| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立台北師範學院 === 數理教育研究所 === 92 === The research aims at the influence of geometry teaching of six grade students in elementary school on the enhancement of spatial ability. Analysis on the possibility of geometry teaching to spatial ability enhancement is made through the unit on cylinder and cone experimental teaching observation of six grade 3D geometry courses. Take “teaching activity design” as manipulated variables to observe the differences on different teaching methods to spatial ability enhancement between “informal geometry education” and “current curriculum activity,” in order to understand other influential factors of spatial ability outside the geometry curriculum. Analysis is also made on experimental teaching during the research process, in order to provide suggestions to the teaching curriculum.
The research applies the “non-equivalent group quasi-experimental design” of “experiment methods,” sampled with the school of the researcher. Two experimental classes are divided into experimental teaching group and controlled teaching group, with their pre-examination, after-examination, and postponed spatial ability examination results of the two groups as quantified analysis, recording the process of teaching as data for teaching activity analysis.
The research findings are as follows:
1.Geometry unit－cylinder and cone education can effectively enhance the spatial ability of the students.
2.Classes proceed with “informal geometry education” can effectively enhance the spatial ability of the students, while classes proceed with “current curriculum activity has no striking effect.
3.The teaching methods of “informal geometry education” and “current curriculum activity” have no distinctive difference to the immediate effect of spatial ability enhancement.
4.The reserved effect of spatial ability enhancement of “informal geometry education” is superior than that of “current curriculum activity.”
5.During the process of experimental teaching, it has been discovered that among cylinders and cones, students can better judge cones than tetra-angular pyramids; cones are more complicated than cylinders in the combination of surface control; and it is difficult for students to reasonably handle the parallel, ratio, and angle of perspective drawing.
|
|---|
