摘 要
　　本研究的目的是想要瞭解數學寫作活動對國中生解方程式應用問題的成就表現及數學態度的影響，並探討其在解題歷程上的改變。
　　研究對象為台南地區某公立國中三位不同數學程度的八年級升九年級的學生。研究者對她們進行為期約一個月的數學寫作活動教學，並搭配寫作學習單，以及課後的數學日誌寫作，讓學生逐漸熟悉寫作的各種形式，進而解決方程式應用問題。以放聲思考的方式，收集學生解題歷程的資訊，並以Schoenfeld (1985)的六階段數學解題歷程模式，分析學生在前、後測的解題歷程，再佐以半結構性晤談，來探討學生成就表現、學生解題的想法以及解題歷程的改變，最後再分析情意問卷前、後測的結果，來瞭解學生數學學習態度的改變。
本研究的主要發現如下：
1. 高程度學生的成就表現在前、後測沒有任何差異；中、低程度的學生在後測都有明顯的進步。
2. 三位學生在後測中，花在驗證階段的時間增加。程度較低的學生花在探索階段的時間減少，花在分析和執行階段的時間增加。
3. 三位學生在驗證階段均有明顯的改變(例如增加很多驗證的行為)，程度中、低的學生在分析階段也有明顯改變(例如進行表徵的轉換)，改變後的解題行為有助於求得正確答案。
4. 「解釋性」和「寫一封信」的寫作對解題歷程的執行階段有正向的影響，「長話短說」的寫作對解題歷程的分析階段有正向的影響，「標題寫作」讓學生更加察覺自己的解題歷程，並能時時進行監控，對驗證階段有正向的影響。
5. 寫作活動有助於提升學生學習應用問題的信心、降低學習應用問題時的焦慮；寫作活動也提升了中、高程度的學生學習應用問題的探究動機，卻降低了低程度的學生的探究動機。
6. 參與本研究的學生對這個數學寫作活動，都抱持正向支持的態度，認為進行數學寫作活動有助於數學學習。

關鍵字：方程式應用問題、解題歷程、數學寫作活動

Abstract
This study aims to understand the influence of mathematical writing activities on junior high school students’ achievement in solving equational word problems and on their mathematics attitude, and also aims to investigate the changes in their problem solving processes.
Subjects of this study are three students in some public school in Tainan who have different levels of mathematics. The study is performed in the summer between their eighth- and ninth-grade school year. The researcher engaged the students in mathematical writing activities in her teaching for about a month, accompanied with writing work sheets and mathematical journal writing after class, so they can be familiar with various forms of writing and further solves equational word problems. The researcher collects with the method of thinking-aloud the information during students’ problem solving process, and analyzes the processes in pretest and posttest with Schoenfeld’s (1985) six phases of problem-solving process, and she has semi-structured interviews with the students to investigate the changes in their achievements, in their thinking in problem solving, and in their problem solving processes. Finally the results in the affect questionnaire are analyzed to understand the changes in students’ attitude towards mathematics learning.
Following are the main findings of this study.
1. The achievement of the student with the highest level does not vary significantly between pretest and posttest; students with middle and lower levels have significant improvements in posttest.
2. The time all three students spend during verification increases in posttest. The student with lower level spends less time in exploration, and more time in analysis and implementation.
3. There are significant changes by all three students in verification (such as much increased verifying behavior). The students with middle and lower levels have significant changes in analysis (such as performing representation transformations). Their changes of behavior in problem solving helps in finding correct answers.
4. The writing of “explanations” and “letter” have positive influences in the implementation of the problem solving process; the writing of “in-a-nutshell” has positive influences in the analysis of the process; “rubric writing” gives students better awareness of, and helps them monitor, their own problem solving processes, which positively influences verification.
5. Writing activities promotes students’ confidence in learning to solve word problems, reducing their anxieties in doing so; writing activities also promotes the investigation motives of students with middle and highest levels, but reduces those of the student with the lower level.
6. All the students participating in the study have positive and supporting attitude toward this mathematical writing activity, believing it can help mathematics learning.

key words: equational word problem, mathematical writing activity, problem solving process

參考文獻
一、中文部分
波利亞(G. Polya) (1991)。怎樣解題。(閻育蘇譯)。台北市：九章。(原著出版年: 1945年)
梅伊爾(R. E. Mayer) (1991)。教育心理學－認知取向。(林清山譯)。台北市：遠流出版公司。 (原著出版年: 1987)
維高斯基(L. S. Vygotsky) (1998)。思維與語言。(李維譯)。台北市：桂冠。(原著出版年: 1961年)
王婉馨(民95)。國一學生數學類比遷移現象的探討－「以等量公理解一元一次方程式」為例。國立台灣師範大學數學系在職進修碩士班。
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研究所碩士論文。
林文忠(民92)。線上數學寫作在國中應用的探索性研究。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
林明哲(民79)。國中學生數學解題行為之分析研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林清山、張景媛(民82)：國中後設認知、動機信念與數學解題策略之關係研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系教育心理學報，26，53-74。
林清山、張景媛(民83)。國中生代數應用提教學策略效果之評析。教育心理學報，27，35-62。
林碧珍(民79)。國小學生數學解題的表現及其相關因素的研究。國立台灣師範大學數學研究所碩士論文。
林碧珍(民90)。協助教師實踐學生數學學習歷程檔案之研究。國立新竹師範學院學報，14，163-213。
周立勳與劉祥通(民87)。寫作活動對國小學生在數學解題能力的影響。教育研究資訊，6(3)，46-62。
胡炳生(民86)。數學解題思維方法。台北市:九章。
涂金堂(民85)。數學解題之探究。研究資訊，13(2)，60-65。
涂金堂(民88)。國小學生數學解題歷程之分析研究。初等教育學刊，7，295-332。
袁媛(民82)。國中一年級學生的文字符號概念與代數文字題研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
袁媛(民92)。高中網路數學寫作的實施與其對學生數學態度之影響研究。花蓮師院學報，17，193-210。
莊璧華(民93)。數學寫作活動對國中學生數學解題能力影響之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
郭生玉(民93)。教育測驗與評量(修訂一版)。台北市：精華書局。
國立編譯館(民73)。國民小學數學課本與習作，第十一冊(再版)。台北市：國立編譯館。
教育部(民91)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要修訂版：數學學習領域。台北市：教育部。
教育部(民92)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學學習領域。台北市：教育部。
陳啟明(民89)。不同題目表徵型式及相關因素對國小五年級學生解題表現之影響。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
曹宗萍與周文忠(民87)。國小數學態度量表編製之研究。載於教育部八十七學年教育學術研討會論文集3。台北市：台北市師範學院。
張國樑(民93)。國中生代數文字題之解題歷程分析研究。國立高雄師範大學數學研究所碩士論文。
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。
張新仁(民81)。寫作教學研究：認知心理學取向。高雄：復文書局。
曾安如(民93)。國小二年級學童數學寫作活動、數學成就與數學態度之相關研究。國立台中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。
游自達(民84)。數學學習與理論之內涵－從心理學觀點分析。初等教育研究集刊，3，31-45。
黃瑞琴(民90)。質的教育研究方法（二版）。台北：心理出版社。
鄔瑞香(民86)。從一年級兒童的數學日記看評量。載於台灣省國民學校教師研習會主編，國民小學數學新課程學習評量方法初探(66-82頁)。台北縣：台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
潘宏明(民82)：原住民國小學童數學解題後設認知行為之研究。國立花蓮師範學院數理教育系研究報告。
劉祥通(民83)。寫作活動在數學教學中的角色。教師之友，35(5)，32-36。
劉祥通(民86)。數學寫作教學策略初探。八十四學年度國立嘉義師範學院數學教育研討會論文實務彙篇，247-257。
劉祥通與周立勳(民86)。數學寫作活動－國小數學教學的溝通工具。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所學報，3，239-261。
劉錫麒(民78)：國小高年級學生數學解題歷程及其相關因素的研究。花蓮師院學報，3，21-90
劉錫麒(民80)。數學解題教學的新趨勢。國教園地，35-36，45-46。
劉錫麒(民86)。數學思考研究。台北市：師大書苑。
謝明昆(民91)。國二學生解數學文字題歷程之分析研究。國立高雄師範大學數學研究所碩士論文。
謝蕙蓮(民95年3月16日)。中小數學　我計算強推理差。聯合晚報。民95年5月10日，取自：http://udndata.com/library/
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。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
魏宗明(民86)。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。台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
羅正賢(民94)。直觀解題與方程式解題對我國小六學童解數學應用問題之影響。國立新竹教育大學應用數學系碩士論文。

二、英文部分
Allan, B. I. (1999). Overcoming obstacles in understanding and solving word problems in mathematics. Educational Psychology, 19, 149-163
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and it's implication. New York: Freeman and company
Anderson, M. A. (1986). Protocol analysis: A methodology for exploring the information processing of gifted students. Gifted Children Quarterly, 30, 28-32.
Balacheff, N. (1990). ICME-6 Report of the International Group Psychology of Mathematics Education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(2), 193-197.
Bell, A. W. (1995). Purpose in school algebra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 41-73.
Bell, E. S., & Bell, R. N. (1985). Writing and mathematical problem solving: arguments in favor of synthesis. School Science and Mathematics, 85, 210-221.
Berger, D. E., & Wilde, J. M. (1984). Solving algebra word problem. Paper presented at the Claremont Conference on Applied Cognitive Psychology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 242 550)
Borasi, R., & Rose, B. J. (1989). Journal writing and mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 347-365.
Britton, J. B., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan Education.
Brown, N. M. (1993). Writing mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 40, 20-21.
Burks, L. C. (1993). The use of writing as a means of teaching eight-grade student to use executive processes and heuristic strategies to solve mathematics problem. Unpublished Doctor Dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Burns, M. (1995). Writing in math class? Absolutely. Instructor, 104(7), 40-47.
Clement, J, Lochhead, J., & Monk, G. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88, 286-290.
Countryman, J. (1992). Writing to learn mathematics. Portsmouth, N. H.: Heinemann Educational Press.
Cummins, D. D. (1991). Children’s interpretations of arithmetic word problem. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 261-289.
Dougherty, B. J. (1996). The write way: A look at journal writing in the first-year algebra. The Mathematics Teacher. 89(7), 556-560.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & De Winn, L. (1985). Influence of rewording verbal problems on children’s problem representations and solution. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 460-470.
Flower, L. S., & Hays, J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Gagné, E. D. (1985). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Garofalo, J. (1987). Metacognition and school mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 34, 22-23.
Hackett, K., & Wilson, T. (1995). Improving writing and speaking skills using mathematical language. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386747).
Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heller, J. I. & Hungate, H. N. (1985). Implications for mathematics instruction of research on scientific problem solving. In E. A. Sliver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp.83-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keyon, P. W. (1989). Writing is problem solving. In P. Connolly & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp.73-87). New York: Teachers College.
Kilpatrick, J. (1967). Analyzing the solution of word problems in mathematics: An exploratory study. (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 4380A.
Kilpatrick, J. (1985). A retrospective account of the past 25 years of research on teaching mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp.1-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problem hard? Evidence from the tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-294.
Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1989). Problem Solving: a handbook for senior high school teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Laborde, C. (1990). Language and mathematics. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1992). Word problem: A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing, (pp.74-92). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Lester, F. K. (1980). Problem solving: Is it a problem? In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics education (pp.29-45). Berkeley CA: McCutchan.
Lester, F. K. (1989). The role of metacognition in mathematical problem solving: A study of two grade seven classes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED314 255)
Lewis, A. B., & Mayer, R. E. (1987). Students’ miscomprehension of relational statements in arithmetic word problem. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 363-371.
Mayer, R. E. (1982). Memory for algebra story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 199-216.
Mayer, R. E. (1985). Implications of cognitive psychology for instruction in mathematical problem solving. In E. A. silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving：Multiple research perspectives (pp.123-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem solving, Cognition. New York: Freeman.
Miller, L. D. (1991). Writing in mathematics class. Mathematics Teacher, 84(6), 516-521
Miller, L. D. (1992). Writing in mathematics class. What research says to the science and mathematics teacher. Mumber 9. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373959)
Miller, W. L. & Crabtree, B. F. (1992). Primary care research: a multi-method typology and qualitative road map. In W. L. Miller & B. F. Crabtree (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp3-28). Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Curriculum Council. (1982). Science in the National Curriculum. York, UK: National Curriculum Council.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rose, B. (1989). Writing and mathematics: Theory and practice. In P. Connolly & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp.15-30). New York: Teachers College.
Rowe, H. A. H. (1985). Problem solving and intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. T. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research (pp.81-96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Whitin, D. J., & Whitin, P. E. (1998). The ”write” way to mathematical understanding. In L. J. Morrow & M. J. Kenny (Eds.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics (pp.161-169). Reston, Virgin: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Wilde, S. (1991). Learning to write about mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 38, 38-42.
Wollman, W. (1983). Determining the sources of error in a translation from sentence to equation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 4(3), 169-181.