為提升技專校院學生微積分的學習成效，本研究主要在探討學習風格以及合作學習法對微積分學習之影響，同時對微積分試題做難度與鑑別度分析，以了解學生於各微積分題型的表現情況。本研究使用學習風格量表，測量某科技大學資工系與資管系一年級新生的學習風格，探討學習風格與其統一入學測驗的數學成績及微積分成績的相關性。並於演習課實施準實驗設計，分別自兩系隨機各選取一班為實驗組，一班為對照組，實驗組採用合作學習法，對照組採用傳統教學法，探討合作學習法對微積分學習成效的影響。研究結果發現資管系實驗組為主動型風格者數學成績較佳，資工系則為反思型風格者較佳。資管系實驗組微積分學習成效較佳，資工系則為對照組較佳，但相關檢定未達顯著差異。微積分試題分析方面，相似題型重複測驗後，試題難度依舊較難的題型，顯示學生於此題型學習上較有問題，需要進一步講解與練習，而提醒學生掌握、熟練中等難度的題型，以達到學習成績的提升。

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of learning styles and cooperative learning on academic achievement of technical university students in calculus. Meanwhile, in order to understand the effectiveness of learning on calculus, we perform item analysis of calculus test conducted in terms of item difficulty and item discrimination analysis.
This research is conducted on a quasi-experimental design. Participants in this study are selected from the first year students of two departments in a technical university. Two intact classes of the same department are randomly assigned to be an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group receives the cooperative learning while the other receives the traditional learning.
The results show that the learning achievement of active learners is better than reflective learners in the experimental group of information management. On the contrary, the reflective learners have better learning achievement than active learners in the experimental
group of computer science and information engineering. The learning achievement of the experimental group is better than the control group in department of information
management. The result is opposite in department of computer science and information engineering. But the differences of the learning achievement mentioned above are not statistically significant. Furthermore, item difficulty analysis suggests teachers and students
should pay more attentions to those more difficult items and the corresponding calculus sections.

1 緒論1
1.1 研究動機. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 研究方向. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 文獻探討1
2.1 學習風格. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 合作學習法. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 試題分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4 檢定統計方法. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 研究方法6
4 學習風格量表分析7
4.1 學習風格的傾向. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2 統測成績與學習風格的關係. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3 性別與學習風格的關係. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 合作學習法成效分析10
5.1 合作學習法與傳統演習課之學習成效比較. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2 學習法與學習風格交互影響分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1 學習法與學習風格二因子變異數分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2 各學習法下相異學習風格之學習成效分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.3 各學習風格下相異學習法之學習成效分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3 加入群組效應之分析. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3.1 主動型與反思型風格之學習成效差異. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3.2 平時測驗表現狀況. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6 試題分析20
7 教學問卷分析23
8 結論與建議25
8.1 結果摘要. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.2 結論. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.3 實驗所遇問題與建議. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9 參考文獻28
10 附錄29
i

1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd Ed. Wiley, New York.
2. Cuseo, J.B. (1992). Cooperative learning vs. small-group discussions and group
projects: The critical differences. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2,4-9.
3. Ebel, R.L., and Frisbie, D.A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement. 5th ed. Prentice Hall, N.J.
4. Felder, R.M. and Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, Engineering Education, 78, 674-681.
5. Felder, R.M. and Soloman, B.A. (1991). Index of Learning Styles. North Carolina State University.
6. Felder, R.M. and Henriques, E.R. (1995). Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second Language Education. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 21-31.
7. Felder, R.M., Litzinger, T.A., Wise, J.C., and Sang Ha Lee (2007). A Psychometric Study of the Index of Learning Styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 309-319.
8. Gibbons, J.D. (1985). Nonparametric Statistical Inference. 2nd Ed. Marcel Dekker, New York.
9. Garger, S. and Guild, P. (1984). Learning styles: The crucial differences. Curriculum Review, 9-12.
10. Meloth, M.S. and Deering, P.D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness under different cooperative learning conditions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 138-
165.
11. Rencher, A.C. (2002). Methods of Multivariate Analysis, 2nd Ed. Wiley, New York.
12. Slavin, R.E. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning, 3rd ed. National Education Association, Washington, DC.
13. 王岱伊(2002)，小組合作學習策略之研究，國立交通大學資訊科學研究所碩士論文。
14. 周東山(1997)，教育測量與統計，五南圖書，臺北市。