研究生: |
涂孝臣 Shou-Chen, Tu |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
公職數學創造思考作業活動對學生學習成效之影響 The Influence of Creative Thinking Assignment Activity on the student Learning Effectiveness on Mathematics Curriculum at Vocational Industrial High School |
指導教授: | 吳明雄 |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
工業教育學系 Department of Industrial Education |
論文出版年: | 2005 |
畢業學年度: | 94 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 132 |
中文關鍵詞: | 工職數學 、數學創造思考作業活動 、學習成效 |
英文關鍵詞: | Mathematics for vocational industrial high school, Creative thinking assignment activity of mathematics on the vocational industrial high school, Learning effectiveness |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:240 下載:36 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究主要在探討工職數學創造思考作業活動對學生創造思考能力、問題解決能力、數學學習態度、數學成績之影響及學習反應的情形,同時分析是否因數學成就高低而學習成效有所差別。
本研究採準實驗設計中的「不相等前後測控制組設計」,以九十三學年度,台北市私立泰北高中工業類科,高二學生為研究對象,以班為單位,在六個班級中隨機選取二班,一班為實驗組,接受工職數學創造思考作業活動; 另一班為控制組,實施傳統的作業方法,兩班皆由研究者親自擔任教學,教材均為工職數學第三冊內容,進行為期十二週之實驗活動。本研究的研究工具有: (一)吳靜吉(1998)新編創造思考測驗。 (二)拓弄思(1975)創造思考測驗。 (三)孫士雄(2001)所編之問題解決能力量表。 (四)數學學習態度量表。 (五)自編工職數學創造思考作業。 (六)自編學習反應調查問卷。結束後將創造思考測驗圖形、語文兩部分及問題解決能力量表之得分,以二因子多變項共變數分析法,進行統計分析,以數學學習態度量表得分進行t考驗,分析期末數學學習態度,最後以單因子共變數分析數學成績得分差異,研究結果如下:
一、接受工職數學創造思考作業活動的實驗組學生,在圖形創造思考能力分數,未顯著優於控制組。
二、接受工職數學創造思考作業活動的實驗組學生,在語文創造思考能力分數,未顯著優於控制組。
三、接受工職數學創造思考作業活動的實驗組學生,在問題解決能力分數,未顯著優於控制組。
四、工職數學創造思考作業活動圖形創造思考能力的進步效果,並不因學生的數學成就表現而有顯著差異。
五、工職數學創造思考作業活動對語文創造思考能力的進步效果,並不因學生的數學成就表現而有顯著差異。
六、工職數學創造思考作業活動對問題解決能力的進步效果,並不因學生的數學成就表現而有顯著差異。
七、接受工職數學創造思考作業活動的實驗組學生,在數學學習態度量表之分數,顯著優於控制組。
八、接受工職數學創造思考作業活動的實驗組學生,在數學分數之進步效果,未顯著優於控制組。
九、接受工職數學創造思考作業活動之實驗組學生對作業活動持正面的反應,且喜愛此作業活動。
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of creative thinking assignment activity (CTAA) of mathematics on the vocational industrial high school students, including the ability of creative thinking, the ability of solving problems, the learning attitude to math, the scores of math, and the reactions. It’s also to analyze the correlation between their math academic performance and learning effectiveness.
This study adopted "nonequivalent pretest-posttest control group design", one of the quasi-experiment designs. The subjects of this study were the 2nd grade students of the industrial department of Private Taibei senior high school in school year 93 (2004). Class was taken as a unit. Two classes were randomly picked up from six. One of them was experiment group, who accepted the curriculum design of CTAA; and the other was control group, who applied the conventional method. Both of them were taught by the researcher with the same teaching material---Mathematics book III for vocational industrial high school. The experiment lasted for 12 weeks.
The researching materials of this study were: (1) Dr. Wu Jing-Jin’s “Test of Creative Thinking” in 1998. (2) Torrance Test of Creative Thinking in 1975. (3) Dr. Sun Shi-Hsung’s “ Problem Solving Ability Inventory” in 2001. (4) Mathematics Learning Attitude Inventory. (5) Creative Thinking Assignment Activity (CTAA) of Mathematics on the vocational industrial high school developed by the researcher. (6) Learning Reaction Questionnaire developed by the researcher.
According to the students’ creative thinking ability test of graphics and language and their scores of problem solving ability inventory, the statistical analysis was made by two-way multivariate analysis of covariance. By conducting t-test for the scores of the math learning attitude measurement, the analysis of math learning attitude was conducted at the end of the semester. Following by one-way multivariate analysis of variance, the variance of math scores was analyzed. The findings of this study are as below:
1. The experiment group students who accepted CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school are not significantly better than the control group on the scores of graphics creative thinking ability.
2. The experiment group students who accepted CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school are not significantly better than the control group on the scores of language creative thinking ability.
3. The experiment group students who accepted CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school are not significantly better than the control group on the scores of problem solving ability.
4. The boosting effect of CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school in graphics creative thinking ability does not have significant difference in students' academic performance.
5. The boosting effect of CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school in language creative thinking ability does not have significant difference in students' academic performance.
6. The boosting effect of CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school in problem solving ability does not have significant difference in students' academic performance.
7. The experiment group students who accepted CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school are significantly better than the control group
on the scores of learning attitude to math.
8. The experiment group students who accepted CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school are not significantly better than the control group on the progress-effect of math scores.
9. The learning reactions of experiment group students who accepted CTAA of mathematics for vocational industrial high school are positive and favorable.
參考書目
壹、中文部分
毛連塭(1989)。實施創造思考教育的參考架構。創造思考教育,1,2-9。
毛連塭(2000)。創造力研究。台北市:心理出版社。
方崇雄(1995)。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。中華民國工藝教育協會。
王正信(2002)。國小學童數學解題及整合認知能力之縱貫研究。國立台中師範學院數學教育系碩士論文。
王雅奇(2002)。六頂思考帽訓練課程對提高國小資優生問題解決能力成效之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
比嘉佑典(1996)。以教師的指導訓練促進創造性發展。中日技術人力創意發展
研習會。國立臺灣師範大學。
朱建正(1996)。創意的數學教學、數理科教學法。台北:師大書苑,頁57-78。
李錫津(1987)。創造思考教學研究。台北:台灣商務書局。
余酈惠(2002)。高雄市高職學生運用電腦軟體學習三角函數成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文。
林幸台(1973)。創造性教學對資賦優異者創造力的影響。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
林承德(2003)。台東縣國小四年級學童數學態度、數學焦慮與數學成就之研究。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林崇德(1995)。高中生心理學。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
吳世清(2002)。國中生活科技課程創造思考教學對學生學習成效之影響。國立師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文。
吳明雄 (1994)a。工業職業教育的創造思考教學。技職月刊,24,頁14-17。
吳明雄 (1994)b。創造思教學方案對高職機械修護科實用技能班學生學習成效之影響。國科會 (NSC88-2519-S-003-011)。
吳德邦、吳順治編譯(1989)。解題導向的數學教學策略。台北:五南出版社。
邵惠靖(2000)。擴散性思考、數學問題發現與學業成就的關係。國立政治大學
教育研究所碩士論文。
孫士雄(2001)。多媒體電腦輔助教學對問題解決能力、機械製圖學習成效與學後保留之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
徐俊男(1999)。高中數學創造思考活動的設計與評量。國立交通大學應用數學系碩士論文。
徐國樹(1996)。淺談高職數學的教與學。技術與職業教育雙月刊,頁35。
徐照麗(2003)。數學週記創意教學方案對國小低年級學生解題佈題能力發展的
影響隻行動研究第一階段報告。發表於2003創造力實踐歷程研討會手冊,頁33-34。
馬啟偉、張力為(1996)。體育運動心理學。台北市:東華。
高石城(1999)。數學新課程對學生數學解題能力與數學態度影響之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
陸東陞(1992)。成就學生的診斷與輔導。研習資訊9(3),17-21。台北縣:台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
陳李綢(1998)。國小數學創造力與問題解決能力之研究---子計劃三:分析診斷
工具之開發。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告:NSC87-2511-S-003-062。
陳龍安(1984)。創造思考教學對國小資優班與普通班學生創造思考能力之影
響。國立台灣師範大學心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
陳龍安(1988)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北:心理。
陳龍安(民84)。創意的父母快樂的孩子。台北:小暢書房。
陳龍安(2000)。創意思考教學。台北:師大書苑有限公司。
曹宗萍和張國綱(2003)。數學課程之創意教學。發表於2003創造力實踐歷程研討會手冊,頁32。
張玉成(1983)。教師發問技巧及其對學生創造思考能力影響之研究。台北:
教育部教育計劃小組。
張世慧(1988)。創造性問題解決方案對國小資優班與普通班學生創造性問題解
決能力、創造力和問題解決能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
張志豪(2000)。高中生活科技課程創造思考教學對學生學習成效之影響。台灣
師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文。
張春興(1997)。現代心理學。台北:心理出版社。
張華城(2003)。探討國小六年級學童數學創造力與科學創造力之相關性與差異性。屏東師範學院數理教育研究所。
張景媛(1994)。數學文字題錯誤概念分析及學生建構數學概念的研究。國立台
台灣師範大學教育心理學報,27,175-200。
張靜嚳(1999)。國中低學習成就班的雙環數學教學。數學教育學刊,7(3),199-216。
董奇(1995)。兒童創造力發展心理。台北:五南。
黃光雄(民88)。課程與教學。台北:師大書苑。
黃敏晃(1994)。國民小學數學新課程之精神。台灣省國民學校教師研習會編。
國民小學數學科新課程概說(低年級),(頁1-17)。台北:出版者。
湯誌龍(1999)。高工機械科學生專業創造力及其相關因素之研究。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文。
楊明家(1997)。國小六年級不同解題能力學生在數學解題歷程後設認知行為之比較。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭石岩(1984)。心理分析與教育。台北:遠流出版社。
鍾一先(1997)。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
台灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文。
嚴榮義(2001)。國一一般資優生的解題歷程分析。國立高雄師範大學數學系研究所碩士論文。
貳、英文部分
Aiken, L.R.(1973). Ability and creativity in mathematics. Review of educational
research, 43(4), 405-432.
Andrews,A.G.(1997). Doing what comes Naturally: talking about Mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, January,236-239.
Barron F.(1969) Creative Persons and Creative Process, New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Brissenden,T.(1988).Talking about mathematics. England:Basil Blackwell
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath. Ericsson, K. A., &
Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (5) ,Whole No. 270.
Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process.New York: Wiley Press.
Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process: A symposium. Berkeley: University
of California Press
Gilchrist, M.B. (1972). The psychology of creativity . Hong Kong: Dai Nippon
Guilford,J.P.(1967).The nature of human intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill,Inc.
Guilford, J.P.(1968).Intellignce, creativity and theireducational implications. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp
Hallman, R.J.(1967)Techniques of creative teaching . Journal of Creative
Behavior,1.37-40.
Haylock, D.W.(1987a). Mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Journal of
creative behavior, 21(1), 48-59 .
Hollands, R. D. (1972). Educational technology: Aims and objectives in
teaching mathematics. Mathematics in School, 1(2).17-21.
Howe, R.(1997). Handbook of seminar on instruction for creative thinking.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2177A.
Jone, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts of dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107-117.
Krutetskii,V.A.(1969).An analysis of the individual structure of mathematical
abilities in school children.In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup(Eds.) ,Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching mathematics (Vol.2).Stanford, Calif.:School Mathematics Study Group
Lo,j., Wheatley,G.H. & Smith,A.C.(1994). The participation beliefs, and development of arithmetic meaning of third-grade student in mathematics discussion. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,25(1),30-49.
Mackey(1977) and L Glass, Oscillation and chaos in physiological
control systems, Sicence, vol. 197, pp. 287-289.
Maslow, A. H.(1959), Creativity in self-actualizing people. In H. A. Anderson
(ED.). Creativity and its cultivation(pp.83-95). N.Y.: Harper.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. 387~414. New
York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
.Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York : Scribner Press.
Polya, G. (1957) How to solve it:A new aspect of mathematical method(2nd ed.).
Princeton New York: Princeton University Press.
Reston,VA. (1989)National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. : NCTM
Romey,W.D.(1970):What is your creativity quotient.School Science and
Mathmatics, 70(1),3-8.
Rosenberg, M.J.&C.I. Hovland(1960),Cognitive affective,and behavioral components of attitude,In M.J. Rosenberg et al.(eds),Attitude organizationand change, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sanderlin, O. (1971). Creative teaching. NJ: A. S. Barnes and Co. Inc.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1989).Uses of computers in mathematics instruction. The
MathematicalAssociation Of America, 9 , 1- 17.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,
metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In Grouws, D. A. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Macmillan Publishing Company, Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
Sternberg, R.J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M.G..McKeown & M.E. Curtis (Eds.), The Nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taylor, C.W. & Ellison, R.L.(1964). Prediction of creativity with the biographical inventory. In P.E.Vernon (Ed.), (1970). Creativity (pp. 327-338).Middlesex, England : Penguin.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Torrance,E.P.(1972). Can we teach children to think creativity? Journal of Creative Behavior.5(2) ,53-62.
Torrance, E. P. et. al., (Eds.) (1972). Creativity: Its educational implications. John Wiley and Sons.
Torrance,E.P.(1974).Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual,Princeton,N.J.:Personnel Press,Inc.
Wiles, J. (1985). The mind of invention: Activities to stimulate creative
thinking. New York: Freeman Press.