跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.21.70) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/15 08:16
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳沅
研究生(外文):Yuan Chen
論文名稱:國小數學專題學習活動發展與應用之研究
論文名稱(外文):Research on the Develepment & Application of Mathematics Project-Based Learning in Elementary Schools
指導教授:洪碧霞洪碧霞引用關係
指導教授(外文):PI-HSIA HUNG
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺南大學
系所名稱:數學教育學系
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:213
中文關鍵詞:數學專題學習
外文關鍵詞:Mathematics Project-Based Learning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:54
  • 點閱點閱:835
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:115
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:8
本研究旨在發展四項專題活動及其對應的評量設計,以實徵檢視國小數學專題學習的效益。專題活動主要採合作方式進行,每組人數在四人上下,每項專題進行八週,依序分別有三至十二組不等的學生參與,部分學生連續參與兩期以上的專題學習。研究所蒐集的資料主要為學生小組或個人在專題學習歷程的作業及相關效標表現,家長和學生的訪談語錄及研究者的教學日誌等。研究樣本包含國小學生一到五年級,大致按年級分組。為研究效益客觀的探討,研究中同時依第四期學生年級、性別及學習能力特徵,配對組成四十名控制組學生,作為校標變項參與討論的依據。每一項專題活動歷程學生須完成計劃書初稿、計畫書定稿、探討結果書面及其口頭報告等四項作業。研究中由兩位評定者評定學生四項作業的表現,並由書面作業分析學生在專題學習歷程中呈現的數學性、準確性、邏輯性、豐富性、精鍊性及其創新性六種認知能力,以初步評估單一專題學習的進展。研究結果分為三個部分呈現,(一)專題活動各項評量設計的心理計量特徵;(二)專題學習活動效益的探討;及(三)專題實務執行的建議。

就本研究研發專題評量設計的心理計量特徵而言,有關小組作業表現,評分者之間的一致性在.60至.90之間,四項作業間的相關在.80左右,討論能力與作業的相關在.40至.50上下,組內討論與作業數學性的相關為.57。大致而言,評分者之間一致性尚稱合理,作業間表現的相關也符合構念邏輯。若專題活動以個人為分析單位,各項表現與標準化數學能力測驗的相關在.50以上,專題學習經驗對數學能力和在校數學成績也呈現顯著的增益預測力(incremental validity,依序為4 % 和6 %)。八位參加三期專題活動學生的成長剖面同時實質支持專題學習的積極效益。就參與兩期學生的成長對照,第四期學生討論和日誌的表現也略優於第三期。研究最後透過學生與家長的訪談,及研究者的反思,為後續國小數學專題學習經營提供具體的建議。
This study is to develop four investigating activities and their corresponding assessment designs to examine the effects of collaborative mathematics project-based learning in elementary schools. Each group consisted of four students or fewer. Each project was undertaken about eight weeks . There were about three to twelve groups for each project. Some of the students attended more than two projects. The performances on the group’s and individual’s part, records of interviewing the students and their parents, and researchers’ reflections in the teaching journals were analized. The subjects included were ranging from first graders to fifth graders. A control group of 40 students was formed to mirror the students in the fourth term, based on the grade, sex, and ability level. For each project, the students should finish four assignments,which are main idea, project plan, written and oral reports of the results. Two raters rated the students’ performance. The results of study were organized in three parts: (1) the Psychometric characteristics of assessment designs for the project-based learning, (2) learning effects of PBL of theme learning activities, and (3) suggestions for PBL implementation.

In terms of the characteristics of PBL assessment mental quantitative designs, the inter-rator reliability coefficients was between .60 to .90, the correlation between the four assignments was about .80, the correlation between discussion ability and written assignments was between .40 and .50, and the correlation between group discussion and mathematical thinking of the assignments was .57. Generally speaking, the inter-rator reliability coefficients was reasonable, and the correlation between the four assignments was logical. In the case of analyzing on individual’s performance in PBL, the correlation with standard mathematical ability tests was above .50. For predicting mathematical performance,the incremental validity of PBL experience was also significant (about 5%). The growth profile of eight students participating in three terms’ PBL activities also suggested the positive learning effects. Their performances of the fourth term were better than the third term, either in oral discussions or journal writing. Concrete suggestions and rules of thumb were provided for future mathematical PBL learning implementation.
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 專題學習的意涵與理論 5
第二節 數學課程改革與數學專題學習 11
第三節 專題學習的課程與評量設計 18
第三章 研究方法與步驟 33
第四章 研究結果與討論 45
第一節 專題活動設計與評量發展 45
第二節 數學專題學習小組評量設計心理計量特徵 82
第三節 數學專題學習效益探討 97
第四節 專題學習家長與學生的訪談 110
第五節 行動研究者的專業成長 131
第五章 結論與建議 137
參考文獻 141
中文部分 141
英文部分 144
附錄 146
附錄一 專題學習學生書面報告 146
附錄二 家長訪問紀錄 171
附錄三 學生訪談記錄 196
附錄四 教師教學日誌 205
中文部分
王偉仲、陳沅、曾彥鈞(民89)網路合作學習與傳統教學成效評估。第八屆ICCE/ICCAI研討會大會論文集,107。
江火明、林會倫、鄭芳怡、顏芳(民89)專題學習的迷思概念層次測驗設計-以網路大氣教室【Lain】為例。
江火明(民87)網路大氣科學專題式的學習資料庫設計。第十四屆科學教育學術研討會及第十一屆科學教育學會會議手冊及短篇論文彙篇。
李信明(民87)李學數說數學故事。臺北:九章出版社。
李姿嬅(民89)以專題為基礎的教學與學習對國小六年級學生自然科學習成就與班級氣氛影響之實驗研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳鐵雄、洪碧霞、鄒慧英(民89)國小學童網路專題多元動態評量發展模式之應用。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
吳鐵雄、洪碧霞(民90)國小學生網路支援合作式專題學習的經營。師生與家長研習會學生學習成果發表手冊,7-11。
林達森(民88)論析統整課程對九年一貫課程的啟示。教育研究資訊,7(4),97-116。
林玉體(民80)西洋教育史。臺北:文景出版社。
洪福財(民86)方案教學之研究。國民教育研究學報,38(2),68-78。
馬景賢、楊家旺主編(民82)10位改變人類生活的先驅者-牛頓。明統圖書公司。嘉義市。
施淑娟(民88)數學解題的學習與教學。學習輔導,62,50-55。
高強華(民79)設計教學法。黃光雄編:教學原理,165-172。臺北:師大書苑。
教育部編(民88)國民教育九年一貫課程綱要草案-數學學習領域。臺北:教育部。
夏林清譯(Altrichter, Posch & Somekh著 )(民86)行動研究方法導論-教師動手做研究。臺北:遠流出版社。
張春興(民85)教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實務。臺北:東華書局。
張靜嚳(民85)建構教學:採用建構主義如何教學?。建構與教學,7期,彰化師大科教中心。
張世忠(民86)建構主義與科學教學,科學教育月刊,202,17-25。
張世忠(民89)建構主義-理論與應用。臺北:五南圖書公司。
陳茂松(民74)數學史與數學家。高雄:復文圖書出版社。
陳文典(民82)國小學童對測量概念的認識。科學教育學刊,1(2),111-134。
黃瑞煥,洪碧霞(民72)認知心理學。新竹師專特殊教育中心印行。
黃昆輝(民57)克伯屈教育思想之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所輯刊,10,177-302。
鄒慧英(民89a)專題學習的概念介紹與評量設計。台南師院測驗發展中心:新世紀優質學習的經營研討會論文集,35-52。
鄒慧英(民89b)九年一貫課程的專題學習。九年一貫課程論文集。
鄒慧英(民90)網路專題學習的現在與未來。師生與家長研習會學生學習成果發表手冊,45-52。
甄曉蘭(民83)教學實踐的再思-指望更加教學境界。嘉師學報,8,209-229。
甄曉蘭、曾志華(民 86)建構教學理念的興起與應用。國民教育研究學報,3,179-208。
蔡慶賢譯(Chardm, S. C.著)(民 86)進入方案教學的世界(Ⅱ)。臺北縣:光佑文化。
寧自強(民83)新課程對乘法啟蒙教材的處理。嘉義師院八十二學年度數學教育研討會論文集,77-85。
數學研究小組(民88)國民教育九年一貫課程綱要草案。
鄭毓信(民87)建構主義與數學教育。數學傳播,22(3),37-49。
繆龍驥譯(Wheeler, R. E.著)(民79)現代數學初步。國立編譯館主編。臺北:曉園出版社。
簡楚英(民 82)方案課程理論與實務-兼談義大利瑞吉歐學前教育系統
。臺北:文景出版社。

西文部分
Ausubel, D. P. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd.ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barron , B. J. S. , Achwartz, D. L. , Vye , N. J. , Moore , Allison , Petrosino , A. , Zech , L. , Bransford , J. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998)Doing with understanding : Lesson from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 7(3), 271-311.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E.(1994).Lessons learned:How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal,94(5),539-551.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A.(1991) Motivating project-based learning:Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational sychologist,26(3 & 4),369-398.
Blumenfeld, P. C.(1991)Motivating Project-Based Learning:Sustaining the Doing Supporting the Learning. Educational psychologist,26(3 & 4),369-398.
Bodner, G. M.(1986)Constructivism:A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education.63(10),873-878.
Buttery, & E. Guyton: Handbook of Research on Teacher Education(2nd ed). NY:Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Chard, S.C.(1992)The Project Approach:A Practical Guide for Teachers. Kuang Yu Cultural Enterprise Co., Ltd.
Chen, H. L. S.(1993)Knowledge, refiection, and dialogue:An Education exploration of co-operative inquiry as critical art in two professional education sites. Unpublished PH. D. Dissertation. OH:The Ohio Univ.
Cobb, P. & Steffe, L. P.(1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics education, 14(2),83-94.
Confrey, J.(1991). Learning to listen:A student’s understanding of powers of ten. In E. von Glasersfeld(Ed.). Radical constructivism in mathematics education,111-138.
Covington,M.V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort: the double sword in school
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,71(2),169 -182.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). An empirical examination of Weiner''s critique of attribution research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1199-1213.
Debra K. Meyer , Julianne C. Turner and Cynthia A. Spencer, (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: students'' motivation and strategies in project-based learning. The Elementary School Journal , 97(5),501.
Delisle, R.(1997).How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Association for Supervion and Curriclum Development.
Dillenburg, P.(1999).Introduction:What do you mean by”Collaborative Learning”?In P. Dillenburg(Ed.), Collaborative Learning:Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1-19. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Diver, R. & Oldham, V.(1986)A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education,13,105-122.
Doyle, W.(1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Reasearch, 53, 159-200.
Driver, R. & Oldham, V.(1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
Eisner, E.(1992)A slice of advice. Educational Researcher,21(5),29-30.
Henson, K. T. & Olson, R. (1996) Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula, T.J.
Fosnot, C. T.(1996). Constructivism:Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York:Teachers College Press.
Glasersfld, V. E.(1989) Constructivism in education. In T. Husen, & N. Postlethwaite. The international encyclopedia of education. Supplementary ,l,162-163. New York:Pergamon Press.
Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C.(1997). Real-life problem solving:A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R.W. & Soloway, E.(1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.
Krajcik, J.S.,Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C.(1999)Teaching children science:A project-based approach. McGraw-Hill College.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelley, B., & Meyer, K. M.(1994). Enacting project-based science:Experiences of four middie grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5),517-538.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E.(1997)Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School ournal,97(4),341-358.
Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A.(1994)Challenge in a Mathematics Classroom:Students’ Motivation and Strategies in Project-Based Learning.
Moursund, D.(1999). Project-based learning using information technology. International Society for Technology in Education.
NCTW(1989):Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematies Reston, VA:Author.
Osborne, R. J. & Wittrock. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508.
Polman, J. L.(2000)Designing project-based science:Connecting learners through guided inquiry. Teachers College Press.
Sarason, S. B.(1993)The case of change:Rethinking the preparation of educators. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H.(1990)Introduction to the special section on motivation and efficacy. Journal of Education Psychology, 82, 3-6.
Sexton, C. A.(1990)A comparative analysis of project method and learning project. In International Joumal of Lifelong Education,9(2),81-98.
Sharan, S.(1980). Cooperative learning in small groups:Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudea, and ethnic relations. Review of Education Research.
Slavin, R. E.(1983).Cooperative learning. New York:Longman.
Steinberg, A.(1997)Real Learning, Real Work. Routeledge, New York.
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J.(Eds.)(1995).Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A.(1999). Project-based learning:A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA:The Buck Institute for Education.
Thomas , J. W., (2000). A review of research of project-based learning. http://www.autodesk.com/foundation.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top