11(1)

25

****** *

** ***

517 t () ()

()

11(1)

26

2006(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD)(Programme for International Student Assessment PISA) 2000 2006 57 1 16 OECD PISA 2009 150 4500 10000 2010 12 7 2009 65 5 6 20 2006 2009 2010 PISA

PISA2006 PISA2009

496 16 495 23

549 1 543 5

532 4 520 12

(OCED)

PISA

11(1)

27

2012 6 23

/2007

Gorges & Kandler, 2012

() ()

() ()

2-1

11(1)

28

2-2

2-3 () ()

()

1. Aiken1970 2. Garfield1977 Garfield (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)

3. 1991(1)

(2)(3)(4)A.B.C.

4. 1992

5. 1994(1)(2)(3)

6. 2003

11(1)

29

7. 2005

()

1. Aiken1976(1)

(2)(3)

(4)(5)

2. Suydam1984

3. Cunningham2004

() 1.

11(1)

30

(1) 1983 Fennema-Sherman

(2) 2003

(3) 2006 (4) 2007

(5) 2008

2.

1992

(1) 1988

(2) 1997

(3) 2006

(4) 2007

(5) 2008

11(1)

31

3. (1) 2002

(2) 2008

6~20

()

1995

2003

1997

1986 Coleman1988

()

11(1)

32

1. Cawley1984 2. 1993

3. 2003

4. 20072006

5. Asante2012

()

2000

1. 1995 23 677

10

(1)

(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)

10 8

2. 1997(1)

11(1)

33

(2) 20%

3. 2001 600 80.5%

4. 2001

5. 2003

2003 2003

180 140 110 76.8

2003 300

180 140 110 76.8

2003 6. 2003

7. 2003

8. 2006

11(1)

34

1.

2.

9. 2007

30~40

21 593 593 76 517 87.18

11(1)

35

A 13 16 10 16 22 11 88

B 15 8 14 18 9 20 84

C 10 10 14 11 10 11 66

D 14 16 16 15 9 17 88

E 17 15 13 12 13 21 91

F 13 16 13 16 11 16 85

G 14 18 14 14 13 18 91

96 99 94 102 87 114 593

2010

Likert

12345 5 4

24

20

11(1)

36

peer validity

10

6

6

2010 51

Cronbachs .831 48 66 SPSS Cronbachs .896

SPSS 14.0

()

() t independent t-test

() One-way ANOVA

Scheff Scheff post-hoc comparison

() Pearsons product-moment correlation

593

593 100%

11(1)

37

517 87.18

()

50.7262 49.3255 11

262 50.7

255 49.3

517 100.0

()

172 33.3

170 32.9

175 33.8

517 100.0

()

80.3415

11(1)

38

415 80.3

79 15.3

16 3.1

7 1.4

517 100.0

()

84.5437

7 1.4

43 8.3

259 50.1

178 34.4

30 5.8

517 100.0

()

2003

65.2337

63 12.2

72 13.9

45 8.7

135 26.1

202 39.1

517 100.0

11(1)

39

()

0~0.50.5~177.7402

0~0.5 270 52.2

0.5~1 132 25.5

1~1.5 63 12.2

1.5~2 30 5.8

2 22 4.3

517 100.0

()

74.3384

0 384 74.3

1~3 90 17.4

4~6 35 6.8

7~10 8 1.5

517 100.0

48 Likert 5

11(1)

40

1.

16.10% 17.60% 35.40% 25.50% 5.40%

2.

10.40% 24.80% 16.40% 30.20% 18.20%

3.

7.20% 11.20% 39.50% 29.20% 13.00%

4.

16.20% 26.50% 32.30% 17.40% 7.50%

5.

18.80% 31.90% 32.50% 11.60% 5.20%

6.

26.30% 32.10% 22.20% 12.60% 6.80%

7.

13.30% 21.30% 40.80% 18.40% 6.20%

8.

12.00% 18.00% 33.50% 23.20% 13.30%

9.

18.60% 30.40% 26.90% 16.10% 8.10%

10.

8.30% 7.40% 21.90% 37.90% 24.60%

11. 22.40% 29.00% 31.50% 12.20% 4.80%

12.

11.80% 19.70% 36.90% 19.90% 11.60%

13.

4.80% 5.40% 21.10% 36.20% 32.50%

14.

7.20% 10.40% 26.70% 36.00% 19.70%

15.

17.20% 30.80% 30.40% 14.10% 7.50%

()

11(1)

41

16.

6.20% 16.20% 34.80% 29.00% 13.70%

17.

6.60% 15.70% 41.40% 23.20% 13.20%

18.

7.40% 14.10% 29.20% 34.40% 14.90%

19.

19.10% 30.90% 30.20% 12.40% 7.40%

20.

6.40% 12.40% 30.40% 33.10% 17.80%

21.

7.00% 11.80% 31.10% 33.10% 17.00%

22.

12.60% 13.00% 32.90% 27.10% 14.50%

23.

3.90% 5.40% 23.00% 43.50% 24.20%

24.

19.30% 21.90% 21.90% 19.10% 17.80%

25.

4.80% 5.60% 26.90% 30.40% 32.30%

26.

28.00% 28.20% 30.00% 6.80% 7.00%

1.

33.80% 28.80% 23.60% 9.70% 4.10%

2.

16.80% 22.80% 38.30% 15.90% 6.20%

3.

18.20% 27.10% 39.30% 10.80% 4.60%

4.

14.10% 22.80% 35.80% 18.80% 8.50%

1.

21.70% 34.00% 27.70% 10.30% 6.40%

()

11(1)

42

2.

7.50% 10.30% 30.00% 36.20% 16.10%

3.

7.00% 11.40% 32.70% 29.80% 19.10%

4.

6.20% 9.70% 37.70% 31.10% 15.30%

5.

13.90% 19.90% 39.30% 15.90% 11.00%

6.

5.40% 11.40% 41.20% 31.70% 10.30%

7.

4.40% 5.20% 33.10% 41.40% 15.90%

8.

27.90% 41.40% 23.80% 3.70% 3.30%

9.

12.00% 16.20% 41.00% 19.30% 11.40%

10.

10.80% 22.60% 51.30% 10.80% 4.40%

11.

25.60% 37.50% 23.80% 9.70% 3.90%

12.

5.20% 5.80% 33.30% 37.10% 18.60%

13.

8.90% 13.00% 49.90% 19.00% 9.30%

14.

4.80% 9.70% 48.90% 26.10% 10.40%

15.

7.00% 12.80% 48.70% 21.30% 10.30%

16.

35.00% 31.10% 22.80% 7.20% 3.90%

17.

15.30% 28.60% 27.10% 18.20% 10.80%

18.

10.30% 11.40% 34.40% 22.80% 21.10%

11(1)

43

()

()

()

tANOVA ()

t t t p

262 3.21 .53

.26 .80 255 3.20 .56

t .26p=.80>.05.05

()

1993

11(1)

44

5 7 5 4 55-52

4 7 4 4 51-41

3 7 3 4 40-30

2 7 2 4 29-19

1 7 1 4 18-11

199348-49

ANOVA F p

278 3.14 .55 4.303

.014* >

161 3.28 .54

78 3.28 .53

517 3.21 .55

*p

11(1)

45

ANOVA F p

1.0 384 3.14 .54 7.45 .000*** 1

11(1)

46

() r ()

3.21 .49 517 .66 .000**

3.31 .54 517

.66 p .000

11(1)

47

()

1. (1)

2003(2)2008 2.

2006

278 78

3. 1~3 4~6

20022008 ()

.314

()

.613

11(1)

48

Asante2012

() 1.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

2.

() 1.

11(1)

49

2.

significant othersAsante, 2012 () 1.

2010

35

2.

11(1)

50

1991

1337-56 1993-

2007

1997

1994

1519-38 1983

2008

2003 1993 2003

1997

7261-79 2006SEM

HLM

2003

1986

(2008)

2010 PISA2009 http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download/data/1207-2009PISA-REPORT.pdf

2003102

1995

11(1)

51

()6(1)1-35 20035467-69 2012

http://www.fdc.gov.tw/dp.asp?mp=1 1997

524-259 1992 200120004 (1)

1-27 2003 2005

http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0050001 2007

2005

2003

1995 2001-

2007

2003

4941-31 2000

2006

2010-

2002

2009

2006

2003 8 15 2

11(1)

52

http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-64731 1988

19925619-688

Aiken, L. R. Jr. (1970). Attitude toward mathematics. Review of Educational

Research, 40(4), 551-596. Asante, K. O. (2012). Secondary students attitudes towards mathematics. Ife

Psychologia, Retrieved from: http://www.readperiodicals.com/201203/2613272641.html

Baron, R. A., & Byme, D. (2003). Social psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Cawley, J. F. (1984). Developmental teaching of mathematics for the learning

disabled. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Equality of educational opportunity. Salem, N. H.: Ayer. Cunningham, R. F. (2004). Problem posing: An opportunity for increasing student

responsibility. Mathematics and Computer Education, 38, 83-89. Garfield, J. B. (1977). An investigation of junior high school students attitudes

toward components of Mathematics. (Unpublished masters thesis). State University of Minnesota.

Gorges, J., & Kandler, C. (2012). Adults' learning motivation: Expectancy of success, value, and the role of affective memories. Learning & Individual Differences, 22 (5), 610-617.

Suydam, M. N. (1984). Attitude toward mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 12, 56-59.

11(1)

53

() () 0~0.5 0.5~1 1~1.5 1.5~2 2 ()0 1~3 4~6 7~10

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

11(1)

54

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.() 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

11(1)

55

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

11(1)

56

2003

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

11(1)

57

A Study on Mathematic Learning Attitude and Relating Factors of the Junior High School Students at Distant Areas in Changhua

County

Yi-Ru Wu Changhua County Yuan-Dou Junior High School

Teacher

Wenrong Tsay Graduate Institute of Professional Development for Educators, National Chung

Hsing University Associate Professor

Lin-Tsang Lee Department of Applied Mathematics, National Chung Hsing University

Professor

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the conditions of mathematical

learning of junior high students among the distant schools in Chang-Hua County. Mathematical learning attitudes interrelationship with background factor, family support, and learning environment became research concerns. 517 valid samples answered the questionnaire. Several statistical procedures were employed in data analyses, including descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, One-way ANOVA, Pearsons product moment correlation. The findings are as follows. 1. Junior high students in distant schools rarely review mathematic contents. 2. Parents in distant schools rarely care their childrens mathematical learning. 3. Junior high students in distant schools have a positive acknowledgement of

mathematical learning environment of their schools. 4. Different background variables produce significant difference in students

mathematical learning attitude. In other words, (1) Gender has no significant difference on mathematical learning attitude. (2) Mid-SES students have a significant different attitude in mathematical learning

comparing to those low-SES students. (3) Students with cram-school assistance outperform those without in mathematical

learning attitude. 5. The higher the family support and mathematical learning environment, the better

the mathematical learning attitude junior high students have Finally, based upon the findings, several suggestions are provided to teachers,

parents, and further research.

Keywords: Distant Junior High School, Mathematical Learning Attitude, Family Social Economical Status, Family Support, Mathematical Learning Environment.