查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 建構教學模式對數學學習障礙兒童解題能力及數學信念之影響研究
- 數學解題能力的培養
- 建構教學模式對學習障礙學生數學學習之應用
- The Influence of Pupils' Thinking Skills: Implementing Computer Programming Instruction (LOGO) in Elementary School in Taiwan
- 探討四位一年級教師在協同行動研究取向的成長團體之下的數學信念
- 師院生有關數學信念的個案研究
- 國小兒童解題策略與數學能力之關係--以解「積木問題」為試探
- 認知解題策略對國小數學低成就學童文字題解題能力之實驗研究
- 國小男女生後設認知能力與數學作業表現的關係研究
- An Investigation of the Relationship of A Logic-Based Computer Programming Environment and Students Thinking Skills
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 建構教學模式對數學學習障礙兒童解題能力及數學信念之影響研究=Effects of the Teaching Model of Constructivism on Problem--Solving and Mathematics Beliefs of Students With Learning Disabilites |
---|---|
作者 | 蔡淑桂; | 書刊名 | 康寧學報 |
卷期 | 1:3 1999.12[民88.12] |
頁次 | 頁15-51 |
分類號 | 529.69 |
關鍵詞 | 建構教學模式; 數學學習障礙兒童; 解題能力; 數學信念; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本研究依據建構主義的學習原理,認為學生的學習,是靠個體主動建構其知識系 統而來,提出「建構式數學教學模式」(布題─提示─討論─澄清─內化五段教學歷程), 透過教學實驗,探討其對數學學障礙學生的解題能力及數學信念之影響,並分析其解題歷程 。 在研究方法上,兼採「量化」和「質化」的研究:在量化研究方面,以自編「操作型數學解 題能力測驗」及改編之「數學信念量表」為工具, 以臺北市某國小 9 位數學學習障礙學生 為樣本(實驗組 4 位,3 男 1 女;對照組,1 男 4 女),進行為期一年之實驗教學。 質 化研究方面,包括( 1 )教師教學歷程, 採用單元教學活動錄影記錄,進行「對話分析」 ; ( 2 )學生解題歷程,整理學生的前、後測「操作型數學解題能力測驗」結果,進行原 案分析。 研究結果主要發現如下: 一、實驗教學後,建構式教學組數障學生之解題能力優於傳統講解組。 二、實驗教學後,建構式教學組數障學生之數學信念優於傳統講解組。 三、數障學生之解題歷程,有如下之特質: 1. 在運用數學概念和知識方面:實驗教學前,數值計算易犯錯, 傾向使用─「關鍵字詞」 、「表面語法」、「依樣情境套用」的知識,而缺乏對題目所需概念或知識的深入思考與了 解,實驗教學後,數值計算錯誤減少,且會再反覆看題目進行檢查與思考。 2. 在問題的覺知和表徵方面:實驗教學前,只能發現單一或部分的關係, 未做解題的全面 考量,無法像能力較強之學生會從問題之情境和特例中,觀察和考量全部和各部分的關係。 實驗教學後,較能發現題目語句間的關係,提高其解題能力。 3. 解題策略的執行方面: 實驗教學後解題的有效策略包括逼近法、分析目標、分析條件、 畫圖、簡化問題、作資料表、猜測與檢核、發現關係、推理和評估等。實驗教學前之無效策 略有逃避作答、亂猜、背誦關鍵字、不驗算等。 4. 察覺和監控的解題行為方面: ( 1 )察覺的層次:實驗教學前只具有含糊的察覺和部分關係的察覺, 實驗教學後才進展 到全面性關係的察覺與反省的察覺層次。 ( 2 )監控的層次:前測時,數障學生幾乎都不會使用監控策略, 在實驗教學指引後,實 驗組學生已表現出評估的監控、計畫的監控、關係的監控等解題行為。 5. 校正答案方面:未經實驗教學時,大部分學生都沒有養成驗算以校正答案的習慣, 經教 學過程提示後,所有實驗組學生都已有回顧解答、驗算、校正答案的習慣。 |
英文摘要 | This study was based on the learning principies of constructivism proposing that learning of individuals occurred only when the knowledge systems of individuals were constructed on their own initiative. The purpose of the study were as follows: A、Comparing the differences of problem solving of students with learning disabilities between two teaching models constructivism and traditionalism. B、Comparing the differences of mathematics beliefs of Students with learning disabilities between two teaching Models. C、Analyzing the problem solving process of students with learning disabilities in order to find out characteristics and difficulties of problem solving of students with learning disabilities. There were two approaches, qualitative and quantitative, For the study design. With regard to quantitative approach, The researcher edited questionnaires such as "Operative Mathematics Problem Solving Test" and "Mathematics Belief Scale" by herself in order to collect data of problem solving and mathematics beliefs of students with learning disabilities. There were totally 9 subjects, who were 5th grade and were learning disabilities in mathenatics as the study sample. Among them, 4 subjects were in the experiment group--constructivism, and the others were in the control group--traditionalism, Data was analyzed by oneway of covariance. As for qualitative approach, data concerning teaching process of teachers and problem solving process of students with process of learning disabilities, were collected through vedio tapes and pre-and pro-tests. Results of the study were as follows: 1. The scores of problem solving of students with learining disabilities in the experiment group were higher than that of those who were in the control group. 2. The scores of mathenatics belief of students with learning disabilities in the experiment group were higher than that of those who were in the control group. 3. Analyzing the problem solving process of students with learning disabilities, several findings were observed. First, with respect to using mathematics concept and knowledge, students with learning disabilities often computed erroneously because they didn't think thoroughly about what questions mean. Secondly, with respect to question cognition and Isomorphism, students with learning disabilities could not consider every aspect of a question. Therefore, they couldn't solve problem as well as those who were without learning disabilities. Thirdly, as for strategies of solving problem, strategies such as closing targets, analyzing objects and terms, picturing, simplifying, and charting were effective while escaping, guessing, and key wording were not effective. Fourthly, students with learning disabilities could not finde out or supervise what questions really mean before leaning. Lastly, students with learning disabilities were not used to correcting answers by double check before learning. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。