题名

認知－後設認知策略對於國小學習障礙學生數學應用問題解題能力之成效

并列篇名

The Effects of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy on Mathematical Problem Solving of Elementary School Students with Learning Disabilities

DOI

10.6840/cycu201900045

作者

黃淑苹

关键词

學習障礙 ； 數學困難 ； 數學應用問題解題能力 ； 認知－後設認知策略 ； students with learning disabilities ； mathematical difficulties ； mathematical problem solving ； cognitive and metacognitive strategy

期刊名称

中原大學特殊教育學系學位論文

卷期/出版年月

2019年

学位类别

碩士
导师

周宇琪
内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

本研究主要的目的是探討認知－後設認知策略對於國小學習障礙學生數學應用問題解題能力之成效。研究對象採方便取樣，選取三位桃園市國小六年級學習障礙學生，研究方法採用單一受試實驗之逐變標準設計，分別為基線期、介入期及維持期。研究工具包含研究者自編「篩選評量試卷」、「識字測驗」、「速率－數學應用問題解題前測評量卷」、「速率－數學應用問題解題後測評量卷」、「解題紅綠燈檢核表」、「教學流程檢核表」、「教學省思日誌」、「解題紅綠燈訪談大綱」、「解題紅綠燈回饋單」，教學成效以視覺分析評估受試者在數學解題能力之學習、維持成效，藉由「速率－數學應用問題解題前測評量卷」與「速率－數學應用問題解題後測評量卷」作為受試者介入前後成績是否有提升之對照以及「解題紅綠燈訪談大綱」、「解題紅綠燈回饋單」、「教學省思日誌」來探討本研究之社會效度，蒐集量化及質性資料分析研究結果如下。 一、認知－後設認知策略對提升學習障礙學生數學應用問題解題目標行為具有立即效果及維持效果。 二、認知－後設認知策略對提升學習障礙學生數學應用問題評量成績有成效。 三、認知－後設認知策略對提升學習障礙學生數學應用問題解題能力具有社會效度。 綜合以上研究結果顯示認知－後設認知策略能提升國小學習障礙學生數學應用問題解題能力。
英文摘要

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy on mathematical problem solving ability of elementary school students with learning disabilities. Three students with learning disabilities were chosen from elementary school of Taoyuan. The single subject research changing-criterion designs were used. The independent variable was cognitive and metacognitive strategy and dependent variable was the mathematical problem solving ability. The data were collected on the three subjects during baseling, intervention and maintenance phases. Instructtional effects were assessed by analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data collected in this study were analyzed using visual analysis. Qualitative data collected from interviews with students and student’s teachers were analyzed using transcript analysis method. Results of this study were summarized as following: 1. Cognitive and metacognitive strategy had immediate effects and maintenance effects on mathematical problem solving ability of elementary school students with learning disabilities. 2. Cognitive and metacognitive strategy had effective in assessing mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities 3. Interviews with related individuals had indicated that this study had a high social validity. 　　The above research results show that cognitive and metacognitive strategy can improve the problem-solving ability of mathematicl problem of students with learning disabilities.
主题分类 人文與教育學院 > 特殊教育學系
社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 林清山、張景媛（1993）。國中生後設認知、動機信念與數學解題策略之關係研究。教育心理學報，26，53-74。
    連結：
  2. 壹、中文部分
  3. 王淑惠（2013）。國小數學學習障礙學生的教學策略。雲嘉特教，18，28-34。
  4. 王雪瑜（2006）。國小數學障礙兒童數學解題錯誤類型分析之探討。特殊教育叢書-特殊教育現在與未來，9501，15-30。
  5. 余佩薇（2008）。自我監控圖示策略對國小學習障礙兒童整數成除法文字題的學習成效。國立台北教育大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
  6. 吳正憲（2009）。認知後設認知策略比例應用問題教學對國中學習障礙學生學習成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
  7. 吳宜蓁、蕭伊倫（2015）。自我教導策略對國小中年級學習障礙學生在多位數乘法運算提的學習成效。雲嘉特教，21，36-44。
  8. 呂佩真、黃秋霞、詹士宜（2015）。錨式情境教學對學習障礙學生的數學文字題解題的學習成效。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊，11，135-156。
  9. 呂偉白（1998）。認識學習障礙－從理論到實務。國立屏東師範學院特殊教育叢書，32，199-217。國立屏東師範學院特殊教育中心印行。
  10. 杜正治（2008）。單一受是研究法。臺北：心理出版社。
  11. 周台傑（1992）。學習障礙者之評量。載於周台傑（主編），特殊兒童診斷手冊，1-28。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學特殊教育中心編印。
  12. 周台傑、江美娟（2003）。後設認知策略對國小數學學習障礙學生解題成效之研究。特殊教育學報，18，107-151。
  13. 周台傑、詹文宏（1995）。後設認知閱讀策略對國小閱讀障礙兒童閱讀理解能力之研究。特殊教育與復健學報，4，109-152。
  14. 孟瑛如、簡吟文（2014）。由DSM-5的改變談學習障礙未來的鑑定與教學輔導趨勢。輔導季刊，50（4），28-34。
  15. 邱上真（2001，6月28日）。跨領域、多層次的數學學習障礙研究：從學習障礙的官方定義談起。取自http://nflcr.im.knu.edu.tw/mathld/
  16. 特教通報網年度特教統計（2018）。各縣市身心障礙學生特教類別統計。取自： http://www.set.edu.tw
  17. 張春興（2011）。教育心理學。臺北市：東華。
  18. 張美華、簡瑞良（2006）。新全方位課程設計理念在智能障礙學生單元教學設計之運用。國小特殊教育，47，24-38。
  19. 張淑惠、唐榮昌（2014）。後設認知策略教學對學習障礙學生在數學解題之應用:以Montague的Solve It 解題策略教學為例。特教園丁，29(3)，25-35。
  20. 張羚羚、林惠秋（2011）問題中心雙環教學模式在國中數學學習障礙教學之應用。桃竹區特殊教育，18，15-27。
  21. 教育部（2013）。身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定辦法：中華民國102年9月2日。教育部，臺教學（四）字第1020125519B號令修正發布。
  22. 梁明華（2009）。電腦輔助教學在學習障礙學生數學解題的應用之探討。國小特殊教育，48，41-51。
  23. 郭靜姿（1992）。閱讀理解訓練方案對於增進高中學生閱讀策略應用與後設認知能力之成效研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
  24. 郭靜姿、蔡明富（主編）（2002）。解脫「數」缚－數學學習障礙學生教材設計。台北市：國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心編印。
  25. 鈕文英（2009）。身心障礙者的正向行為支持。臺北：心理。
  26. 鈕文英、吳裕益（2015）。單一個案研究法－研究設計與後設分析。新北：心理。
  27. 黃彩霞（2009）。非英語專業學生閱讀中自我提問能力的培養。US-China Foreign Language，7(5)，24-26。
  28. 黃源河、陳瑋婷（2016）。認知－後設認知策略在國中小學習障礙學生的數學補救教學成效。臺灣教育評論月刊，5(11)，65-70。
  29. 黃瑋苓（2006）淺談數學學習障礙。台東特教，23，48-53。
  30. 詹秀雯（2013）運用資料導向決策教學提升高中身障生學習成效－以數學科為例。身心障礙研究所季刊，11，27-43。
  31. 廖盈絜、洪榮照（2009）。以貝氏網路為基礎之電腦化適性診斷測驗結合電腦輔助教學對國中輕度障礙學生數學學習成效之研究。特殊教育學報，30，93-120。
  32. 劉玟儒、呂翠華（2017）。線圖結合自我教導策略對國小資源班學生文字題學習成效之研究。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊，106，41-63。
  33. 鄧少林、蔣治邦（1993）。三、五年級學生對比較應用問題的分類。國教學報，6，97-113。
  34. 蕭嘉妮（2000）。台日學習障礙兒童教育之比較（碩士論文）。取自http://ir.lib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/9317
  35. 賴姵靜（2009）。後設認知解題策略較學對國民小學四年級數學學習障礙學生整數四則運算解題能力影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學習碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
  36. 謝涵、許雅筑、陳政見（2016）。後設認知策略在國中學習障礙學生數學解題之運用實例分析。雲嘉特教，24，18-31。
  37. 鍾承均、呂翠華（2015）。認知-後設認知策略對提升國小五年級數學困難學生文字題解題學習成效之研究。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊，11，111-134。
  38. 貳、英文部分
  39. Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2012). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9thed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
  40. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder-V (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Book Promotion & Service LTD.
  41. Bishara, S. (2016). Self-regulated math instructions for pupils with learning disabilities. Cogent Education, 3:1262306, http//dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1262306, pp. 1-14.
  42. Boonen, J. H., Koning., Jolles, J., Schoot. (2016). Word problem solving in contemporary math education: A plea for reading comprehension skill training. Retrieved from https://www. ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756284/
  43. Brownell, M. D., Mellard, D. F., & Deshler, D. D. (1993). Differences in the learning and transfer performance between students with learning and other low-achieving students on problem-solving tasks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 138-156.
  44. Bryant, D. P. (2005). Commentary on early identification and intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabililties, 38, 340-345.
  45. Case, L. P., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities. The Journal of Education, 26, 1-19.
  46. Cawley, J. F., Parmar, R. S., Yan, W. F., & Miller, J. H. (1998). Arithmetic computation abilities of students with learning disabilities: Implication for instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 68-74.
  47. Cozza, B., & Oreshkina, M. (2013). Cross-cultural study of cognitive and metacognitive processes During Math Problem Solving. School Science and Mathematics, 113, 275-284. doi:10.1111/ssm.12027.
  48. Flavell, J. H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  49. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in eduction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: The McGraw-Hill.
  50. Freeman-Green, S. M., O’Brien, C., Wood, C. L., & Hitt, S. B. (2015). Effects of the SOLVE strategy on the mathematical problem solving skills of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(2), 76-90. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12054.
  51. Gagne, E. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown.
  52. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsha, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervetion (RtI) for elementary and middle school (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Reginal Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wws/publication/practic
  53. -eguides/
  54. Gersten, R., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2008). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: A synthesis of the intervention research. Portsmouth, NH: RMC http://www.centeroni- nstruction.org/files/Teaching%20Math%20to%20SLD%20Meta-analysis.pdf.
  55. Gonsalves, N., & Krawec, J. (2014). Using number lines to math word problems: A strategy for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(4), 160-170.
  56. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A metaanalysis of SRSD studies. In H. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learningg disbilities (pp. 323-334). New York, NGeY: Guilford Press.
  57. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., &Lloyd, J. W. (1999). Introduction to learning disabilities (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  58. Hecht, S. A., Close, L., & Santisi, M. (2003). Sources of individual differences in fraction skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 277-302.
  59. Hudson, P., & Miller, S. P. (2006). Designing and implementing mathematics instruction for students with diverse learning needs. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
  60. Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., Deatline-Buchman, A., & Sczesniak, E. (2007). Mathematical word problem solbing in third-grde classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 100,283-302. doi:10.2307/1511010
  61. Kazdin, A. E. (2001). Almost clinically significant (p.<.10): Current measures may only approach clinical significance. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 455-462.
  62. Kraai, R. (2011). The role of metacognitive strategy use in second grade students with learning disabilities during written spelling tasks. Dissertation Abstracts International, 71(11-A), 3984.
  63. Krawec, J., & Montague, M. (2012). Cognitive stratrgy instruction. Current Practive Alerts, 19, 1-4.
  64. Krawec, J., Huang, J., Montague, M., Kressler, B., & de Alba, A. M. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on knoeledge of math problem-solving processes of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 80-92. doi:10.1177/073194871246368
  65. Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97-114.
  66. Krulik, S. (Ed.). (1980). Problem solving in school mathematics. (1980 yearbook. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  67. Lerner, J. W., & Johns, B. H. (2009). Learning Disabilities and Related Mild Disabilities: Characteristics, Teaching Strategies, and New Directions. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
  68. Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77(2), 115-126.
  69. Mercer, C. D. (1997). Students with learning disabililties. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  70. Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D., (1997). Educational Aspects of Mathematics Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 47-56.
  71. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of learning Disabilities, 25, 230-248.
  72. Montague, M. (2003). Solve It!: A practical approach to teaching problem solving skills. Reston, VA: Exceptional Innovations.
  73. Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 37-44.
  74. Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive stratrgy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 285-302.
  75. Montague, M., Warger, C., & Morgan, T. H. (2000). Solve It! Strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 110-16.doi:10.1207/SLDRP1502_7.
  76. Nwankwo, O. C. (2005). Counseling on academic of secondary school in river state. Journal of Counseling and Communication, 1(2), 160-167.
  77. Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  78. Shalev, R. S. (2007). Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children ? Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  79. Shin, M., & Bryant, D. P. (2013) A synthesis of mathematical and cognitive performance of students with mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022219413508324
  80. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Heereweg, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
print cancel