跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.22.242) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 13:08
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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:方美珍
研究生(外文):Fang,Mei-Chen
論文名稱:圖示表徵解題策略對國小學習障礙學生數學文字題教學成效之研究
論文名稱(外文):Effects of teaching of elementary school students with learning disabilities on mathematical word-problem-solving by schematic representation strategies.
指導教授:黃秋霞黃秋霞引用關係
指導教授(外文):Huong,Chiu-Hsia
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立屏東教育大學
系所名稱:特殊教育學系碩士班
學門:教育學門
學類:特殊教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:185
中文關鍵詞:圖示表徵學習障礙學生數學文字題
外文關鍵詞:learning disabilitiesmathematical problem solvingschematic representation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:54
  • 點閱點閱:1051
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:14
中文摘要
本研究目的主要在比較「圖片表徵」、「錢幣表徵」及「線段表徵」三種圖示表徵解題策略教學在教學階段、保留階段對於增進國小學障學生數學文字解題,包括「總量未知加法文字題」、「比較型乘法文字題」以及「等組型乘法文字題」是否具有學習成效,並探討三位學障學生對三種圖示表徵解題策略教學的學習態度及普通班教師對於學生接受本教學實驗後的反應。
研究方法採用單一受試研究法之交替處理設計,分為基準線階段(五次/一週)、交替處理階段 (24次/八週)與保留階段(6次/2週),教學結束後進行學習態態度評量表的評量和訪談並對普通班教師進行訪談以瞭解學生接受後本教學後的學習反應。資料處理則採用視覺分析的方法。
本研究的結果發現如下列幾點:
一、交替處理階段的學習成效:與基準線階段相比,三種教學皆能提升受試者數學文字題之立即學習成效。三種教學相比,「線段表徵」解題策略教學較能增進受試甲及受試丙之學習表現;「錢幣表徵」解題策略教學較能增進受試乙之學習表現。
二、保留階段的學習成效:與基準線階段相比,三種圖示表徵解題策略教學的學習成效皆優於基準線階段。三種教學相比,「線段表徵」解題策略教學對於維持受試甲和受試丙之整題與各題型的解題正確率之學習表現較佳; 「錢幣表徵」解題策略教學對於維持受試乙之整題與各題型的解題正確率之學習表現較佳
三、評量階段的差異:三位受試者在不同評量階段中,皆以兩週後的保留階段的解題正確率表現最佳,其次是教學階段的解題正確率。
四、評量方式的差異:三位受試者在各評量階段的解題正確率表現,受試甲和受試丙以「線段表徵」解題策略的表現為佳;受試乙以「線段表徵」解題策略的表現為佳,就各題型而言,「總量未知加法文字題」的解題正確率表現均優於「等組型乘法文字題」和「比較型乘法文字題」。
五、學習態度:三位受試者對三種圖示表徵解題策略的學習態度、難易度感受、喜好並不相同,受試甲最喜愛的為「圖片表徵」解題策略但學習表現最好的為「線段表徵」解題策略;受試乙最喜愛的和表現最佳的均為「錢幣表徵」解題策略;受試丙最喜愛的和表現最佳的均為「線段表徵」解題策略。
根據上述研究結果及發現,研究者提出建議,以供後續研究者及教學參考。

關鍵詞:圖示表徵、學習障礙學生、數學文字題
Abstract
The major purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness among three kinds of mathematical word-problem-solving strategies (picture schematic representation, coin schematic representation, and line schematic representation) for three students with learning disabilities. The investigator employed an alternating design in single subject in order to examine the effectiveness of the baseline, teaching experimental phase, maintaining phase, and learning attitude.
The main findings were concluded as following:
1.The baseline phase: Three students with learning disabilities were lack of the mathematical problem solving strategies.
2.The alternating phase: The effectiveness of line schematic representation was shown better than picture schematic representation and coin schematic representation for subject A and C. In addition, Subject B has the highest score in coin schematic representation when compared with other two strategies.
3.The maintaining phase: The effectiveness of line schematic representation strategy was better than the picture schematic representation and coin schematic representation for subject A and subject C. Moreover, Subject B has the highest score in coin schematic representation strategy.
4.Different assessment phases: Three students had better performance in maintaining phase when compared to the immediate phase.
5.Different mathematical word problem: Three students performed best in the combined-addition-word-problems among three mathematical problem solving.
6.Learning attitude: Subject A and Subject C displayed best attitude in line schematic representation, Subject B displayed the best in picture schematic representation.
Finally, the investigator provided some recommendations to the further studies and teachers to teach students with learning disabilities.
Keywords: learning disabilities, mathematical problem solving,
schematic representation
目次
摘要.................................................................i
目次................................................................iv
圖次................................................................vi
表次..............................................................vii
附錄.............................................................viii
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機.....................................................1
第二節 研究目的.....................................................5
第三節 名詞解釋.....................................................6
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 學障學生數學學習困難的特質.....................................11
第二節 表徵與數學學習的關係..........................................14
第三節 數學文字題的解題策略..........................................19
第四節 圖示表徵與數學文字題解題的關係.................................24
第五節 加法及乘法數學文字題問題情境模式................................29第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究對象.....................................................34
第二節 研究設計.....................................................39
第三節 教學程序.....................................................47
第四節 研究工具.....................................................51
第五節 資料處理.....................................................57
第四章 結果與討論
第一節 圖示表徵解題策略對學障學生在教學階段數學文字題學習成效之差異........61
第二節 圖示表徵解題策略對學障學生在保留階段數學文字題學習成效之差異........97
第三節 圖示表徵解題策略之學習態度評量表分析............................133
第四節 綜合討論....................................................147
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論........................................................155
第二節 研究限制....................................................158
第三節 研究建議....................................................160
參考文獻
一、中文部分........................................................164
二、英文部分........................................................168
附錄
附錄一 數學文字題評量卷(基準線階段1)................................178
附錄二 數學文字題評量卷(教學階段1)..................................179
附錄三 數學文字題評量卷(保留階段1)...................................180
附錄四 數學文字題評量卷記分表........................................181
附錄五 學習態度自我評量表............................................183
附錄六 學生學習態度訪談表............................................185
參考文獻
一、中文部分
王瑋樺(2001)。國小三年級數學學習障礙學生加法文字題解題歷程與補救教學之研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
古明峰( 1997)。加減法應用題語意知識對問題難度之影響暨動態評量在應用問題之學習與遷移歷程上之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育與心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
杜正治(1994)。單一受試研究法。臺北:心理。
杜佳真(1999)。數學文字題的表徵教學策略。科學教育研究與發展,15,59-65。
何縕琪、林清山(1994)。表徵策略教學對提升國小低解題正確率學生解題表現之效果。教育心理學報,27,259-279。
林文生、鄔瑞香(1999)。數學教學的藝術與實務:另類教與學。臺北:心理。
林 香(2003)。國小數學資優生的解題策略探究-以圖畫表徵策略為例。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林秀燕(2005)。以圖示策略融入低年級教學對改變類及比較類加減法文字題學習成效研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林美惠(1997)。題目表徵型式與國小二年級學生加減法解題之相闢研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林淑玲(1998)。國小數學學習障礙學生對比較類加減應用題解題表徵之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
林淑菁(2003)。國小資源班學生正整數乘除文字題之圖示教學效果研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林碧珍(1980)。國小兒童對於乘除法應用問題之認知結構。新竹師院學報,5,221-288。
邱上眞、詹士宜、王惠川、吳建志(1995)。解題歷程導向教學對國小四年級數學科低成就學生解題表現之成效研究。特殊教育與復建學報,4,75-108。
邱上眞(2001)。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。載於台灣師範大學主編,2001數學學習障礙研討會手冊(9-41)。臺北:台灣師範大學。
吳昭容( 1990)。圖示對國小學童解數學應用問題之影響。國立台灣師範大學心理學碩士論文。
邱裕淵(2000)。國小六年級學生在正整數乘除文字題解題表現。國立嘉義大學國民教肓研究所碩士論文。
孟瑛如、周育廉、袁媛、吳東光(2001)。數學學習障礙學障礙學生多媒體學習系統的開發與建構-一步驟乘除法文字題。國小特殊教育,32,81-102。
周台傑(1999)。學習障礙兒童鑑定原則鑑定基準說明。載於張蓓莉主編,身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定原則鑑定基準說明手冊(75-91)。臺北:教育部。
洪義德(2002)。不同表徵面積題目對國小六年級學生解題表現之探討。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
柯華威(1999)。基礎數學概念評量。行政院國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
柯華葳(1999)。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。行政院國家科國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
洪儷瑜(1996)。學習障礙者教育。臺北市:心理出版社。
翁嘉英(1988)。國小兒童解數學應用問題的認知歷程。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
徐文鈺(1992 )。圖示策略訓練課程對國小五年級學生的數學應用題解題能力與錯誤類型之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
秦麗花(1995)。國小數學學習障礙學童數學解題錯誤類型分析。特殊教育季刊,55,33-38。
胡永崇(2000)。國小身心障礙類資源班實施現況及改進之研究:以高雄縣為例。屏東師院學報,13,75-110。
陳立倫(2000)。兒童解答數學文字題的認知歷程。國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
陳美芳(1995)。「學生因素」與「題目因素」對國小高年級兒童乘除法應用問題解題影響之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
陳啟明(2000)。不同題目表徵型式及相關因素對國小五年級學生解題表現之影響。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
陳雯貞(2004)。圖示表徵型式對國小四、五、六年級學生解題表現之影響-以面積、周長單元為例。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
陳榮華(1997)。魏氏兒童智力量表第三版指導手冊。中國行為科學社。
陳瓊瑜(2002)。國小三年級數學學習困難學生乘法應用問題解題歷程之研究。國立彰化師範大學特珠教育學學系在職進職進修專班特殊教育行政碩士班碩士論文。
教育部(2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要—數學學習領域。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2002)。身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。臺北市:教育
康軒編輯部(2005)。國民小學數學教師手冊第三冊。臺北:康軒文教事業股份有限公司。
康軒編輯部(2006)。國民小學數學教師手冊第四冊。臺北:康軒文教事業股份有限公司。
康軒編輯部(2005)。國民小學數學教師手冊第五冊。臺北:康軒文教事業股份有限公司。
康軒編輯部(2006)。國民小學數學教師手冊第六冊。臺北:康軒文教事業股份有限公司。
遊自達(1995)。數學學習與理解之內涵一從心理學觀點分析。初等教育集刊,31-45。
黃月平(2004)。國小學童分數乘除文字題表徵轉換能力與後設認知策略。國立台中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所碩士班碩士論文。
黃秀霜(1999)。中文年級認字量表。行政國家科學委員會特殊教育工作小組。
黃永和(1997)。「數學表徵」-教師的教學法寶。國教世紀,178-24.
黃敏晃(1985)。數學解題。國教月刊,32(7),40-52。
張春興(1988)。知之歷程與教之歷程:認知心理學的發展及其在教育上的應用。教育心理學報,21,10-19。
張春興(1989)。張氏心理學典。臺北:東華書局。
張春興(1994)。教育心理學。臺北市:教育部。
張景媛(1994)。數學文字題錯誤概念分析及學生建構數學的研究。教育心理學報,27,175-200。台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系出版。
張憶壽譯(1986)。怎樣解題(G.Polya著)。臺北:眾文圖書股份有限公司。
張馨尹(2001)。國小輕度智障學生加減應用題解題歷程之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
楊坤堂(1999)。學習習障礙教材教法。臺北:五南。
楊坤堂(1997)。低成就學生的學習輔導策略。教育實習輔導季刊,3(2),53-60。
楊淑芬(2001)。國小資源班學生用圖示策略解決比較類加減應用題之成效研究。國立臺北師範學院特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
葉雪梅(1980)。國小兒童對「比類」應用問題的解題行為。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
蔣治邦(1994)。由表徵觀點探討新教材數學計算活動的設計。國民小學數學科新課程概說(低年級)。台灣省國民學校教師研習會(主編)。臺北市:台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
蔣治邦(1997)。由表徵的觀點看格式的選擇。國民小學數學科新課程概說(中年級),49-65。臺北:台灣省國民教師研習會。
鄭昭明(1993)。認知心理學-理論與實踐。臺北:桂冠出版社。
劉秋木(1980)。數學學習。臺北:五南。
劉錫麒(1994)。數學思考與研究。臺北:師大書苑。
蔡榮貴(1993)。語意基模圖示教學對四小低年級兒童應用問題題解題能力之影響。台南市:供學。
謝毅興(1991)。兒童解數學應用問題的策略。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士諭文。
魏君芝(2003)。國小五年級數學低成就學生圖示策略教學研究。台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
羅素貞(1996)。問題表徵與問題解決。屏東師院學報,9,149-176。

















二、英文部分
Alberto, P. A., & Toutman, A. C.(1999).Applied behavior analysis of Teacher (5th ).Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.
Anghileri, J.(1989).An investigation of young children's understanding of multiplication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 397-385.
Behr, M. J., & Post, T. R. ( 1988). Teaching Rational Number and Decimal Concents. In T. R. Post ( Eds.).Teaching mathematics improgress K8 (190-231 ).Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Behr, J. J., Wachmuth, I., & Post, T. R.(2001). Construct a sum: A measure of children's understanding of fraction size. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 120-131.
Bishop, A. J.(1989). Review of research om visualization in mathematics education. Focus on Learning Problem in Mathematics, 11(1), 7-11.
Bottge, B. A.(2001). Reconceptualizing Mathematics Problem Solving for Low-Achieving Students. Remedial and Special Education, 22(2), 102-112.
Brenner, M E., Herman, S., Hsiu-zu Ho, & Zimmer, J. M.(l999). Cross-national comparison of representational competence. Journal of Research in Mathematics Educalion,30(5),541-5 57.
Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G. and Wheeler, M. M. (1985). Jouranl for research in mathematics education. USA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981a). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher , 23(1), 14-21.
Brown, M.(1981).Levels of Understanding of Number Operations, Place-Value and Decimals in Secondary School Children.Ph. D. Thesis. University Of London, Chelsea College.
Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harward University.
Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bishop,A.J.(1989). Review of research on visualization in mathematics education. Focus on Learning Problem in Mathematics,11(1), 7-ll.
Cloer, T. J. (1981) .Factors affecting comprehension of math word problem-a review of the research. Paper presented at the Annual American Reading Forum. ( 2nd, Sarasota, FL , December I 0-12,1981)
Davis, E. J., & Mckillip, W. D. (1980). Improving story-problem solving in improving story-problem solving in elementary school mathematics word problems. In S. Krulik & R. E. Reys (Eds.), Problem solving in school mathematics (pp.80-91). Reston, VA : National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Davis, R.B. (1984). Learning mathematics: The Cognitive Science approach to mathematics education. Norwood, New Jersy: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
DeCorte, E., Vershaffel, L., & De Win, L. (1985). Influence of rewording verbal problems on children's problem representations and solution. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 460-470.
DeCorte, E., & Verschaffel. L.(1991).Some factors influencing the solution of addition and subtraction word problems. In K.Durkin and B. Shire (Eds.).Language in mathematical education. (pp.l 17-130) London: Open University.
Diezmann, C. M., & English, L. D. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for thinking. In A. A. Cuoco, & F. R. Curcio(Eds.),The roles of representation in school mathematics(pp.77-89). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Furner, J. M., Yahya, N., & Duffy, M. L.(2005).Teach Mathematics: Strategies to Reach All Students. Intervention in School and Clinic; 41(4), 16-23.
Fuson, K.C., &Willis, G.B. (1989). Second graders use of schematic drawings in solving addition and subtraction word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 514-520.
Ginsburg, H. P.(1997).Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 20-33.
Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp. 276-295). New York: Macmillan.
Greeno, J. G, & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation with and about representational form,78(5), 361-366.
Hanson, S. A. & Hogan, T. P.(2000). Computational estimation skill of college students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 483-449.
Hayes. J. R. (1989).The complete problem solver( 2nd ). Hillsdale. NT: Erlbaum.
Hegarty, M. , & Kozhevnikov, M.(1995). Types of visual-spital representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Phychology, 87(1), 18-32.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In Groums, D.A. (ED.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H. Olivier. A., & Wearne, D.(1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The Case of Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H. Olivier. A., & Weame, D.(1997). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The Case of Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 26(2), 24-26.
Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, N.(2002).An exploratory study of schema -based word-problem-solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding . The Journal of Special Education, 36, 23-38.
Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. E.(1996a). The effects of schema-based instruction on mathematical word problem solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 422-431.
Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. E.(1996b). The differential effects of two Strategies on the acquisition maintenance, and generalization of mathematical word problem solving by students with mild disabilities and at-risk students.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED 395 786)
Jitendra, A. K., Hoff, K. B., & Michelle M. (1999) . Teaching Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities to Solve Word Problems Using a Schema-Based Approach. Remedial and Special Education, V20.
Jordan, N. C., & Hanich, L. B.(2000).Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567-578.
Jordan, N. C., & Hanich, L. B.(2003). Characteristics of children with moderate mathematics deficiencies: A longitudinal perspective. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 213-221.
Kaput, J. J. (1985). Representation and problem solving: Methodological issues related to modeling. In E.A.Silver ( Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Kaput, J. J. (1987).Representation Systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier ( Ed.). Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning Of Mathematics, 19-26. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kennedy, P. A.(2000).Concrete representations and number line models: Connecting and extending. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(2), 2-13.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, D. P.(1987).Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth a thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-69.
LeBlance, J. F., Proudfit, L., & Putt, I. J. (1980). Teaching problem solving in the elementary school. In S. Krulik & R.E. Reys (Eds.), Problem solving in school mathematics (pp.104-116). Reston, VA : National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lerner, J. W.(2000).Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (8th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lesh, R. (1979). Mathematical Learning Disabilities: Considerations for Identification, Diagnosis, Remediation. In Lesh, R., Mierkiewicz, D., & Kantowski. M.(Eds). Applied Mathematical Problem Solving (111-180).
Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representation in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C.Janvier ( Ed.).Problems of representation in the teaching and learning mathematics, 33-40.Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
Lewis. R. E. (1987).Educational psychology :A cognitive approach. Boston : Little, Brown, and Company.
Lewis, A.B. ( 1989). Training students to represent arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 521-531.
Lewis, A. B., & Mayer, R. E.(1987).Students miscomprehension of relational statements in arithmetic word problem. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 361-371.
Lowrie, T., & Clements, M. A.(2001). Visual and nonvisual process in grade 6 students' mathematicl problem solving. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(1), 77-93.
Lowrie, T., & Kay, R.(2001).Relationship between visual and nonvisual solution methods amd difficulty in elementary mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 248-255.
Mack, N. K.(1995).Confounding whole number and fraction concepts when building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(5), 422-441.
Marshall, S. P. ( 1987 ) .Schema knowledge structures for representing and understanding arithmetic story problem. First year technical report, San Diego State University, California, Department of Psychology.
Marshall, S. P.(1995). Memory for algebra story problems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, S., Pribe, C. A., & Smith, J. D. ( 1987).Scheme knowledge structures for representing and understanding arithmetic story problems (Technical Report. Contract No. N0OO14-85-K-0061 ) .Arlington, VA : Office of Naval Research.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S.(1991).Mathematic instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89-98.
Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aid to text comprehension. Educational psychologist, 19,30-42.
Mayer, R.E. (1987). Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Think, problem solving, cognition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Mayer, R. E (1993). Understanding individual difference in mathematical problem solving: Towards a research agenda. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 2-5.
McCoy, L. P. ( 1994) . Mathematics problem-solving processes of elementary male and female students. School Science Mathematics,94(5),266-271.
Mercer, C.D., & Mercer, A.R. (1993). Teaching students with learning problems (4th ED.).New York, N.Y.: Merrillan Publishing Co.
Mercer, S. C., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19-25.
Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1993).Use a graduated word problem sequence to promote problem-solving skills. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(3), 169-174.
Miller, S. P., Stawser, S., & Mercer, C. D. (1996). Promoting strategic math performance among students with learning disabilities. LD forum, 21(2),34-40.
Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1997). Educational aspect of mathematics disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 47-56.
Montague. M., & Brooks, A. (1993). Mathematical problem-solving,characteristics of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 27, 175-201.
Montague. M., Warger c., & Morgan, T.(2000). Solve It ! Strategy Instruction to Improve Mathematical Problem solving. Learning Disabilitites Research & Practice, 15(2), 110-116.
Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (2001). Middle school students perceptions, persistence. And performance in mathematical problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly. 23, 215-228.
Montague, M.(2002).Solve It !A practical approach for teaching mathematical problem solving. Reston, VA: Exceptional Innovations.
Montague,M(2003).Teaching Division to Students With Learning Disabilities: A Constructivist Approach. Exceptionality,11 (3),165-17 165-175.
Moyer, J. C., Moyer, M. B., Sowder, L., & Threadgill-Sowder, J. (1984a). Story problem formats. verbal versus telegraphic. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 15 (1), 64-68.
Moyer. .I. C., Sowder, L., Threadgill-Sowder, J., & Moyer, M.B..(1984b) story problem formats : draw versus verbal versus telegraphic. Journal Research in Mathematical Education, 15(5), 342-351
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved June 28, 2005. From http://standards.nctm.org.
Polya, G.( 1945 ). How to solve it. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (2004). Haw to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Presmeg, N. C.(1986). Visualisation in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42-46.
Presmeg, N. C.(1992).Prototypes, metaphors, metonymies and imaginative rationality in high school mathematics. Educational Stud1es in Mathematics, 23(6), 595-610.
Riley, M. S. Greeno, J. G., & Heller J. I.( 1983 ). Development of children’s problem solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginberg ( Ed.) The developmental of mathematical thinking. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction. Hillsdale, NT: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sackur-Grisvard, C., & L'eonar, F.(1985). Intermediate Cognitive Organization in the Process of Learning a Mathematical Concept: The Order of Positive Decimal Numbers. Cognition and Instrucation, 2(2), 157-174.
Schoenfeld, A. H.(1985). Mathematical problem solving. NY: Academic Press. Kennedy, Y., A, (2UOO). Concrete representations and number line models: Connecting and extending. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(2), 2-13.
Sowder, L., & Threadgill-Sowder, J.(1982). Drawn versus verbal formats for mathematical story problems. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 13 (5), 324-331.
Garderen, D., & Momtague, M. (2003). Visual-spatial-representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(4), 246-254.
Watson, J. M., Campbell, K. J., & Collis, K. F. (1993). Multimodel functioning in understanding fractions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 45-62.
Willis. G. B., & Fuson, K. C. (1988). Teaching children to use schematics drawing to slove addition and subtrction word problems. Journal Education Psychology, 80, 192-201.
Woodward J., & Montague, M. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 89-101.
Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). The Effects of Instruction in Solving Mathematical Word Problems for Students with Learning Problems. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 207-25.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top