18 2 94 9 3364

33

94 03 31 94 08 02 94 08 08

 18 2 94 9 3364
34
18 2

Dewey
1913
Mayer, 1990/2000

1999

 35

1979

36 18 2

1995

Piaget
1994Bruner

2001

Bandura
1997

Vygotsky
1995

1997
1998

1989 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

NCTM
NCTM1989

1993

2003

 37

1.

experience

Cobb, Wood, and Yackel1991

NCTM
1991

2.

Vygotsky
Cazden,
1988/20011996

1.

2002

38 18 2

2.

3.

1
2
345

 39

93 H 86
93 M 86 L
1
1

19

16

40 18 2

DV

91 9 92 1

1 2

3
U

4
U

coding

 41

2
2

020903

2002 9 3

020914

2002 9 14

020923

2002 9 23

S 020913 2002 9 13
S 020913

2002 9 13

42 18 2

200 56 0.01
4 0.01 0.01

T56 0.01
U

S
0.56

020927

 43

021007

S19-HS14-H
U

T
S
T
S14-H
U

020923

021011

44 18 2

S25-M 030116

021104

S05-L
T
1
23
S05-L
T

021026

 45

1
35 5
A

1
S33-H 35 5

1
35 55 5
3515 7
1
3557
7 5 1 7
717

A7
S22-H 35 5
1

S33-H5 35 5

S24-H
021112
A

1
S14-H 123 123
A

1
3
A

46 18 2

S08-M
U

S14-H
U

T
U

021126

021126
U

2
20 110 3
A

S17-L
2
10

1 3

S34-L

2
4
2 210
110
2
6
110
3310

2
3
110

133
6
310

6
6
310
310

2
10

6
310
6
310

T
S24-H
3

021227

 47

3 4
S18-M 3412 1243
4 3 2 3
3 3 .. 3
U

S04-M 12 4 3
3
4

T 34 3
U

UA

S18-M 3
T3 4
S18-M 4
T4 4 4 4
S18-M4
T3 4

S12
3
T 12 12 4 4

T3 4 12
A

S
T 12 12 12 4 3
S
S09-M 4 . 4 3
12 12 4 3
3
3
4 12 4
3
3
T12 4

021020
U

UA

AU

UA

AU

48 18 2

2002

3 4

1.
2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1. 1.

2. 2.

3.

1. 1.

2. 2.

3.

1. 1.

2. 2.

3.

 49

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

50 18 2

030108
U

S35-H 030116

S09-M 030115

100 3.19
0.36
1

3.19

0.36

3.19
0.36
2.83
U

1 . 00
2.1 9
1.000.360.64
0.642.192.83

0 . 19
0.1 7
3.190.193.00
3.000.172.83

S14-H 020916

 51

S10-H
S06-HS07-H
S
29-H
S14-HS16-H
9 S35-H
H S19-HS22-H

S24-HS27-H
S33-H

S 01-M S09-M 4 S11-MS13-M

M
S 03-M S08-M S25-MS26-M

4 S04-MS15-M 4
S18-MS30-M
S 02-L S17-L
S -LS21-L
6 12
S05-LS20-L
S -LS28-L
23
S31-LS34-L
S32-L

S14-H 030117

S03-M 030115

52 18 2

S03-M 030115

S09-M 030117

S23-L 030117

S02-L 030115

 53

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

54 18 2

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

4.

 55

5.

1.

2.

3.

4.

56 18 2

1.

2.

3.

 57

1996
1997
1998131-14
1979818-23
199536424-27
1995

118-122
1993
2003
2001
1999

1997
2841-56
199450
4-8
2002

Cazden, C. B.2001Classroom Discourse: The language of teaching and

learning()
1988
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1991). A constructivist approach to second grade
mathematics. In von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education
(pp157-176). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Mayer, R. E.2000Educational Psychology

1990
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching
mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

58 18 2

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

 59

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

60 18 2

1.
2.
3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

 61

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.
15.

62 18 2

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.
15.

Journal of National Taipei University of Education, Vol.18, No.2(Sep. 2005)33~64

NATIONAL TAIPEI UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

63

An Action Research on the Practice of the

Communicative Mathematics Teaching of
A Fifth Grade Class
Hsi-mei Fan & Jing Chung
F

ABSTRACT
0B

This study aims to present the story of an experienced teacher in the

communicative mathematical teaching when she faced a newly formed fifth grade
class. She found that most of the students could not talk actively and their talks lacked
precision; consequently she was forced to furnish various strategies to facilitate the
discussion. As a result, the students went through a series of changes.
This study shows that after the teacher's guiding on the psychological aspect at
the beginning, promoting social interaction in the modulation period, and fortifying the
depth of thinking and discussing in the stable period, most students possess the ability
to lead a discussion, and can use mathematical language to communicate mathematical
viewpoints and to discuss the mathematical content. The important implication of this
study is that the usage of communicative, mathematical teaching can achieve good
performances.

Key words: communicative mathematical teaching, elementary school

mathematics

Hsi-mei Fan: Teacher, Laboratory School of National Taipei University of Education

Jing Chung: Professor, Graduate School of Mathematic Education, National Taipei University
of Education

64 Journal of National Taipei University of Education, Vol.18, No.2