合作學習對國中七年級學生的數學學習成就與數學焦慮的影響

全文

(1)

(2) II.

(3) i.

(4) Abstract. This study investigated students learning effectiveness by using different teaching methods. The sample of this study was 68 seventh grade students of two classes from a high school in the northern Taiwan The study was a using quasi-experimental research design, and randomly divided two class into experimental and control groups.The experimental group with 5 to 6 students in a group. Research tools include Mathematics Achievement Test and the Mathematics Anxiety Scale. The Mathematics achievement test had 25 questions, content and function of linear and linear inequalities, Experimental validity was adapted test reliability value was .92. The Mathematics Anxiety Scale compiled by Dr. Wei, Lee-Min (1988), which has four dimensions: test anxiety, disgust, fear, perceived stress. Removing the low correlation questions, there are 30 questions, and reliability ( ) was .91. The data was analyzed by SPSS17.0 package about descriptive statistics, independent sample t test, multi-factor analysis and multivariate Hotelling T square. Findings are: (1) the experimental group achieved significant higher mathematics scores over the control group; (2) the experimental group had significant higher levels of understanding over the control group; (3) the experimental group had significantly higher graphics unit to function over the control group; (4) the experimental group had a significant higher effect on the delay over the control group; (5) the experimental group on average math anxiety was decreased (13.5 down to 12.6 points), the control group is increased on average of math anxiety (11.3 rise to 12.5 points), but no significant difference.; (6) as long as there was mathematics lesson or math test, students will begin to feel anxious; (7) students dislike learning mathematics. Based on the findings, recommendations were as follows: (1) in the functions and inequalities unit, teachers can enhance students’ mathematics achievement by using STAD teaching strategies; (2) continues to explore STAD method in different units of learning achievement and mathematics anxiety;(3) this study explored only six weeks. There are differences in math anxiety, but less significant, suggest that future research use of STAD teaching a long time to investigate the effects of math anxiety. Key word: STAD mathematics achievement mathematics anxiety Function Linear Inequality.. ii.

(5) ……………………………………………………………………………………..i …………………………………………………………………………………….iii ……………………………………………………………………………………..v ……………………………………………………………………………………vii. …………………………………………………………………………… ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ....................................................................................... ............................................................................. ......................................................................................... ……………………………………………………………………… ........................................................................ ....................... ...................................................................... ....................................... …………………………………………………………………… ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................... .…………………………………………………………… ....................................... ...................................................................... ............................................................................. .................................................... ………………………………………………………………… ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... iii.

(6) …………………………………………………………………………… .............................................................................................. ....................................................................... .……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………………… ……………………………….………………………………. 2.1. …………………………………………………… 10. 2.2. ………………………………………………………… 16. 2.3. ………………………………………… 21. 2.4. …………………………………………………. 23. 2.5. …………………………………. 25. 2.6. ……………………………………………………………… 34. 2.7. ………………………………….. 35. 2.8. STAD. 3.1 3.2. …………………..…37 …………………………………….… ……….50. t. ……….…..………………………………………………….. 50. 3.3. ………………………………………...51. 3.4. ………………………………………..… 54. 3.5. ………………………………….. 57. 3.6. Cronbach. …………………………………..……60. 4.1. ……………………………………………. 63. 4.2. ……………………………………………. 65. 4.3. …………………………………. 71 iv.

(7) 4.4. ………………………………..… 73. 4.5. ……………………………………….. 78. 4.6. …………………………………….. 80. 4.7. ……………………………………. 84. 4.8. ……………………………………. 86. 4.9. …………………………………………………….. 92. 4.10. ……………………………………………………… ...93. 4.11. ……………………94. 4.12. ………………………………..… 95. 4.13. …………………………………………………96. 4.14. …………………………………………………….… 96 …………………………………………..97 ………………………………..98. 4.17. ……………………………………………………99. 4.18. ……………………………………………………..… 99. 4.19. ………………………………………………………100. 4.20. ……………………………………..…100. 4.21. …………………………………..…101. 4.22. ……………………………………..…101. 4.23. …………………………………..…102. 4.24 4.25. t. …………………………………………………………... 106 …………………………………………………….…106. v.

(8) 2.1 2.2 STAD. ………………………………………...……………… 26 ……………………………………………...………………… 27. 2.3. ……………………………………………….………..……… 38. 2.4. ……………………………………………….………..……… 39. 2.5. ……………………………………………….………….………39. 3.1. ……………………………………………….……………….…… 52. 4.1. …………………………………………………….…103. 4.2. …….………………………………………..…… 103. 4.3. ....………………………….…………..…………..…… 104. 4.3. ....…………………..……….……………………..…… 104. 4.5. …….……………………….………………..…… 105. vi.

(9) ( 2001). 1.

(10) 2.

(11) 3.

(12) 4.

(13) 5.

(14) STAD. 6.

(15) 7.

(16) 8.

(17) 1996. 9.

(18) 10.

(19) 11.

(20) 12.

(21) 13.

(22) 14.

(23) 15.

(24) 16.

(25) ( ). STAD STAD. 17.

(26) 18.

(27) (. 19.

(28) Deutch(1949). 1996. Deutch(1949). 20.

(29) 21.

(30) ( ) Slavin(1991). 22.

(31) 1.. ( (. 1997). ) 3.. ). (. ). 2. (. Wenier. 23.

(32) 24.

(33) 25.

(34) 26.

(35) 27.

(36) 28.

(37) 29.

(38) 30.

(39) (. 31.

(40) 32.

(41) 33.

(42) ILE. 34.

(43) (. ). (2003). 35.

(44) (. 2003. 36.

(45) 37.

(46) (Scarpello. 2007). (. 1988). 38.

(47) 39.

(48) 40.

(49) &. 41.

(50) 1966. (. ). 124. 80 62. (. &. 2006). STAD. (. ). STAD. 42.

(51) (. a c. b d. a d. x. x. 5x. 43. x. b c.

(52) x. x. x. 5x. 5x 3 x 1. 5x 3. 4( x 1). x. 1. 5x 3 x 1. n. n. m n. m n. 44. x 1 x 1.

(53) 45.

(54) 46.

(55) 47.

(56) b. (. (Dreyfus & Eisenberg,1982. 48.

(57) Lesh, Cramer, Doerr, Post, and Zawojewski 2002) 1991). 49.

(58) Levene. t. t. 50.

(59) t. 33. 35. 68. S. 5. 6. 25. 51.

(60) 3. 52.

(61) 53.

(62) 54.

(63) 55.

(64) 56.

(65) 57.

(66) 58.

(67) 59.

(68) 60.

(69) 61.

(70) 62.

(71) 63.

(72) 64.

(73) 65.

(74) 66.

(75) 67.

(76) 68.

(77) y. x 3 90. 2. ax. y=. 5 2. 2. 5. y. x. y. x. 100 20 C. x. yC 69. y. 0. C. x y.

(78) 2x. h.. (. ). 18 (x 1). 2x. 5. 4. 62.8%. 15. 3x. 18. 19. 8. x. 75%. 19. 3 (x 5) 65.7%. 81.8%. 22 2(5. 3x). 72.7%. 57.1%. 5 1-2. 4(x 3). 4. 1. 1. 3(x 1). 2. 24. 24 4. 5. 300 1100. x. x 300 48.6%. y. 50. x 300 45.5%. 70. y. 21. /. 1.

(79) 1. x 3 t 87. 5x 3 76. t x. 85 (2002) (2004). (2007). (2007). (1987). 71. (2008).

(80) 72.

(81) 73.

(82) 74.

(83) 75.

(84) 76.

(85) 77.

(86) 78.

(87) a.. 1. 79.

(88) 80.

(89) 81.

(90) a.. 60~70%. a. 65% 54. 82. 4. (. 18. ). (. 10. ).

(91) a. ( (60.. (. 14. ). ( (. (. 22. 15 20. ). ) ) 25%. ( 24%. 83. 11. ). 5. ).

(92) 84.

(93) a.. 1. 85.

(94) 86.

(95) a.. 50~60%. 87. 4.

(96) a. 13. (. ). 50 85. 60 (. 24. 42. ) 60. ( (. 17. a.. ). ( (. 10 (. 2,3. ) 18. 16. ). 11% ). 11%. 88. ).

(97) ( 26.7%. (. 12%. (. 9 6. 1. ). ) ). 15.4% (. 12%. 29. ) (. 21. ). (. 11. ). 6%. 10%. 89.

(98) 90.

(99) 91.

(100) 92.

(101) 93.

(102) 94.

(103) 95.

(104) 96.

(105) 97.

(106) 98.

(107) 99.

(108) 100.

(109) 101.

(110) 102.

(111) 103.

(112) 104.

(113) 105.

(114) Levene. t. 106.

(115) 107.

(116) 108.

(117) ’ ANOVA. MANCOVA ”. 109. ”.

(118) ’. 110.

(119) (. ). STAD STAD. (. ). (. ). STAD. STAD (. ). (68. ). MACOVA. 111.

(120) -. 112.

(121) (2008). 113.

(122) 114.

(123) S-T. ”. ”. 10. 273-298. ---. 115.

(124) (2002). 116.

(125) 117.

(126) 52,52-61. Beady, C. L., Slavin, R. E., & Fennessey, G. M. (1981). Alternative student evaluation structures and a focused schedule of instruction in an innercity junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 518-523. Charles,R. P.(1992). Inequalities, Absolute Value, and Logical Connectives, The Mathematics Teacher, 85(9), 756-757. Debra, K. M. (1992). The negotiation of meaning and the transfer of responsibility for learning through teacher scaffolding and student self-scaffolding of instruction. University of Texas at Austin, Dissertation. Deutch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relation, 2(2),129-152 Dreyfus,T., & Eisenberg,T. (1982). Intuitive Function Concepts:A Baseline Study on Intuitions. Journal for research in mathematics education, 13(5), 360-380 Dreyfus,T. (1985). A graphical approach to solving inequality. School Science and Mathematics, 85(8), 651-662. Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggo, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment:A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 173-177. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude scales:Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of 118.

(127) mathematics by females and males. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6, 31. Garfumkel, J., & Plotkin,B., (1966). Using geometry to prove algebra inequalities, Mathematics Teacher, 58(8), 730-734. Huang, C. C. (2002). A new look at solving inequalities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 33( 5), 729-733. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 444–449. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone:Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative , competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kamuran,T. & Fikri, A. (2008).The effect of cooperative learning on Turkish elementary students’ mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics using TAI and STAD Methods. Educational studies in Mathematics, 67(1),77-91. Loeser, J. W. (2008). Cooperative learning -- Research starters education: 1. EBSCOhost. Web. Markovits ,Z.,Eylon, B., & Bruckheimer ,M. (1988).Difficulties student have with the function concept. In A. F. Coxford, & A. P. Shulte(Eds.).The ideas of algebra, K-12,pp43-60. Reston,VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5), 520-540. Nichols, J. D. (1996). Brief research report: The effects of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 467-476. Nichols, J. D., & Miller, R. B.(1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. 119.

(128) Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(2), 167-178. Oludipe, D., & Awokoy, J. O. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning teaching strategy on the Reduction of Students’ anxiety for learning chemistry. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7( 1), 30-36. Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective variables and mathematics education. Elementary school journal,84(5),558-581. Richardson, F., & Suinn,R. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale: Psychometric data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19 , 551-554. Rowntree, R. V. (2009). Students’ understandings and misconceptions of algebraic inequalities. School Science and Mathematics ,109 (6),311-312. Scarpello, G.(2007). Helping students get past math anxiety. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 82 (6),34-35. Sharan, Y.,. Sharan, S. (1990). Group Investigation expands cooperative learning.. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21. Sherman ,B. F. & Wither, D. P.(2003). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics achievement. Mathematics Education Research Journal , 15(2), 138-150. Slavin, R. E.(1979). Effects of individual learning expectations on student achievement. Eric Document Reproduction Service. NO. ED1891183. Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1981). Cognitive and affectie outcomes of an intensive student team learning experience. Journal of Experimental Education, 50(1),29-35. Slavin, R. E. (1982). Cooperative Learning:Student Teams. What Research Says to the Teacher. Eric Document Reproduction Service. NO. ED222489. Slavin, R. E.(1988). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning, Second Edition. Eric Document Reproduction Service. NO. ED295910. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall. Slavin, R. E. (1991) Student Team Learning: A Practical Guide to Cooperative Learning. Third Edition. Eric Document Reproduction Service. NO. ED339518. Slavin, R.E. (1994) A practical guide to cooperative learning. Boston : Allyn and Bacon Slavin, R. E. (1995) Cooperative learning : theory, research, and Practice (2nd ed). Boston : Allyn and Bacon. 120.

(129) Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational psychology:Theory and practice 6th ed.. .. Boston:Allyn & Bacon. Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Conceptual and methodological issues in anxiety research. In C. Spielberger (ed.), Anxiety: current trends in theory and research. 2. New York: Academic Press. Strawderman, W. (2009). Math Anxiety Model.Retrieved November 5 , 2010 ,from http //www.mathgoodies.com/articles/math_anxiety_model.html Szetela, W. (1993). The effects of test anxiety and success/failure on mathematics performance in grade eight. Journal for Research in Mathmatics Education. 4 , 152-160. The National Training Laboratories (2001). Retention Rates from Different Ways of Learning . In T. Bassarear (ED), Mathematics for Elemrntary School Teachers (pp.42-45). New York : Houghton Mifflin. Tsamir, P. & Almog, N. (2001). Students’ strategies and difficulties: The case of algebraic inequalities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(4), 513–524. Tsamir, P. & Bazzini, L. (2004). Consistencies and inconsistencies in students'solution to algebraic ' single-value'inequalities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,35(6),793-812. Vaiyavutjamai and Clements (2006). Effects of classroom instruction on student performance on understanding of linear equations and linear inequalities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2),113-147. Warren, E. (2006). Comparative mathematical language in the elementary school: A longitudinal study.Educational Studies in Mathematics,62(2),169-189. Webb, N. M. (1980). An analysis of group interaction and mathematical errors in heterogeneous ability groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50,266-276. Webb, N. M. (1982b). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642-655. Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 33-44. Webb, N. M., Kenderski, C. M. (1984). Student interaction and learning in small-group 121.

(130) and whole-class settings. In P. L. Peterson,& L. C. Woodard, Teresa. (2004). The Effects of Math Anxiety on post-secondary developmental students as related to achievement, gender, and age. Inquiry, 9 (1),1-5. Wiggins, A. J., Wiggins, B. B., & Vander Zanden, J. (1994). Social psychology, Int. ed. (pp. 240–245). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross,G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,17, 89-100.. 122.

(131) (A) 5. 3x+y. f(x) (A). 7. y. (B) y. 3x 5 (B). 2 ) 3. f( 6. f(2). (C) 4. 5. y (B) (x 3) 2. x. 1. (D) x. 2. f(5). (D) 18. x. (A) x 3 2. (C) y 2. x 5. 3. 5. 2. y (C) x (3 2). 90. 5. y. 5. y (D) (x 3) (2. x. y. 5). y x. ? 90 x. 100 x. yC. y 2. (B) x. 20 C. x y. ( (A). 0. C. x 90. y. x (C). 123. ) (D). y.

(132) ax. (A)5. (B). 7. (C). b. 9. (D). 11. (A). (A). y. y 2 (B). ax y. y= (A). y. (B). a 0 (C). 5 2 y. y. (C). 124. (D). (D).

(133) y ax (A). 1. (B). a. b 2. (C). 5. (D). 8. (. y ax. (A) 7. (B). 5. 2x. (C). 3. 7a. 6. 13. (A). (B). (A)2x 3. (A). 2x 5. (B)2x. (B). 2. (B). 5b (C). y 4. (C)3(x. 3x. x. (C). (C). 8. 6. 5b. 13. b. 5 3y. 8. 7a. ). 2. 2x. 5. 3y. (A). (D). b. 8 (D). (D). 125. (D). 1). 1. x. (D)x 2y 4. x.

(134) 1100 x. 50 300. (A)300. 17x 1100. (B)300. 14x 1100. (C)300. 16x 1100. (D)300. 13x 1100. x 300. (B) x 300. 2(5. y (C) x. y 300. /. x. /. 6 t. 2. (D) y 300. 3x). 5. 5. 5 1 1. (A). (B). (C). (D). 1 (A). x 3 30. t. t. 5x 3 10. (B). t 25 t. 4(x 3) (A). ?. 1. 10 (C). (B). (C). 76. 85 (B) 94. (C) 96. t. 18. (D). 3(x 1). 87. (A) 92. 2. (D) 98. 126. (D). x.

(135) N(%) A. B. C. D. D. P. 1. 12(13.2). 43(47.3). 20(22.0). 16(17.6. 0.01. 0.20. 2. 6(6.6). 52(57.1). 21(23.1). 12(13.2). 0.49. 0.55. 3. 10(11.0). 13(14.3). 61(67.0). 7(7.7). 0.85. 0.58. 4. 13(14.3). 32(35.2). 8(8.8). 38(41.8). 0.53. 0.46. 5. 22(24.2). 6(6.6). 53(58.2). 10(11.0). 0.77. 0.62. 6. 6(6.6). 68(74.7). 13(14.3). 4(4.4). 0.58. 0.67. 7. 5(5.5). 45(49.5). 26(28.6). 15(16.5). 0.69. 0.50. 8. 26(28.6). 18(19.8). 31(34.1). 16(17.6). 0.39. 0.48. 9. 13(14.3). 27(29.7). 30(33.0). 21(23.1). 0.37. 0.30. 10. 15(16.5). 11 12. 56(61.5) 11(12.2). 13. 29(32.2). 19(20.9). 33(36.3). 24(26.4). 0.09. 0.20. 9(9.9). 15(16.5). 11(12.1). 0.58. 0.71. 51(56.7). 18(20.0). 10(11.1). 0.57. 0.55. 22(24.4). 14(15.6). 0.49. 0.44. 19(21.1). 25(27.8). 0.32. 0.28. 25(27.8). 14. 16(17.8). 30(33.3). 15. 22(24.2). 13(14.3). 10(11.0). 46(50.5). 0.53. 0.53. 16. 7(7.8). 18(20.0). 19(21.1). 46(51.1). 0.60. 0.58. 17. 27(30.0). 23(25.6). 24(26.7). 16(17.8). 0.60. 0.38. 10(11.2). 8(9.0). 0.68. 0.62. 9(10.5). 0.63. 0.56. 18. 10(11.2). 19. 15(17.4). 15(17.4). 20. 11(12.1). 11(12.1). 16(17.6). 53(58.2). 0.77. 0.58. 21. 18(19.8). 17(18.7). 18(19.8). 38(41.8). 0.57. 0.48. 16(17.6). 16(17.6). 8(8.8). 0.53. 0.57. 13(14.3). 23(25.3). 0.41. 0.51. 0.41. 0.51. 22. 51(56.0). 61(68.5). 23. 13(14.3). 24. 21(23.3). 10(11.1). 25. 9(10.1). 23(25.8). 45(50.6). 12(13.5). 0.55. 0.51. 26. 16(17.8). 16(17.8). 43(47.8). 15(16.7). 0.26. 0.59. 27. 18(19.8). 19(20.9). 19(20.9). 35(38.5). 0.49. 0.48. 13(14.4). 11(12.2). 7(7.8). 0.42. 0.71. 28. 59(65.6) N. 42(46.2). 47(54.7). 17(18.9). % 127. 42(46.7).

(136) 128.

(137) 129.

(138) 130.

(139) 500. 5. 58. 131.

(140) 1-3. 132.

(141) 1-5. 133.

(142) 2-1. 134.

(143) 2-2. 135.

(144) 136.

(145) 137.

(146) 138.

(147) 139.

(148) 140.

(149) 2. 141.

(150) 2 3 2 3. 142.

(151) 10. 10 x. f(x) f(x) x. 1. 2. 3. 4. f(x). 160. 155. 165. 155 15. 2 3. 11 3. 143.

(152) 10. 2 3. 2 3. 25. x. 2. 144.

(153) 20. 2-3. 10. 20. 145.

(154) 15. 3 x c.. y f(x). a. 0. a. 0. b. x. ax. b. 0. b 0 b. 0(. ). b 0(. ) x. x. 0 15 ax. b. 5. 10. 10. 146.

(155) 15. 147.

(156) 148.

(157) 3. 149.

(158) 4.. 5.. f(x). y=ax. ax 2. b. a 0. (0, 1). 6.. 150. (2,5).

(159) 3 x. f(x). f(x) x f(x). 3.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 25. 23. 22. 25. 30. 28. 26. 23. f(x). ax b. a 0. b 0. 151. 10 22.

(160) _____________________. f(x). (a 2)x. b 5. 152.

(161) 1 0. 5. 153.

(162) 1 85. 92 3. x. 0. 2 0. 1-2. 5. 5. 1 0. 2-1. 1 5. 154.

(163) 106 5. 106 4. 1 5. 1 5. 1 2. 1 5. (1). 1 x. (2). 1 2. (3) 2 x. 3 x. (2). 4 x. 3. (3) -3. 155. 2.

(164) 156.

(165) ( x 1) 3. 1 2 2 3. 157. ( x 3) 5.

(166) 158.

(167) 1-1. 5. 8. 5. 159.

(168) 4. 4. 4. 4. 160.

(169) 1 1. 2. 1-2. 0. 2 5. 1 0. 161.

(170) 2 0. 1 5. 2 0. 106. 1 5. 25. 3. 2. 50 20. 1 0. 162.

(171) 163.

(172) 164.

(173) 3x. 15 5x 9. (A). 3x 2. ______________. (B). (C). (D). 2x 3. 5. 75 100. 120. 165.

(174) 5. 166.

(175) 704 1.. 2.. 3.. 4. ?. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. ____. __________. ________________________. 9.. (. ). 10. ?. 167.

(176)