從認知心理學探究教科書插圖設計及其教學轉化

Exploring Changes in the Design of Textbook Illustrations and Their Use in Teaching and Learning from a Cognitive Psychological Perspective

10.6481/JTR.201508_8(2).05

周珮儀(Pei-I Chou)

教科書 ； 插圖 ； 課程轉化 ； 訊息處理理論 ； 認知負荷理論 ； textbook ； illustration ； curriculum transformation ； information processing theory ； cognitive load theory

教科書研究

8卷2期（2015 / 08 / 15）

139 - 174

繁體中文

教科書主要包含文字與插圖，然而，以往教科書研究比較關注文字的研究，相對缺乏插圖的研究，特別是涵蓋教科書插圖設計、教學與學習的轉換情形的研究。因此，本研究基於認知心理學的訊息處理理論和認知負荷理論，透過個案觀察、訪談及文件分析，探討國中自然與生活科技教科書插圖設計，分析國中教師對這些插圖的評價和教學轉化情形，以及學生對它們的感受和學習評量表現。研究結果發現：從教科書書面課程、教師施教課程、學生施測課程到經驗課程相互影響，課程轉化正向發展，但系統性的轉化仍不足。因此本研究建議教科書圖文設計應檢視其是否符合認知原理原則；教師應發展促進學生圖文認知處理歷程的教學策略；學生應將插圖視為重要學習工具，發展圖文學習策略；書面課程和施測課程應重視其圖文形式的差異與轉化對學生圖文學習評量表現的影響。

Textbooks consist of text and illustrations, however textbook research tends to be concerned with text, rather than illustrations. To address this situation, the current study utilizes information processing theory and cognitive load theory to explore changes in the design of textbook illustrations and their use in teaching and learning. A case study was employed to collect and analyze data using observations, interviews, checklists, and document analysis. The findings show an interrelationship among the written curriculum, taught curriculum, tested curriculum and experiential curriculum and positive changes in the curriculum. However, there is still more space to reinforce a systematic transformation among different types of curricula; that could improve the quality of textbook design as well as the use of textbook illustrations in teaching and learning. As such, textbook designers should check over textbook illustrations carefully using cognitive process principles. Teachers should monitor the cognitive processes of students for illustration learning and develop appropriate teaching strategies to facilitate it. Students need to view illustrations as important learning tools and to learn how to decode them. Educators should align content and forms of illustrations in tested curriculum with those in written curriculum.

1. 汪曼穎、王林宇(2006)。注意力分配對圖像登錄之影響及其在教學上的應用方向。教育心理學報，38(1)，67-83。
   連結：
2. 周珮儀(2005)。我國教科書研究的分析：1979-2004。課程與教學季刊，8(4)，91-116。
   連結：
3. 林玉雯、黃台珠、劉嘉茹(2010)。課室學習專注力之研究─量表發展與分析應用。科學教育學刊，18(2)，107-129。
   連結：
4. 張芬芬、陳麗華、楊國揚(2010)。臺灣九年一貫課程轉化之議題與因應。教科書研究，3(1)，1-40。
   連結：
5. 張菀真、辜玉旻(2011)。國小高、低閱讀能力學童圖文閱讀的理解策略。臺北市立教育大學學報，42(2)，93-122。
   連結：
6. Ametller, J.,Pinto, R.(2002).Students' reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level.International Journal of Science Education,24(3),285-312.
7. Bannert, M.(2002).Managing cognitive load: Recent trends in cognitive load theory.Learning and Instruction,12,139-146.
8. Bowen, G. M.,Roth, W.-M.(2005).Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42(10),1063-1088.
9. Candler, P.,Swell, J.(1991).Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.Cognition and Instruction,8(4),293-332.
10. Canham, M.,Hegarty, M.(2010).Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics.Learning and Instruction,20,155-166.
11. Clark, R. C.,Nguyen, F.,Swell, J.(2006).Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load.San Francisco, CA:John Wiley & Sons.
12. Cook, M. P.(2006).Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles.Science Education,90(6),1073-1091.
13. Cook, M. P.(2008).Students' comprehension of science concepts depicted in textbook illustrations.Electronic Journal of Science Education,12(1),39-54.
14. DeLeeuw, K. E.,Mayer, R. E.(2008).A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load.Journal of Educational Psychology,100(1),223-234.
15. Eisner, E. W.(1991).The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the educational practice.New York, NY:Macmillan.
16. English, F. W.(2000).Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and auditing the curriculum.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
17. English, F. W.,Larson, R. L.(1996).Curriculum management for educational and social service organizations.Springfield, IL:Charles C. Thomas.
18. Glatthorn, A. A.,Boschee, F.,Whitehead, B. M.,Boschee, B. F.(2012).Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation.Los Angeles, CA:SAGE.
19. Glesne, C.(1999).Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.New York, NY:Longman.
20. Goodlad, J. I.,Associates(1979).Curriculum inquiry.New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
21. Hannus, H.,Hyönä, J.(1999).Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low-and high-ability children.Contemporary Educational Psychology,24,95-123.
22. Johnsen, E. B.,Sivesind, L.(Trans.)(1993).Textbooks in the kaleidoscope: A critical survey of literature and research on educational texts.Oslo, Norway:Scandinavian University Press.
23. Kozma, R. B.(2003).Technology and classroom practices: An international study.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(1),1-14.
24. Kridel, C.(Ed.)(2010).Encyclopedia of curriculum studies.Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
25. Latour, B.(1987).Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
26. Lee, V. R.(2010).Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in US middle school science textbooks.International Journal of Science Education,32(8),1099-1126.
27. Lowe, R.(1989).Scientific diagrams: How well can students read them? What research says to the science and mathematics teacher.Perth, Australia:Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.
28. Lynch, M.,Woolgar, S.(1990).Representation in scientific practice.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
29. Macdonald-Ross, M.(1979).Scientific diagrams and the generation of plausible hypotheses: An essay in the history of ideas.Instructional Science,8,223-234.
30. Marcus, N.,Cooper, M.,Sweller, J.(1996).Understanding instructions.Journal of Educational Psychology,88(1),49-63.
31. Mayer, R. E.(1993).Commentary comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview.Learning and Instruction,3,239-245.
32. Mayer, R. E.(2001).Multimedia learning.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
33. Mayer, R. E.,Steinhoff, K.,Bower, G.,Mars, R.(1995).A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustration to foster meaningful learning of science text.Educational Technology Research and Development,43(1),31-43.
34. Mikk, J.(2000).Textbook: Research and writing.Frankfurt am Main, Germany:Peter Lang.
35. Miller, G. A.(1956).The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review,63,81-97.
36. Moreno, R.,Mayer, R. E.(2000).Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages.Journal of Educational Psychology,92(4),724-733.
37. Ollerenshaw, A.,Aidman, E.,Kidd, G.(1997).Is an illustration always worth ten thousand words? Effects of prior knowledge, learning style and multimedia illustrations on text comprehension.International Journal of Instructional Media,24(3),227-238.
38. Paivio, A.(1986).Mental representation: A dual coding approach.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
39. Pozzer, L. L.,Roth, W. M.(2003).Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(10),1089-1114.
40. Rabinowitz, M.(Ed.),Blumberg, F. C.(Ed.),Everson, F. T.(Ed.)(2004).The design of instruction and evaluation: Affordances of using media and technology.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Ritchie, J.,Lewis, J.(2003).Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers.London, UK:SAGE.
42. Roth, W. M.,Pozzer-Ardenghi, L.,Han, J. Y.(2005).Critical graphicacy: Understanding visual representation practices in school science..Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Springer.
43. Sanchez, E.(2009).Innovative teaching/learning with geotechnologies in secondary education.Education and technology for a better world,Boston, MA:
44. Schnotz, W.,Picard, E.,Hron, A.(1993).How do successful and unsuccessful learners use texts and graphics?.Learning and Instruction,3,181-199.
45. Stull, A. T.,Mayer, R. E.(2007).Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus authorprovided graphic organizers.Journal of Educational Psychology,99(4),808-820.
46. Subramaniam, K.,Padalkar, S.(2009).Visualisation and reasoning in explaining the phase of the moon.International Journal of Science Education,31(3),395-417.
47. Sweller, J.,van Merrienboer, J. J. G.,Paas, F. G. W. C.(1998).Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational Psychology Review,10,251- 296.
48. Weinbrenner, P.(1992).Methodologies of textbook analysis used to date.History and social studies-methodologies of textbook analysis,Berwyn, PA:
49. 中華民國課程與教學學會編(2003)。科書之選擇與評鑑。高雄市:復文。
50. 史家瑩編(2009)。國民中學地球科學進階版。臺南市:翰林。
51. 胡幼慧(2008)。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北市:巨流。
52. 陳烜之(2006)。認知心理學。臺北市:五南。
53. 劉嘉茹、侯依伶(2011)。以眼動追蹤技術探討先備知識對科學圖形理解的影響。教育心理學報，43，24-46。

1. 廖錦文、邱垂昌、田麗珠(2018)。結合多媒體與概念圖教材設計對認知學習效果之研究：以認知負荷為中介變項。數位學習科技期刊，10(1)，95-126。
2. 林意雪,左榕(2021)。國小低年級教師轉化國語科讀寫教學之探究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，14(3)，29-56。