摘 要
本研究旨在分析不同學校性質、學校區位、性別及年級別之機械製圖科學生在空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗之差異，並進一步探討兩者之相關性。
為達研究目的，以文獻分析、量表及測驗卷調查及專家座談與審查等方法進行研究。研究工具係修改自康鳳梅、鍾瑞國（87）所發展之「空間能力量表」及研究者自編之「立體圖成就表現測驗卷」。以我國高職機械製圖科學生為母群，採分層隨機及叢集取樣。有效「量表及測驗卷」共1523份。
所得資料以t考驗、單因子變異數分析、雪費事後比較、pearson積差相關等統計方法進行資料處理。分析歸納後提出下列結論：
一、不同學校性質、學校區位、性別及年級之學生在空間能力測量上的差異：
（一）、公、私立學校學生在空間能力測量上的表現一致。
（二）、城市學校學生在空間能力測量上顯著高於鄉村學校學生。
（三）、男生在空間能力測量上顯著高於女生。
（四）、不同年級之學生在空間能力測量上的表現一致。
二、不同學校性質、學校區位、性別及年級之學生在立體圖成就表現測驗之差異：
（一）、公立學校學生在立體圖成就表現測驗顯著高於私立學校學生。
（二）、城市學校學生在立體圖成就表現測驗上顯著高於鄉村學校學生。
（三）、男生在立體圖成就表現測驗上顯著高於女生。
（四）、不同年級之學生在立體圖成就表現測驗上三年級高於二年級、一年級，二年級高於一年級。
三、機械製圖科不同類別變項之學生在空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗之相關：
（一）、公立學校學生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（二）、私立學校學生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（三）、城市學校學生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（四）、鄉村學校學生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（五）、男生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（六）、女生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（七）、一年級學生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（八）、二年級學生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（九）、三年級學生之空間能力測量與立體圖成就表現測驗有顯著相關。
（十）、空間能力量表及各分量表測量對立體圖成就表現測驗及各分項測驗有顯著相關。
最後並根據研究結論，對教育行政單位、教學學單位、教師、及後續研究提出建議以供參考。
關鍵詞：空間能力、立體圖成就表現

Abstract
The purposes of this research were: (1) to analyze the differences of test results between Spatial Ability Scale (SAS) and Pictorial Drawing Achievements Test (PDAT) that were administered on Mechanical Drawing (MD) students who were categorized into four variables, including their school types (public and private), school locations (urban and rural), genders (male and female), and grades (first, second, and third); and (2) to further explore the correlation of these two tests.
In order to achieve the above goals, besides the aforementioned two tests, this study also took literature review and workshops as its research tools. The modified SAS was originally devised by Kun & chung (1998) and the PDAT was designed by the author. The population in this study includes all presently in-school students who major in MD, while the sampling approaches comprise a proportionate stratified random sampling and a cluster one. The valid SAS and PDAT returns, in sum, total 1523.
Data amassed was processed by the statistical strategies of t-test, one-way ANOVA, Scheff’e posteriori comparison and product-moment correlation.
The main conclusions are as follows:
A. The differences of students’ spatial ability:
A-1 There is no distinctive difference between public school students and private school ones in their spatial ability.
A-2 Urban school students have significantly higher spatial ability than rural school ones.
A-3 Male students’ spatial ability is significantly higher than female ones’.
A-4 There is no distinctive difference in SAS takers among different grades.
B. The differences of students’ PDAT:
B-1 There is no apparent difference between public school students and private school ones.
B-2 Urban school students have significantly higher PDAT scores than rural school ones.
B-3 Male students’ achievement in PDAT is significantly higher than female ones.
B-4 There are distinctive differences in PDAT takers among the first, second, and third graders: the third is higher than the second while the second is higher than the first.
C. The correlation between the results of two tests in terms of relevant variables:
C-1 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to public school students.
C-2 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to private school students.
C-3 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to urban school students.
C-4 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to rural school students.
C-5 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to male MD students.
C-6 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to female MD students.
C-7 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to the MD freshmen.
C-8 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to the MD sophomores.
C-9 There is a significant correlation between SAS and PDAT as to the MD seniors.
C-10 There is also a distinct relationship between SAS and PDAT.
According to the above conclusions, this study also summed up a few suggestions for educational agencies’, schoolteachers’, and further studies’ reference.
Keywords: spatial ability , pictorial drawing Achievement

參考文獻
一、中文部分
丁振豐（民83）三個心理學派典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。
江巧如（民84）從二度空間平面訊息建構三度空間立體模型之聯對歷程探討。國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
李德高（民79）創造心理學。台北：五南書局。
李琛玫（民85）國中一般能力資優生、美術資優生與普通生之視覺空間認知能力研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
李政猷譯（民65）工程畫與圖學。台北：徐氏基金會。
何榮桂（民79）運用SPSS/PC+作項目分析的方法。測驗與輔導，99期。
杞昭安（民83）視覺障礙學生非語文智力測驗之研究。彰師大特殊教育系學報，九期，頁319-337。
吳齊殷（民88）量表的發展－理論與應用。台北：弘智文化事業。
吳清炎（民80）機械製圖。台北：華興書局。
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及輔導研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
林寶貴、杞昭安（民85）兒童認知發展能力測驗之編製及相關研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育系所，特殊教育研究學刊，14期，頁1-20。
林躍庭（民73）立體工程說明圖理論與實務。台中：建利書局。
林昌明（民88）以判斷作業探討3D物體識別之表徵問題。國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
徐享良（民80）智力因素結構之探索－國中學生注意力、記憶力及認知能力之相關分析。彰師大特教學報，六期，頁1-15。
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研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳李綢（民78）智力理論的發展及研究趨勢。資優特教季刊，30期，頁34-40。
陳美珍（民79）智力與測驗。台北：大洋出版社。
陳長益（民76）從智力的觀點談資優兒童。資優特教季刊，24期，頁19-22。
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）。
陳英豪、吳裕益（民82）測驗與評量。高雄：復文圖書出版社。
陳皎眉（民88）性別角色與性別差異講座。奇摩網站搜尋。
郭生玉（民87）心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局。
張麗芬（民77）兒童空間認知能力發展之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
張靜嚳（民82）國科會專題「空間能力和認知需要對數學解題策略之影響(Ⅰ)」成果報告。執行單位：國立彰化師範大學。
張木生（民80）立體製圖法。彰化：正工出版社。
張春興（民80）現代心理學（下）。台北：東華書局。
張芳杰主編（民81）牛津高級英英、英漢雙辭典。台北：東華書局。
康鳳梅、戴文雄（民84）我國機械製圖業技術人力所需知識建構之研究－知識項目分析。行政院國科會專題研究計畫，執行單位：國立台灣師範大學工業教育學系。
康鳳梅、鍾瑞國（民87）我國大學機械相關系學生工程圖學剖視圖解題歷程之研究。行政院國科會補助專題研究計畫，執行單位：國立台灣師範大學工業教育系。
康鳳梅、戴文雄（民88）高工學生機械製圖空間能力與問題解決能力提昇之研究。國科會補助研究計畫（執行中）。
康鳳梅、朱鳳傳、王輔春等（民87）工程圖學。台北：師大書苑。
游朝煌（民84）大生空間能力、邏輯思考能力、不同補充教學策略及相關因素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）。
趙淑美（民79）資優學生與普通學生解決空間旋轉問題之正確度、速度及策略的比較研究。台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
蔣家唐（民84）視覺空間認知能力向度分析暨數理－語文資優生視覺空間認知能力差異研究。國科會補助研究論文，計畫編號NSC83-0111-S-018-019。
蔣家唐（民84）視覺空間認知能力向度分析暨數理－語文資優生視覺空間認知能力差異研究。國科會補助研究論文，計畫編號NSC84-2511-S-018-003。
劉鼎嶽（民84）最新CNS機械製圖。台北：文京圖書。
機械製圖科教育目標（民75）工業職業學校機械群課程標準暨設備標準。台北：正中書局。
蔡崇建（民80）智力的評量與分析。台北：心理出版社。
鍾聖校（民81）認知心理學。台北：心理出版社。
鄧佳恩（民85）空間能力與視覺化模擬軟體對學生學習遞迴的影響。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
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。彰化師範大學學報，第四期，171頁。
戴文雄（民85）不同正增強回饋型式電腦輔助學習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。國科會補助研究論文，計畫編號NSC86-2516-S018-010-TG。
戴文雄（民87）不同正增強回饋刑事電腦輔助學習系統對不同認知型態與空間能力之高工學生機械製圖學習成效之研究。行政院國科會補助專題研究計畫。
譚光鼎（民77）智力理論。現代教育，12期，頁116-127。
二、英文部分
Annamuah-Mensay, J. (1986). Cognitive strategies used by chemistry students solve volumetric analysis problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(9), pp.759-762.
Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender difference in high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), pp.41-60.
Bishop, A. J. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathematics education : A review. Educational Studies in Mathematics Ⅱ, pp.257-269.
Baker, P. R. & Belland, J. C. (1986). Developing spatial skills with exper LOGO on the Macintosh. ERIC ED 281 490.
Billy C. Y（1988）. The Computer as an Instructional Aid and Problem Solving Tool : An Experimental Analysis of Two Instructional Methods for Teaching Spatial Skills to Junior High School Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Graduate School of the University of Oregon.
Biederman, I. (1988). Recognition-by-Components : A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, pp.115-147.
Cooper, L. A., & Podgorny, P. (1976). Mental transformations and visual comparison processes : Effects of complexity and similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human perception and performance,2,pp.503-514.
Carpenter, F., Brinkman, E. H., & Lirones, D. S. (1965). Educability of students in visualization of objects in space. Ann Arbor, MI : The University of Michigan.
Chase, W. G. & Chi M. T. H.(1978).Cognitive skill:Implications in Large-Scale Environment. In Harvey,J.H.(eds).Cognition.social behavior, and the environment.Hillsade N.J.:Erlbaum Assoc,111-136.
Cooper, L. A. (1988). The role of spatial representation in complex problem solving. In S. Schiffer & S. Steel (Eds.), Cognition and Representation. Boulder, Co : Westview press.
Cooper, L. A. (1989). Mental Model of the structure of visual objects. In S. Ballesteros & B. Shepp (Eds.), Object perception : Structure and Process (pp. 91-119). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
Cooper, L. A. (1990). Mental representation of three-dimensional objects in visual problem solving and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, pp.1097-1106.
Cooper, L. A. (1991). Dissociable aspects of the mental representation of visual objects. In Logie, R. H. & Denis, M. (Eds.), Mental images in human cognition (pp.3-34). Elsevler Science Publlishers.
Dixon, J. H. (1983). The spatial chid. Illinois : Charles C Thomas. pp.43-49.
Donelson, F. L.(1990).“The Development, Testing and Use of a Computer Interface to Evaluate an Information Processing Model Describing the Rates of Encoding and Mental Rotation in High School Students of High and Low Spatial Ability,” Ohio state University, ERIC ED 326396.
Eliot, J.(1980). “Classification of Figural Spatial Tests,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol.51, No.1, pp.847-851.
Guay, R. B. (1977). Purdue spatial visualization tests. West Lafayette. IN : Purdue Foundation.
Guay, R. B. (1980). Spatial ability measurement : a critique and an alternative. A Pager Presented at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Boston.
Gilger, J. W., & Ho, H. Z. (1989).Gender diereses ir adult spatial information processing: Their relationship to puberty timing, adolescent activities, and sex-typing of personality. Cognitive development, 4, pp.197-214.
Giesecke etc (1971). Engineering Graphics.Macmillan company, New York.
Holley, C. D., & Dnsereau, D. F. (1984). Spatial learning Strategies. NY. : Academic press.
Lohman,D.F.(1979). Spatial 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. (1985). Enhancing the visual-Spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), pp.395-405.
Lowery, B. R., & Knirk, F. G. (1982). Microcomputer video games and spatial visualization acquisition. Journal of Educational Technology System,Ⅱ(2),pp.155-156.
Lantz, A., Carlberg, C., & Eaton, V. (1982). Women’s choice of science as a career. Denver, C. O. : E. S. R. Associates.
Load T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visual-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), pp.395-405.
Load T. R. (1987). Spatial teaching. The Science Teacher. 52(5), pp.32-34.
Liberman, D. A., & Linn, M. C. (1991). Learning to learn revisited : Computers and the developmnet of selfdirected learning skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 65(3), pp.243-252.
Liben, L. S. (1981). Spatial representation and behavior : Multiple perspectives. In L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson, & N. Newcombe (Eds). Spatial representation and behavior across the life span : Theory and application. New York : Academic Press.
McDaniel, E. D. & Lawrence, C. (1990). Levels of Cognitive Complexity : An Approach to the Measurement of Thinking. New York : Springer- Verlag.
Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex difference. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
McCormack,A.(1988).Visral/spatial thinking:An element of elementary school science.Council for elementary science international,San Diego State University.
Mumaw,R.J.& Pellegrino,J.W.(1984).Individual difference in complex spatial processing.Journal of educational Psychology,76(5),920-939.
Newcombe, N. (1982). Sex-related differences in spatial ability: Problem and gaps in current approaches. In Potegal, M. (Eds.), Spatial abilities: development and physiological foundation (pp. 233-250). Academic Press.
Pallrand, G., & Seeber, F. (1984). Spatial ability and achievement in introductory physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(5), 507-516.
Piaget, J.(1967). The Child’s Conception of Space, New York : Norton.
Paivio, A., “On the Functional Significance of Imagery,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 73, No.6, 1970, pp.385-392.
Rovet, J. (1983). The development of stratogies for solving the perspective task. In olson, D. R., & Alystok, L. (Eds), Spatial Cognition (pp.110-126). New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.110.
Rivers, R, H., & Vockell, E. (1987). Computer simulations to simulate scientific problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), pp.403-415.
Stringer, P. (1975). Drawing training & spatial ability. Ergonomics, 18, pp.101-108.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J., “Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects,” Science, Vol.171, No.1, 1971, pp.701-703.
Smith, T. M. (1965). Spatial ability : Its educational and social significance. San Diego : Knapp, p.408.
Stumpf, H. (1993). Performance factors and gender-related differences in spatial ability: Another assessment. Memory and Cognition, 21(6), pp.828-836.
Tai, W. S. & Kang, F. M (1985). A Study on task analysis for engineering drawing technicians. Fourth World Conference on Engineering Education. Oct. 15-20, 1995, Saint Paul.
Tarr, M. J. & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation- dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21, pp.233-282.
Tai, W. S. (1987). The study of interaction between student characteristics and teaching methods on achievement of selected drafting comcepts. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. Iowa State University.
Vigil, P. J. (1988). Online retrieval : Analysis and Strategy. NY, NY : John Wiley & Sons. P.242.
West, C. E. (1984). Enhancing mathematics ability in sixth grade females via computer based graphics and problem solving. ( Doctoral dissertation university of southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45.
Zavotka, S. (1985). The use of three-dimensional computer graphics animation to teach spatial skills to home economics college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Ohio states university.
Zimowski, M. F. (1987). Purification of spatial tests : An IRT analysis of spatial and reasoning component in “spatial” tests. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 284 903.