多媒體呈現模式與認知風格對國小自然科學學習成效之影響

Effects of Multimedia Presentation Modes and Cognitive Styles on Natural Science Learning in an Elementary School

10.6137/RECT.2014.108.03

張正杰(Cheng-Chieh Chang)；莊秀卿(Hsiu-Ching Chuang)；羅綸新(Lwun-Syin Lwo)

認知風格 ； 數位原生 ； 呈現模式 ； Cognitive style ； Digital natives ； Presentation modes

教育傳播與科技研究

108期（2014 / 08 / 01）

31 - 48

繁體中文

本研究以多媒體認知學習理論為基礎，探討不同的多媒體呈現模式與學習者的認知風格對自然科學習成效之影響。研究採2×2二因子準實驗設計，以43位國小五年級學童為研究對象。實驗的自變項是多媒體呈現模式（動畫加旁白、動畫加字幕）和認知風格（場地獨立、場地依賴），依變項為學習成效。首先進行認知風格測驗，依據施測結果選取研究對象與分組，之後讓研究對象同時接受水循環多媒體教學實驗，並接受成就測驗。研究結果發現：一、不同的多媒體呈現模式與學習者的認知風格無顯著的交互作用。二、不同的多媒體呈現模式對學習成效無顯著的影響。三、場地獨立學習者學習成就測驗表現顯著優於場地依賴學習者。這顯示學童之認知風格在多媒體學習中扮演著重要的角色，基於研究結果提出與建議給教師及未來研究者探究的方向。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the interaction of the modality principles of multimedia and the cognitive styles. This study implemented a 2×2 two factor quasi-experimental design. The participants are 43 fifth grade students in an elementary school. The independent variables in the experiments are the modes of multimedia presentation (animation plus narration vs. animation plus text) and participants' cognitive style (field-independent vs. field-dependent). The participants received a multimedia of water-cycle learning materials with different presentation modes. After that, a post-test was conducted. The main findings of this study are shown as follow: 1. There is no interaction between multimedia presentation modes and learners' cognitive styles. 2. There is no significant difference between two different multimedia presentation modes. 3. The learners with field-independent style were better than those learners with fielded pendent style in learning performance. Based on the research result, the study provides serveral suggestions for teachers and future researches.

1. 邱富宏、陳錦章(2002)。融入認知策略與工具的網路學習環境對學生學習影響之研究。科學教育學刊，10，261-285。
   連結：
2. 徐新逸、彭康鈞(2013)。大學生與大學教師在資訊行為考量因素之比較研究。教育資料與圖書館學，50，393-423。
   連結：
3. 羅綸新、齊瑮琛(2012)。多媒體教材解釋模式對文言文學習成效之影響。華語文教學研究，9(3)，1-29。
   連結：
4. Neef, A., Schroll, W., & Theis, B. (2009). Digital natives: The revolution of the generation born to the web. Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.z-punkt.de/fileadmin/be_user/englisch/D_Downloads/2009_Digital_Natives_engl.pdf
5. Baddeley, A. D.(2001).Is working memory still working?.American Psychologist,56,851-864.
6. Baker, R. M.,Dwyer, F.(2005).Effect of instructional strategies and individual differences: A meta-analytic assessment.International Journal of Instructional Media,32(1),69-84.
7. Brown, J. S.(2002).Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn.United States Distance Learning Association Journal,16(2),11-20.
8. Clark, R. C.,Mayer, R. E.(2011).E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multi-media learning.Hoboken, NJ:Pfeiffer.
9. De Ture, M.(2004).Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online distance education.American Journal of Distance Education,18(1),21-38.
10. Evangelos, T.,Andreas, P.,Demetriadis, S.(2003).The design and the formative evaluation of an adaptive educational system based on cognitive styles.Journal of Computers and Education,41,87-103.
11. Harrison, A. W.,Rainer, R. K.(1992).The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user computing.Journal of Management Information Systems,9(1),93-111.
12. Hegarty, M.,Quilici, J.,Narayanan, N. H.,Holmquist, S.,Moreno, R.(1999).Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,8,119-150.
13. Kalyuga, S.,Chandler, P.,Sweller, J.(2000).Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology,92(1),126-136.
14. Kekkonen-Moneta, S.,Moneta, G. B.(2002).E-learning in Hong Kong: Comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course.British Journal of Educational Technology,33,423-433.
15. Lai, S. L.(1998).The effects of visual display on analogies using computer-based learning.International Journal of Instructional Media,25(2),151-207.
16. Lai, S. L.(2000).Influence of audio-visual presentations on learning abstract concepts.International Journal of Instructional Media,27(2),199-207.
17. Lee, C. H. M.,Cheng, Y. W.,Rai, S.,Depickere, A.(2005).What affect student cognitive style in the development of hypermedia learning system?.Computers and Education,45(1),1-19.
18. Mayer, R. E.(1993).Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview.Learning and Instruction,3,239-245.
19. Mayer, R. E.(2001).Multimedia learning.New York:Cambridge University press.
20. Mayer, R. E.(1997).Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions.Educational Psychologist,32(1),1-19.
21. Mayer, R. E.,Gallini, J. K.(1990).When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?.Journal of Educational Psychology,82,715-726.
22. Mayer, R. E.,Heiser, J.,Lonn, S.(2001).Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding.Journal of Educational Psychology,93(1),187-198.
23. Mayer, R. E.,Moreno, R.(2003).Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist,38(1),43-52.
24. Mayer, R. E.,Sims, V. K.(1994).For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,86,389-401.
25. Messick, S.(1994).The matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching.Educational Psychologist,29,121-136.
26. Mousavi, S. Y.,Low, R.,Sweller, J.(1995).Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes.Journal of Educational Psychology,87,319-334.
27. Nunnaly, J.(1978).Psychometric theory.New York:McGraw-Hill.
28. Paivio, A.(1986).Mental representations: A dual coding approach.New York:Oxford University press.
29. Paivio, A.(1971).Imagery and verbal processes.New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
30. Piccoli, G.,Ahmad, R.,Ives, B.(2001).Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training.MIS Quarterly,25,401-425.
31. Ponce, H. R.,López, M. J.,Mayer, R. E.(2012).Instructional effectiveness of a computer-supported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies.Computers and Education,59,1170-1183.
32. Prensky, M.(2001).Digital natives, digital immigrants.On the Horizon,9(5),1-15.
33. Prensky, M.(2007).How to teach with technology: Keeping both teachers and students comfortable in an era of exponential change.Emerging Technologies for Learning,2,40-46.
34. Prensky, M.(2005).Engage me or enrage me: What today's learners demand.Educause Review,40(5),60-65.
35. Reed, S. K.(2006).Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist,41(2),87-98.
36. Rittschof, K. A.(2010).Field dependence-independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: Implications for instructional systems design and research.Educational Technology Research and Development,58(1),99-114.
37. Roblyer, M. D.,Knezek, G. A.(2003).New millennium research for educational technology: A call for a national research agenda.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(1),60-71.
38. Schnotz, W.(2002).Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays.Educational Psychology Review,14(1),101-120.
39. Sweller, J.,Van Merrienboer, J. J. G.,Pass, F. G. W. C.(1998).Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational Psychology Review,10,251-296.
40. Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M.,Leonardo, A. M.,Simon, H. A.(1997).CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple representations.Cognitive Science,21,305-350.
41. Tapscott, D.(1998).Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation.New York:McGraw-Hill.
42. Tapscott, D.(2009).Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world.New York:McGraw-Hill.
43. Tindall-Ford, S.,Chandler, P.,Sweller, J.(1997).When two sensory modes are better than one.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,3,257-287.
44. Wang, T. H.(2007).What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an e-Learning environment?.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,23(3),171-186.
45. Witkin, H. A.,Moore, C. A.,Goodenough, D. R.,Cox, P. W.(1977).Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications.Review of Educational Research,47(1),1-64.
46. Witkin, H. A.,Oltman, P. K.,Raskin, E.,Kaerp, S. A.(1971).A manual for the embedded figures tests.Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologist.
47. 吳裕益(1987)。認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊，7，300-253。
48. 高薰芳(2013)。數位原生的學習與教學。臺北:高等教育。
49. 張春興(2003)。教育心理學─三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北:東華。
50. 教育部(2011)。數位學習白皮書（2012-2016）。臺北:作者。
51. 教育部(2008)。中小學資訊教育白皮書（2008-2011）。臺北:作者。
52. 郭生玉(1996)。心理與教育研究法。臺北:精華。
53. 謝哲仁(2002)。動態電腦幾何教學建構之設計實例與理論探析。革新國民中小學數學教育議題，高雄:

1. 陳奕璇(2020)。擴增實境融入多媒體教材：視覺藝術互動電子書之研究。教育傳播與科技研究，122，57-70。
2. 單文婷(2017)。科學家參與公共傳播的觀察─行政院原子能委員會使用臉書行銷科學政策的討論。教育傳播與科技研究，117，47-65。
3. 羅健霖(2015)。不同階級國中生網路使用型態之研究。教育傳播與科技研究，111，49-68。
4. 錢昭萍、梁麗珍(2017)。認知風格和多元智能對學習動機與學習成效之影響－以科技大學大一國文課數位化教學為例。人文社會學報，13(4)，325-358。
5. 鄭永熏、余惠娥(2018)。國小四年級生YouTube 自主學習融入翻轉教室對自然科學習成效之影響。教育傳播與科技研究，118，1-14。