本研究旨在探討以電腦輔助教材進行交線與展開圖教學後，對學生在空間能力、問題解決態度、學習態度及學習成就等方面學習表現之差異。本研究採前後測之準實驗研究設計，研究工具採用康鳳梅所發展之「交線與展開電腦輔助學習教材」、「交線與展開空間能力量表」、「高工學生問題解決態度量表」、「機械製圖學習態度量表」及「交線與展開成就量表」等工具。本研究之研究樣本，以國立瑞芳高工、國立三重商工、私立長榮中學製圖科二年級學生為研究對象，有效樣本204名。依各校原班級編組進行為期四週的分組教學，實驗組採用「交線與展開電腦輔助學習教材」，控制組採用傳統書本教材之教學方式。實驗教學前先對全體樣本進行量表的前測，於實驗教學後再進行量表之後測，以比較前後學習表現之差異。本研究所得資料除計算平均數、標準差之外並以獨立樣本二因子共變數分析、淨相關統計方法考驗研究假設。研究結果將作為機械製圖教學內容之參考及利於學者專家探討提昇空間能力、問題解決態度、學習態度與學習成就等學習成效表現之具體實例。
茲將本研究所獲得結論敘述如下：
一、 實驗組在「交線與展開空間能力」的「交線形成感觀」、「展開空間感觀」、「摺合空間感觀」分量表之能力及整體的表現皆顯著優於控制組。就性別差異而言，雖然男性比女性分數高，但並沒有達到顯著水準。
二、 實驗組與控制組在「問題解決態度」的「積極向度」、「憂慮向度」、「信心向度」三個向度及整體表現上，後測成績優於前測成績，但並未達顯著的差異。就性別差異而言，男女生在「積極向度」、「憂慮向度」及整體表現上並沒有顯著差異，但實驗組的女性在「信心向度」上的表現顯著優於控制組女性。
三、 實驗組在「機械製圖學習態度」的表現顯著優於控制組；就性別差異而言，女性前測成績平均略優於男性，然而經實驗教學後，男性後測成績則略高於女性，但皆未達顯著差異。
四、 實驗組與控制組在「交線與展開學習成就」的「文字測驗」上的表現無顯著差異，而就「交線能力」、「展開能力」及整體表現而言，實驗組顯著優於控制組；就性別差異而言，男性在「交線與展開學習成就」的表現優於女性，但並沒有達到顯著差異水準。
五、 學生在「交線與展開空間能力」、「交線與展開學習成就」及「機械製圖學習態度」的表現均有顯著的正相關。且「問題解決態度」亦與「機械製圖學習態度」有顯著正相關。當將「問題解決態度」及「機械製圖學習態度」的解釋力排除後，「交線與展開空間能力」與「交線與展開學習成就」的淨相關係數亦達到顯著的正相關。

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ performance on spatial ability, problem-solving attitude, learning attitude and achievement scale with the help of Computer Aided Teaching Materials to teach the Intersection and Development of Engineering Drawing. Quasi-experimental design was used for the study. This study adopted the methods of “The Intersection and Development Computer Assisted Learning Material”, ”Intersection and Development Spatial Ability Scale”, ”Problem-solving Attitude Scale for Vocational High School Students”, ”Mechanical Drawing Learning Attitude Scale” and “Intersection and Development Achievement Assessment Scale”, devised by Kang, Fong-Mei. The valid samples of this study were 204 the second-year students majoring in Mechanical Drawing from three vocational schools—Nation Jui-Fang Vocational High School, National Hai-San Industrial Vocational High School, Private Chang Jung High school. Students were divided into two groups and the study lasted for four weeks. The experimental group used “Intersection and Development Computer Aided Teaching Materials, while the control group used traditional teaching materials. Meanwhile, both pre-test and post-test were taken on the whole samples to compare the students’ learning performance. In addition to mean scores and standard deviation, statistical methods such as two-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and Partial Correlations were conducted to analyze the data. The outcome of this study will be used as references in teaching Engineering Graphics, and as a concrete instance for scholars and experts to discuss students’ learning performance in promoting their spatial ability, problem-solving attitude, learning attitude and learning achievement.
The conclusions were as follows:
1. In “Intersection and Development Spatial Ability” and in its sub-abilities “Intersection Forming Perception”, “Spatial Development Perception” and “Spatial Folding Perception”, experimental group scored significantly higher than control group. As to different genders, males scored higher than females, but no significant differences were shown.
2. In “Problem-solving Attitude” and its three items “Positiveness Dimension”, “Anxiety Dimension”, and “Confidence Dimension”, both groups scored higher on post-test than on pre-test, but no significant differences were shown. As to different genders, no significant differences were shown on “Positiveness Dimension”, “Anxiety Dimension”, and “Problem-solving Attitude”; however, females in experimental group scored significantly higher on “Confidence Dimension.” than females in control group.
3. In “Mechanical Drawing Learning Attitude”, experimental group scored significantly higher than control group. As to different gender, females scored higher on pre-test than males, but after teaching with Computer Aided Teaching Materials, males scored higher on post-test than females. However, the differences were not significant.
4. In “Describing Test”, the sub-ability of “Intersection and Development Learning achievement”, there were no significant differences between two groups; while in “Intersection and Development Learning achievement” and its sub-abilities “Intersection Ability” and “Development Ability”, experimental group scored significantly higher than control group. As to different genders, males scored higher on “Intersection and Development Learning achievement” than females, but no significant differences were shown.
5. On students’ performance, significant positive correlation was shown in “Intersection and Development Spatial Ability”, “Intersection and Development Learning achievement” and “Mechanical Drawing Learning Attitude”. Significant positive correlation was also shown in “Problem-solving attitude” and “Mechanical Drawing Learning Attitude”. When the impact of “Problem-solving attitude” and “Mechanical Drawing Learning Attitude” were removed, significant positive correlation was shown in partial correlation coefficients of “Intersection and Development Spatial Ability” IDSAS and “Intersection and Development Learning achievement” as well.

中文部份：
丁振豐（民83）。三個心理學派對空間能力研究的比較。台南師院初等教育學報，7期，頁213-249。
心理學的生物基礎--心理學（鄭伯壎等譯）（民79）。台北：桂冠圖書公司。（原著出版年：1990年）.
王春展（民86）。專家與生手間問題解決能力的差異及其在教學上的啟示。教育研究資訊，5（2），80-90。
王昭明（民86）。圖學解題策略之分析研究。台北：全華圖書。
王照明（民89）。投影幾何（上）。台北：全華圖書。
王瑪麗（民74）。人際問題解決訓練對國中女生人際問題解決能力、態度與人際適應的影響。台灣師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文。
王福林（民79）。新制師院學生與師專學生家庭社經地位及其學習行為、學業成就之調查分析。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
王輔春、楊永然、朱鳳傳、康鳳梅（民91）。工程圖學2002。台北：全華圖書。
田振榮、康鳳梅、李基常、楊紹裘、饒達欽、宋修德（民91），我國高職學校學生專業能力標準之建構。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。NSC90-2511-S003-089。
江文雄（民88）。技術及職業教育。臺北市：師大書苑。
吳育昇（民88）。創造性問題解決教學應用於機械職類專題製作的探討，機械技術雜誌，1999.12，104-111。
吳坤銓（民86）。國小學生認知能力、問題解決能力與創造傾向之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。
吳煥昌（民90）。高工機械製圖科學生空間能力與展開圖學習成就之相關研究。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
李淑媛（民84）。高一學生問題解決態度、生涯不確定源與生涯決定狀態之相關究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
李咏吟（民87）。認知教學：理論與策略。台北：心理出版社。
林秀娟（民82）。動態評量結合試題反應理論在空間視覺學習潛能評量之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
林幸台（民70）。創造性問題解決法。台灣教育，372，5-8。
林奕宏（民89）。多元智能與問題解決整合型教學模式，對國小學生數學學習表現之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
林清山（民88）。心理與教育統計學。臺北市：東華書局。
邱貴發（民81）。電腦輔助教學成效探討。視聽教育雙月刊，33（4），11-18。
柳秀蘭（民84）。資優生、普通生、山地學生創造力與問題解決能力之比較研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
洪若和（民78）。淺析電腦輔助教學。國教之聲，22（3），39-49。
洪榮昭（民81）。電腦輔助教學之設計原理與應用。台北：師大書苑。
洪榮昭、劉明洲合著（民86）。電腦輔助教學之設計原理與應用。台北：師大書苑。
洪榮昭，曾愛晶（民88a）。台灣高科技產業研發人員核心智能評量指標之研究，技術及職業教育學報，2，55-67。
洪榮昭，曾愛晶（民88b）。培養創造性問題解決能力之教學策略探討，台灣教育，584，88.08，47-56。
洪蘭（民89）。腦內乾坤：男女有別，其來有自。臺北市：遠流出版社。
胡俊宏（民85）。合作學習對多媒體電腦輔助教學學習成效影響之研究－以高職機械科機械製圖課程為例。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文。
唐璽惠（民77），高中生英語學習動機態度、師生互動、親子關係與英語科之相關研究。高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
孫士雄（民89）。多媒體電腦輔助教學對問題解決能力、機械製圖學習成效與學後保留影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
徐貞美（民75），國中學生學習英語動機、態度與成就之相關。師大學報，31，471-493。
秦夢群（民81），高中教師管理心態、學生內外控與學生學習習慣與態度關係之研究。國立政治大學教育心理研究，15，172-229。
康鳳梅、戴文雄（民89），高工學生機械製圖（交線與展開）空間能力與問題解決能力提昇之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。NSC89-2511-S003-052。
康鳳梅、戴文雄（民90），高工學生機械製圖（交線與展開）空間能力與問題解決能力提昇之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC89-2511-S003-135。
康鳳梅、戴文雄（民91），高工學生機械製圖（交線與展開）空間能力與問題解決能力提昇之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC90-2516-S003-004。
康鳳梅、簡慶郎、詹秉鈞、陳憲章（民91年4月）。工程圖之交線創意教材編製之研究。國立臺灣師範大學、中華創意發展協會（主辦單位），2002知識經濟與科技創造力培育國際研討會，台北。
張文哲（民63），態度的測量。測驗與輔導。106-107。
張春興（民80）。現代心理學。臺北市：東華。
張春興（民85）教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。
張霄亭（民86）。淺談「教學媒體」與「教學科技」的「定義、領域範疇」發展。台灣教育，560，2-7。
教育部國教司（民81）。國民小學教學媒體手冊。台北市：教育部國教司。
教育部電子計算中心（民84）。電腦輔助教學（二）。台中：資訊與教育雜誌社。
梁勇能（民89）。動態幾何環境下，國二學生空間能力學習之研究。國立臺灣師範大學數學研究所碩士論文。
許桂敏（民83）。電腦輔助教學與傳統教學在微積分學習效果上之比較研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告NSC82-0111-S011-011A
陳文慶（民70）。工程圖學投影幾何與展開交線。未出版。
陳玉玲（民88）。概念改變教學策略對地球運動概念之教學效果－以國小六年級學生為例。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
陳秀慧（民74），高中學生英文學習態度與方法之研究。台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳采穗（民87）。虛擬實境在加強空間能力學習之研究。國立政治大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
陳俊鳳、林水生、邱嘉佑、張鴻澄（民72）。機械工程圖學。台北：三文出版社。
陳婉如（民87）。認知型態與空間能力對程式設計學習成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳淑英（民80）。教學媒體的意義與特性。台灣教育，487，1-5。
陳淑英（民81）。教學媒體的分類。視聽教育，34（2），37-40。
萊斯特．梭羅（民89）。知識經濟時代。（齊思賢譯）。台北市：時代出版。
楊文貴（民89）。無機配位化合物之立體化學成就影響因素及解題之個案研究。國立臺灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文。
楊明恭、蕭銘宏（民91年4月）。因應知識經濟時代談技職教育的發展策略與方向。國立臺灣師範大學、中華創意發展協會（主辦單位），2002知識經濟與科技創造力培育國際研討會，台北。
溫嘉榮（民79）。電腦輔助教學理論與程式設計實務。台北：松崗電腦圖書資料有限公司。
葛樹人（民79）。心理測驗學。臺北：桂冠。
董家莒（民89）。「問題解決」為基礎之電腦輔助教學成效。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
詹秀美（民78）。國小學生創造力與問題解決能力的相關變項研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
路君約、歐滄和、盧欽銘（民78）。修訂區分性向測驗。臺北市：中國行為科學社。
廖焜熙（民87）。有機立體化學成就影響因素及解題模式之研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
劉俊祥（民89）。機械製圖科學生空間能力與立體圖成就表現之相關研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所研士論文。
劉英台（民75）。國中生人際問題解決態度與相關變項之關係暨「人際問題解決小團體輔導方案」效果研究。國立台灣師範大學輔導研究所。
歐陽鐘玲（民71）。學童空間概念的發展。國立臺灣師範大學地理研究所碩士論文。
潘詩婷（民91）。國小學童英語學習態度之研究--以大台北地區為例。國立台灣師範大學三民主義研究所碩士論文。
蔣家唐（民84）。資優生視覺空間認知能力研究（Ⅱ）。行政院國家科學委員會專案研究計畫成果報告NSC 84-2511-S-018-004。
蔡振昆（民89 ）。 傳統教學與網路教學之比較研究—從教學媒體、班級經營及教學評量來探討 。國立中山大學資訊管理研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文。
鄭麗玉（民82）。認知心理學。台北：五南圖書公司
盧美貴（民71），國小學生學習動機、態度及困擾之調查分析。教與學，4（5），23-27。
盧淑華（民89）。「得勝課程--問題解決」對國中生問題解決態度與行為困擾影響之研究。臺中師範學院國民教育研究碩士論文。
戴文雄（民82）。認知型態與空間觀念對機械製圖態度轉變與成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學學報， 4 ，171-209。
戴文雄（民83）。學習型態與電腦輔助學習對機械製圖學習成效之研究。第九屆全國技術及職業教育研討會論文集-一般技職及人文教育類，231-240。
戴文雄（民87）。不同正增強回饋型式電腦輔助教學系統對不同認知型態與空間能力高工學生機械製圖學習成效之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專案研究計畫成果報告。
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科技教育學系博士論文。
簡良平（民88）。科技整合之「問題-解決」教學策略可行性研究，課程與教學季刊，1999，2（3），103-116。
簡慶郎（民90）。學習正投影對提昇高工學生空間能力之研究。國立臺灣師範大學數學研究所碩士論文。
英文部份：
Allen, K. W.(1995). Technology and diversity: The role of preservice education. Florida Technology in Education Quarterly. 7(2), 40-49.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Kulik, J. A. & Kulik, C-L.C.(1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,12,59-68.
Barnes, J. L.(1987). An international study of curriculum organizers for the study of technology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 05A, 1176.
Barratt, E. S. (1953). An analysis of verbal reports of solving spatial problems as an ais defining spatial factors. Journal of Psychology, 36, 17-25.
Battista, M. T.(1990). Spatial visualization and gender difference in high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education ,21(1), 47-60.
Ben-Chaim, D., Lappan, G., & Houang, R. T. (1989). Adolescents’ ability to communicate saptail information: Analyzing and eddecting students’ performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 121-146.
Bishop, A. J. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathematics education-A review. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 257-269.
Blake, G.(1995). Skills Used In The Workplace: What Every Physics Student(and professor) Should Know. Paper presented at the AAPT Summer 1995 Meeting, Spokane, WA.
Bransford, J. & Stein, B.S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Brinkmann, E. H. (1966). Programed instruction as a technique for improving spatial visualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(2), 179-184.
Broverman, D. M., & Klaiber, E., & Kobaysski, Y., & Vogel, W.(1968). Roles of activation an inhibition in sex differences in cognitive abilities. Sychological Review,75,23-50.
Bruner, J. S.(1961)﹒The Process of Education ,Harvard University Press﹒
Buckmaster, L. (1994). Effects of activities that promote cooperation among seventh graders in a future problem solving classroom. Elementary School Journal, 95(1), 49-62.
Carnevale, A. P., Gainer, L. J., & Meltzer, A. S.(1990). Workplace Basics: The Essential Skills Employers Want, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cavin, C. S., Cavin, E. D., & Logowski, J. J. (1981). The effect of computer assisted instruction on the attitudes of college students toward computers and chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(4), 329-333.
Chase, W. G., & Chi M. T. H. (1981). Cognitive skill : Implications in Large-Scale Environments. In Harvey, J. H. (ed). Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Assoc, 111-136.
Claire M. F., & Gratt, B.(1995). The efficacy of computer assisted instruction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(3),219-242.
Clemntes, D. H. & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and Spatial Reasoning . In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.420-464).New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cohen, V.B.(1985).A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instructional design. Educational Technology. 25(1),p33-37
Commission on Pre-College Education in Mathematics(1983), Science, and Technology. Educating Americans For The 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Science Board.
Connor, J. M., Serbin, L. A., & Schackman, M. (1978). Sex-related differences in response to practice on a visual-spatial test and generalization to a related test. Child Development, 49, 24-29.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.
Dillshaw, F. G., & Bell, S. (1985). Learning outcomes of computer programming instruction for middle-grades students: A pilot study. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. St. Paul, MN.
DiSessa, A. A. (1987). The third revolution in computers and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 343-367.
Dixon, J. K. (1997). Computer use and visualization in students’ construction of reflection and rotation concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 97(7),352-358.
Donelson, F. L.(1990). The development, testing, and used of a computer interface to evaluate an information processing model describing the rate of encoding and mental rotation in h igh students of high and low spatial ability.(ERIC ED 326 396).
Earle ,J. H. (2001) Engineering Design Graphics, Prenttice-Hall, Inc. , Upper Saddle River, NJ., pp.16
Education Commission of the States (1982). The Information Society: Are High School Students Ready? Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E.(1992). Information problem-solving: The big six skills approach. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 8(5), 27-29,37,42.
Eliot,J. & Smith, I. M.(1983). An internation directory of spatial tests. Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-NELSON.
Ely, D. P.(ed.)(1963)﹒The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education : A Definition and Glossary of Related Terms, Audiovisual Communication Review, Suppl, 6﹒
Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (1981). Sex-related difference in Mathematics : Results from National Assessment. Mathematics Teacher, 74,554-559.
Fennema, E., & Trate, L.(1985). The use of spatial visualization in mathematics by girls and boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16,184-206.
Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D.(1983). Facilitating Problem Solving in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 163-177.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction ( 4th. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gardner, H. (1987). Multiple intelliences: implications for art and creativity. In W. J. Moody(Ed.). Artistic Intelligences, 11-27, New York: Teachers College Press.
Good, R., & Smith, M.(1987). How do we Make Students Better Problem Solver? The Science Teacher, 54(4), 31-36.
Gorgorió,N. (1998). Exploring the functionality of visual and non-visual strategies in solving rotation problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35,207-231.
Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E. D. (1977). The relationship between mathematics achievement and spatial abilities among elementary school children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8, 211-215.
Guttman, R., Epstein, E. E., Amir, M., & Guttman, L. (1990). A structural theory of spatial abilities. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(3), 217-236.
Heller, J. I., & Reif, F.(1984). Prescribing Effective Human Problem-Solving Process: Problem Description in Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 177-216.
Henna, L. A., Potter, G. L., & Hagaman, N.(1995). Unit teaching in the elementary school. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc.
Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal Problem-Solving Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 66-75.
Herron, J. D., & Greenbowe, T. J.(1986). What Can We Do About Sue: A Case Study of Competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(6), 528-531.
Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (1984). Spatial learning strategies. NY.: Academic press.
Johnson, E. S. & Meade, A. C. (1987). Developmental patterns of spatial ability :An early sex difference. Child Development, 58,725-740.
Johnson, S. D., & Chung, S. P. (1999). The Eddect of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving(TAPPS) on the Troubleshooting Ability of Aviation Technician Students, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(1).
Jonassen, D. H.(1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(1), 65-94.
Kahney,H.(1993).Problem solving: Current issues (2nd, Ed.) Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kemske, F.(1998)”, HR2008:A forecast based on our exclusive study”, Workforce,Costa Mesa,77(1),.46-53.
Lantz, A., & Carlberg, C., & Eaton, V.(1982). Women’s Choice of science as a career. Denver, C. O.: E.S.R. Associates.
Lee, S. W. (1993). Spatial ability and achievement in geometry among Taiwanese high school students. doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland College Park, Maryland.
Linn, M. C.,& Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child development, 56, 1479-1498.
Load, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visual-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 395-405.
Lohman, D. F. (1979). Statial ability: Individual differences in speed and level (Tech. Rep. No.9). Stanford,CA: Stanford University, Aptitude Research Project, School Of Education.(NTIS No. AD-A075973)
Lohman, d. f., & Kyllonen, P. C. (1984). InDividual Differences in solution strategy on spatial and change. In s. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of Science (Vol.3. pp.423-75). New York : McGraw-Hill CO.
Lord, T. R. (1987). Spatial teaching. The Science Teacher, 52(2), 32-34.
Lowery, B. R., & Knirk, F. G.(1982). Micro-computer video games and spatial visualization acquisition. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 11(2),155-156.
Mayer, R. E. (1985). Educational Psychology: a cognitive approachichard Boston: Little, Brown.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. 2nd ed. NY: W. H. Freeman.
McCormack, A. (1988). Visual/spatial thinking: An element of elementary school science. Council for elementary science international, San Diego State University.
McCormack, A. (1990). The evolution of current practice in technology education. A paper presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop: Integrating Advanced Technology into Technology Education, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
McGee, M. G.(1979). Human spatial abilities: Sources of sex differences. New York: Praeger.
Mumaw, R. J. & Pellegrino, J. W. (1984). Individual differences in complex spatial processing. Journal of Educational Psychology,76 (5),920-939.
National Science Teacher Association [NSTA]. (1982). Science-Technology-Scoiety: Science education for the 1980’. Washington, D.C. Author.
Nurrenbern, S., & Pickering, M.(1987). Concept Learning vs. Problem Solving: Is There a Difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-510.
Pallrand, G., & Seeber, F. (1984). Spatial ability and achievement in introductory physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,21(5), 507-516.
Pandiscio, E. A. (1994). Spatial visualization and mathematics achievement : a correlational study between mental rotation of objects and geometric problems . doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
Perkins, D. N.(1985). Thinking Frames: An integrative perspective on teaching cognitive skills. ASCD Conference on Approaches to Teaching Thinking, Alexandria, VA.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it; A new method of mathematical method. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (1981). Mathematical Discovery: on understanding, learning, andteaching problem solving. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Pribly, J. R. & Bordner, G. M. (1985). The Role of Spatial Ability and Achievement in Organic Chemistry.(ERIC ED 255 393).
Schack, G.D. (1993). Effects of a creative problem-solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 32-38. (ERICD ocument Reproduction Service No. EJ 462 589)
Schaie, K. W. & Strother, C. R. (1968). A cross-sequential study of age changes in cognitive behavior. Psychological bulletin, 70, 671-680.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.Florida: Academic Press.
Schonberger, A. K. (1983). Gender differences in solving mathematics problem among two-year college students in a developmental algebra class and related factors. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 214 602)
Schonberger, A. K. (1984). Factors related to problem solving by college students in developmental algebra.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 214 614)
Seddon, G. M., Eniaiyeju, P. A., & Jussoh, I. (1984). The visualization of rotation in diagrams of three-dimensional structure. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1),25-38.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science. 171,701-703.
Sherman, J. (1980). Mathematics, spatial visualization, and related factors : changes in girls and boys , grades 8-11. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4),476-482.
Smith, I. M. (1965). Spatial ability: Its educational and social significance. San Diego: Knapp, 4Osp.
Smith, W. S., & Schroeder, C. K. (1979). Instruction of fourth grade girls and boys on spatial visualization. Science Education, 63(1),61-66.
Smyser, E. M. (1994). The effects of “ the Geometric Supposer”: spatial ability, van Hiele levels , and achievement .doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. (1981). Left brain, right brain. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Sternberg, R. J.(1984). How can we teach intelligence? Educational Leadership, 42(1),38-50.
Stewart, J. (1982). Two Aspects of Meaningful Problem Solving in Science. Science Education, 66(5), 731-749.
Stewart, J. (1988). Potential Learning Outcomes from Solving Genetics Problems: A Typology of Problems. Science Education, 72(2), 237-254.
Sullivan, L. A. (1991). Learning Theories & Educational Perspective. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Tartre, L.A.(1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Reasearch in Mathematics Education,21(3),216-229.
Teraman, L.(1916) The measurement of Intellingence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Thornburg, D.(1992). As me may learns: Multimedia and the intuitive learner. The Designer’s Forum, 1(1), 8-11.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1981). Spatial Cognition and Reasoning. In Harvey, J.H. (ed). Cognition social behavior, and the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Assoc, 137-149.
Vigil, P. J. (1988). Oline retrieval: Analysis and Strategy .NY ,NY: John Wiley & Sons.242p.
Waetjen, W. B. (1989). Technological Problem Solving: A Proposal, Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought, New York: Harcourt, Braces, Jovanovich.
Wattanawaha, N., & Clements, M. A. (1982). Qualitative aspects of sex-related difference in performances on pencil-and-paper spatial question. Grades 7-9. Journal of Educational Psychology,74(6),878-887.
Wookcock, D. (2000). The A thru E Approach to Problem Solving in Chemistry, http://www.ouc.bc.ca/chem/probsol/a-e-out.html.(2002/10/31).
Yakimanskaya,I.S. (1991) The development of spatial thinking in schoolchildren (Robert H. Silverman, Trans.).(Vol. 3) Chicago: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(originally published in 1980).
Zambo, R., & Hess, R. (1994). The gender differential effects of a procedural plan for solving mathematical word problems. The annual meeting of the school science and mathematics association.
Zavotka, S. L. (1987) Three-dimensional computer animated graphics : A tool for spatial skill instruction. Education Communication and Technology Journal,35(3),145-149.