本研究旨在探討某市一所國中啟聰資源班，任課教師與三位聽障學生在數學課問答互動的情形，以及影響問答互動的相關因素，透過二十四節課的正式觀察、師生訪談、文件蒐集與省思日誌等質性研究方法獲得以下主要結論：

一、「視數學為溝通」的意涵大部份尚未在研究現場中展現，師生問答互動的內涵主要呈現在滿足聽障者溝通特質的互動、師生相互關懷、磋商學習規約與學習數學知識等部份：

1.滿足聽障者溝通特質的互動呈現在師生重視助聽輔具的狀況、師生近距離溝通、老師發出訊息前先提醒學生聽與看、教師運用手語增進理解、教師矯正學生的語音、教師重述問題、學生重述教師發問的內容、學生對教師的說明進行再確認等方面。
2.學習規約是聽障學生最常主動請示發問的項目，有關數學知識方面的疑問卻無法具體表達，整體而言學生發問的頻率不高。
3.學習數學知識是師生課堂問答互動的核心，任課教師常用二分答案的提問方式，強調記憶與精熟學習。任課教師使用「為什麼」的問題促進學生思考與反省，並出現以下的互動情形：（1）程度不佳的學生無法具體回答時，老師會自行回答；（2）老師發問後沒有候答，而是由老師自己繼續發問或直接進行解答；（3）老師發問後只注意到程度較佳學生的回應，忽略說不清楚的學生的反應；（4）某些情況下發問的目的在於了解學生的表現，而非探索學生的學習困難。
4.解題過程中，任課教師會強調數學語文的重要性，但受限於時間無法真正落實，不完整的數學語言出現在問答互動中。
5.任課教師能掌握聽障者溝通特質，進行數學教學與問答引導，並且關注學生間的個別差異。

二、影響師生問答互動的因素為：
1.教師的引導技巧：教師的數學專業素養與教學引導、教師的問答引導技 巧；
2.現有課程的限制：包括教材內容、教學時間與學生程度；
3.聽障學生的心態與能力：學生維護自尊、學生既有的數學和語文能力、學生的身體狀況；
4.環境因素：視聽覺輔具的完備程度、座位安排與教師發話角度、教室光線、教室位置等。

根據上述結果提出數點建議，並對研究過程做一整體性的回顧。

The purposes of this study were to explore questioning-response interaction between a resource teacher (Ms. Lin) and three hearing impaired students at mathematical classes in a junior high school. The author also searched factors which might have effects on questioning-response interaction. The research data included observation records from 24 mathematical classes, interviewing of teacher and students, students’ learning files and author’s notes. Major findings were as follows：

A. ”Mathematics as communication” was not implemented totally in the Ms. Lin’s class. The connotation of questioning-response interaction between teacher and students mainly presented to satisfy special needs while communicating with hearing impaired students, care for mutually between the teacher and students, consult class managements and study mathematics knowledge：

1. Interaction of satisfying special needs while communicating with hearing impaired students were unfolded for all teachers and students cared about hearing aids and FM systems; the teacher and students communicated nearly; before sending out information, the teacher reminded the students to pay attention firstly; the teacher used the sign language to promote communication; when the students pronounced by mistake, the teacher corrected their pronunciation; when students had no response, the teacher inquired the same question and when the students didn’t understand teacher's explanation, they proposed the questions to confirmed.
2. The term which the students most often actively asks were class managements. But students were unable specifically to express questions related mathematics knowledge. As a whole, the students ask questions in the class were not frequently.
3. Studying mathematics knowledge was the core of teacher-student interaction, Ms. Lin used two-way of question-response like “was it right?” commonly, and emphasized memory skills and master learning. When Ms. Lin used "why" to promote the students to think and reflect , and had such situations: （1）Students who had worse degree were unable specifically to reply, the teacher would reply voluntarily;（2）After asking a question, Ms. Lin did not wait for answers, but went on asking questions or explaining directly;（3）After asking, Ms. Lin took notice of students who were excellent, but neglected poor expression ones;（4）In certain situation, the goal of asking “why” lay in understanding students' performance, but not exploring the tough job students had suffered .
4. In the problem-solving process, Ms. Lin emphasized the importance of mathematics language, but the time was restricted to be unable to carry out, and the incomplete mathematics language appeared in the questioning-response interaction process.
5. Ms. Lin mastered special communication characteristics of hearing impaired students while carrying on mathematics teaching and questioning-response guidance, and paid attention to individual differences between students.

B. The factors which might have effects on teacher-student interaction were as follows:

1. Teacher's guidance skill: Teacher's mathematics specialized accomplishment, teaching
guidance, and questioning-response guidance skill;
2. Existing curriculum limitation: Teaching material content, teaching time and degrees of students;
3. The attitude and ability of student with hearing impairment: The students defended self-respect, mathematics and language abilities of students, and students’ health condition;
4. Environmental factors: The complete degrees of visual and hearing assistive technology, the seat arrangement and the angles of the teacher speaking, the light and classroom location.

Implications for practice and further research were recommended on the basis of the finding of this study.

丁雪茵、鄭伯壎、任金剛（1996）。質性研究中研究者的角色與主觀性。本土心理學研究，6，354-376。
王淑俐（1997）。教師說話技巧：教師口語表達在教學與師生溝通上的運用。台北市：師大書苑。
王雅蘭、張蓓莉（2004）。國小聽覺障礙學生加、減法文字題閱讀理解能力之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，26，201-219。
林生傳（2000）。教育社會學。台北：巨流。
林素貞（2006）。資源教室方案與經營。台北:五南。
林清江（1978）。教育社會學。高雄：復文。
林麗慧（1988）。聽障學生數學教學策略初探。特教園丁，4（2），29-33。
林寶山（1990）。教學論：理論與方法。台北：五南。
林寶貴、李如鵬（1990）。聽覺障礙學生數學能力測驗之編製及其相關因素之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系叢書85輯，1-122。
林寶貴、錡寶香（1991）。高職階段聽覺障礙學生國語文與數學能力之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究學刊，7，109-127。
李田英（1983）。自然科學教學發問的技巧。國教世紀，16（9），14-17。
杜宜展（1995）。國小學生發問行為及其相關因素之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
邢敏華、黃士賓（1999）。聽覺障礙學生教室音響環境之調查研究。特殊教育學報，13，221-238。
吳芝儀、李奉儒譯（1995）。質的評鑑與研究。台北：桂冠。
吳知賢（1986）。如何利用發問增進教室的參與感。台灣教育，421，15-17。
吳康寧（1998）。教育社會學。高雄：復文。
芮 葛（1999）。如何進行教室觀察。（初版）（周玉真譯）。臺北市：五南。
施宏明（1994）。淺談發問的技巧。雲林國教，24，24-26。
洪美連（1995）。國小聽覺障礙學生數學口語應用問題教學效果之實驗研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
孫仲山、李碧娟（1997）。國民中學教學情境中師生語言行為的分析。教育研究資訊，5（4），89-100。
孫敏芝（1985）。教師期望與師生交互作用: 一個國小教室的觀察。國立台灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
翁素珍（1989a）。國小聽覺障礙學生數學學習困難之調查。特教園丁，4（4），36-39。
翁素珍（1989b）。國小六年級聽覺障礙學生數學能力之分析。國立台灣教育學院特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
陳小娟（1993）。國中小聽障學生個人助聽器之使用、知能與維護。特殊教育與復健學報，3，1-38。
陳竹君（2002）。如何發現聽障生。全國特殊教育資訊網。民91年6月3日，取自：www.spc.ntnu.edu.tw/
陳明媚、張蓓莉（2003）。國小聽覺障礙學生數學文字題解題歷程之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，25，199-220。
教育部（1999）。特殊教育設施及人員設置標準。台北：教育部。
許殷宏（1999）。師生互動策略之探究。中等教育，50（6），62-80。
許惠子（1994）。教學態度與師生互動：國小四年級一個班級個案研究。國立台中師範學院初等教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台中。
陳埩淑（2000）。課程與教學的關係在教室層面上的探究，教育研究，8，125-135。
陳慧君（1993）。個案研究-影響教師發問技巧的內素。國立台灣師範大學生物學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
曾心怡（1999）。性別、班級組成形式、師生互動與學習動機：以高三自然組物理科為例。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮。
張玉成（1984）。教師發問技巧。台北：心理。
張玉成（1993）。思考技巧與教學。台北：心理。
張玉成（1999）。教師發問技巧之外－論鼓勵學生發問暨教師回答技巧之重要性。國民教育，39（3），47-53。
張佩瑛（1995）。課堂內師生問答互動之研究─國小數學課問答互動中教師教學信念與教學處理的關係。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
張俊紳（1986）。教師發問內容的技巧對學生科學態度及科學過程的影響。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
張俊紳（1992）。教師發問技巧在教學上的功能及應用。國教之聲，25（3），28-32。
張俊紳（2000）。國民小學數學科專家及新手教師教學行為分析研究。台東師院學報，11，53-90。
張蓓莉（1985）皮亞傑的認知發展理論對聽覺障礙教育之啟示。教師簡訊，14，26-29。
張蓓莉（1988）資源教室的發展趨向。載於中華民國特殊教育學會（主編），我國特殊教育的回顧與展望（頁183）。台北市：國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心。
張蓓莉（1991）。國民中學資源班實施手冊。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心編印。
張蓓莉（1995）。認識特殊教育演講系列。特殊教育叢書四十四輯，國立高雄師範大學特殊教育中心。
張蓓莉（1996）。國小啟聰教師教學行為之研究。師大學報，41，67-83。
張蓓莉、蘇芳柳（1995）。教師配合聽覺障礙學生讀話需求之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，12，105-126。
張蓓莉、蘇芳柳（1996）。比較國小聽覺障礙學生從不同角度讀話結果之研究。師大學報，41，53-66。
張蓓莉（2001）。國小階段聽覺障礙學生數學學習資料庫及建構式教學效果之研究第一年研究報告。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，未出版。
張蓓莉（2003）。聽覺障礙學生學習特質與需求。聽障教育期刊，2，7-17。
黃光雄（2001）。質性教育研究：理論與方法。臺北市：揚智。
黃幸美（2000）。兒童問答討論解決類比推理問題之探討。台北市立師範學院學報，31，49-72。
凱 鄧（1998）。教室言談：教與學的語言。（初版）（蔡敏玲，彭海燕譯）。台北市：心理。（原著出版年：1988年）
葉辰楨（1996）。國中初任與資深生物教師運用發問策略之比較研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
楊明家（1996）。談教師發問技巧。國教天地，116，66-71。
楊弢亮（1992）。中學數學教學法通論。台北：九章。
蔡昆瀛（1991）。國中階段啟聰學校 (班) 教師數學科教學行為之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
蔡敏玲（1999）。尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏：教育質性研究歷程的展現。臺北市：桂冠。
廖品蘭、簡淑真（1997）。教學中教師的非語言溝通技巧，國教之聲，30（4），56-61。
潘正德（1993）。如何建立良好的師生互動關係。學生輔導通訊，25，24-31。
鄭明長（1998）。教師知識與教室談話。國教學報，10，217-248。
鄭明長（2002）。當問題不再是問題：從教室言談看課程改革的實踐。教育研究月刊，93，68-75。
蘇芳柳、張蓓莉（1997）。台灣地區啟聰教育研究之回顧。1997年海峽兩岸特殊教育研討會論文彙編，160-186。
盧台華（1995）。身心障礙學生數學能力之比較研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學刊，12，25-50。
英文部分

Albert Dept. of Education (1995). Teaching students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Programming for students with special needs, Book 4. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED392233)
Allen, T. E. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1983. In A. N. Schildroth & M. A. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America (pp. 161-206). San Diego. CA: College-Hill Press.
Allen, T. E. (1995). Demographics and national achievement levels for deaf and hard of hearing students: In C. H. Dietz (Ed.), Moving toward the standards: A national action plan for mathematics education reform for the deaf. (pp.41-49). Washington, DC: Precollege programs, Gallaudet University.
Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A. & Jensen, A. D. (1982). The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153-180.
Andersen, J. F. & Withrow, J. G. (1981). The impact of lecturer nonverbal expressiveness on improving mediated instruction. Communication Education, 30, 342-353.
Barham, J. & Bishop, A. (1991). Mathematics and the deaf children. In K. Durkin. and B. Shire (Eds.), Language in mathematical education research and practice, pp179-187. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objective： the classification of educational goals, Handbook Ⅰ: cognitive domain. New York: David Mackay Company.
Borich, G. D. (1988). Effective teaching methods. Ohio, Merrill Publishing Company.
Battat, B. (1998). Teaching students who are hard of hearing. NETAC teacher tipsheet. （ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED438668）
Broadbent, F., & Daniele, V. (1980). A review of research on mathematics and the deaf. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University.
Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1969). Teacher-child dyadic interaction: a manual for coding classroom behavior. The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. The University of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED042688)
Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
Cavin , A. A. & Surd, R. B. (1975). Teaching science through discovery. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
Craig W. N. & Collins, J. L. (1969). Communication patterns in classes for deaf students. Final report. Pittsburgh University.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED034367）
Curcio, F. R. (1985). Making the language of mathematics meaningful. Curriculum Review, 57-66.
Chen, K. (2006). Math in motion: Origami math for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 262-266.
Dalton, R. H. ( 1961). Personality and social interaction. Boston, MA: D. C. Heathe and Company.
Davis, D. (1989). Otitis media: Coping with the effects in the classroom. Stanhope, NJ: Hear You Are, Inc.
Delamon, S. (1976). Beyond Flanders’ field. In M. Stubbs & S. Delamont (Eds.), Explorations in classroom observation. Chichester, Sussex: John wiley.
Dietz, C. (1991). Communicating Mathematics: Meeting new challenges. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 9(3), 22-23. （ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ424454）
Dietz, C. H. (1995). Moving toward the standards: A national action plan for mathematics education reform for the deaf. Washington, DC: Precollege programs, Gallaudet University.
Daly, J. A., Kreiser, P. O., & Roghar, L. A. (1994). Question-asking comfort: Exploration of the demography of communication in the eighth grade classroom. Communication Education, 43, 27-41.
Dillo, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dillon, J. T. (1981). Duration of response to teacher questions and statements. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 1-11.
Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt Reinhart & Wilson.
Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54, 151-161.
EI-Koumy, Abdel Salam A. (1997). Review of recent studies dealing with techniques for classroom interaction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED415688)
Esler , K. E. ＆ Esler, M. K.（1989）. Teaching Elementary Science （5th Ed.）.Belmont, California：Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Engel, J. (1994). Q & A. Curriculum Review, 34(2), 5-6.
Flanders, N. A. (1974). Analysing teaching behavior. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Gage, N. L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers Coll.
Graesser, A. C. & McMaben, C. L. (1993). Anomalous information triggers questions when adult solve quantitative problems and comprehended stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 136-151.
Graesser, A. C. & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Education Research Journal, 31(1), 104-137.
Gregory, S. (1988). Mathematics and deaf children. In S. Gregory, P. Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers, & L. Watson(Eds.), Issues in deaf education (pp.119-126). London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.
Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Good, M. D. (1981). Teacher expectation and student perceptions: A decade of research. Educational Leadership, 38, 415-423.
Goodstein, H. (1981). Mathematics preparation and mathematics in-service training needs and preferences of mathematics teachers of the hearing impaired in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4752.
Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1984). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park：Sage.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological, 52, 267-293.
Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 401-430.
Helfeldt, J., & Lalik, R. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretest, behavior objective, and advance organizers. Review of Educational Research, 46, 239-265.
Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1989). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research. London: Routledge.
Janice, S. (1994). Toward gender equity in the classroom: everyday teachers' beliefs and practices. New York: State University of New York.
Jensema, C. (1980). Consideration in utilizing achievement test for the hearing impaired children. American Annals of the Deaf, 125, 495-498.
Johnson, K. A. (1977). A survey of mathematics, material and methods in schools for the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 98, 15-19.
Jones, V. F., & Jones, L. S. (1990). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating positive learning environment and solving problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Karabenick, S. A., & Sharma, R. (1994). Perceived teacher support of student questioning in college classroom: Its relation to student characteristics and role in the classroom questioning process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 90-103.
Kawanaka, T. & Stigler J. W. （1999）. Teachers’ use of questions in eighth-grade mathematics classroom in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Mathematical thinking and learning. 1(4), 255-278.
Kelly, R. R. & Mousley, K. (1999). Deaf and hearing students’ transfer and application of skill in math problem solving. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440501)
Kidd, D. H. (1993). Mathematics vocabulary: performance of residential deaf students. School Science & Mathematics, 93(8), 418-421.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.
Kluwin, T. & Moores, D. F. (1985). The effects of integration on the mathematics achievement of hearing impaired adolescents. Exceptional children, 52, 153-160.
Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the deaf world. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Luckner, J., Bowen, S., & Carter, C. (2001). Visual teaching strategies for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Teaching exceptional children, 33(3), 38-44.
Manouchehri, A. & Lapp, D. A.（2003）. Unveiling student understanding: The role of questioning in instruction. Mathematics Teacher, 96 (8), 562-566.
Marksberry, M. L. (1979). Student Questioning: An Instructional Strategy. Educational Horizons, 57(4), 190-195.
Martino, A. M. & Maher, C. A. (1994). Teacher questioning to stimulate justification and generalization in Mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372945)
Mayer, C., Akamatsu, C. T. & Stewart, D. (2002). A model for effective practice:
dialogic inquiry with students who are deaf. Council for Exceptional Children, 68(4), 485-502.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative & qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moore, K.D. (1992). Classroom teaching skills. (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Morgan, N. & Saxton, J. (1991). Teaching, questioning and learning. London：Routledge.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Newman, R. S. & Goldin, L. (1990). Children’s reluctance to seek help with school work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92-100.
Nicol, C. (1999). Learning to teach mathematics: Questioning, listening, and responding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 45-66.
Nye, S. (1986). Teaching “what to do” in arithmetic vs. teaching “what to do and why”. Education Leadership, 4, 34-38.
Ostergard, S. A. (1997). Asking good questions in mathematics class: How long does it take to learn how? Clearing House, 71(1), 48-50.
Pagliaro, C. M. (1998a). Mathematics reform in the education of deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(1), 22-28.
Pagliaro, C. M. (1998b). Mathematics preparation and professional development of deaf education teachers. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(5), 373-379.
Raphael,T. T., & Gavelek, J. (1984). Question-related activities and their relationship to reading comprehension: Some instructional implications. In G. E. Duffy, L. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Prespectives and suggestions. New York: Longman.
Roberson, P. J. (1988). A study of teacher questioning and student response interaction about reading content in seventh grade social studies class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman’s University, Texas.
Stelle, D. (1999). Learning mathematical language in the zone of proximal development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(1), 38-42.
Stewart, D. A., & Kluwin, T. N. (2001). Teaching deaf and hard of hearing students: Content, strategies, and curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Suppes, A. (1974). A survey of cognition in handicapped children, Review of Educational Research, 44, 145-176.
Susan, E. (1997). Educating children who are deaf or hard of hearing: Overview. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED414667)
Teller, H. & Harney, J.（2005/2006）.Views from the field: Program directors’ perceptions of teacher education and the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf , 150(5), 470-479.
Tompkins, F. M. (1989). The influence of classroom features on student questioning behavior: A study of one sixth-grade classroom. Unpublished doctor dissertation, Michigan State University. Michigan.
Traxler, C. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 337-348.
Trybu, R. J., & Karchmer, M. A. (1977). School achievement scores of hearing impaired children. National data on achievement status and growth patterns. American Annals of the Deaf, 122, 62-69.
Tvingstedt, A-L. (1995). Classroom interaction and the social situation of hard of hearing pupils in regular classes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED392188)
Vygotsky, L. S.(1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. In: M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wimer, J. W., Ridenour C. S. & Thomas, K. (2001). Higher order teacher questioning of boys and girls in elementary mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(2), 84-92.
Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teacher use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 40, 13-50.
Yang, M. F. (1996). Teachers’ questioning and wait-time classroom behavior of elementary school teachers and students. 國立屏東師院學報，9，97-120。