複式評量融入數學教學對不同學習風格的高二學生學習成效之研究

Abstract

本研究主要目的是探討複式評量融入數學教學對不同學習風格的高二學生在圓與球面課程的學習成效。研究採用不等組前後測準實驗研究設計，以桃園縣一所完全中學高中部二年級社會組兩班共80名學生為研究對象，教師為研究者，非隨機分派一班為實驗組，進行「複式評量融入數學教學」之實驗教學，另一班為控制組，實施「傳統數學科教學」。學生學習風格採用Kolb學習風格量表區分為「主動驗證」及「被動觀察」兩類型。為探究不同學習風格的學生接受不同教學方法後，在數學學習態度、成就及保留三方面的差異性，採用二因子共變數分析之統計方法檢定研究假設，並於實驗教學後以實驗教學回饋單調查其對複式評量之看法及態度，檢定分析及調查結果整理後得如下結論。\n一、排除前測影響後，學生在數學學習態度上的表現：\n（一）學習風格因子與教學方法因子之間沒有交互作用。\n（二）學習風格因子不會造成顯著差異。\n（三）教學方法因子會造成顯著差異；複式評量教學優於傳統教學。\n二、排除前測影響後，學生在數學學習成就上的表現：\n（一）學習風格因子與教學方法因子之間有交互作用。\n（二）以傳統教學法而言，學習風格因子會造成顯著差異；主動驗證風格優於被動觀察風格。\n（三）以被動觀察風格而言，教學方法因子會造成顯著差異；複式評量教學法優於傳統教學法。\n（四）以被動觀察風格接受傳統教學法後為最差。\n三、排除前測影響後，學生在數學學習保留上的表現：\n（一）學習風格因子與教學方法因子之間有交互作用。\n（二）以複式評量教學法而言，學習風格因子會造成顯著差異；主動驗證風格優於被動觀察風格。\n（三）以主動驗證風格而言，教學方法因子會造成顯著差異；複式評量教學法優於傳統教學法。\n（四）以主動驗證風格接受複式評量教學法後為最佳。\n四、實驗組學生在圓與球面課程實施「複試評量融入數學教學」後，絕大多數的學生喜歡此教學方法，而對未來數學課程實施「複試評量融入數學教學」則絕大多數抱持贊成的看法。\n最後針對研究結果提出數點建議，以供教師教學及後續研究之參考。

The purpose of this study is to explore the effects on learning performance of 11th graders based on two factors – teaching methods and learning styles. This study was conducted as a quasi-experimental design. Two classes,which have a total of 80 students, were sampled from a high school in Taoyuan County. One was assigned as an experimental group and the other one as a control group. The first one took a “composite assessment embedded in mathematics teaching” method learning, while the second one took a “traditional mathematics teaching” method learning respectively. This study used the learning styles inventory (LSI) of Kolb to classify learners into two groups – “active experimentation (AE)” and “Reflective Observation (RO)”. Two-way ANCOVA was conducted to test all hypotheses in order to find variations of mathematical learning attitudes, mathematical learning achievements, and mathematical learning retention. The study also investigated the views of points of the students in control group after the experiment. According to the analysis, we reach the following conclusions︰\n1. In mathematical learning attitudes:\n(1) Teaching methods and learning styles don’t interact significantly.\n(2) There is no significant difference between two learning styles.\n (3) There is a significant difference between two teaching methods. The effect on experimental group is better than that on control group significantly.\n2. In mathematical learning achievements:\n(1) Teaching methods and learning styles interact significantly.\n(2) For the control group, there is a significant difference between two learning styles. The effect on style AE is better than that on style RO significantly.\n(3) For the style RO, there is a significant difference between two teaching methods. The effect on experimental group is better than that on control group significantly.\n(4) The effect on control group with the style RO is the worst.\n3. In mathematical learning retention:\n(1) Teaching methods and learning styles interact significantly.\n(2) For the experimental group, there is a significant difference between two learning styles. The effect on style AE is better than that on style RO significantly.\n(3) For the style AE, there is a significant difference between two teaching methods. The effect on experimental group was better than that on control group significantly.\n(4) The effect on experimental group with the style AE is the best.\n4. After the experiment, most of the students in the experimental group like “composite assessment embedded in mathematics teaching” method. They also agree that “composite assessment embedded in mathematics teaching” should be conducted in the future.\nFinally, suggestions for the teachers and future researches are also discussed.