資訊科技融入數學教學模組之開發與研究－以國中平面幾何基礎課程教學為例

Integrating Technology into the Development of Mathematical Teaching Models and a Study of its Effect on Junior High Students' Learning of Basic Geometric Concepts

10.7073/JNHTCA.200411.0119

李俊儀(Chun-Yi Lee)；袁媛(Yuan Yuan)

Flash ； 建構式van Hiele五階段學習模式 ； 基礎幾何 ； 資訊科技融入教學 ； Flash ； Constructive van Hiele five-phase learning model ； Basic geometry ； Technology integrated instruction

花蓮師院學報（教育類）

19期（2004 / 11 / 01）

119 - 142

繁體中文

本研究主要是使用Flash開發出可讓教師教學示範並可引導學生探索、做中學的「國中平面幾何基礎課程」數位教材，並以「建構式van Hiele五階段學習模式」設計學習活動，提供資訊科技融入數學教學模組的教學示例。最後探討資訊科技融入數學教學模組實施之後，對學生數學學習所產生的影響。 本研究採取不等組的前後測之準實驗設計，以研究者自行開發之學習成就測驗與課程意見量表為主要工具，並以桃園縣一所國中的兩個班級為研究樣本，實驗組接受資訊科技融入數學教學所設計的活動，控制組則沒有。筆試後，經由統計與實徵資料分析主要結果如下： 一、實驗組學生在學習成就測驗後測基本層次得分上顯著高於控制組學生。 二、實驗組學生在學習成就測驗延後測總分與各層次得分上與控制組學生並無顯著差異。 三、實驗組不同性別的學生在學習成就測驗後測與延後測得分上都沒有顯著差異。 四、實驗組學生在學習成就測驗測後與前測得分差距的表現，不論是以3/5或4/5為標準的幾何思考層次來看，各思考層次水準學生的表現並無顯著差異。 五、實驗組數學高、中、低成就水準學生分別與控制組數學高、中、低成就水準學生在成就測驗後測得分上沒有顯著差異。 六、實驗組學生在學習成就測驗延後測與前測得分差距表現上，不論以3/5或4/5為標準的幾何思考層次來看，層次2的學生表現都顯著優於層次0的學生。 七、實驗組高數學成就水準在學習成就測驗延後測得分上顯著高於控制組高數學成就水準學生，但控制組中數學成就水準學生在學習成就延後測得分則顯著高於實驗組中數學成就水準學生。 八、實驗組與控制組在長達一個學期的教學實驗後在數學態度得分上沒有顯著的改變。 九、有86%的學生願意再上資訊科技融入數學的類似課程，但是其中認為利用電腦學習有助於學科內容了解的學生約只有70%。 最後根據研究結果與發現，提出若干建議以做為教師教學改進與未來研究之參考。

This paper aimed to develop ”basic geometry” digital teaching materials at the junior high school level. Based on these tools, we also designed learning activities by ”Constructive van Hiele five-phase learning model” as examples of technology-integrated mathematical instruction. Finally, this study adopted a nonequivalent-group pretest-posttest of quasi-experimental design to study its effect on junior high students' learning of basic geometric concepts. The main results as follows: 1. There was a significant difference at basic concept level of the posttest for both groups. 2. There was no significant difference in the retentive test for both groups. 3. There was no significant difference in the posttest and retentive test for boys and girls in the experiment group. 4. There was no significant difference in the difference between posttest and pretest for students with different van Hiele level in the experiment group. 5. There was no significant difference in the posttest for the students with different mathematics ability between two groups. 6. There was a significant difference in the difference between retentive test and pretest for the students with van Hiele level 2 and van Hiele level 0 in the experiment group. 7. There was a significant difference in the retentive test for the students with high mathematics ability between two groups. But there was also a significant difference in the retentive test for the students with middle mathematics ability between two groups. 8. There was no significant difference between the Mathematics Attitude Scale protest and posttest for both groups after the implementation of the instructional experiment this semester. 9. Eighty-six percent of students in the experiment group liked to have similar course in the future and 70% of them agreed that integrating technology into instruction helped their mathematics learning. Based on the results, we proposed several suggestions for the improvement of teaching and future research.

1. Bangert-Drowns, R.L.,Kulik, J.A.,Kulik, C.C.(1985).Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,12,59-68.
2. Bishop, A.J.(1989).Review of research on visualization in mathematics education.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,11(1),7-16.
3. Black, J.B.,McClintock, R.O.,Wilson, B.(Ed.)(1996).Constructivist Learning Environments.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology.
4. Burns, P.K.,Bozeman, W.C.(1981).Computer-assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is therea relationship？.Educational Technology,21(10),32-39.
5. Claire, M.F.,Gratt, B.(1995).The efficacy of computer assisted instruction: a meta-analysis.Journal of Educational Computing Research,12(3),219-242.
6. Clark, R.(1994).Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development,42(2),21-29.
7. Clark, R.(1983).Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research,53(4),445-459.
8. Clark, R.(1982).Confounding in educational computing research.Journal of Educational Computing Research,1(2),137-148.
9. Clements, D.H.,Battista, M.T.,D.A. Grouws(Ed.)(1992).Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning.New York:Macmillan Publishing Company.
10. Collins, A.,S. Vosniadou,E.D. Corte,R. Glaser,H. Mandl(Eds.)(1996).International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments.Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Cunningham, S.,W. Zimmermann,S. Cunningham(Eds.)(1991).Visualization in Teaching and Learning Mathematics.Washington:The Mathematical Association of America.
12. Dillshaw, F.G.,Bell, S.(1985).Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.MN:St. Paul.
13. Dreyfus, T.,Hadas, N.,W. Zimmermann,S. Cunningham(Eds.)(1991).Visualization in Teaching and Learning Mathematics.Washington:The Mathematical Association of America.
14. Fuys, D.,Geddes, D.(1984).An investigation of van Hiele levels of thinking in geometry among sixth and ninth graders: Research findings and implications.Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting in New Orleans,LA:
15. Han, T.(1986).The effects on achievement and attitude of a standard geometry textbook and a textbook Consistent with the van Hiele theory.Colorado:University of Northern Colorado.
16. Hershkowitz, R.,P. Nesher,J. Kilpatrick(Eds.)(1990).Mathematics and Cognition: A research synthesis by the international group for the psychology of mathematics education.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
17. Hoffer, A.(1981).Geometry is more than proof.Mathematics teacher,74(1),11-18.
18. Hoffer, A.,R. Lesh,T.R. Post(Eds.)(1983).Teaching mathematics in grades k-8.Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
19. Hoyles, C.,J.C. Bergeron,N. Herscovics,C. Kieran(Eds.)(1987).Proceedings of the eleventh international conference of PME.Montreal, Canada:University of Montreal.
20. Jonassen, D.H.(2000).Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging Critical thinking.Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
21. Reusser, K.,S. Vosniadou,E.D. Corte,R. Glaser,H. Mandl(Eds.)(1996).International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments.Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Roblyer, M.D.,Castine, W.H.,King, F.J.(1988).a review of recent research.Computers in the Schools,5,1-149.
23. Sweller, J.(1999).Instructional design in technological areas.Camberwell, Australia:ACER Press.
24. Tsai, C.C.(2001).The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to Internet-based instruction in Taiwan.International Journal of Educational Development 21.
25. Usiskin, Z.(1982).Final Report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago.
26. Usiskin, Z.,Senk, S.(1990).Evaluating a test of van Hiele levels: A response to Crowley and Wilson.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,21(3),242-245.
27. Van Hiele-Geldof, D.(1957).Netherlands,University of Utrecht.
28. Wirszup, I.,J.L. Martin,D.A.(1976).Breakthroughs in the psychology of learning and teaching geometry.
29. Wu, D.B.(1994).University of Northern Colorado.
30. Yakimanskaya, I.S.Robert H. Silverman(Trans.)(1991).The development of spatial thinking in schoolchildren.Chicago:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
31. 吳正己(2001)。從英特爾e教師計畫談資訊融入教學。資訊與教育，85，15-21。
32. 李俊儀、黃俊榮(2003)。Flash MX ActionScript互動式教材實作聖經。台北:文魁。
33. 周武德(1993)。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告國科會專題研究計畫成果報告,未出版
34. 林星秀(2001)。高雄，國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所。
35. 邱貴發(1992)。電腦輔助教學成效探討。視聽教育雙月刊，33(4)，11-18。
36. 國立編譯館(1999)。國民中學數學教師手冊第四冊。台北:國立編譯館。
37. 張景中(1995)。平面幾何新路。台北:九章出版社。
38. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫數學領域網要。
39. 教育部電子計算機中心(1995)。電腦輔助教學（二）。台中:資訊與教育雜誌社。
40. 梁世傑(2001)。高雄，國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所。
41. 梁勇能(2000)。台北，台灣師大數學研究所。
42. 許翰濃(1997)。台北，國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育研究所。
43. 陳震昌(2001)。高雄，國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所。
44. 溫嘉榮(1998)。多媒體電腦輔助學習理論模式實證研究。國立高雄師大學報，9，263-287。
45. 董家莒(2000)。台北，國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
46. 董家莒、張俊彥(2000)。問題解決或無問題解決電腦輔助教學成效的比較研究。科學教育學刊，8(4)，357-377。
47. 蔡坤霖(2001)。高雄，國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所。

1. 劉以慧、廖遠光、陳韻如、王燕超(2011)。實物攝影機應用於國小教學之研究─以三所國小為例。教學科技與媒體，96，2-21。
2. 蘇承芳、張正杰(2015)。數位筆記本融入高級中學數學補救課程之研究。數位學習科技期刊，7(4)，47-71。
3. (2006)。資訊科技融入教學成效省思。視聽教育雙月刊，48(2)，1-18。