我們真的認識數學障礙嗎？―臺灣數學障礙20年研究回顧與問題探究

Understanding Mathematics Learning Disabilities:Two Decades of Research in Taiwan

數學能力影響個體日常生活與就業品質，亦為學習障礙者常見困難，但相較於閱讀障礙，數學障礙研究較少。本研究旨在了解臺灣數學障礙研究的樣貌，對照當代數學障礙定義與研究發現作為反思，主要回顧1995 至2017 年刊登於國內學術期刊之26 篇數學障礙期刊論文以及14 筆科技部研究，共計40 筆數學障礙研究，進行內容分析。結果發現，臺灣數學障礙研究大致包括特質診斷與教學介入二主題，且以後者為多，顯示數學障礙學生的教學服務較受關注。整體而言，國內期刊論文實徵研究數量不多，且僅有少數能連結當代腦神經科學與核心缺陷之實證。在數學障礙概念的採用上，科技部研究與期刊論文之間有差距，科技部研究多反映出數學障礙定義的流變，但多數期刊論文仍採取差距標準。概念的差距反映出多數期刊論文對特質診斷的探究較忽略國際趨勢，研究對象可能與當代定義有差異而難以比對。此外，教學介入實徵證據少，且核心能力教學研究比率偏低。在八項科技部教學研究中，僅有一項探討基礎計算能力的教學；而在五篇實徵性期刊論文中，則主要探討資訊多媒體的應用、後設認知解題策略與圖示表徵策略對數學障礙學生文字題解題表現的效果。另外，國內期刊論文與科技部研究皆偏重文字題解題表現，且較缺乏語言歷程相關因素之區辨。本文根據上述發現，反思國內累積之實徵證據是否能提供教育工作者對數學障礙有完整的認識、引導出適合數學障礙學生的學習介入之探討，並據此對未來研究提出相關結論與建議。

Purposes: Mathematical ability influences quality of life and employment opportunities. Mathematics learning difficulties are common among people with learning disabilities. However， the field of mathematics disabilities is an area notably lacking in research in comparison to reading disabilities. The aim of this study was to delineate the contours of the research field of mathematics learning disabilities (MLD) in Taiwan. Methods: This study explored research in MLD from 1995 to 2017 in Taiwan， including 26 journal articles obtained from Google Scholar and the federated search system of the National Taiwan Normal University Library and 14 studies funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Through content analysis， the contemporary definitions and research findings related to mathematics learning disabilities were concluded which provided the framework of the study. Results/Findings: According to the results， features or diagnosis and interventions were the two primary topics concerning MLD. The number of intervention studies was relatively higher than that of features- or diagnosis-related studies， indicating that intervention received more attention in the field. However， evidence-based research was limited， and studies using contemporary evidence related to neuropsychology or cognitive deficit were even rarer. The evolution of and changes to the concept of MLD could be found in research funded by MOST， but not in journal articles， thus indicating a research–publication gap. The gap indicated that concepts of MLD in most journal articles neglected international definition and research trends， which meant that research participants could be various. Therefore， the results of local studies might be difficult to compare with the contemporary international literatures. In intervention research， the evidence of effect instruction was limited. Specific intervention explorations were limited and basic mathematical abilities were neglected in intervention studies. In the eight MOST intervention studies， only one investigated basic calculation instruction; in the five empirical journal articles， investigation mainly addressed the solving of mathematics word problems with the application of computer science multimedia， metacognitive strategies， and schematic representation strategies. In addition， students’ performance of mathematics word problems was the main focus in journal articles and in the research funded by MOST. However， relevant language-processing factors received insufficient recognition and clarification. Conclusions/Implications: Reflections on the contrast between the aforementioned findings and international MLD trends may inform regarding the comprehensiveness of MLD understanding in Taiwan and regarding the appropriateness of interventions used. Finally， to benefit future studies， numerous conclusions and suggestions concerning MLD were specified based on the findings of the study.