建議

依據本研究之結論，對線上合作鷹架學習策略的應用與未來研究提出以下建 議：

一、對線上鷹架合作策略的建議

研究顯示鷹架策略有助於提升學習成效及改變對於數學解題的態度，

但本研究僅針對兩種鷹架策略進行探討，其餘尚未著墨，建議後續研究可 針對其他鷹架策略進行探究，或是組合不同的鷹架策略來達成更好的成 效。

二、對後續教學應用的建議

教材設計宜多元且合乎生活經驗，透過學生較熟悉的生活情境下設計 題目，可以避免學生記憶題型而使用某些解題策略，促使學生能夠將因數 與倍數的概念，遷移到日常生活中。

而在解題過程中，鼓勵學生多交流及發問，個別解題時，常常未了解 題意就進行運算，遇到沒看過的題型便束手無策，所以透過學生間互相交 流，可以幫助學生澄清並建構屬於自己的知識，也幫助老師了解學生的迷 思概念。

三、對未來研究的建議

因為實驗時間短，且學習後立即評量，所以無法確保知識的保留或遷 移，因此建議未來可加入延宕測驗，或是質性研究做進一步的分析與探討。

參考文獻

李淑如（2005）。合作學習教學法運用於高職一年級商業概論教學之探討。國立

柯巨航（2008）。補習教育與國中學生數學成就關係之探討。國立花蓮教育大學

陳正明（2003）。透過 Excel 輔助進行線型函數補救教學之研究 - 以一個國二學

黃寶園、林世華（2002）。合作學習對學習效果影響之研究：統合分析。教育心

蕭正洋（2004）。國小學生倍數補救教學實施之研究。屏東師範學院數理教育研 究所碩士論文。

謝君琳（2002）。合作學習對國小四年級數學低成就學生數學學習與同儕互動之 影響。未出版碩士，彰化師範大學特殊教育學系所，台北市。

蘇一如（2007）。影響國際數學成就因素之比較-以 TIMSS 2003 臺灣與美國為例。

國立臺北教育大學，碩士論文。

Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self control, and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert and R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cannella, G. S. (1993). Learning through social interaction: Shared cognitive experience, negotiation strategies, and joint concept construction for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 427-444.

Dyson. A. H., （1990）“Weaving possibities Rethinking metaphors for early literacy development”, The Reading Teacher, 44, pp.2025-213.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company Press.

DFE, (1995),"The Parents' Charter: Publication of Information about Secondary School Performance in 1995", Circular number 6/95, DFE Publications, London.

Empson, S. B. (2003). Low-performing students and Teaching fractions for

understanding: An interactional analysis, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(4), 305-343.

Fennem, E. & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Scales.

Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females. JSAS Catalog of Selected Document in Psychology, 6(3), 1-32.

Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Drueck, J. V. (2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the standards-based curriculum Everyday Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 277-295.

Garofalo, J. & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163-176.

Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52.

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part 1. International Journal of Instructional Media , 30 (3), 247-262.

Johnson, H., & Johnson, P. (1991). Task knowledge structures: Psychological basis and integration into system design. Acta Psychologica, 78, 3-26.

Jacobson, M., & Spiro, R. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301-333.

Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking.

Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Merrill.

Jonassen, D. & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools, in D. Jonassen, ed., Handbook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Scholastic.

Jackson, S. L., Krajcik, J. S., Soloway, E. (1998) The Design of Guided

Learner-Adaptable Scaffolding in Interactive Learning Environments, ACM CHI '98 Human Factors in Computer Systems, Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA,

Addison-Wesley, 187-194.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999).Make cooperative learning. Theory Into Practice.38(2),67-74.

Kilpatrick, J. (1967). Problem solving in mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 39, 523-534.

Lester, F. K. (1980). Problem solving: Is it a problem? In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics education (pp. 29-45). Berkeley Calif:

McCutchan.

Langer, J. A. (1991). Literary understanding and literature instruction (Report Series 2.11). Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature, State University of New York at Albany.

Lim, B. R. (2001). Guidelines for designing inquiry-based learning on the web: online professional development of educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Minnesota.

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,405-412.

National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics(1977). Position paper on basic mathematical skills. Arithmetic Teacher, 25, 19-22.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). Problem solving be the focus of school mathematical in the 1980’s. An agenda for action. Palo Alto, Calif：Dale Seymour Publications Press.

Nijhot, W., & Kommers, P. (1985). An analysis of cooperation in relation to cognitive controversy. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R.

Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp.125-146). New York: Plenum Press

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Palo Alto, Calif.: Dale Seymour Publications Press.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Palo Alto, Calif: Dale Seymour Publications Press.

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Parker，R.E.（1985）.Small-group cooperative learning--improving academic, social gains in the classroom. Nass Bulletin, 69(479), PP.48-57.

Preston, D. (2005). Pair Programming as a model of cooperative learning. A Review of The research. Journal of computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(4), 39-45.

Rigney, J. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In O’Neil, H. F. Jr.

(Ed.) Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Rittle-Johnson, B. & Koedinger, K.R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313-349.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27-46.

Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration:

implications for classroom practice.In L.C.Moll (ED.), Vygotsky and education:

instructional implications and applications of sociaohistorical psychology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Thevenot, C., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Representations and strategies for solving dynamic and static arithmetic word problems: The role of working memory capacities.

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(5), 756-775.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge,MA.: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. & Kozulin, A. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996).Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, (pp.3-7). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wood, P. , Bruner, J. , & Ross, G.（1976）The role of tutoring in problem solving.

Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Yang, D. C. (2003). Teaching and Learning Number Sense—An Intervention Study of fifth grade students in Taiwan, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 115-134. (NSC 90-2521-S-415-001)