中文摘要
本研究的主要目的在探討「合作-建構整合教學模式」的教學效果。全研究包含三個部分：（一）以實驗教學的方式，探討「合作-建構教學法」與「傳統教學法」兩種教學方法，對國小五年級學生在「簡單幾何問題解題能力」及「數學學習內發動機」上的差異；（二）以「質的研究」方法，對「合作-建構教學組」受試，在教室歷程中的小組互動情形進行「參與觀察」；（三）透過「個別晤談」的方式，分析不同教學方法下及不同簡單幾何概念水準學生之解題的心理歷程。
本研究中所使用的「合作-建構整合教學實驗課程」，係研究者整合Slavin(1978)之學生小組成就區分(STAD)、Vygotsky(1978)的內化理論、Palincsar & Brown(1984)的交互教學法及Driscoll的學習觀，所發展而成的一套統整性的教學模式。課程的實施程序包括：教師示範、佈題、小組討論、交互辯證、澄清、師生共同解題、歸納結論、小考等步驟。
研究對象是取自台北縣三重市二重國小五年級的64名學生。在研究中，研究者先以「簡單幾何問題測驗卷」選出高、低幾何概念水準的學生各32名，再以隨機的方式分派至「合作-建構教學組」或「傳統教學組」。分別接受為期六週的「合作-建構」及「傳統教師講授」的教學方式。
本研究係採等組前後測設計，所得的量化資料以包卡爾對稱性考驗及獨立樣本二因子變異數分析加以處理。其次，為了更深入瞭解「合作-建構整合教學模式」對提升學生在教學歷程中的互動效果，研究者也採用「參與觀察」的方式，對受試在教學歷程中的小組口語互動進行觀察及分析，最後並選取不同教學處理之下的高、低概念水準學生各1名，進行「放聲思考」的個別晤談，以了解其在解題的心理歷程及行為表現上的差異。
研究結果顯示：
一、研究者分析預試學生對「簡單幾何問題」的先備知識發現：有33.99%的學生，具有清楚、明確的簡單幾何概念，卻各有11.76%、13.07%及18.31%的學生，分別存有「視覺」、「分析」及「抽象」階段的缺失。另外，有22.87%的受試是屬於無基模知識的。
二、「合作-建構教學法」能有效的修正學生，對簡單幾何問題的錯誤概念；但「傳統教學法」則不能有效地幫助學生修正錯誤概念。
三、在「數學學習內發動機」及「簡單幾何問題解題能力」上，「教學方法」與學生的簡單幾何「概念水準」間的交互作用效果，均未達顯著水準。
四、在簡單幾何問題解題能力方面，教學方法的主要效果達到顯著水準。表示在簡單幾何問題的解題能力上，「合作-建構教學組」優於「傳統教學組」。
五、透過教室歷程的參與觀察結果發現：「合作-建構教學組」的師生、同儕互動能達到交互學習的目的。但在此歷程中，「低幾何概念水準」的學生，則顯得比較被動。
六、經由分析個別晤談的原案後發現：不同教學方法下、不同幾何概念水準的學生間，在解題表現上亦存有差異。
最後，研究者針對本研究所使用的「合作-建構教學模式」，在國小數學科的應用上，提出幾點建議；並根據本研究所探討的內容、結果與討論，提出對未來研究的建議。

ABSTRACT
The main purpose of this study was to explore the instruction effects of cooperation-construction integrated teaching program. There were three parts in this study: (1)To investigate the differences of the ordinary Geometry problem-solving and the intrinsic motivation of mathematics learning of elementary fifth graders, after they had received either cooperative-constructive teaching or traditional teaching. (2)To investigate the classroom interaction of the Cooperative-Constructive Teaching Group with qualitative research. (3)To analyze the mental process of ordinary Geometry problem-solving of two teaching groups and students who had high or low levels of ordinary Geometry concept by individual interviews.
The “cooperation-construction integrated teaching program” in this study was formed by combining Slavin，s STAD, Vygotsky，s theory of internalization, Palincsar & Brown，s reciprocal teaching method, and Driscoll，s instructional views. The procedure of the cooperation-construction integrated teaching program in this study was arranged to teaching mode included : teacher demonstrated, arranged questions； students， subgroups discussed, reciprocally authenticated, clarified； the teachers and subjects jointly solved, concluded, and quized.
The subjects were 64 fifth graders from an elementary school in Taipei.First, researcher utilized the “Ordinary Geometry Test”to select 32 subjects with high level of the Geometry concept and 32 subjects with low level of the Geometry concept. Then the 64 subjects were further randomly assigned to Cooperative-Constructive Teaching Group or Traditional Teaching Group. The Cooperative-Constructive Teaching Group received the Cooperative-Constructive teaching mode, while Traditional Teaching Group received lecture instruction in six weeks.
Pretest-posttest control-group design was used for this study.The data thus obtained were analyzed by Bowker，s test of symmetry and two-way ANOVA. After the quantitative study, the qualitative researches, including participant observation and think-aloud interview, were used to observe the interaction of class process under the cooperative-constructive teaching program, and to explore the different problem-solving process between different teaching groups and different levels of the Geometry concept.
The primary results were as follows:
1. The result from analysis of prior knowledge of ordinary Geometry problems indicated that about 33.99% students possess definite Geometry concept; however 11.76%, 13.07%, and 18.31% students are respectively visual, analytic, and abstract stage deficient. The other, 22.87% students are aschematic.
2. The cooperative-constructive teaching program can effectively correct students， misconception on ordinary Geometry problems, but the traditional teaching method cannot.
3. The interact effects between teaching methods and ordinary Geometry concept level do not reach the significant level, so far as students， intrinsic motivation of mathematics learning and ordinary Geometry problem-solving performance are concerned.
4. As for ordinary Geometry problem-solving performance, the main effect of teaching method reaches the significant level; it reveals the Cooperative-Constructive Teaching Group has a better performance than the Traditional Teaching Group.
5. The result of participant observation in classroom indicates that the teachers and students , students and students in the Traditional Teaching Group has obtained the objectives of reciprocal learning, but students with low levels of ordinary Geometry concept were passive.
6. Analysis of protocol of individual interview reveals that different teaching groups and students with different ordinary Geometry concept levels had different problem-solving performance.
At the end of this paper, suggestions about the application of these instruction and recommendations about further research in this field were offered.

參 考 文 獻
一、 中文部分
王文科（民78）：教學心理學。台北市：五南書局。
毛國楠（民82）：動機心理學研究的趨勢。中等教育，第44卷，第三期，頁42-47。
江文慈（民81）：斐哥斯基「近側發展區」之基本概念及其在教學上的應用。現代教育，第七卷，第二十八期，頁145-456。
江永明（民85）：建構主義教學實例。刊於「解構與再造—談建構主義教學」—現代教育論壇文集。台北市立師範學院印行。
朱敬先（民84）：教學心理學。台北市：五南書局。
李永吟（民77）：教學原理—最新教學理論與策略。台北市：遠流出版社。
李金泉（民81）：SPSS/PC實務與運用統計分析。台北市：松岡電腦圖書公司。
杜佳真（民84）：交互學習的建構教學課程對國小五年級不同批判思考能力學生速率問題解題歷程暨學習內發動機的影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
林清山譯（民79）：教育心理學—認知取向。台北市：遠流出版社。
林清山（民81）：心理與教育統計學。台北市：東華書局。
林清山、張景媛（民82）：國中生後設認知、動機信念與數理解題策略之關係研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理學報，第二十六期，頁53-74。
林清山主編（民86）：有效的讀書方法。教育部發行。
林佩璇（民81）：合作學習在中、小學的應用（上）。中縣文教，第十二期，頁52-55。
林佩璇（民81）：合作學習在中、小學的應用（下）。中縣文教，第十三期，頁61-66。
林宗鴻（民86）：人格心理學。台北市：揚智出版社。
周筱亭（民84）：數學新課程的趨勢。載於國民小學新課程標準的精神與特色（頁107-135）。台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
周立勳（民83）：國小班級分組合作學習之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
邱上真、王惠川、朱婉艷、沈明錦（民81）：國小中年級數學科解題歷程導向之評量。國立台南師範學院特殊教育與復健學報，第二期，頁235-271。
高文（1998）：建構主義學習的評價。外國教育資料，第二期，頁24-28。
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。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
國立編譯館（民86）：國民小學數學科教學指引第七、九、十一、十二冊。台北市：台灣書店。
郭重吉（民81）：從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊，第二十卷，第五期，頁548-570。
郭生玉（民77）：心理與教育測驗。台北市：精華書局。
郭生玉（民79）：心理與教育研究法。台北市：精華書局。
郭為藩編（民73）：人格心理學理論大綱。台北市：正中書局。
郭為藩編（民81）：現代心理學說。台北市：師大書苑。
陳淑敏（民83）：Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。屏東師範學院學報，第七期，頁117-141。
陳正文等譯（民86）：人格理論。台北市：揚智出版社。
陳仲庚、張雨新（民78）：人格心理學。台北市：五南圖書公司。
黃光雄主編（民77）：教學原理。台北市：師大書苑。
張景媛（民83）：國中生數學學習歷程統整模式的驗證及應用：學生建構數學概念的分析及數學文字題教學策略的研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
張景媛（民84）：國中生建構幾何概念之研究暨統整式合作學習的幾何教學策略效果之評估。國立台灣師範大學教育心理學報，第28期，頁99-144。
張春興（民78）：張氏心理學辭典。台北市：東華書局。
張春興（民80）：現代心理學。台北市：東華書局。
張春興（民83）：教育心理學。台北市：東華書局。
張金淑（民79）：合作學習對學習效果之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
陳淑絹（民84）：「指導—合作學習」對於促進國小五年級學生閱讀能力理解之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文研究計畫。
陳淑絹（民84）：「指導—合作學習」策略應用於國小閱讀教學之理論探討。台中師院學報，第11期，頁65-106。
陳琦、張建傳（1998）：建構主義與教學改革。教育研究與實驗，第三期，頁46-50。
黃瑞琴（民80）：質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理出版社。
黃政傑、林佩璇（民85）：合作學習。台北市：五南圖書公司。
教育部編（民82）：國民小學課程標準。教育部。
游惠音（民84）：同儕交互發問合作學習對國小六年級社會科學習成就表現、勝任目標取向及班級社會關係之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
楊瑞智（民83）：國小五、六年級不同能力學童數學解題的思考過程。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
楊俐容譯（民79）：皮亞傑。台北市：桂冠圖書公司。
鍾聖校（民79）：認知心理學。台北市：心理出版社。
劉錫麒（民80）：合作反省思考的數學解題教學模式及其實徵研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
劉秋木（民85）：國小數學科教學研究。台北市：五南圖書公司。
蔡敏玲、陳正乾譯（民86）：社會中的心智—高層次心理過程的發展。台北市：心理出版社。
蔡淑桂、楊慶森（民87）：建構式數學教學模式對國中自願就學學生解題能力及數學信念的影響。台北市試辦國民中學畢業生自學輔導方案行動研究。
鄭昭明（民82）：認知心理學—理論與實踐。台北市：桂冠圖書公司。
盧富美（民81）：談合作學習及其教學流程。教師之友，第三十三卷，第四期，頁3-8。
盧欽銘等著（民84）：心理與教育測驗。台北市：心理出版社。
楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李奕園編著（民78）：社會及行為科學研究法（上）（下）。台北市：東華書局。
二、 西文部分
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goal in the classroom：Students， learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.
Brandell, J. H. (1994). Helping student write paragraph proofs in Geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 87(7), 498-502.
Cole, M., Cole, S. (1993). The Development of Children. N.Y.：Scientific American Books.
Crowly, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In M. M. Lindquist, & A. P. Shulte (Eds.) Learning and Teaching Geometry, K-12. Reston, VA: The Council.
Dawson, R. H. (1994). Motivating Adults to Academic Course Content. Journal of Educational Research, 88(2), 102-108.
Deci, E. L., Betley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L., & Porac, J. (1981). When trying to win： Competition and intrinsic motivation. Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 7, 79-83.
Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer，s view of constructivism. Educational Technology, 26(3ƀ), 325-346.
Driscoll, N. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Eddins, S. K., Maxwell, E. O., & Stanislaus, F. (1994). Geometric Transformations—Part 2. The Mathematics Teacher, 87(4), 258-261.
Fernandez, M. L., Hadaway, N., Wilson, J. W. (1994). Problem solving: Managing it all. The Mathematics Teacher, 87(3), 195-199.
Gottfried, A. E. (1982). Relationships between academic instrinsic motivation and anxiety in children and young adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 20, 205-215.
Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and jurior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631-645.
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525-538.
Harackiewicz, J. M. & Elliot, A. J. (1993). Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Social Psychology, 65(5), 904-915.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered toward a developmental model. Human development, 21, 34-64.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivation and informational components. Development Psychology, 17, 300-312.
Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry: Two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1ž), 61-75.
Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (1990). Mathematics and Cognition. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry is more than proof . Mathematics Teacher, 74, 11-18.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and Alone. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Joseph, L., Altlson, J., & Kamil, C. (1993). The constructivist mathematics program. In Southeastern Regional Vision for Educational(ED.), Sharing success：Mathematics and science education. (ERIC Document Repoduction Service, ED360189)
Kelly, G. A. (1995). The Psychology of personal constructs. W. W. New York: Norton.
Kelly, G. A. (1995). The Psychology of personal constructs. (vol 2) W. W. New York: Norton.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664-678.
King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effect of guided cooperative questioning on children，s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127-148.
Klein, J. D., Erchul, J. A., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of individual versus cooperative learning and type of reward on performance and continuing motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 24-32.
Ladd, G. W. (1981). Effectiveness of a social Learning method for enhancing children，s social interaction and peer acceptance. Child Development, 52, 171-178.
Markus, H. (1977) . Self-schemata and Processing Information About the Self. Personality Social Psychology, 35(2), 63-78.
McCallum, R. S., & Bracken, B. A. (1993).Interpsonal relations between school children and their peers, parent, and teachers. Educational Psychology Rewiew, 5(2), 155-175.
Neimeyer, G .J. (1993). Constructivist assessment: A case book. London: Sage Publications.
Nichols, J. D. & Miller, R. B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167-178.
Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education: Constructivist，s view on the teaching & Learning of mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics INC.
Noman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, HJ: Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension：Fostering and monitoring actives. Cognition and Instructional, 1, 117-17.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31, 19-21.
Pintrich, P. R. & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and selfregulated learning components of classroom academic perfermance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pope, M. & Gillbert, J. (1988). Personal experience and the construction of knowldege in science. Science Education, 67(2), 193-203.
Rimm, David C., & John C. (1974). Masters, Behavior Therapy: Techniques and empirical findings. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 46-124.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985a). Mathematical problem solving. Cognitive Science, 7, 329-363.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children，s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children，s perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548-556.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Students motivating to excel：cooperative incentive, cooperative tasks, and students achievement. Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 53-63.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Development and motivational perspective on cooperative learning：A reconciliation. Children development, 58, 1161-1167.
Stone, M. E. (1994). Teavhing relationships between area and perimeter with the geometer，s sketchpad. The Mathematics Teacher, 87(8), 590-594.
Susan, P., & Thomas, K. (1992). Creating constructivist environments and constructing creative mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 505-528.
Vogel, S. A. (1990). Gen der differences in intelligence, language, visualmotor abilities, and academic achievement in students with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 44-52.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1992). A constructist，s view of learning and teaching. In Duit. R. (Eds), Research in physis learning: Theoretical issues and empirical students. Processding of an international workshop held at the University of Bremen(pp4-8).
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal Research, 13(2), 369-395.
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on Sciense and Mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9-21.
William B. Swann, Jr., Alan Trin-Seroussi, and R. Brian Gieslar (1992). Why People Self-Verity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 392-401.