A Comparison of Using Problem-centered Mathematical Teaching

• Main Authors: Co,Yi-Chun, 柯怡君
• Other Authors: Chang,Ching-kuch
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 1994
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/34291219319900236396

碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 科學教育研究所 === 82 === This study was about a teacher who used problem-centered teaching strategies in two differnt classes(i.e., gifted and normal) of a junior-high school. The purpose of this study was to investigate what problems the teacher had, what solutions the teacher came up with,and what needs in task, grouping, and sharing of thetwo different kinds of classes. The study used qualitative method and took 17 weeksin classroom observations, interviews (3 times for the teacher and one time for 11 stuents) and 5 periodic discussions. By using constant comparison and triangulation to analyze the data of the study, we have the following findings: In task, the most difficult thing the teacher had was to choose and design the right task for small group discussion. Due to lackingin teaching resources, emphasizing examination grades in school and different needs in task, which made the teacher had the difficulty in choosing and designing the task. Also, the two different kinds of students showed different needs in task. In grouping, the gifted students have classroom disorder problem because the teacher didn''t make the rules in class when first grouping. The two different kinds of students had different needs in grouping and cooperating ways. The gifted students believed they could discuss more thoroughly by finding their partners under good class order. The normal students believed S- type grouping was easier to get help from good students.The gifted students needed more diffcult task to make them cooperate, and the normal students needed competition to make them cooperate. In sharing, the teacher hadproblem about the culture of two different kinds of students''. The gifted students could not be satified with a single answer. They preferred to have a chance to express multiple answers. The normal students were not good at expressing. They could be satisfied with a single answer, but they needed the suitable feedback of whether the answer was right or wrong.