臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究之目的在探討問題解決教學策略對高職電機科低壓工業配線學習成效之影響。主要在探討：(一)不同教學策略對低壓工業配線學習成效之影響，(二)學生對低壓工業配線的態度與學習成就之關係，(三)瞭解學生對問題解決教學策略來進行低壓工業配線教學之看法。
為達上述研究目的，本研究透過文獻探討、教師訪談，採用實驗研究法進行實驗教學。以成就測驗、態度量表、問卷調查蒐集相關研究資料。研究對象為省立台南高級工業職業學校電機科二年級甲班學生，分為兩組，每組人數24名。本研究採用準實驗研究設計，實驗過程將此研究分為兩階段進行實驗處理。進行教學實驗前先對全體樣本進行前測，前測範圍為一年級專業基礎能力包括基本電學、電子學、電工法規、電工製圖、屋內配線實習、工業安全與衛生。前測之主要目的在於瞭解實施實驗教學前學生在基礎能力上的差異。在實驗過程中，實驗組以問題解決教學策略進行實驗處理，控制組則採一般傳統教學方式處理，教學一個月後實施低壓工業配線成就測驗一(後測一)，內容包括術科配線規劃與實務及學科測驗。第二階段係延續上一階段實驗教學，經過二週後，實施成就測驗二(後測二)，內容包括術科故障診斷排除實務(動、靜態測試)及低壓工業配線態度量表。實驗組則增加問題解決教學策略學後量表。
本研究採用次數分配、獨立樣本t考驗、共變數分析、Pearson積差相關及描述統計等統計方法考驗研究假設。
茲將本研究所獲得的結論與建議敘述如下：
一、本研究發現問題解決教學策略對於低壓工業配線之學科知識、配線規劃與實務及故障診斷排除實務達到顯 著差異，且透過教師的訪談與學生對問題解決教學策略的看法，認為可增進學生認知、技能及情意等向度 的能力，故問題解決教學策略值得在低壓工業配線之教學上推廣。
二、不同教學策略分組之學生，對於低壓工業配線信心程度、喜歡程度及有用性之態度無顯著差異。
三、不同低壓工業配線態度的學生，在低壓工業配線成就上達顯著相關。即低壓工業配線態度越傾向正向積極 態度者，在低壓工業配線成就上明顯較高；低壓工業配線態度越傾向負向消極態度者，在低壓工業配線成 就上則明顯偏低。
四、由研究發現得知學生對於電子學、電工相關法規的成績偏低，因此，教師應加強學生在此部份的專業基礎 能力。
五、學生在低壓工業配線實習中常需分析電路功能及故障診斷排除，而學生在此方面能力明顯偏低，因此在教 學上應增加學生思考、推理與分析的教學內容，藉以提昇此一部份的能力。
六、教授問題解決策略時，教師應事先對問題進行演練，在教學過程中示範，讓學生有正確的參照實例。且教 師在評量學生所完成線路的功能時，要讓學生自己操作講解，方有助於學生的學習成效。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the problem-solving of Low-Voltage Industrial Wiring (LVIW) teaching strategies on the learning effectiveness. The main categories of investigation were: (1) the learning effectiveness of LVIW using different teaching strategies (2) the relationship between the attitudes that the students hold toward LVIW and the learning effectiveness. (3) to understand the students'' views of using problem-solving strategies in teaching LVIW course.
To accomplish these research purposes, the research methods included literature study, expert interviews, and quasi-experimental design to proceed experimental teaching. Achievement tests, cognitive style tests, and questionnaires were administered to obtain the relevant research data. The Objects of this study were the sophomore students enrolled in the Department of Electricity, Tainan Industrial Vocational High School. There were two groups of objects with 24 students each. The research adopted quasi-experimental design. The process of this experiment was divided into two stages of investigation. Before assigning the experimental teaching strategies, the research first pre-tested the student objects. The subjects of pretests concluded Basic Electricity, Electronics, Electrician Drawing, Electrical Code, Domestic Wiring, and Industrial Safety & Hygiene. The purpose of pretests was to find out the differences on basic ability before assigning the experimental teaching strategies. During the process of experiment, the experimental group was delivered with problem-solving instructional strategies; the control group was experimented by traditional teaching scheme. After one month, the achievement tests I (posttest I) of LVIW was administered. The posttest I included hand-on test of wiring skills and written subject test.
The experimental instruction of second stage is follow the first stage. Two weeks latter, the achievement test II (posttest II) was administered. The posttest included Diagnoses and Trouble shooting (including static test and dynamic test), and a questionnaire investigating the students'' attitudes toward LVIW.
The statistic procedures employed for analyzing experimental data and testing the research hypotheses were; frequency distribution, t-test, ANCOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, and descriptive statistic.
The conclusions and suggestions were listed as follows:
1. This investigation found that there was significant deference on problem-solving teaching strategies toward LVIW, Skill of Wiring Method, Diagnoses and Trouble Shooting. Besides, it is considered that it could improve students'' cognitive, psychomotor, and affective abilities. Therefore, problem-solving teaching strategies is valuable to be widely used in the teaching of LVIW.
2. There were no significant differences of students who were in the different group of teaching strategies, in terms of the attitudes toward confidence, preference, and usefulness.
3. The different attitudes toward LVIW held by students were significantly different in terms of the achievement in LVIW. That is, the more positive the attitudes toward LVIW, the better achievement on LVIW tests, and vice versa.
4. The students'' grades in Electronics and Electrical Code, were relatively low. Therefore, teachers should strengthen students'' basic occupational abilities in these fields.
5. During the practice of LVIW, students often need to analyze the assigned functions. However, students'' abilities in the field were obviously low. Hence, teachers should envolve more contents which can help students think, analyze, and reason, thus sharperning students'' abilities in this field.
6. Teachers should practice thoroughly according to the problem before applying problem-solving teaching strategies. Teachers should demonstrate during teaching process in order to provide students with a correct object to refer to. Meanwhile, when evaluating the performance of circuitry accomplished by students, teachers should let the students operate and explain by themselves to upgrade the learning effectiveness of students.

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究假設
第四節 研究方法與步驟
第五節 研究範圍與限制
第六節 名詞解釋
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 技能學習之理論基礎
第二節 問題解決教學策略之理論及相關研究
第三節 高級工業職業學校電機科低壓工業配線之教學
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究架構
第二節 研究對象
第三節 研究設計
第四節 研究工具
第五節 教學實驗的實施
第六節 資料處理
第四章 資料分析與討論
第一節 樣本資料分析
第二節 不同教學策略在低壓工業配線學習成效上之差異性分析
第三節 低壓工業配線態度與學習成就之分析
第四節 研究假設實徵
第五節 學生對於問題解決教學策略之看法
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究發現
第二節 結論與討論
第三節 研究的建議
第四節 未來研究的建議
參考書目
一、中文部份
二、英文部份
附錄
附錄一 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線前測專業基礎能 力測驗預試量表前測試題
附錄二 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線前測專業基礎能 力測驗正式量表前測試題
附錄三 高職電機科低壓工業配線之專業基礎能力前測筆試試題難易度與鑑別度分析表
附錄四 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線成就測驗後測學 科預試量表
附錄五 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線成就測驗後測學 科正式量表
附錄六 高職電機科低壓工業配線成就測驗後測學科試題難易度與鑑別度分析表
附錄七 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線成就測驗後測一 術科配線規劃與實務
附錄八 台南監獄通過丙級技術士暨乙種電匠之22位樣本預試受測成績
附錄九 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線成就測驗後測二 術科故障診斷排除實務
附錄十 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線態度預試量表
附錄十一 問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生「低壓工業配線」學習成效之研究低壓工業配線態度正式量表
附錄十二 學生對於低壓工業配線採用問題解決教學策略學後看法調查
附錄十三 低壓工業配線教學實驗日期及教學單元
附錄十四 問題解決相關理論、策略及實例
附錄十五 低壓工業配線問題解決教學範例
附錄十六 高職電機科低壓工業配線教師訪談記錄

中文部分
丁振豐(民75)。學生場地獨立性與教師教學方法的教互作用對認知籍情意學習效果之影響。國立台灣師範大學 輔導研究所碩士論文。
方炳林(民66)。教學原理。台北市：教育文物出版社。
方崇雄(民84)。國民中學生活科技教育問題解決模式課程設計與實驗研究。中華民國工藝教育學會。
王文科(民83)。課程與教學論。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
王文科(民83)。質的教育研究法。台北：師大書苑
王文科(民84)。教育研究法。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
王文科、紹瑞珍(民78)。教育心理學。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
王克先(民84)。學習心理學。台北：東華書局。
王春展(民86)。專家與生手間問題解決能力的差異及其在教學上的啟示。教育研究資訊，5(2)，頁80-92。
王英明(民85)。運用創造思考與問題解決模式對科技教育的啟示。中學工藝教育月刊，30(8)，頁2-8。
王萬清(民75)。電腦輔助問題解決課程對兒童問題解決能力及程序思考能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學輔導研 究所碩士論文。
王瑪麗(民73)。人際問題解決訓練對國中女生人際問題解決能力、態度與人際適應的影響。國立台灣師範大學 輔導研究所碩士論文。
王繼正(民87)。專科學校機械科創造性問題解決式專題製作教學之研究。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所博 士論文。
行政院(民85)。中華民國年鑑。行政院國家科學委員會。
行政院(民85)。教育改革總諮議報告書。
行政院(民86)。跨世界人力發展計畫。行政院經濟建設委員會。
吳天方(民86)。我國師範大學工業教育學生問題解決和學習風格之相關研究。國立彰化師範大學。
吳辛宜(民83)。學習理論與教學應用。台北市：心理出版社。
吳坤銓(民85)。國小學生認知能力、問題解決能力與創造傾向之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所 碩士論文。
吳珍梅(民81)。問題解決訓練團體對國小教師問題解決態度與工作壓力的影響。國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所 碩士論文。
吳淑敏(民80)。創造性問題解決之心像教學方案對國小資優班學生問題解決能力、創造力、自我概念及認知風 格之影響。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
李大偉(民75)。技職教育測量與評鑑。台北：三民書局。
李基常、王繼正(民87)。創造性問題解決式的專題製作教學。技術職業教育雙月刊，45，頁39-44。
李淑媛(民83)。高一學生問題解決態度、生涯不確定源與生涯決定狀態之相關研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導研 究所碩士論文。
李隆盛(民83)。工藝教材教法新趨勢：模組化的課程設計與解決問題的教學策略。菁莪，第六卷第四期，頁3-9 。
杜成憲(民83)。早期儒家學習範疇研究。台北：文津出版社。
汪榮才(民85)。國民小學社會科創造性問題解決教學效果之研究。臺北市 : 國科會微縮小組,.NSC 84-2413-H024-007.
周談輝(民74)。中國職業教育發展史。台北：三民書局。
岳修平(民87)。教學心理學：學習的認知基礎。台北市：遠流出版社。
林幸台(民70)。創造性問題解決法。台灣教育，372，頁5-8。
林清山(民79)。教育心理學-認知取向。台北市：遠流圖書出版公司。
林清山(民81)。心理與教育統計學。台北市：東華書局。
林蕙蓉(民84)。國小學童後設認知策略教學對國語科閱讀理解效能之研究。台南師院學報，28，頁271-312。
林寶山(民85)。教學原理。台北市：五南圖書出版社。
柯華葳(民82)。問題解決教學模式之建立─以國小環境教育為例。國立中正大學學報，4(1)，頁1-32。
洪榮昭(民86)。問題解決的思考模式。技術問題解決能力發展研究研習會報告資料。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
孫邦正(民62)。普通教學法。台北：正中書局。
徐南號(民85)。教學原理。台北市：師大書苑。
袁立錕(民65)。職業教育之理論與實務。台北市：大聖書局。
高廣孚(民78)。教育哲學。台北：五南圖書公司。
高廣孚(民82)。教學原理。台北市：五南圖書出版社。
康自立(民83)。技職教育課程基礎之理論研究-以工業教育為例。國家科學委員會。
張春興(民74)。心理學。台北：東華書局。
張春興(民80)。心理學。台北市：東華書局。
張春興(民86)。教育心理學。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
張春興(民86)。教育心理學。台北市：東華書局。
張春興(民86)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北市：東華書局。
張春興、林清山(民72)。教育心理學。台北：東華書局。
張祖忻(民84)。教學設計-基本原理與方法。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
張靜怡(民84)。訪楊政務次長朝祥─談當前技職教育重要政策。技術及職業教育，28，頁4。
張靜嚳(民84)。空間能力和認知需要對數學解題策略之影響。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部(民85)。八十五年度國民教育階段學生基本學習成就評量研究報告。台灣師大，中等學校教師研習中心，頁243-244
教育部(民87)。工業職業學校電機科課程標準暨設備標準。教育部技職司。
許舜府(民79)。心智模式於電腦輔助電路設計之應用。國立清華大學工業工程研究所碩士論文。
郭生玉(民86)。心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局。
陳正昌(民85)。教學設計原理。台北市：五南圖書出版公司。
陳李綢(民83)。學如何學策略訓練與社會工作經驗對大學生概念建構、V字捷思歷程、後設認知與學習表現的影響。教育心理學報，27，頁81-103。
陳東營(民87)。國中學生理化解題過程差異與其影響因素之研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳玫良(民84)。國中工藝/生活科技解決問題教學策略之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工程技術研究所碩士論文。
陳曉開(民84)。新聞編輯的專家與生手解題表現研究。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
陳曉開(民86)。新聞編輯的解題表現─專家與生手的比較。新聞學研究，54，頁237-268。
陳禮文(民86)。問題解決為導向的設計思考過程－專家與生手的比較。淡江大學建築研究所碩士論文。
陳繁興、黃耀寬(民88)。問題解決教學策略對高職電機科學生低壓工業配線學習成效之影響。第十四屆全國技術及職業教育研討會論文集，頁187-196。
彭震球(民80)。創造性教學之實踐。台北：五南圖書公司。
黃光雄(民72)。技能領域的行為目標。高雄：復文書局。
黃幸美(民82)。問題解決的思考歷程。教育研究，34。頁50-56。
黃淑珍(民82)。問題解決策略訓練對大學生解決問題能力，因應方式及心理健康的影響效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
黃萬居(民87)。培育能提高國小學生的解決問題能力教師之研究。台北市立師範學院學報，29，頁227-241。
楊國勝(民83)。系統分析在教育革新上的應用。台北：水牛出版社。
詹秀美(民78)。國小學生創造力與問題解決能力的相關變項研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
廖鳳池等編譯(民80)。教育心理學。台北：心理出版社。
端木蓉(民86)。問題解決─應用認知原則的數學教學。教育資料與研究，17，頁96-101。
劉兆文(民84)。「問題解決」與其在國小數學教學的啟示。國立編譯館通訊，8(3)，頁35-40。
劉誌文(民84)。國民小學自然科學創造性問題解決教學效果之研究。師說，87，頁18-26。
劉豐旗(民84)。技職教育課程基礎之理論研究─高職機械、電機類科學生技術能力發展之研究(室內配線)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
歐陽教(民68)。認知結構與教學的關係。師大教育研究所集刊，(18)，頁127。
鄭昭明(民82)。認知心理學：理論與實踐。台北市：桂冠出版社。
鄭毓信(民85)。關於「問題解決」的再思考。數學傳播，4(20)，頁63-69。
鄭麗玉(民82)。認知心理學。台北：五南書局。
蕭錫錡、陳繁興(民87)。因應我國加入世界貿易組織企業訓練之規劃與內涵。行政院勞委會職業訓練局編印。
蕭鍚錡(民78)。教學目標與評量。專科學校教師教學評量手冊(第二章)。台北：教育部技術及職業教育司。
鍾一先(民86)。問題解決教學策略應用於國民中學生活科技之實驗研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文
鍾聖校(民81)。認知心理學。台北：心理出版社。
羅素貞(民85)。問題表徵與問題解決。屏東師院學報，9，頁149-176。
饒達欽(民79)。技術職業教育理念與實施。台北：文景出版社。
英文部分
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. freeman & Company.
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd Ed.). New York :W. H. Freeman & Company.
Anderson, R. D.,Anderson, B. L., Varanka-Martin, M. A., Romagnano, L.,Bielenberg. J., Flory, M.,Mieras, B., & Whitworth, J.(1994). Issues of Curriculum reforms in science, mathematics and higher order thinking across the disciplines. Washington DC: The U. S. Government Printing.
Bloom, B. S.,Engelhart, M. D.,Furst, E. J., Hill,W.H.& Krathwohl, D. R.(1956).Taxonomy of education objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:Cognitive domain. New York:David McKay
Brandt, R. S.(1987). Strategic teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA ,ASCD.
Dewey, J.(1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath ＆Co.
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instructions (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL.: Scott Foresman.
Entwistle, N. J.(1985). New directions in educational Psychology: Learning and teaching. London & Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Fitts , P. M. (1962). Factors in complex skill training. Pittsburgh , PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Fitts, P. M. & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Balmont, CA: Brooks, Cole.
Fitts, P. M. (1965). Factors in complex skill training. In R. Glasser .ed. Training Research and Education. New York : John wiley.
Francis, Dave.(1990). Effective Problem Solving. London: Routledge.
Frederiksen, N.(1984). Implications of Cognitive theory for instruction in problem-solving. Review of Educational Research, 54,3,363-407.
Gagn''e, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Gagn''e, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P.(1988). Essentials of learning for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York.:Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R. M. (1968a). Contributions of learning to human development. Psychological Review, 75(3),177-191.
Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York.:Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.).New York.:Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gentile, A. M.(1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest , Monograph XVII 3-23.
Grogono, P., & Nelson, S. H. (1982). Problem solving and computer programming. Reading Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Guildford, J. P.(1997). Way Beyond the IQ. Buffalo, N.Y.: Creative Education Foundation, Inc.
Hacker, M. & Barden, R. A.(1988).Living with technology. Albany, NT：Delmar.
Hanna, L. A., Potter, G. L., & Hagaman, N.(1955). Unit teaching in the elementary school. New York：Rinehart & Company, Inc.
Harrow, A.(1969). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain : A guide for developing behavioral objectives, New York: David McKay.
Hayes, J.R. (1989). The complete problem solver. Hillsdale, New Jersey :Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Helgeson, S. L. (1992). Problem solving research in middle/junior high school. Columbus, OH:ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Enviromental Education.
Heppner, P. P. (1988). The problem solving inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Heppner, p. p., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1),66-75.
Johnson, S. D. & Thomas, R. (1994). Implications of cognitive science for instructional design in technology education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 20(1), 33-45.
Johnson, S. D.(1987). Teaching problem solving. School Shop. 15-17.
Jones, R.E.,& Wilson, K.A.(1991). Problem-solving activities for technology education . Austin, Texas:The University of Texas at Austin , Extension Instruction and Materials Center , Division of Continuing Education.
Kahney, H. (1986). Problem solving : A Cognitive approach. Bristol,PA:Open University Press.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom B. S. & Masia, B. B.(1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals. HandbookII: Affective domain . New York : David McKay.
Laudon, K.C.& Laudon , J.P.(1993). Business information system: A problem-solving approach (2nd ed). Orlando,FL :The Dryden Press .293-333.
Mager, R. F.(1968). Development attitude toward learning. Palo Alot:Fearon.
Mayer, E. R,.(1989). Thinking Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall.
Mayer, E. R,.(1985). Learning in complex domains:a cognitive analysis of computer programming. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 19, 89-130.
Neisser, U.(1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A.(1972). Human Problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall.
Polya, G.(1957). How to solve it; A new method of mathematical method. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
Reed, S. K.(1992). Cognition：Theory and applications(3rd. ed.).Pacific Grove , California：Brooks/Cole Pulishing Company.
Reimann P. and Chi, M. T. H. (1989). Human expertise. In K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Human and Machine Problem Solving. New York：Plenum Press.
Rubinstein, M. F.(1975). Patterns of problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Schmidt, R. A.(1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning . Psychological Review, 82 ,225-260.
Schmidt, R. A.(1998). Motor control and learning. Champaign ,IL: human kinetics Publishers.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979). Explicit heuristic training as a variable in problem solving performance. Jurnal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10,173-187.
Simpson, E. S.(1966). The Classification of Educational Objectives : Psychomotor Domain. Illinois Teacher of Home Economic,5(4).
Siripunkaw, P.(1990). Variables involved in physics problem-solving by tenth-grader in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
Siver, E. A.(1988). NCTM curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics: Responses from the research community. Journal for Research in Mathematic Education, 19(4), 338-344.
Solso, R.,& Hoffman, C.A.(1991).Influence of Soviet scholars. American Psychologist,46(3),251-153.
Stelmach, G. E. (1980). A new perspective on motor skill automation . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,51,141-157.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press
Sternberg, R. J.(1996). Cognitive Psychology. Orlando, Floride: Harcourt Brace College.
Sullivan, Linda A.(1991). Learning Theories &Educational Perspective. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Thomas, E.J.(1989). A study of effects of a computer graphics problem solving activity on student achievement , attitudes, and task motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Todd, R. D.(1990). The teaching and learning environment. The Technology Teacher,50(3), 3-7.
Travers, R. M.(1983). Rssontials of learning,(5th ed.).New York: Macmillan.
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. freeman & Company.
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd Ed.). New York :W. H. Freeman & Company.
Anderson, R. D.,Anderson, B. L., Varanka-Martin, M. A., Romagnano, L.,Bielenberg. J., Flory, M.,Mieras, B., & Whitworth, J.(1994). Issues of Curriculum reforms in science, mathematics and higher order thinking across the disciplines. Washington DC: The U. S. Government Printing.
Bloom, B. S.,Engelhart, M. D.,Furst, E. J., Hill,W.H.& Krathwohl, D. R.(1956).Taxonomy of education objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:Cognitive domain. New York:David McKay
Brandt, R. S.(1987). Strategic teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA ,ASCD.
Dewey, J.(1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath ＆Co.
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instructions (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL.: Scott Foresman.
Entwistle, N. J.(1985). New directions in educational Psychology: Learning and teaching. London & Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Fitts , P. M. (1962). Factors in complex skill training. Pittsburgh , PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Fitts, P. M. & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Balmont, CA: Brooks, Cole.
Fitts, P. M. (1965). Factors in complex skill training. In R. Glasser .ed. Training Research and Education. New York : John wiley.
Francis, Dave.(1990). Effective Problem Solving. London: Routledge.
Frederiksen, N.(1984). Implications of Cognitive theory for instruction in problem-solving. Review of Educational Research, 54,3,363-407.
Gagn''e, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Gagn''e, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P.(1988). Essentials of learning for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York.:Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R. M. (1968a). Contributions of learning to human development. Psychological Review, 75(3),177-191.
Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York.:Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.).New York.:Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gentile, A. M.(1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching. Quest , Monograph XVII 3-23.
Grogono, P., & Nelson, S. H. (1982). Problem solving and computer programming. Reading Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Guildford, J. P.(1997). Way Beyond the IQ. Buffalo, N.Y.: Creative Education Foundation, Inc.
Hacker, M. & Barden, R. A.(1988).Living with technology. Albany, NT：Delmar.
Hanna, L. A., Potter, G. L., & Hagaman, N.(1955). Unit teaching in the elementary school. New York：Rinehart & Company, Inc.
Harrow, A.(1969). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain : A guide for developing behavioral objectives, New York: David McKay.
Hayes, J.R. (1989). The complete problem solver. Hillsdale, New Jersey :Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Helgeson, S. L. (1992). Problem solving research in middle/junior high school. Columbus, OH:ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Enviromental Education.
Heppner, P. P. (1988). The problem solving inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Heppner, p. p., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1),66-75.
Johnson, S. D. & Thomas, R. (1994). Implications of cognitive science for instructional design in technology education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 20(1), 33-45.
Johnson, S. D.(1987). Teaching problem solving. School Shop. 15-17.
Jones, R.E.,& Wilson, K.A.(1991). Problem-solving activities for technology education . Austin, Texas:The University of Texas at Austin , Extension Instruction and Materials Center , Division of Continuing Education.
Kahney, H. (1986). Problem solving : A Cognitive approach. Bristol,PA:Open University Press.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom B. S. & Masia, B. B.(1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals. HandbookII: Affective domain . New York : David McKay.
Laudon, K.C.& Laudon , J.P.(1993). Business information system: A problem-solving approach (2nd ed). Orlando,FL :The Dryden Press .293-333.
Mager, R. F.(1968). Development attitude toward learning. Palo Alot:Fearon.
Mayer, E. R,.(1989). Thinking Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall.
Mayer, E. R,.(1985). Learning in complex domains:a cognitive analysis of computer programming. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 19, 89-130.
Neisser, U.(1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A.(1972). Human Problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall.
Polya, G.(1957). How to solve it; A new method of mathematical method. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
Reed, S. K.(1992). Cognition：Theory and applications(3rd. ed.).Pacific Grove , California：Brooks/Cole Pulishing Company.
Reimann P. and Chi, M. T. H. (1989). Human expertise. In K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Human and Machine Problem Solving. New York：Plenum Press.
Rubinstein, M. F.(1975). Patterns of problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Schmidt, R. A.(1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning . Psychological Review, 82 ,225-260.
Schmidt, R. A.(1998). Motor control and learning. Champaign ,IL: human kinetics Publishers.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979). Explicit heuristic training as a variable in problem solving performance. Jurnal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10,173-187.
Simpson, E. S.(1966). The Classification of Educational Objectives : Psychomotor Domain. Illinois Teacher of Home Economic,5(4).
Siripunkaw, P.(1990). Variables involved in physics problem-solving by tenth-grader in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
Siver, E. A.(1988). NCTM curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics: Responses from the research community. Journal for Research in Mathematic Education, 19(4), 338-344.
Solso, R.,& Hoffman, C.A.(1991).Influence of Soviet scholars. American Psychologist,46(3),251-153.
Stelmach, G. E. (1980). A new perspective on motor skill automation . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,51,141-157.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press
Sternberg, R. J.(1996). Cognitive Psychology. Orlando, Floride: Harcourt Brace College.
Sullivan, Linda A.(1991). Learning Theories &Educational Perspective. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Thomas, E.J.(1989). A study of effects of a computer graphics problem solving activity on student achievement , attitudes, and task motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Todd, R. D.(1990). The teaching and learning environment. The Technology Teacher,50(3), 3-7.
Travers, R. M.(1983). Rssontials of learning,(5th ed.).New York: Macmillan.