本研究旨在探討使用不同數位學習工具，以國中七年級數學科一元一次方程式單元為主題，將學習內容帶入故事情境中，設計與生活相連結的錨式情境教材，運用哈瑪星電子書軟體製作互動性較高的錨式情境互動電子書與低度互動的錨式情境PPT，探討學生在學習成效、學習動機與學習態度之影響。受試學生為資源班學生共有六十三名，分成兩組：實驗組使用錨式情境互動電子書進行學習，控制組使用錨式情境PPT進行學習，研究結果顯示：
一、使用錨式情境教材(錨式情境互動電子書與錨式情境PPT)學習的學生其數學學習成效都顯著提升。
二、使用錨式情境教材(錨式情境互動電子書與錨式情境PPT)學習的學生其數學學習態度與學習動機無顯著提升。
三、使用錨式情境互動電子書學習的學生其數學學習成效顯著優於使用錨式情境PPT學習的學生。
四、使用不同數位學習工具學習的學生其數學學習態度與學習動機無顯著差異。
五、透過質性問卷分析，使用錨式情境教材能提升學生對數學在生活的實用性，特別是在金錢使用方面。

本研究提出之錨式情境教材整合了數位科技與數學學科教材，可供教師進行教學時使用，研究結果亦可作為教育研究者後續研究之參考。

This thesis aims to investigate the effects of anchored instructional materials on students’ learning achievement, learning motivation, and learning attitude for Mathematics. Two types of learning tools, a highly interactive e-book versus a lowly interactive PPT, were designed and compared in the study. An anchored instruction is to bring the learning contents into story context, and create a shared experience among students. A topic, the linear equation in one unknown, in seventh-grade mathematics is presented in these two types of learning contexts.
A total of sixty-three special education students from the resource class participated in the study and were divided into the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group learned with an anchored instruction in a highly interactive e-book while the control group learned with an anchored instruction PPT in low interactivity. The results are shown as follows.
1.All students have made apparent progressions in grades for mathematics under the use of anchored instruction e-books and PPTs.
2.The students’ learning attitude and learning motivation to mathematics have not made apparent progressions under the use of anchored instruction e-books or PPTs.
3.The students who learned with anchored instruction e-books significantly outperformed those students learned with anchored instruction PPTs in their mathematical learning achievement.
4.There is no significant difference found in learning attitude and learning motivation to mathematics between the students who use different types of digital learning tools.
5.The analysis of qualitative questionnaires signifies that anchored instruction teaching materials can enhance students’ abilities to practically use mathematical concepts in their daily lives, especially in money spending.

Overall, the anchored instructional materials developed in the current study integrating digital technology and mathematics could be used as supplements for future teaching and learning.. Moreover, it is believed that the results found here would be valuable for both educators and researchers.

中文部分
1.王郁雯(2012)。兒童電子書之互動性於學習動機研究。元智大學資訊傳播學系碩士論文。桃園
縣。
2.王瓊珠(1992)。國小六年級閱讀障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀認知能力之比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。台北市。
3.田耐青(1996)。建構論的學習理念─以「瞎子摸象」故事為例。研習資訊，13(6)，89-93。
4.朱則剛 (1996)。建構主義對教學設計的意義。教學科技與媒體，26，3-12。
5.吳芳香(1998)。國小二年級優讀者與弱讀者閱讀策略使用與覺識之研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。高雄市。
6.呂佩真(2013)。錨式情境教學對國小學習障礙學生數學文字題解題之學習成效探究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。屏東縣。
7.呂美娟，施青豐，李玉錦 (譯)(2002)。特殊教育課程與教學(原作者：Bigge, J. L., Stump, C. S. & Spagna, M. E.)。台北市：學富。(原著出版年：1999)
8.林生傳(1994)。教育心理學。台北：五南。
9.林宏昌(2008)。錨式情境教學法的靜像式情境教材設計。生活科技教育月刊，41(5)，2-11。
10.林宏旻(2006)。結合情境學習之數位學習對高職特教班學生學習成效之研究-以機車駕駛筆試題庫為例。國立台中教育大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。台中市。
11.林和秀(2005)。悅數，躍數-應用錨式教學法在國小數學障礙學童之個案研究。國立台南大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。台南市。
12.林秋萍(2005)：錨式情境教學法於數學溝通之行動研究。國立屏東教育大學教育科技研究所碩士論文。屏東縣。
13.周祝瑛（2003）。誰捉弄了臺灣教改？。臺北：心理。
14.孟瑛如(1999)。資源教室方案。台北：五南。
15.孟瑛如(2006)。資源教室方案-班級經營與補救教學(二版)。台北：五南。
16.洪于棋(2009)。錨式教學對國小學習障礙學生數學文字題解題學習成效之研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。屏東縣。
17.洪美珍(2000)。電子童書閱讀型態及其對兒童閱讀影響之研究。國立台東教育大學兒童文學研究所碩士論文。台東縣。
18.段瑞月(2014)。情境學習對國中資源班學習障礙學生學習二元一次聯立方程式解題成效之研究。國立東華大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。花蓮縣。
19.徐佩瑜(2005)。情境學習對增進高職智能障礙學生交通安全教育成效之研究-以國立花蓮高農為例。國立東華大學身心障礙與輔助科技研究所碩士論文。花蓮縣。
20.徐新逸(1995a)。「錨式情境教學法」教材設計、發展與應用。視聽教育雙月刊，37(1)，14-24。
21.徐新逸(1995b)。如何借重電腦科技來提升問題解決能力。教學科技與媒體，20，25-30。
22.徐新逸(1998)。情境學習對教學革新之回應。研習資訊，15(1)，16-24。
23.張春興(1994)。現代心理學。台北：東華。
24.張春興(2000)。張氏心理學辭典。台北市：東華。
25.陳小鶴(1995)。電腦在教育上的應用:新新人類篇—— 上課像遊戲。特教園丁， 11(1)，18-21。
26.陳東陛(1993)。數學科學習障礙兒童的教學策略。學習障礙與資源教學，74，96-105。台北：台北市教師研習中心。
27.陳姿佑(2013)。互動式電子繪本對幼兒數概念與內在動機之影響。國立台灣科技大學數位學習與教育研究所碩士論文。台北市。
28.陳雅珊(2012)。電子書之互動設計對國小中年級學童識字學習之影響。國立嘉義大學數位學習設計與管理學系研究所碩士論文。嘉義市。
29.陳慧娟(1998)。情境學習理論的理想與現實。教育資訊與研究，25，47-55。
30.張富然(2003)。錨式情境教學模式應用在國民小學三年級自然與生活科技學習領域之行動研究─以昆蟲單元為例。臺北市立大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。台北市。
31.游光昭、林坤誼(2007)。數學、科學科技統整課程對不同學習風格學習者在學習成效上之影響。教育研究學報，41(1)，1-16。
32.黃國鴻(2000)。以專題製作為主的電腦化學習環境之比較研究：認知取向與情境取向。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。彰化縣。
33.黃羨文(1995)。紙本書與電子書之比較。國立台灣科技大學圖書館學系碩士論文。台北市
34.曾敏玲(2002)。非書的書-電子書。東吳大學圖書館通訊，14，1-30。
35.詹士宜、周台傑、李鴻亮(2004a)。錨式教學在國小數學學習困難學生應用之研究(I)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報(編號：NSC91-2413-H-024-011)。台南市：國立台南教育大學特殊教育學系。
36.詹士宜、李鴻亮、吳惠如(2004b)。園遊會策畫。國民小學數學學習領域教學光碟系列。台南市：國立台南教育大學特殊教育學系。
37.詹士宜、李鴻亮、李宜學(2004c)。開生日party。國民小學數學學習領域教學光碟系列。台南市：國立台南教育大學特殊教育學系。
38.詹士宜、李鴻亮、李貞慧(2004d)。歡樂派對。國民小學數學學習領域教學光碟系列。台南市：國立台南教育大學特殊教育學系。
39.詹士宜、李鴻亮、陳柏如(2004e)。看電影。國民小學數學學習領域教學光碟系列。台南市：國立台南教育大學特殊教育學系。
40.鄒小蘭（1994）。特殊班電腦輔助教學應用實例與成效。特教園丁，9（4），39-47。
41.楊坤堂(1995)。學習障礙兒童。台北：五南。
42.楊坤堂(2008)。學習障礙教材教法(二版)。台北：五南。
43.劉君毅(1995)。錨式情境教學法對國小學童學習態度影響之研究。淡江大學教育資料科學學系碩士論文。新北市。
44.蔣佳妤(2011)。互動多媒體應用於電子書之研究-以愛麗絲夢遊仙境為例。銘傳大學商業設計學系碩士論文。台北市。
45.蔣封成(1994)。錨式情境教學法教材軟體之製作研究。淡江大學教育資料科學學系碩士論文。新北市。
46.潘素滿(1994)。錨式情境教學法對問題解決策略運用之實證研究。淡江大學教育資料科學學系碩士論文。新北市。
47.鄭淑華(2013)。運用電子書發展幼兒園自然科學教學方案以：「到菜園走走」為例。國立東華大學幼兒教育學系碩士論文。花蓮縣。
48.甄曉蘭、曾志華(1997)。建構教學理念的興起與應用。國民教育研究學報，3，179-208。
49.盧台華（2008）。高級中等以下學校特殊教育課程發展共同原則及課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
50.教育部統計處(2013)。性別統計指標彙總性資料。取自http://www.edu.tw/pages/detail.aspx?Node=4077&Page=20272&Index=3&WID=31d75a44-efff-4c44-a075-15a9eb7aecdf
51.身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定辦法(民國102年9月2日)。取自http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0080065
52.教育部特殊兒童普查執行小組主編 (1993)：中華民國第二次特殊兒童普查報告。台北：教育部教育研究委員會編印。
53.教育部特殊教育工作小組編印 (2013)：中華民國特殊教育統計年報。台北：編者。
54.行政院經濟建設委員會(2009)。「建置中小學優質化均等數位教育環境計畫」。取自http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0011506

西文部分
1.Barker, P. (1992). Electronic books and libraries of the future. The Electronic Library,
10(3), 139-149.
2.Blalock, J. (1987). A study of conceptualization and related ability in learning disabled and nolomalpreschool children. Northwesten University.
3.Bloom, B. S ., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J ., Hilll , Walker H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectlνes ( The classificatlion of educational goals) : Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. N.Y.: David Mckay.
4.Bloom, B. S. (1982). Human characteristic and school learning. New York,NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
5.Brutten, M., Richardson, S. & Mangel, C. (1973). Something's wrong with my child. N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace and Janovich.
6.Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, C., & Allspach, L.(2000). Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(6), 553-574.
7.Bush, W. J., & Giles, M. T. (1977). Aids to psycholinguistic teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
8.Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.Bottge, B.A., Rueda, E., LaRoque, P.T., Serlin, R.C., & Kwon, J. (2007). Integrating Reform-Oriented Math Instruction in Special Education Settings. Learning Disabilities Reserch and Pratice, 22(2), 96-109.
10.Bottge, B.A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S.Y. & Serlin, R.C. (2001). Anchoring
Adolescents' Understanding of Math Concepts in Rich Problem-Solving Environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 299-314.
11.Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
12.Cawley, J. E. (1984). Developmental teaching of mathematics for the learning disabled. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corp.
13.Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Education psychologist, 23, 87-103.
14.Collins, A. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. Technical report, 474. Center for the Study of Reading. University of Illinois at Urbana. Champaign.
15.Connelly, S. L., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1991). Age and reading: the impact of distraction. Psychology and Aging, 6(4), 533-541.
16.Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(CTGV)(1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 5, 21-30.
17.Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt(CTGV)(1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3) , 52-70.
18.Doll, E. (1953). The measurement of social competence: A manual for the Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Minneapolis, MN: Ed. Test Bureau.
19.Garrison, D. R. (1993). A Cognitive Constructivist View of Distance Education: An Analysis of Teaching-Learning Assumptions. Distance Education, 14(2), 199-211.
20.Geary, D. (1993). Mathematical disabilities, cognitive,neuropsychological and genetic components, Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 345-362.
21.Heeter, C. (1989). Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. Media use in the information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.Johnson, D. J., & Myklebust, H. R. (1967). Learning Disabilities：Educational Principles and Practices. New York, NY. Grune and Stratton.
23.Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status (pp. 386-434). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.Kim, B., Park, H. & Baek, Y. (2009). Not Just Fun, But Serious Strategies: Using Meta-Cognitive Strategies in Game-Based Learning.Computers & Education, 52(4), 800-810.
25.Lerner, J. W., & Lowenthal, B. (1993). Attention deficit disorder: New responsibilities for the special educator. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(1), 1-7.
26.Learner, J. (2003). Learning disabilities： Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
27.Mather, N. & Jaffe, L. E. (1992). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational
Battery-Revised: Reports and recommendations. New York, NY: Wiley.
28.McCarney, S. B. (1992) : Attention deficit disorders intervention manual. Columbia, MO: Hawthorne Educational Services.
29.Shore, K. (1986). The special education handbook: A comprehensive guide for parents and educators. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30.Meilan, Z., & Chris, Q. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computer & Education, 58, 181-196.
31.Miller, P. H., & Weiss, M. G. (1981). Children’s attention allocation, understanding of attention, and performance on the incidental learning task. Children Development, 53, 543-549.
32.Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338122)
33.Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivation and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
34.Reisman, F. (1982). A Guide to the Diagnostic Teaching of Arithmetic. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
35.Rieth, H.J., Bryant, D.P., Kinzer, C.K., Colburn, L.K., Hur, S.J., Hartman, P. & Choi, H.S. (2003). An Analysis of the Impact of Anchored Instruction on Teaching and Learning Activities in Two Ninth-Grade Language Arts Classes. Remedial and Special Education, 24(3), 173.
36.Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching(3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
37.Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference‐matching on flow experience and programming performance in game‐based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.
38.Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: MacMillan.
39.Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students' online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181-196.
40.Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013), A concept map-embedded
educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses, Computers & Education, 69, 121-130.
41.Shore, K. (1986). The special education handbook. New York, NY: A Warner
Communications company.
42.Van Dam, Andries (2001) Expert Declaration to United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 26 February 2001. Available from: http://www.rosettabooks.com/casedocs/RH_Van_Dam.pdf
43.Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and
preference-matching on flow experience and programming performance in game-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.
44.Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference‐matching on flow experience and programming performance in game‐based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.