Chesney, D. L.,Matthews, P. G.(2015).A specific misconception of the equal sign acts as a barrier to children's learning of early algebra.Learning and Individual Differences,38,61-67.
8. Cai, J.,Knuth, E. J.(2005).Introduction: The development of students' algebraic thinking in earlier grades from curricular, instructional and learning perspectives.ZDM–Mathematics Education,37(1),1-4.
9. Carey, D. A.(1991).Number sentences: Linking addition and subtraction word problems and symbols.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,22(4),266-280.
10. Chesney, D. L.,McNeil, N. M.(2014).Activation of operational thinking during arithmetic practice hinders learning and transfer.The Journal of Problem Solving,7(1),24-35.
11. Choi, K. M.,Lee, Y. S.,Park, Y. S.(2015).What CDM can tell about what students have learned: An analysis of TIMSS eighth grade mathematics.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,11(6),1563-1577.
12. College Board(2000).Equity 2000: A systematic education reform model.Author.
13. Cummins, D. D.,Kintsch, W.,Reusser, K.,Weimer, R.(1988).The role of understanding in solving word problems.Cognitive Psychology,20(4),405-438.
14. de la Torre, J.(2011).The generalized DINA model framework.Psychometrika,76(2),179-199.
15. DeMars, C. E.(2003).Recovery of graded response and partial credit parameters in MULTILOG and PARSCALE.American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 2003,Chicago, IL:
16. Domina, T.,McEachin, A.,Penner, A.,Penner, E.(2015).Aiming high and falling short: California’s eighth-grade algebra-for-all effort.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,37(3),275-295.
17. Fyfe, E. R.,Byers, C.,Nelson, L. J.(2022).The benefits of a metacognitive lesson on children’s understanding of mathematical equivalence, arithmetic, and place value.Journal of Educational Psychology,114(6),1292-1306.
18. Greer, B.(1992).Multiplication and division as models of situations.Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
19. Hanson, B. A.,Béguin, A. A.(2002).Obtaining a common scale for item response theory item parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the common item equating design.Applied Psychological Measurement,26(1),3-24.
20. Hegarty, M.,Mayer, R. E.,Monk, C. A.(1995).Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers.Journal of Educational Psychology,87(1),18-32.
21. Hodgen, J.,Oldenburg, R.,Strømskag, H.(2018).Algebraic thinking.Developing research in mathe matics education: Twenty years of communication, cooperation and collaboration in Europe
22. Holland, P.W.,Dorans, N. J.(2006).Linking and equating.Educational measurement
23. Hong, H.,Wang, C.,Lim, Y. S.,Douglas, J.(2015).Efficient models for cognitive diagnosis with continuous and mixed-type latent variables.Applied Psychological Measurement,39(1),31-43.
24. Hornburg, C. B.,Devlin, B. L.,McNeil, N. M.(2022).Earlier understanding of mathematical equivalence in elementary school predicts greater algebra readiness in middle school.Journal of Educational Psychology,114(3),540-559.
25. Hsu, C. L.,Wang, W. C.(2015).Variable‐length computerized adaptive testing using the higher order DINA model.Journal of Educational Measurement,52(2),125-143.
26. Kaput, J. J.(2008).What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning?.Algebra in the early grades
27. Kaput, J. J.(1998).Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum.The nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum: Proceedings of a national symposium
28. Kieran, C.(2022).The multi-dimensionality of early algebraic thinking: Background, overarching dimensions, and new directions.ZDM–Mathematics Education,54(6),1131-1150.
29. Kieran, C.(1996).The changing face of school algebra.8th international congress on mathematical education: Selected lectures
30. Kieran, C.(2004).The core of algebra: Reflections on its main activities.The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study
31. Kieran, C.(2004).Algebraic thinking in the early grades: What is it.The Mathematics Educator,8(1),139-151.
32. Kilpatrick, J.(Ed.),Swafford, J.(Ed.),Findell, B.(Ed.)(2001).Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.National Academy Press.
33. Knuth, E. J.,Alibali, M. W.,Hattikudur, S.,McNeil, N. M.,Stephens, A. C.(2008).The importance of equal sign understanding in the middle grades.Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,13(9),514-519.
34. Knuth, E. J.,Alibali, M. W.,McNeil, N. M.,Weinberg, A.,Stephens, A. C.(2005).Middle school students' understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equivalence & variable.ZDM–Mathematics Education,37(1),68-76.
35. Köhn, H. F.,Chiu, C. Y.(2019).Attribute hierarchy models in cognitive diagnosis: Identifiability of the latent attribute space and conditions for completeness of the Q-matrix.Journal of Classification,36(3),541-565.
36. Krawec, J. L.(2014).Problem representation and mathematical problem solving of students of varying math ability.Journal of Learning Disabilities,47(2),103-115.
37. Leighton, J. P.,Gierl, M. J.,Hunka, S. M.(2004).The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: A variation on Tatsuoka’s rule-space approach.Journal of Educational Measurement,41(3),205-237.
38. Livingston, S. A. (2004). Equating test scores (without IRT). Educational Testing Service. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/LIVINGSTON.pdf。
39. Matthews, P. G.,Fuchs, L. S.(2020).Keys to the gate? Equal sign knowledge at second grade predicts fourth‐grade algebra competence.Child Development,91(1),e14-e28.
40. Mayer, R. E.(1992).Thinking, problem solving, cognition.W. H. Freeman.
41. McNeil, N. M.(2007).U-shaped development in math: 7-year-olds outperform 9-year-olds on equivalence problems.Developmental Psychology,43(3),687-695.
42. McNeil, N. M.(2014).A change-resistance account of children's difficulties understanding mathematical equivalence.Child Development Perspectives,8(1),42-47.
43. McNeil, N. M.,Hornburg, C. B.,Devlin, B. L.,Carrazza, C.,McKeever, M. O.(2019).Consequences of individual differences in children's formal understanding of mathematical equivalence.Child Development,90(3),940-956.
44. Molina, M.,Ambrose, R.(2008).From an operational to a relational conception of the equal sign. Thirds graders’ developing algebraic thinking.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,30(1),61-80.
45. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(2018).PISA 2022 mathematics framework (Draft).OECD Publishing.
46. Passolunghi, M. C.,Pazzaglia, F.(2005).A comparison of updating processes in children good or poor in arithmetic word problem-solving.Learning and individual differences,15(4),257-269.
47. Prediger, S.(2010).How to develop mathematics-for-teaching and for understanding: The case of meanings of the equal sign.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,13(1),73-93.
48. Radford, L.(2018).The emergence of symbolic algebraic thinking in primary school.Teaching and learning algebraic thinking with 5- to 12-year-olds: The global evolution of an emerging field of research and practice
49. Radford, L.(1996).Some reflections on teaching algebra through generalization.Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching
50. Riley, M. S.,Greeno, J. G.,Heller, J. I.(1983).Development of children's problem-solving ability in arithmetic.The development of mathematical thinking
51. Sibgatullin, I. R.,Korzhuev, A. V.,Khairullina, E. R.,Sadykova, A. R.,Baturina, R. V.,Chauzova, V.(2022).A systematic review on algebraic thinking in education.EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,18(1),1-15.
52. Tseng, M. C.,Wang, W. C.(2021).The Q-matrix anchored mixture Rasch model.Frontiers in Psychology,12,564976.
53. Wardat, Y.,Jarrah, A. M.,Stoica, G.(2021).Understanding the meaning of the equal sign: A case study of middle school students in the United Arab Emirates.European Journal of Educational Research,10(3),1505-1514.
54. Wright, B. D.,Linacre, J. M.(1994).Reasonable mean-square fit values.Rasch Measurement Transactions,8(3),370-371.
55. Wu, M. L.,Adams, R. J.,Wilson, M. R.(1998).ACER ConQuest: Generalised item response modelling software.ACER Press.
56. Xu, T.,Wu, X.,Sun, S.,Kong, Q.(2023).Cognitive diagnostic analysis of students’ mathematical competency based on DINA model.Psychology in the Schools,60(9),3135-3150.
57. 王文中, W. -C.(2004)。Rasch 測量理論與其在教育和心理之應用。教育與心理研究，27(4)，637-694。
58. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校－數學領域。作者。[Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for elementary, junior high schools and general senior high schools –mathematics. Author. (in Chinese)] https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/27338/72246.pdf。
59. 教育部統計處（2016b）。104 學年國民中學校別資料。[Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education. (2016b). School-specific data for the 104th academic year in junior high schools. (in Chinese)] https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/detail/104/104_basej.xls。
60. 教育部統計處（2016a）。104 學年國民小學校別資料。[Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education. (2016a). School-specific data for the 104th academic year in elementary schools. (in Chinese)] https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/detail/104/104_basec.xls。
61. 郭伯臣, B.-C.,王暄博, H.-P.(2008)。大型測驗中同時進行垂直與水平等化效果之探討。教育研究與發展期刊，4(4)，87-120。