本研究以國民小學五年級數學領域「統計圖表」、「未知數」兩教學單元為主，在發展課程設計的歷程中，以設計為基礎的研究法（The Design-Based Research；簡稱 DBR）為基礎，探討如何運用即時反饋系統（Interactive Response System；簡稱IRS）幫助教師進行數學教育的教學省思及課程修正，並從課程設計的過程中瞭解教師發展課程設計的困難之處與提出相對應的解決方法。
本實驗採準實驗設計，研究對象以台中市某國小五年級兩個班的學生（共55人）為樣本，進行未修正教學班級與經修正教學班級的學習成就比較，藉以探討教學及學習成效。研究結果發現如下：

一、透過不斷運用IRS進行形成性評量來蒐集學生的學習成效，教師得藉以修正教學以提升下次教學的學習成效。從研究的統計數據來看，顯示出運用IRS於發展課程設計當中，能提升學生的學習成效。

二、經由前、後測結果得知，顯示教師運用IRS於發展課程設計當中能提升學生的學習表現，是一種有效的教學設計方式。而IRS讓教師以有效率的方式進行教學省思及修正，進而發展出更好的教學內容，學生也得以有更好的學習成效。

三、透過運用IRS於發展課程設計中的歷程，針對教學發展設計模式中的省思修正階段，提出教學修正的模式及原則；同時也針對以75%為通過率的IRS題目提出檢討程序，讓教師藉以有效率的進行教學省思與修正。

四、在課程發展的過程當中，除了面臨時間、班級經營、教學經驗問題之外，尚有教學設備、資訊知識等問題。針對以上在實驗過程中所遇到的困難，提出相對應的建議方案，讓教師能夠在課程發展設計的歷程中，充分的運用教學資源。

In this study, we focus on “Solving Unknowns” and “Statistical Charts” units of fifth grade Mathematics. Design-based research is used to investigate using an interactive response system (IRS) to assist teachers with assessing and planning Mathematics education courses. In order to understand the difficulties encountered during the course design process, and identifying solutions.
A quasi-experiment design was adopted in our study where two grade 5 classes (55 students) in an elementary school in Taichung City were involved. Learning outcomes of the classes, one with modified teaching and one without, were compared to assess the teaching and learning achievements. This study obtained the following findings.
First, through repeated use of IRS to formatively evaluate students’ learning achievement, teachers can modify their teaching and increase future learning achievements. The statistics results indicated that using IRS during course design can improve students’ learning efficiency.
Second, results of the pretest and posttest show that teachers’ use of IRS during course design can improve students’ learning performance; thus, IRS is an effective course design method. IRS also allows teachers to review and modify their teaching more efficiently to improve teaching content and to enhance student performance.
Furthermore, through the process of using IRS in course design, a model and the principles of teaching modification are proposed in this study to emphasize design assessment and modification in a course design model. Additionally, we designed a modification assessment focusing on IRS, with a passing grade of 75%, for teachers to review and modify their teaching methods efficiently.
Finally, when developing educational courses, teachers face challenges regarding teaching facilities and information knowledge, in addition to time management, classroom control and teaching experience. The solutions identified in our experiment should be implemented to enable teachers to utilize all teaching resources when designing courses.

一、中文部分：
中央大學學習科技實驗室（無日期）。 「按按按」－改變「班班有電腦」課堂教學生態的小兵。 2011年3月10日， 取自： 亞卓市網頁http:/ /learning.educities.edu.tw/EduClick/document/change.pdf
王妙里（2002）。反思教學中教師內省智慧的探索。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
王義文（2008）。臺北市國中體育教師教學反省與教學效能之相關研究。國立臺灣體育大學（桃園）體育研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園縣。
王緒溢（2001a）。認識高互動教室（2001.3.13）。國語日報，14。
王緒溢（2001b）。高互動教室實驗成果（2001.3.27）。國語日報，14。
王緒溢、梁仁楷、劉子鍵、柯華葳、陳德懷、黃智偉（2001）。應用於教室內之高互動學習環境設計－無線測驗系統與網路教學資訊系統之整合應用。第五屆全球華人學習科技研討會(GCCCE2001)專題報告。中央大學。http://ccv.src.ncu.edu.tw/ccv/Library/GCCCE2001F142.pdf，檢索日期：2011年3月15日。
王瑀、賴慧珉、施秀美（2002）。創造高互動教室－按按按高互動系統在教學上的應用。http:// www.dtes.chc.edu.tw/offices/of_1/eclass/按按按簡報.ppt，檢索日期：2011年3月10日。
古智勇（2003）。動畫網頁輔助學習數學幾何成效之研究─以國小六年級角柱和角錐單元為例。屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東市。
吕林海（2004）。文化視角下數學課程的探析與構建——以對稱為主題的課程與教學設計及其初期實驗進展。全球教育展望，5，42-45。
何榮桂（2001）。他山之石可以攻錯-亞太地區(台、港、新、日、韓)資訊教育的發展與前瞻。資訊與教育雜誌，81，2-8。
何榮桂（2002）。資訊融入教學的意義與策略。資訊與教育雜誌，88，1-2。
李桂蘭（2007）。從懷德海的過程哲學來談台灣數學教育的變遷與困境。南華大學哲學系碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣
李雪莉（2000）。教師運用資訊與網路能力調查。天下雜誌2000年教育特刊-海闊天空-線上學習，94-103
李源順、呂玉琴（2006）。國小教師數學教學專業知能初探：學者的觀點。優質數理師資培育國際學術研討會。國立屏東教育大學，頁195-223。
林威仲（2010）。網路遊戲學習平台之協商機制設計：以目標設定促進學生數學自信心。中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，中壢。
林冠群、葉明達（2002）。從過程對象對偶體看當前「建構式數學」的爭議。教育研究資訊，（4），121-138。
林姿岑（2010）。IRS即時反饋系統應用於國小數學教學之行動研究。銘傳大學教育研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
林倍生（2007）。中部地區資訊種子學校教師運用資訊科技融入教學態度之研究。國立嘉義大學教育科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市
林淑美（1999）。按按按設備讓班級電腦更實用。國語日報，15。
洪福財(1997)。反省性教學策略在幼稚園教學應用之研究。臺北市：五南圖書出版有限公司。
洪福財（2000）。幼教教師專業成長-教學反省策略及其應用。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
吳和堂（2000）。國民中學實習教師教學反省與專業成長關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
吳正己、吳秀宜（2001）。資訊融入教學實例及相關問題探討－以社會科為例。載於何榮桂、戴維揚合編，資訊教育課程設計（頁163-178）。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
胡麗芳（2008）。運用即時反饋系統(IRS)於學童營養教育之認知成效探討。國立中正大學資訊管理所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市。
Schon, D. (夏林清等譯)（2004）。反映的實踐者：專業工作者如何在行動中思考。台北：遠流。
屠大鳴（2005）。引進資訊回饋技術改善課堂教學—運用資訊回饋技術開展互動教學模式。http:// www.habook.com.tw/Campus/articles/china01.asp，檢索日期：2011年3 月15日。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要：數學學習領域。台北市：教育部。
教育部（2008）。中小學資訊教育白皮書。取自 http:// www.edu.tw /，檢索日期：2011 年 3 月 15 日。
教育部(2011)。教育部數位學習白皮書(草案)2012-2016。取自：http://elearnwp.pro.edu.tw，檢索日期：2011 年 3 月 15 日。
陳振宣（1996），＜五十年數學教育的反思＞，《數學傳播》，1996 年 3 月，20 卷1 期，p.73。
陳美玉（1999）。教師專業發展途徑之探討--以教師專業經驗合作反省為例。教育研究資訊，7（2），80-99。
陳春蓮（2004）。體育教學的反省與實踐。台北：師大書苑。
陳廉偉（2010）。發展國小資優兒童數學教學方案歷程研究－以面積概念為例。國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
崔夢萍 (2001)。國小教師電腦融入教學態度及其相關因素之研究。台北市立師範學院學報，32，169-194。
許馨月（2002）。國小教師實行討論式數學教學之研究。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
徐新逸、林燕珍（2004）。中小學教師資訊科技融入教學發展模式及檢核工具之研究。教育研究集刊，50 (1)，175-203。
翁穎哲、譚克平(2008)。設計研究法簡介及其在教育研究的應用範例。科學教育月刊，307，15-30。
張世忠（2003）。建構取向教學－數學與科學。台北：五南。
張卜仁、吳承燕、高惠珠（2003）。資訊科技融入國小圖像記憶教學行動研究。二○○三年台灣網際網路研討會專題報告。台北：師大。
張倩葦(2007)。設計研究：促進教育技術研究的方法論。電化教育研究，4，廣東。
葛品宏（2004）。資訊科技融入國中數學科教學之行動研究。國立高雄師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
廖世傑、吳錫金、黃崑巖、陳偉德（2007）。藉由互動性教學系統提昇醫學院課堂講授教學成效。醫學教育，11(2)，8-11。
劉子鍵、王瑀（2004）。IRS 促進之「螺旋式全班討論模式」：模式之設計與實施。全球華人計算機教育應用學報(GCJCE) ，1。
歐用生（1995）。教師成長與學習。台北：台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
潘慧萍（2007）。資訊融入國小一年級加減法文字題教學之研究。國立台北教育大學數理教育研究所碩士，未出版，台北市。
蕭英勵（2009）。中小學資訊科技融入教學研究趨勢與發展 --以台灣地區 2001~2009 年學位論文為例。國立台南大學教育經營與管理研究所博士論文，未出版，台南市。
魏榮俊（2004）。台南市國小教師健康與體育教學反省之研究。國立台東大學碩士論文，未出版，台東市。
蘇琬淳（2004）。資訊科技融入國小五年級數學教學成效之研究─以面積與周長為例。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蘇薇蓉（2010）。IRS即時反饋系統融入五年級數學領域教學之研究-以小數概念為例。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東市。
二、英文部分：
Adams, R., & Biddle, B. (1970).Realities of teaching: Explorations with videotape.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Alharjri, A. (1981).Effect of seat position on school performances of Kuwaiti students. Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Bakker, A. (2004). Design research in statistics education: On symbolizing and computer tools. PublishedBannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research:The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24. Doctoral dissertation, Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht, Tekst. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-0513-153943/inhoud.htm
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004).Design-based research:Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Barnes, D. (1992). The significance of teachers’ frames for teaching. In H. Munby & T. Russell (Eds.). Teachers and Teaching: From Classroom to Reflection. The Falmer Press.
Broida, J. (2007). Classroom Use of A Classroom Response System: What Clickers Can Do for Your Students. Pearson Prentice Hall, 46-50.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365–374.
Brown, A. L. (1992).Design experiments:theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). ‘Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners’. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
ChanLin, L. J., Hong, J. C., Horng, J. S., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching－A Taiwanese perspective. Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 43 (1) , 57-68.
Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 455-478). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, C. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113-163.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
Cognition Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O. 'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). New York:Spring-Verlag.
Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In L. S. Schulman (Ed.), Issues in education: problems and possibilities. (pp. 289-298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1),15-42.
D’Inverino R, Davis H, White S.(2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teac Math and its Appli, 22(4), 163-9.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think:A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Chicago, Ill: D. C. Heath.
Dias, L. B. (1999). ‘Integrating technology: some things you should know’ Learning & Leading with Technology 27(3), 10-13.
DiSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology. Retrieved Mar. 15, 2011, from http://thejournal.com/articles/1999/01/01
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,8(3&4), 391-450.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for use: A framework of the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Edwards, T. G. & Hensien, S. M. (1999). Changing instructional practice through action research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 187-206.
Elliott, C.(2003).Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education. 1(1), 80-6.
Farnsworth JR., Charles, R., & Luckner, J. L. (2008). The Impact of Assistive Technology on Curriculum Accommodation for a Braille-Reading Student. Re:View, 39(4), 171-187.
Gange, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (Eds.). (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: HarperCollins College.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (1995). Contemporary Educational Psychology. N.Y: Longman.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49 .
Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 181(2), 25-55.
HKEDB (2008, Jan). Consultation Document on the Third Strategy on Information Technology in Education - Right Technology at the Right Time for the Right Task. Retrieved Mar. 15, 2011, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeid=6140&langno=1
Joseph K., Katheraine L. M. , & Brian J. R. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
Kane, R. , Sandretto, S. & Heath, C. (2004). An investigation into excellent tertiary teaching: Emphasising reflective practice. Higher Education, 47, 283-310.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
Kolodner, J. L. (2001). A note from the editor. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 1-4.
Kong, S. C., So, W. M., Lo, Y. T., & Leung, W. C. (2007). Integrating web-based learning and inquiry learning: A case on research of teaching in primary classroom. In W. M. So, & M. H. Cheng(Eds.), Research in Science Education in Chinese Society, pp.172-183. Hong Kong: Seedland Publishing Limited.
Kong, S. C. (2008). The development of a cognitive tool for teaching and learning fractions in the mathematics classroom: A design-based study. Computers & Education, 51, 886-899.
Leidner, D. E., ＆ Fuller, M. (1997) . Improving student learning of conceptua information:GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 149-163.
Marshall, H. H. (Ed.) (1992), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mehlinger, Howard D. (1996). School Reform in the Information Age. Phi Delta Kappan; v77 n6 p400-407.€
Morgan, N., and Saxton, J. (1991). Teaching, Questioning, and Learning. London: Routledge.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author
National Research Council. (2002). Scientificresearch in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rudd, T. (2007). Interactive whiteboards in the classroom. Retrieved Mar. 15, 2011, from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/other/whiteboards_report.pdf
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sharples, M. (2000). The Design of Personal Mobil Technologies for Lifelong Learning. Computers & Education. 34(3-4). 177-193.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.
Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341.
Sternberg RJ (2003), Contemporary theory of intelligence., In Reynolds WM, Miller GE (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 7. Educational Psychology, 23-45, Hoboken: Wiley.
The Design-Based Research & Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Wang, F. & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5-23.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
Yu-Fen Chen, Chen-Chung Liu, Ming-Hung Yu, Sung-Bin Chang, Yun-Chen Lu, and Tak-Wai Chan. Elementary Science Classroom Learning with Wireless Response Devices - Implementing Active and Experiential Learning. wmte, pp. 96-103, IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'05), 2005.
Zaritsky, R., Kelly, A. E., Flowers, W., Rogers, E., & O'Neill, P. (2003). Clinical design sciences; A view from sister design efforts. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 32-34.