本研究主要目的有三點：(一)探討「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」對於國小學生數學學習成就、解題歷程及數學態度的影響；(二)分析接受「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」的國小學生在課堂上小組討論內容的特色；(三)了解「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」對於教師教學的影響為何。
本研究融合多元智能理論及問題解決教學，建構「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」，實施在現行國小數學課程中；以北市及北縣各一所國小六年級學生各一班為研究對象。實驗組教師經由參與教師研習、資料閱讀及和教學督導與研究者的討論過程中建構相關理念，實施「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」的實驗教學，控制組則由原班教師進行一般傳統教學。
兩組學生以六上學期初施測的「五下數學科成就測驗」及「數學態度量表」等得分為共變項；經過一學期實驗教學後，以六上學期末施測的「六上數學科成就測驗」及「數學態度量表」等得分為依變項，分別進行單因子共變數分析來考驗假設。另外並分析兩組學生的「個別放聲思考測驗」、「數學態度訪談」及實驗組學生的「課堂小組討論內容」、實驗組教師的「個別訪談」等資料。得到如下結論：
一、在數學學習成就方面，「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」對於「五下數學科成就測驗」成績低於89分的國小學生具有顯著提升數學學習成就的效果。
二、在解題歷程方面：
(一)實驗組學生在「自我表達能力」、「解題歷程」、「形成解題目標的能力」、「水平遷移能力」、「解題正確數」等方面的表現優於控制組學生。
(二)實驗組中、高成就學生在「運用圖示表徵」上的表現優於控制組中、高成就學生。
三、在數學態度方面：
(一)「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」具有顯著提高國小學生的整體數學態度、學習數學的信心及探究數學的動機等效果。
(二)在個別態度訪談上，實驗組學生具有「教師教學以學生為學習中心」、「容易將數學概念與生活應用相聯結」、「數學基模活化程度較廣」、「重視同儕互動」等四項特點；控制組學生具有「教師教學以教師為學習中心」、「容易將數學概念與計算相聯結」、「數學基模活化程度較低」等三項特點。
四、在實驗組學生課堂小組討論內容方面：
(一)在「小組討論結果的類型上」，包含了「學生對某些問題討論出類似的結果」、「學生會討論出與課文不同的解法」、「學生以自己的生活經驗來思考」、「學生的特質影響解題成果」、「各組討論結果有差異」、「小組討論結果有其特色」等六種類型。
(二)在「教師引導小組討論的教學策略」上，具有「教師佈題對學生的影響」、「小組討論時教師的角色」、「小組討論結束之後的教學策略」等三種類型。
五、在實驗組教師進行實驗教學之後的想法上，教師知覺到自己的教學及學生的學習都產生了正向的改變。
最後，研究者根據研究結果提出未來應用「多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式」進行教學及研究上的建議。

There are three major purposes of this study: (1) to explore the effect of Integrated Teaching Model of Multiple Intelligences and Problem-Solving on mathematics achievement, problem-solving process, and mathematics attitude, (2) to analyze the characteristics of the students’ group discussion in class, and (3) to investigate the effect of Integrated Teaching Model of Multiple Intelligences and Problem-Solving on the teacher’s instruction.
This study combined the theory of multiple intelligences with problem-solving teaching strategy to form the Integrated Teaching Model of Multiple Intelligences and Problem-Solving and then put it into practice in the mathematics class of the elementary school. Our subjects include two classes, one from Taipei City and the other from Taipei County. The teacher in the treatment group learn the concepts of teaching via participation in the teacher’s further education, paper-reading and discussion. The teacher in the control group conducted a traditional instruction.
Students’ scores on the “Mathematics Achievement Test of Grade Five” and pre-test of “Mathematics Attitude Scale” were the covariates, and scores on the “Mathematics Achievement Test of Grade Six” and post-test of “Mathematics Attitude Scale” were the dependent variables. They were submitted to one-way ANCOVA in order to see the effects of the new teaching method. Besides, both groups’ answers on the test of “Thinking Aloud” and in the mathematics attitude’s interview, as well as contents of small group discussion in class, and the treatment group teacher’s answers in the interview were analyzed. The results were summarized as follows:
1. About mathematics achievement, Integrated Teaching Model of Multiple Intelligences and Problem-Solving enhanced the mathematics achievement of the treatment group students whose pre-test were below 89.
2. About problem-solving process:
(1) The performance of the treatment group on the ability of self-expression, to form a goal and to transfer laterally, as well as the problem-solving process, and accuracy numbers were better than that of the control group students.
(2) The middle and high achievement students in the treatment group perform better on diagramming than control group students.
3. About mathematics attitude:
(1) Integrated Teaching Model of Multiple Intelligences and Problem-Solving enhanced the treatment group students’ mathematics attitude, confidence in mathematics-learning, and motive of mathematics-exploring.
(2) The treatment group students’ attitude features “student-centered teaching”, “application of the mathematics concepts in daily life”, “wide mathematics schema”, and “focus on student-student interaction”. Control group students’ attitude features “teacher-centered teaching”, “application of the mathematics concepts with computation”, and “narrow mathematics schema”.
4. About the characteristics of the students’ group discussion in class:
(1) The results of the small group discussion can be divided into six types: “students have similar solutions to some problems”, “students have different solutions from those in the textbook”, “students think based on their life experiences”, “students’ characteristics influenced their solutions”, “there were differences among every group’s solutions”, and “each group’s solution has its own characteristics”.
(2) The teacher’s teaching strategy can be divided into three types: “the influence of the teacher’s problem-presenting”, “teacher’s role in the process of small group discussion”, “teacher’s teaching strategy after small group discussion”.
5. About the treatment group teacher’s opinion, the teacher was aware of positive change both on teacher’s teaching and students’ learning.
Based on the findings of this study, we proposed suggestions for future applications and future research of the new teaching model.

一、中文部份
丁振豐(民81)：因素分析取向與認知分析取向智力理論研究派典之比較。初等教育學報，5，253-262頁。
三民書局(民74)：大辭典。臺北：三民出版。
王上林、張靜嚳(民85)：國中數學教室對談行為之研究。科學教育，7，21-38頁。
王文科（民79）：教育研究法（第二版）。臺北：五南出版。
王為國(民88)：九年一貫制課程與多元智慧理論。國教輔導，39(2)，3-7頁。
王為國(民89)：國民小學應用多元智能理論的歷程分析與評估之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
王素香(民83)：一位國小自然教師班級氣氛形成因素之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
方吉正(民88)：認知學徒制在國小數學解題教學成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
田耐青(民88)：由多元智慧理論的觀點談教學評量-一些臺灣的實例。教師天地，99，32-38頁。
古明峰(民87)：加減法應用題語文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研究。新竹師院學報，11，391-420頁。
白晨如(民87)：中學生數學解題能力與認知聯結能力相關性研究。國立彰化師範大學數學研究所碩士論文。
行政院國科會科教處數學教育學門規劃小組(民85)：數學教育-學門資源整合規劃修訂研究報告。http://www.stic.gov.tw/position/scieducation.htm (visited 5/18/00).
江文慈(民86)：整合與超越-多元智力取向的評量。測驗與輔導，143，2952-2954頁。
朱則剛（民85）：建構主義知識論對教學與教學研究的意義。教育研究，49，39-45頁。
李咏吟(民88)：如何在學校落實因材施教-多元智慧教學的應用。師大校友，298，24-30頁。
李真文(民85)：淺談建構教學的幾個概念-專訪嘉義師範學院甯自強教授。教育研究，49，4-6頁。
李暉、郭重吉、段曉林(民83)：國中理化教師試行建構主義教學之個案研究。科學教育，5，27-51頁。
李雯婷(民87)：國二數學科合作中配對教學法與傳統教學法在學習成效之比較研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
李皓光(民84)：「怎樣解題」的教與學。教師之友，36(2)，20-28。
李輝華(民78)：激發學生學習興趣的原則與方法(二)。國教世紀，25(3)，35-39頁。
李輝華(民79)：激發學生學習興趣的原則與方法(三)。國教世紀，25(4)，60-72頁。
李靜瑤(民83)：高雄市國二學生數學解題歷程之分析研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
杜建台(民85)：國小中高年級學童「小數概念」理解之研究。國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳元良(民85)：不同數學課程、性別、社經地位的國小學生在數學態度及成就上比較之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳明清(民80)：教育研究：基本觀念與方法之分析。臺北：五南出版。
吳金聰(民87)：乘法教學的良方。科學教育，8，44-52頁。
吳金聰(民88)：應用數學新課程教學理念於三年級小數教學之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳培安(民84)：「問題解決」式的科技教育教學模式。教師之友，36(2)，12-19。
吳淑敏(民81)：創造性問題解決之心像教學方案對國小資優班學生問題解決能力﹑創造力、自我概念及認知風格之影響。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
吳德邦(民76)：解題導向的數學教學策略-「閱讀問題」部份。臺中師院學報，1，90-224頁。
吳德邦(民77)：解題導向的數學教學策略。國教輔導，28(2)，22-26。
吳德邦、吳順治(民78)：解題導向的數學教學策略。臺北：五南出版。
吳德邦、馬秀蘭(民76)：以問題解決為導向的數學教學模式。國教輔導，26(9、10)，7-20。
吳德邦、廖瑞娟(民86)：國教輔導，37(1)，9-16。
吳靜吉(民86)：IQ、EQ以外還有哪些智慧呢。載於洪蘭審訂、李平譯：經營多元智慧，1-4頁。臺北：遠流出版。
林文生、鄔瑞香(民88)：數學教育的藝術與實務：另類教與學。臺北：心理出版社。
林世元（民86）：合作學習在國小數學低成就學生補救教學實施成效之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林永喜(民86)：略述杜威教育思想對科學教育的啟示。科學教育研究與發展季刊，8，4-13頁。
林青青(民79)：影響國小學童數學焦慮因素之探討。國立政治大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
林清山譯(民80)：教育心理學-認知取向。臺北：遠流出版。
林清山(民81)：心理與教育統計學。臺北：東華出版。
林清山(民88)：國小數學創造力與問題解決能力之研究-子計畫二：學習評量之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中報告。
林進材(民87)：教師效能的研究及其在教學上的應用。教育資料文摘，41(1)，134-147頁。
林麗卿(民86)：全語言教學法對國小學生英語學習之效益研究。國立高雄師範大學英語教育研究所碩士論文。
邵幼雲等總整理(民87)：數學思考。臺北：九章出版。
岳修平譯(民87)：教學心理學-學習的認知基礎。臺北：遠流出版。
旺文社(民78)：牛津當代大辭典。臺北：旺文社出版。
封四維(民88)：多元智慧教學之實踐：一個教師的行動研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
周筱亭(民83)：國民小學教師對數學新課程應有的認識。載於臺灣省國民學校教師研習會編印：國民小學數學科新課程概說(低年級)，18-44頁。臺灣省國民學校教師研習會出版。
周慧茹(民86)：建構教室中數學知識形成歷程之詮釋分析。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
洪正雄(民81)：國小數學教育實際問題之探討。蘭陽文教，27，45-47頁。
洪蘭審訂、李平譯(民86)：經營多元智慧。臺北：遠流出版。
柯怡君、張靜嚳(民84)：以問題為中心的數學教學策略在資優班與普通班實施之比較。科學教育，6，181-207頁。
柯登淵(民85)：國小四年級新數學實驗課程師生數學解題討論與共識發展之觀察研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
邱旻昇(民88)：從期望地位的觀點探討學生在科學小組討論中互動的平等性。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
邱連煌(民86)：啟發兒童的智能-多元智能論在教學上的應用。載於臺北市立師範學院編印：經由課程設計與教學改善提升教育效果論文集，47-64頁。
邱連煌(民88)：啟發兒童的智能-多元智能理論在教學上的應用。載於國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育系主編：1999年資優教育研究學術研討會論文集，7-23頁。
邱智慧(民83)：國小高年級資優班建構式數學解題教學活動設計。資優教育，53，24-29頁。
施青豐(民88)：認知解題策略教學對解題困難聽覺障礙學生解題成效之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
施淑娟(民88)：數學解題的學習與教學。學生輔導，62，50-63。
涂金堂(民85)：數學解題之研究取向。教師之友，37(3)，38-44頁。
涂金堂(民88)：後設認知理論對數學解題教學的啟示。教育研究資訊，7(1)，122-137頁。
唐偉成、江新合(民87)：以問題解決為導向的教學理念與模式。科學教育，8，12-28頁。
徐文鈺(民81)：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。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
徐文鈺(民85)：不同擬題教學策略對兒童分數概念、解題能力與擬題能力之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
徐敏芳(民87)：合作學習法應用在實用技能班會計科目之學習研究。國立彰化師範大學商業教育學系碩士論文。
梁新正(民85)：高雄地區高二學生數學解題之基模知識與歷程之分析研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部(民82)：國民小學課程標準。臺北：教育部編印。
教育部(民89)：國民中小學九年一貫課程(第一學習階段)暫行綱要。http://teach.eje.edu.tw/data/第一階段綱要890419/default.htm (visited 5/19/99).
教育部國教司(民83)：國民中學數學課程標準。http://teach.eje.ntnu.edu.tw/eje/d-task/d-mainframe.htm (visited 5/19/99).
教育部臺灣省國民學校教師研習會(民88)：研究概況。http://www.iest.edu.tw/intro/research.htm (visited 5/19/99).
教育資料文摘(民86)：國中小學生最怕上數學課。教育資料文摘，40(6)，29-30頁。
國立編譯館主編(民86a)：國民小學數學教學指引第九冊。臺北：國立編譯館出版。
國立編譯館主編(民86b)：國民小學數學教學指引第十一冊。臺北：國立編譯館出版。
國立編譯館主編(民87)：國民小學數學課本第十冊。臺北：國立編譯館出版。
國立編譯館主編(民88)：國民小學數學課本第十一冊。臺北：國立編譯館出版。
盛文鴦(民74)：學生中心與教師中心教學法對國中健康教育營養課程教學效果的比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。
張文奇、林偉仁(民87)：身心障礙學生之數學解題。國小特殊教育，24，30-37頁。
張世忠(民88)：教材教法之實踐：要領、方法、研究。臺北：五南出版。
張明輝(民68)：教室中師生互動行為的分析。教與學，1(2)，14-18頁。
張春興(民78)：張氏心理學辭典。臺北：東華出版。
張春興(民80)：現代心理學。臺北：東華出版。
張春興(民83)：教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北：東華出版。
張俊紳(民85)：學習小組教學在國小數學科解題計劃訓練之實驗研究。臺東師院學報，7，53-88頁。
張清濱(民84)：問題中心的學習策略。研習資訊，12(5)，1-5頁。
張清濱(民88)：怎樣實施小組教學。師大校友，297，13-16頁。
張景媛(民88)：多元思考教學策略工作坊對國小教師數學教學影響的評估暨教學督導對教師教學歷程轉變之影響。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
張稚美（民86）：第八種智慧與多元智慧教學。載於洪蘭審訂、李平譯：經營多元智慧，243-252頁。臺北：遠流出版。
陳玉統（民86）：多維智力理論模式的檢驗與國小學生多維智力成份之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
陳李綢(民78)：智力理論的發展及研究趨勢。資優特教季刊，30，34-40頁。
陳李綢、林清山(民80)：多重智力理論模式的驗證與應用。教育心理學報，24，31-66頁。
陳永發(民88)：談班級常規的建立。教育資料文摘，257，157-163頁。
陳怡琪(民88)：國小高年級學童實施問題解決教學之實驗研究：以家庭垃圾清理為例。國立臺灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文。
陳美芳(民87)：導讀。載於莊安祺譯：7種IQ，12-17頁。臺北：時報文化出版。
陳貞蓉(民81)：國小資優班數學科問題解決教學與智力結構模式之應用。資優教育，43，15-18頁。
陳淑娟(民87)：如何選擇國小數學教科書：以新課程標準為依據。教師之友，39(4)，22-26。
陳鉪逸(民85)：數學新課程讓老師輕鬆？國教輔導，36(1)，11-15頁。
陳龍安(民87)：你認為自己聰明嗎。載於莊安祺譯：7種IQ，8-11頁。臺北：時報文化出版。
陳瓊森、汪益譯(民84)：超越教化的心靈-追求理解的認知發展。臺北：遠流出版。
許永賢(民74)：兒童數學科「問題解決」的指導與發展。臺灣教育，416，27-29頁。
許永賢(民76)：國民小學數學科問題發展教學研究。國教輔導，26(9、10)，21-24。
許永賢(民78)：小學數學科問題解決特質的探討。研習資訊，54，34-38頁。
曹博盛(民85)：以解題為導向的數學教學法。國立編譯館通訊，9(3)，30-35。
莊安祺譯(民87)：7種IQ。臺北：時報文化出版。
郭美如(民87)：後設認知的教學成效及其相關變數之分析-以小六及國一數學資優生為對象。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
郭生玉（民74）：心理與教育測驗。臺北：精華書局。
郭俊賢、陳淑惠譯(民88)：多元智慧的教與學。臺北：遠流出版。
郭榮澤(民74)：國中高低成就學生師生互動關係之分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃金鐘(民82)：數學教學要重視培養學童思考策略。國教天地，100，5-11頁。
黃幸美、林美珍、鄭晉昌(民86)：國小學童好與差解題者的類比推理解題表現之探討。教育與心理研究，20，111-140頁。
黃秀瑄、林瑞欽編譯(民80)：認知心理學。臺北：師大書苑。
黃淑珍(民83)：問題解決策略訓練對大學生解決問題能力、因應方式及心理健康的影響效果之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
黃孟琪(民88)：多元智能的教育改革-專訪吳靜吉教授。教育研究雙月刊，67，3-6頁。
黃敏晃(民76)：如何解數學題-數學解題策略簡介。科學月刊，18(7)，515-522頁。
黃敏晃(民83)：國民小學數學新課程之精神。載於臺灣省國民學校教師研習會編印：國民小學數學科新課程概說(低年級)，1-17頁。
黃敏晃譯(民77)：數學解題的教學-近25年來的回顧。數學傳播，12(2)，26-43。
黃瑞琴(民80)：質的教育研究方法。臺北：心理出版社。
黃達三(民84)：國小自然科新課程教學理念的探討。國立編譯館通訊，8(1)，19-21頁。
曾志朗(民84)：序。載於陳瓊森、汪益譯：超越教化的心靈-追求理解的認知發展。臺北：遠流出版。
曾志朗(民86)：曾序。載於洪蘭審訂、李平譯：經營多元智慧，9-13頁。臺北：遠流出版。
曾雙繁(民82)：國小數學教育的省思。國教輔導，33(1 )，41-45頁。
游正旭(民87)：情境教學合作學習下同儕互動歷程之俗民誌研究。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文。
游麗卿(民88)：除法概念形成歷程中的錯誤分析對教學的啟示。高雄：復文出版。
馮莉雅(民86)：從數學解題模式探討數學學習策略及教師策略。教育資料文摘，39(5)，160-179頁。
湯仁燕(民87)：多元智慧的教學實踐-阿姆斯壯「因才施教」的理念與啟迪。中等教育，49(6)，3-5頁。
楊明家(民86)：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研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
楊瑞智(民82)：國小五、六年級不同能力學童數學解題的思考過程。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
楊龍立（民86）：建構主義教學的檢討。教育資料與研究，18，1-6頁。
葛樹人(民77)：心理測驗學。臺北：桂冠出版。
鄒彩完(民88)：如何將多元智慧的理念運用在教學上。教師天地，99，74-75頁。
鄔瑞香(民83)：我的數學教學模式－探索、反省與成果。載於臺灣省國民學校教師研習會編印：國民小學數學科新課程概說(低年級)，168-196頁。
端木蓉(民86)：問題解決-應用認知原則的數學教學。國教輔導，37(1)，39-43頁。
廖鳳池、鈕文英(民79)：問題解決諮商模式。臺北：張老師出版社。
臺灣省政府教育廳國民教育巡迴輔導團(民82)：數學科八十三學年度教材教法研習資料。臺灣省政府教育廳國民教育巡迴輔導團出版。
鄭昭明(民82)：認知心理學-理論與實踐。臺北：桂冠出版。
鄭富森(民88)：目前教學評量之省思與改進之道。教師天地，99，18-24頁。
蔡明富(民87)：多元智能理論及其在教育上的應用。初等教育學報，11，305-334頁。
蔡明雄(民88)：合作-建構整合教學模式對國小學童學習簡單幾何問題效果之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
蔡枚芳(民87)：兒童牛頓第二運動定律相關次概念之研究。國立高雄師範大學物理研究所碩士論文。
蔡佳錚(民86)：國小學生工作記憶與數學解題歷程關係之研究。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
蔡淑桂(民87)：建構式數學教學模式對數學學習障礙兒童解題能力及數學信念之影響研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文。
蔡進雄(民87)：如何發展多元智慧學校。高中教育，2，38-42頁。
歐用生(民78)：質的研究。臺北：師大書苑出版。
潘宏明(民85)：原住民國小學童數學解題後設認知行為之研究。載於國立花蓮師範學院八十四學年度學術研討會論文集，151-218頁。
劉兆文(民84)：「問題解決」與國小數學教學。研習資訊，12(5)，17-22頁。
劉好(民83)：國小數學科新課程設計之理念。國教輔導，34(1)，7-14頁。
劉明宗(民83)：教學技巧與學習興趣的啟發。國教天地，104，57-60頁。
劉秋木(民85)：國小數學科教學研究。臺北：五南出版。
劉美娥(民79)：漫談「數學解題研究」。國教月刊，36(9)，36-38頁。
劉素芬編(民81)：我們如何思維(How We Think)。臺北：五南出版。
劉祥通、周立勳(民86)：數學寫作活動-國小數學教學的溝通工具。國民教育研究學報，3，239-262頁。
劉國芬(民85)：高雄地區高一學生高低數學成就之解題後設認知行為分析研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
劉湘川、許天維、林原宏(民82)：問題解決的研究與教學。國教輔導，33(2)，13-18。
劉誌文(民83)：國民小學自然科學創造性問題解決教學效果之研究。國立臺南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
劉錫麒(民83)：從國小新數學課程標準的基本理念談討論活動的重要。國教園地，50，4-7頁。
賴羿容、李田英(民88)：多元智力與教學。科學教育月刊，222，2-15頁。
閰育蘇譯(民80)：怎樣解題。臺北：九章出版社。
鍾一先(民86)：問題解決教學策略應用於國民中學生活科技之實驗研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文。
鍾聖校(民79)：認知心理學。臺北：心理出版社。
薛麗卿(民88)：數學寫作活動對國小學生解題能力及數學態度之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
謝毅興(民79)：國小兒童解數學應用問題的策略。國立臺灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
魏宗明(民85)：國小實施數學寫作活動之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
魏麗敏(民77)：國小學生數學焦慮、數學態度與數學成就之關係暨數學學習團體諮商之效果研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
羅汝惠(民82)：臺灣南區國中一年級數學科解題導向教學法之教學成效比較研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
譚寧君(民81)：兒童數學態度與解題能力之分析探討。臺北師院學報，5，619-688頁。
二、西文部份
Adams, D. M. & Hamm, M. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: critical thinking and collaboration across the curriculum. Illinois: Charles C Thomas . Publisher.
Anderson, V. B. (1998). Using Multiple Intelligences To Improve Retention in Foreign Language Vocabulary Study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424745)
Armstrong, T. (1994a). Multiple Intelligences in the classroom. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Armstrong, T. (1994b). Multiple Intelligences: seven ways to approach curriculum. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 26-28.
Artzt, A. (1983). The comparative effects of the student-team method of instruction and the traditional teacher-centered method of instruction upon student achievement, attitude, and social interaction in high school mathematics courses. New York University. Ph.D. AAC 8406277.
Bailey, C. O. (1995). The Influences of Problem-Solving Activities Involving Collecting, Managing, and Analyzing Data on College Students’ Beliefs about Mathematics as a Discipline and on Their Mathematics Self-Efficacy. Emory University, Ph.D. AAC 9616091.
Bellanca, J. A., Chapman, C., Swartz, E., & Fogarty, R.(1997). Multiple Assessments for Multiple Intelligences. (3rd Ed.). IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and Pub.
Billstein, R., Libeskind, S., & Lott, J.W. (1993). A problem solving approach to Mathematics. (5th Ed.). Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Blythe, T. & Gardner, H. (1990). A School for All Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 47(7), 33-37.
Bottge, B. A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average. Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 81- 93.
Brady, R. R. (1991). A Close Look at Student Problem Solving and the Teaching of Mathematics: Predicaments and Possibilities. School Science and Mathematics, 91(4), 144-151.
Brandau, L. & Easley, J. (1979). Understanding the Realities of Problem Solving in Elementary School With Practical Pointers for Teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 179424)
Brandt, R. (1993). On teaching for understanding: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 4-7.
Brougher, J. Z. (1997). Creating a nourishing learning environment for adults using multiple intelligence theory. Adult Learning, 8(4), 28-29.
Brown, R. P., & Josephs, R. A. (1999). A burden of proof: Stereotype relevance and gender differences in Math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 246-257.
Bruer, J, T. (1994). Classroom problems, school culture, and cognitive research. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: integrating cognitive theory. (pp. 273-290). Mass.: MIT Press.
Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects of group composition on achievement and time on task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 2- .
Burhorn, G. E., Harlow, B. A., Van Norman, J. F. (1999). Improving Student Motivation through the Use of Multiple Intelligences. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 433098)
Busch, T. (1996). Gender, group composition, cooperation, and self-efficacy in computer studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 125-135.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and learning through Multiple Intelligences. MA.: Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, L. (1997). How teachers interpret MI Theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 14-19.
Carson, D. (1995). Diversity in the Classroom: Multiple Intelligences and Mathematical Problem-Solving. The University of Alabama, EDD. AAC 9616884.
Chapman, C. (1993). If the Shoe Fits…How to Develop Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and Pub..
Charles, R. I. & Lester, F. K. Jr. (1984). An Evaluation of a Process-oriented Instructional Program in Mathematical Problem Solving in Grades 5 and 7. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(1), 15-34.
Chartrand T. L. & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic Activation of Impression Formation and Memorization Goals: Nonconscious Goal Priming Reproduces Effects of Explicit Task Instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 464-478.
Checkley, K. (1997). The First Seven and the Eighth: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8-13.
Chinnappan, M. & Lawson, M. (1996). Student difficulties with accessing and using mathematical knowledge. School Science and Mathematics, 96(3), 140- .
Chung, S. P. (1998). The Effect of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving(TAPPS) on the Troubleshooting Ability of University-Level Aviation Technician Students. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ph.D. AAC 9904415.
Cromwell, R. R. & Croskery, B. (1994). Building a New Paradigm: A Staff Development Program That Is Seeking To Reach Each Child’s Potential. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367600)
Curcio, F. R. (1987). Foreword. In Curcio, F. R. (Ed.), Teaching and Learning: A Problem-solving Focus. Va.: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, INC.
Curcio, F. R. (1990). Mathematics as Communication: Using a Language-Experience Approach in the Elementary Grades. In Cooney, T. J. & Hirsch, C. R. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Mathematics in the 1990s. (pp. 69-75). Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Davidson, N. (1990). Small-Group Cooperative Learning in Mathematics. In Cooney, T. J. & Hirsch, C. R. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 52-61). Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning Mathematics: the cognitive science approach to mathematics education. N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp..
Delaney, M. C. (1980). A comparison of a student-centered, free writing program with a teacher-centered rhetorical approach to teaching college composition. Temple University. EDD. AAC 8025073.
Diaz-Lefebvre, R. & Finnegan, P. (1997). Coloring Outside the Lines: Applying the Theory of Multiple Intelligences to the Community College Setting. Community College Journal, 68(2), 28-31.
Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 423-437.
Donovan, B. & Invino, R. M. (1997). A “Multiple Intelligences” Approach to Expanding and Celebrating Teacher Portfolios and Student Portfolios. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416209)
Dorn, M. J. J. (1993). The Effect of an Interactive, Problem-Based Hypercard Modular Instruction on Statistical Reasoning. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Ph.D. AAC 9505353.
Elshafei, D. L. (1998). A Comparison of Problem-Based and Traditional Learning in Algebra Ⅱ. Indiana University, Ph.D. AAC 9919416.
Emenaker, C. (1996). A problem-solving based mathematics course and elementary teachers' beliefs. School Science and Mathematics, 96(2), 75- .
Emig, V. B. (1997). A Multiple Intelligences Inventory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 47-50.
English, L. D. (1997). Promoting a problem-posing classroom. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4(3), 172- .
Evans, C. (1995). Access, equity, and intelligence: Another look at tracking.
English Journal, 84(8), 63- .
Gallagher, S. A., Sher, B. T., Stepien, W. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing Problem-Based Learning in Science Classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136-146.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. London: Heinemann.
Gardner, H. (1989). Toward more effective Arts Education. In Gardner, H. & Perkins, D. N. (Eds.), Arts, mind, and education: research from Project Zero. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practices. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200-203;206-209.
Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple Intelligences as a partner in school improvement. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20-21.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences Reframed. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple Intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.
Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M. L. & Wake, W. K. (1996). Intelligence: multiple perspectives. TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Gardner, H., Krechevsky, M., Sternberg, R. J., & Okagaki, L. (1994). Intelligence in context: Enhancing students’ practical intelligence for school. In McGilly, K. (Ed.), Classroom Lessons-integrating cognitive theory. (pp. 105-127). Mass.: MIT Press.
Garofalo, J. & Lester, F. K., Jr., (1985). Metacognition, Cognitive monitoring, and Mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163-176.
Gerlach, H. M. (1986). Individual schema development in solving mathematical word problems. Kansas State University. PH.D. AAC 8624653.
Gleason, D. G. (1998). Effects of Direct Problem-Solving Training on Teacher Skill Enhancement. University of South Dakota, EDD. AAC 9916200.
Gonzales, N. A. (1998). A Blueprint for Problem Posing. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 448-453.
Greenhawk, J. (1997). Multiple Intelligences meet standards. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 62-64.
Hara, K. (1995). Teacher-centered and child-centered pedagogical approaches in teaching children's literature. Education, 115(3), 332- .
Haggerty, B. A. (1995). Nurturing intelligences-A guide to Multiple Intelligences theory and teaching. Calif.: Addison-Wesley.
Hassan, K. & Maluf, G. (1999). An application of multiple intelligences in a Lebanese kindergarten . Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(1), 13-20.
Hatch, T. (1997). Getting specific about Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 26-29.
Hauff, H. M., & Fogarty, G. J. (1996). Analysing problem solving behaviour of successful and unsuccessful statistics students. Instructional Science, 24, 397-409.
Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: a comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 18-32.
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.
Higgins, K. M. (1997). The effect of year-long instruction in mathematical problem solving on middle-school students' attitudes, beliefs, and abilities. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(1), 5- .
Hodgkins, M. A. (1994). Students’ Understanding of the Concept of a Variable: Comparison of two Teaching Methods. Christopher Newport University, MAT. AAC 1374640.
Hoerr, T. R. (1994). How the New City School applies the Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 29-33.
Hoerr, T. R. (1997). Frog ballets and musical fractions. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 43-46.
Hoikka, K. A. (1998). The Effectiveness of Using Problem Solving in Teaching Ecology. Michigan State University, MS. AAC 1392211.
Holton, D., Anderson, J., Thomas, B., & Fletcher, D. (1999). Mathematical problem solving in support of the curriculum? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30(3), 351-371.
Huitema, B. F. (1980). The analysis of covariance and alternatives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ishida, J. (1997). The teaching of general solution methods to pattern finding problems through focusing on an evaluation and improvement process. School Science and Mathematics, 97(3), 155-162.
Jordan, D.W. & Le Metais, J. (1997). Social skilling through cooperative learning. Educational Research, 39, 3-21.
Kahney, H. (1993). Problem Solving: current issues (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Kilpatrick, J. (1985). A Retrospective Account of the Past 25 Years of Research on Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving. In Silver, E. A. (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives, (pp.1-15). N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kilpatrick, J. & Stanic G. M. A. (1995). Paths to the Present. In Carl, I. M. (Ed.)., Seventy-five years of progress: prospects for school mathematics. (pp.3-17). Va.: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, INC.
Klein, P. D. (1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner’s theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 377-394.
Knodt, J. S. (1997). A think tank cultivates kids. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 35-37.
Kornhaber, M. (1999). Enhancing Equity in Gifted Education: a framework for examining assessments drawing on the theory of multiple intelligences. High Ability Studies, 10(2), 143-162.
Kornhaber, M. & Krechevsky, M. (1995).Expanding definitions of learning and teaching: Notes from the MI underground. In Cookson, P. W., Jr., & Schneider, B. (Eds.), Transforming Schools (pp.181-208). New York: Garland Pub..
Krechevsky, M. & Seidel, S. (1998). Minds at work: Applying Multiple Intelligences in the classroom. In Sternberg, R. J. & Williams, W. M. (Eds.), Intelligence, Instruction, and Assessment-theory into practice. (pp. 17-42). N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kuzniewski, F., Sanders, M., Smith, G. S., Swanson, S., & Urich, C. (1998). Using Multiple Intelligences to Increase Reading Comprehension in English and Math. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420839)
Latham, A. S. (1997). Quantifying MI’s Gains. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 84-85.
Lazarowitz, R., Baird, F. H., & Bowlden, V. (1996). Teaching biology in a group mastery learning mode: high school students' academic achievement and affective outcomes. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 447-462.
Lazear, D. G. (1999). Eight ways of teaching: the artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences. (3rd Ed.). Palatine, Ill.: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Leou, S. (1987). A Comparison of the effects of individualized versus conventional instruction on the mathematics performance of seventh grade students in southern Taiwan. Indiana University, Ph.D.
Lesh, R. (1979). Mathematical Learning Disabilities: Considerations for Identification, Diagnosis, Remediation. In Lesh, R., Mierkiewicz, D., & Kantowski, M. (Eds.), Applied Mathematical Problem Solving (pp. 111-180). Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Lester, F. K., Jr. (1985). Methodological Considerations In Research on Mathematical Problem-Solving Instruction. In Silver, E. A. (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: multiple research perspectives (pp. 41-69). N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Levin, H. M. (1994). Commentary: Multiple Intelligence Theory and everyday practices. Teachers College Record, 95(4), 570-576.
Lord, T.R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22- .
Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Giftedness, Diversity, and Problem-Solving, TEACHING Exceptional Children, 27(1), 4-19.
Malouf, S. G. (1999). A Comparison of Problem-Centered Learning Model and Guided-Practical Model on High School Student’s Mathematics Performance and Attitude. University of San Francisco, EDD. AAC 9933317.
Marks-Tarlow, T. (1996). Creativity inside out: Learning through Multiple intelligences. Calif.: Addison-Wesley.
Mayer, R. E. (1995). Eastern eye-opener. The American School Board Journal, 182, 28-31.
McGilly, Kate. (Ed.). (1994). Classroom lessons : integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Mass.: MIT Press.
McLeod, D. B. (1985). Affective Issues in Research on Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving. In Silver, E. A. (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: multiple research perspectives (pp. 267-279). N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Meier, S. L., Hovde, R. L., & Meier, R. L. (1996). Problem Solving: Teacher’s Perceptions, Content Area Models, and Interdisciplinary Connections. School Science and Mathematics, 96(5), 230-237.
Merrefield, G. E. (1997). Three billy goats and Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 58-61.
Mettetal, G., Jordan, C., & Harper, S. (1997). Attitudes toward a multiple intelligences curriculum. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 115- .
Meyer, M. (1997). The GREENing of learning: Using the Eighth Intelligence. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 32-34.
Mueller, M. M. (1995). The Educational Implications of Multiple Intelligence Groupings Within a Cooperative Learning Environment. Illinois State University, EDD. AAC 9604379.
Munro, J. (1994). Multiple Intelligences and Mathematics Teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Remedial Mathematical Education Association.
NCSM (1977). National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Position Paper on Basic Mathematical Skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 139654)
Noddings, N. (1985). Small Groups as a Setting for Research on Mathematical Problem Solving. In Silver, E. A. (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: multiple research perspectives (pp. 345-359). N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Owens, E. W. & Waxman, H. C. (1994). Comparing the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction and conventional instruction in mathematics for African-American postsecondary students. International Journal of Instructional Media, 21(4), 327-336.
Pan, H. M. (民81). Some Aspects on Problem Solving. 花師數理教育學報，1，41-52頁。
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. N.Y.: CBS College Publishing.
Pestel, B. C. (1993). Teaching Problem Solving without Modeling through “Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving”. Science Education, 77(1), 83-94.
Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T., & Fennema, E. (1989). Teachers' Knowledge of Students' Knowledge in Mathematics Problem Solving: Correlational and Case Analyses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 558- .
Polya, G. (1945). How To Solve It. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (1981). Mathematical Discovery: on understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Quinn, R. J. (1997). Effects of mathematics methods courses on the mathematical attitudes and content knowledge of preservice teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 108- .
Reid, C. & Romanoff, B. (1997). Using multiple intelligence theory to identify gifted children. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 71-74.
Reif, F. & Scott, L. A. (1997). Students and Computers Coaching Each Other: a method for teaching important thinking skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407925)
Research Advisory Committee (1984). Mathematics Education Research: 1984 in Review. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(4), 316-319.
Rickard, A. D. (1993). Teachers’ Use of a Problem-Solving Oriented Sixth-Grade Mathematics Unit: Two Case Studies. Michigan State University, Ph.D. AAC 9406545.
Robinson, T. R. (1999). Effect of Teaching Adolescent Student a Cognitive Behavioral Intervention and of Treatment Intensity on Behavioral Responses to Anger. University of Florida, Ph.D. AAC 9935286.
Romberg, T. A. (1994). World Class Standards: The Mathematical Sciences Education Perspective. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368779)
Rosser, R. (1994). Cognitive Development: psychological and biological perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sarouphim, K. M. (1999). Discovering multiple intelligences through a performance-based assessment: Consistency with independent ratings. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 151-161.
Sawada, D. (1997). NCTM's standards in Japanese elementary schools. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4(1), 20- .
Schmidt, L. M. (1994). Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory advocates personalized education. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 10(7), 1-2.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979). Teaching Problem Solving in College Mathematics: the elements of a theory and a report on the teaching of general mathematical problem-solving skills. In Lesh, R., Mierkiewicz, D., & Kantowski, M. (Eds.), Applied Mathematical Problem Solving (pp. 37-71). Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Fla.: Academic Press.
Sebrechts, M.M., Enright, M., & Bennett, R. E. (1996). Using algebra word problems to assess quantitative ability: attributes, strategies, and errors. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 285-343.
Shachar, H. & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, and achieving: effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 12(4), 313-353.
Shaw, J. M., Chambless, M. S., Chessin, D. A., Price, V., & Beardain, G. (1997). Cooperative problem solving: Using K-W-D-L as an organizational technique. Teaching Children Mathematics, 3(9), 482- .
Silver, H., Strong. R., & Perini, M. (1997). Integrating learning styles and Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27.
Solomon, Y. (1998). Teaching mathematics: ritual, principle and practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 32(3), 377-390.
Solso, R. L. (1998). Cognitive Psychology. (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stanic, G. M. A. & Kilpatrick, J. (1989). Historical Perspectives on Problem Solving in the Mathematics Curriculum. In Charles, R. I. & Silver, E. A. (Eds.), The Teaching and Assessing of Mathematical Problem Solving. Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Sternberg, R. J., (1985). Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Cognitive Psychology. TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Sternberg, R. J, (1998). The Theory of Successful Intelligence. 載於國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所主編：創造力、智力與思考研習會研習手冊，1-52頁。
Stuessy, C. L. & Naizer, G. L. (1996). Reflection and Problem Solving: Integrating Methods of Teaching Mathematics and Science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(4), 170-177.
Sweeney, D. E. B. (1998). Multiple Intelligence Profiles: enhancing self-esteem and improving academic achievement. Walden University, Ph.D. AAC 9931757
Terry, W. & Patricia, S. (1997). Deepening the analysis: Longitudinal assessment of a problem-centered mathematics program. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 163- .
Torff, B. (Ed.). (1997). Multiple Intelligences and Assessment: A collection of articles. IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and Pub..
UICSM Project Staff. (1956). The University of Illinois School Mathematics Program. In Bidwell, J. K., & Clason, G. R. (Eds.). Readings in the history of Mathematics Education. (pp. 655-663). Washington, D.C.: NCTM.
Vangilder, J. S. C. (1995). A Study of Multiple Intelligence as Implemented by a Missouri School. University of Arkansas, EDD. AAC 9608005.
Verschaffel, L. & De Corte, E. (1997). Teaching realistic mathematical modeling in the elementary school: A teaching experiment with fifth graders. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 577 -.
Vialle, W. (1997). In Australia: Multiple Intelligences in multiple settings. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 65-69.
Wade, E. G. (1994). A Study of the Effects of a Constructivist-Based Mathematics Problem Solving Instructional Program on the Attitudes, Self-confidence, and Achievement. New Mexico State University, EDD. AAC 9510417.
Walters, J. (1992) Application of Multiple Intelligences research in alternative assessment. Proceedings of the National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues, Washington, D.C.. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349811)
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist Perspectives on Science and Mathematics Learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9-21.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Educational Psychology. (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Wheatley, G., & Merkel, G. (1990). The Importance of Social Interaction in Children’s Construction of Mathematical Knowledge. In Cooney, T. J. & Hirsch, C. R. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Mathematics in the 1990s. (pp. 12-21). Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.