對幼童而言，數學概念抽象不易理解與學習，數學老師視引發低年級學生學習動機為一項挑戰。透過動手操作的做中學模式可以幫助學生理解抽象概念，同時也能夠幫助提昇學習動機。因此，本研究運用實體與虛擬七巧板在幼稚園兒童的數學學習上，比較這兩種形式在學習投入(三個類別)、學習興趣，與學習成就上的成效差異。本研究採準實驗研究法，將學童分為兩群，實驗組與控制組各為31人與30人。實驗進行採個別學習形式，兩組皆聆聽電子繪本 (小紅帽)對話內容，然後解決七巧板拼圖問題。實驗組學童使用電子繪本當中的虛擬七巧板功能，而控制組則使用實體七巧板進行拼圖。影片側錄學生聆聽繪本故事以及拼圖問題解決歷程以觀察學習融入情形。學習興趣採用問卷調查訪，最後進行學習成就測驗。資料分析包含質化與量化形式，在學習投入方面，透過獨立樣本t檢定發現學生使用虛擬七巧板進行問題解決形式的學生顯著高於使用實體七巧板的學生。分析也顯示在三個學習投入類別在多元感知行為表現上，虛擬七巧板進行問題解決形式的學生平均高於使用實體七巧板的學生.。然而，在控制與溝通的行為表現上，兩組沒有顯著差異。在學習興趣方面，透過獨立樣本t檢定方式發現兩組沒有顯著差異。在學習成就方面，兩組同樣沒有顯著差異。希望透過本研究的發現，能夠對幼兒教學現場在設計七巧板融入電子繪本數學學習上有所幫助。

Mathematical concepts could be abstract and difficult to understand, making it difficult for children to learn. At the same time, many teachers find it a challenge to engage students in learning mathematics. Manipulatives help students understand abstract concepts and can be used as teaching aids to engage students in learning. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of physical and virtual tangrams on pre-school children’s learning engagement (three categories), interest, and achievement. The study involved two groups of pre-school children, the experimental group (N=31) and the control group (N=30). Each child worked individually. Both groups listened to the e-storybook (Little Red Riding Hood) narration and solved puzzles. Experimental group students completed puzzles embedded in the e-storybook using virtual tangrams while control group students completed the same puzzles using physical tangrams on outlines drawn on paper. Video recordings as children listened to the e-storybook narration and solved the puzzles were done to observe engagement. A survey of learning interest, and a learning achievement test were administered to the children. The data was analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Results of an independent samples t-test indicated that children in the virtual tangram group had significantly higher overall engagement than those in the physical tangram group. Analysis of the three categories of engagement revealed significant differences for multisensory behaviors with the virtual group having a higher mean. No significant differences were obtained for control and communication behaviors. The independent t-test revealed no significant differences in learning interest between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding their overall learning achievement. It is hoped that the study will be beneficial to classrooms in regard to how tangrams can be used in teaching and learning, and to instructional designers on how to design an e-storybook for young readers.

Ainsa, T. (1999). Success of using technology and manipulatives to introduce numerical problem solving skills in monolingual/bilingual early childhood classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(4), 361-370.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.
Balka, D. S. (1993). Making the connections in mathematics via manipulatives. Contemporary Education, 65(1), 19.
Belenky, D. M., & Nokes, T. J. (2009). Examining the role of manipulatives and metacognition on engagement, learning, and transfer. The Journal of Problem Solving, 2(2), 6.
Bohning, G., & Althouse, J. K. (1997). Using tangrams to teach geometry to young children. Early childhood education journal, 24(4), 239-242.
Brincková, J., Haviar, M., & Dzúriková, I. (2007). Tangram in mathematics for lower secondary school. Lower secondary school teacher training in mathematics: Comparison and best practices, 205-215.
Brown, S. E. (2007). Counting Blocks or Keyboards? A Comparative Analysis of Concrete versus Virtual Manipulatives in Elementary School Mathematics Concepts. Online Submission.
Burns, B. A., & Hamm, E. M. (2011). A Comparison of Concrete and Virtual Manipulative Use in Third‐and Fourth‐Grade Mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 111(6), 256-261.
Burris, J. T. (2010). Third Graders' Mathematical Thinking of Place Value through the Use of Concrete and Virtual Manipulatives: ERIC.
Bus, A. G., Takacs, Z. K., & Kegel, C. A. (2015). Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children's emergent literacy. Developmental Review, 35, 79-97.
Calvert, S. L., Strong, B. L., & Gallagher, L. (2005). Control as an engagement feature for young children’s attention to and learning of computer content. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 578-589.

Chiu-Pin, L., Shao, Y.-j., Lung-Hsiang, W., Yin-Jen, L., & Niramitranon, J. (2011). The impact of using synchronous collaborative virtual tangram in children's geometric. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2).
Clements, D. H. (1998). Geometric and Spatial Thinking in Young Children.
Clements, D. H. (2000). ‘Concrete’manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.
Clements, D. H. (2002). Computers in early childhood mathematics. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(2), 160-181.
DeBruin-Parecki, A. (1999). Assessing Adult/Child Storybook Reading Practices. CIERA Report.
Drickey, N. A. (2000). A comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives in teaching visualization and spatial reasoning to middle school mathematics students.
Finkelstein, N., Adams, W., Keller, C., Kohl, P., Perkins, K., Podolefsky, N., . . . LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
Franz, D. P., & Pope, M. (2005). Using children's stories in secondary mathematics. American Secondary Education, 20-28.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Gire, E., Carmichael, A., Chini, J. J., Rouinfar, A., Rebello, S., Smith, G., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). The effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual learning about pulleys. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 1.
Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher's perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. Task· contingent rewards (continued), 328, 83.

Hong, H. (1996). Effects of mathematics learning through children's literature on math achievement and dispositional outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(4), 477-494.
Kim, S.-Y. (1993). The relative effectiveness of hands-on and computer-simulated manipulatives in teaching seriation, classification, geometric, and arithmetic concepts to kindergarten children.
Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 44(1), 183-203.
Lamborn, S., Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools, 11-39.
Landoni, M. (2010). Ebooks children would want to read and engage with. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the third workshop on Research advances in large digital book repositories and complementary media.
Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e‐book reading and response. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.
Lee, J., Lee, J. O., & Collins, D. (2009). Enhancing children's spatial sense using tangrams. Childhood Education, 86(2), 92-94.
Lee, Y.-J., Chao, C.-H., & Chen, C.-Y. (2011). The influences of interest in learning and learning hours on learning outcomes of vocational college students in Taiwan: using a teacher’s instructional attitude as the moderator. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 140-153.

Mangen, A. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and immersion. Journal of research in reading, 31(4), 404-419.
Marcum, J. W. (2000). Out with motivation, in with engagement. National Productivity Review, 19(4), 57-60.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American educational research journal, 37(1), 153-184.
McClung, L. W. (1998). A Study on the Use of Manipulatives and Their Effect on Student Achievement in a High School Algebra I Class.
Moody, A. K. (2010). Using electronic books in the classroom to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 11(4), 22-52.
Moody, A. K., Justice, L. M., & Cabell, S. Q. (2010). Electronic versus traditional storybooks: Relative influence on pre-school children’s engagement and communication. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 294-313.
Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.
Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching children mathematics, 8(6), 372.
Nicholas, A. J., & Lewis, J. K. (2009). The net generation and e-textbooks. Available at SSRN 2684862.
Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 43-46.
Olkun, S., Altun, A., & Smith, G. (2005). Computers and 2D geometric learning of Turkish fourth and fifth graders. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 317-326.
Perl, T. (1990). Manipulatives and the Computer: A Powerful Partnership for Learners of All Ages. Classroom Computer Learning, 10(6), 20-22.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational leadership, 63(4).
Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5.
Renninger, K. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation.

Reys, R. E. (1971). Considerations for teachers using manipulative materials. The Arithmetic Teacher, 551-558.
Roskos, K., Burstein, K., & You, B.-K. (2012). A typology for observing children’s engagement with ebooks at pre-school. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(2), 47-66.
Samur, Y. (2012). Measuring Engagement Effects of Educational Games and Virtual Manipulatives on Mathematics. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.

Schugar, H. R., Smith, C. A., & Schugar, J. T. (2013). Teaching with interactive picture e‐books in grades K–6. The Reading Teacher, 66(8), 615-624.
Sedighian, K., & Klawe, M. (1996). Super Tangrams: A child-centered approach to designing a computer supported mathematics learning environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on Learning sciences.
Shunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications: New jersey: Pearson.

Siew, N. M., Chong, C. L., & Abdullah, M. R. (2013). Facilitating Students' Geometric Thinking Through Van Hiele's Phase-Based Learning using Tangram. Journal of Social Sciences, 9(3), 101.
Sipe, L. R. (2002). Talking back and taking over: Young children's expressive engagement during storybook read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 55(5), 476-483.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571.
Smith, L. A. (2006). The impact of virtual and concrete manipulatives on algebraic understanding.
Speer, W. R. (2009). Virtual Manipulatives: Design-based Countermeasures to Selected Potential Hazards.
Spencer, K. T. (2008). Preservice Elementary Teachers ’two-Dimensional Visualization and Attitude toward Geometry: Influences of Manipulative Format. University of Florida.
Steen, K., Brooks, D., & Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 373.
Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Routledge.

Suh, J., & Moyer, P. S. (2007). Developing students' representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155.
Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H.-J. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1-21.
Suh, J. M. (2005). Third graders’ mathematics achievement and representation preference using virtual and physical manipulatives for adding fractions and balancing equations. George Mason University.
Sun, J., Flores, J., & Tanguma, J. (2012). E‐Textbooks and students’ learning experiences. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 63-77.
Sutton, J., & Krueger, A. (2002). EDThoughts: What We Know about Mathematics Teaching and Learning: ERIC.

Suydam, M. N. (1985). Research on instructional materials for mathematics: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11, 1-15.
Urdan, T., & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the classroom. Handbook of competence and motivation, 297-317.

Volpe, R. J., DiPerna, J. C., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2005). Observing students in classroom settings: A review of seven coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 34(4), 454.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000: Publications de l'OCDE.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945-948.
Yang, Y.-T. C., & Wu, W.-C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339-352.
Yuan, Y., Lee, C. Y., & Wang, C. H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 307-316.
Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 45(9), 1021-1035.
Zucker, T. A., Moody, A. K., & McKenna, M. C. (2009). The effects of electronic books on pre-kindergarten-to-grade 5 students' literacy and language outcomes: A research synthesis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 47-87.