臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著網際網路的普及與資訊科技的進步，愈來愈多人利用e-Learning來進行教學活動，網路教學環境也更臻完善。e-Learning的教材從單純的文字與圖像，發展至目前的多媒體。然而是否運用大量的多媒體來輔助學習就能提高學習成效是一個值得深入探討的問題？因此本研究試圖藉由訊息處理理論的角度出發，以實地實驗法來探討不同訊息處理能力及內容媒體型態的交互作用對認知負荷與學習成效的影響。實驗對象為台灣的各大學生及研究生，共計222人，以隨機的方式分配到八組中來探討。研究結果發現學習者個別訊息處理能力差異對於認知負荷沒有顯著影響。其次，在媒體內容的資訊量相等的情況下，不同的內容媒體型態對認知負荷沒有顯著影響。但文字導向學習者搭配文字教材或是聲音導向學習者搭配聲音教材，則可以有效的降低認知負荷，進而提高學習成效。因此本研究建議針對不同的學習者，應先利用訊息處理能力分析系統來區分學習者訊息處理能力導向，再依照學習者的訊息處理能力導向給與不同的教材內容媒體型態以提高學習成效。

By the catholicity of Internet and the advances of information technology, more and more people use the e-Learning to do the teaching and learning activities. However, whether using the abundant multimedia learning content can really achieve better learning performance? This study tries to use the information processing theory to discuss the impact of fitness bwteeen learner’s different information processing abilities and content’s medium types on cognitive load and learning performance. That is if learner’s information processing abilities can fit with content medium types would result better learning performance. We found that firstly, the diversity of learners’ individual information processing abilities has no impact to the cognitive load. Secondly, the different content medium types with the same quantity of media content also have no impact to the cognitive load. Lastly, the wordy ability learners with wordy content medium type or the phonic ability learners with audio content medium type can lower learner’s cognitive load. It is suggested that educators can apply the results for the adaptive learning. By using information processing ability analysis system to classify learners into wordy ability and phonic ability learners and then give them adaptive content materials according to their own information processing abilities.

目　　錄
表目錄 1
圖目錄 2
摘要 3
第一章 、序論 5
第一節 、研究背景與動機 5
第二節 、研究目的與問題 7
第三節 、重要名詞定義 7
第四節 、研究範圍 10
第五節 、論文章節架構 11
第六節 、研究流程 13
第二章 、文獻探討 16
第一節 、訊息處理理論 16
第二節 、雙碼理論 18
第三節 、工作記憶模式 20
第四節 、多媒體學習衍生理論 21
第五節 、多媒體學習認知理論 24
第六節 、認知負荷理論 26
第七節 、感官模式 31
第八節 、學習成效 32
第三章 、研究方法 34
第一節 、研究方法的選擇 34
第二節 、研究架構 35
第三節 、變數的操作性定義 35
第四節 、研究假說 38
第五節 、實驗設計 39
第四章 、資料分析 53
第一節 、樣本基本資料分析 53
第二節 、統計方法 54
第三節 、訊息處理能力對認知負荷影響之檢定 56
第四節 、內容媒體型態對認知負荷影響之檢定 57
第五節 、訊息處理能力與內容媒體型態對認知負荷影響之檢定 58
第六節 、認知負荷量對學習成效影響之檢定 61
第七節 、研究發現 62
第五章 、結論與建議 64
第一節 、研究結論 64
第二節 、研究貢獻 66
第三節 、研究建議 67
第四節 、研究限制 68
第五節 、未來研究方向 69
參考文獻 71
中文參考文獻 71
英文參考文獻 73
附錄一、日常生活工具性語文工作記憶量表 83

表目錄
表 1　感知記憶形式與表徵的關係 18
表 2　不同媒體組合對學習成效的相關研究 22
表 3　各組人數分配表 40
表 4　實驗組別一 40
表 5　實驗組別二 40
表 6　實驗群組適配表 41
表 7　樣本基本資料彙整表 53
表 8　訊息處理能力差值與認知負荷量直線迴歸分析 54
表 9　訊息處理能力差值分配表 54
表 10　修改過後的實驗群組人數 54
表 11　文字導向與聲音導向的認知負荷量之差異的獨立樣本t檢定 56
表 12　文字教材與聲音教材的認知負荷量之差異的獨立樣本t檢定 57
表 13　訊息處理能力與內容媒體型態的適配性對認知負荷量差異的獨立樣本t檢定 59
表 14　再認能力與認知負荷量直線迴歸分析 61
表 15　回憶能力與認知負荷量直線迴歸分析 62
表 16　本研究假說檢定結果彙整表 62


圖目錄
圖 1　研究流程圖 13
圖 2　人類訊息處理的基本歷程 16
圖 3　雙碼理論結構圖 19
圖 4　多媒體學習衍生理論 22
圖 5　多媒體學習認知模式 25
圖 6　認知負荷構念圖 27
圖 7　研究架構圖 35
圖 8　聲音訊息處理能力分析系統－題目 42
圖 9　聲音訊息處理能力分析系統－問題 43
圖 10　文字訊息處理能力分析系統－題目 44
圖 11　文字訊息處理能力分析系統－問題 45
圖 12　文字學習教材 46
圖 13　再認能力測驗題目 48
圖 14　回憶能力測驗題目 49
圖 15　認知負荷問卷 50
圖 16　研究假說資料分析架構 63

參考文獻
中文參考文獻
[1]朱彩馨 (民91)。以科技中介架構探討線上學習成效之詮釋研究。國立中山大學資訊管理研究所博士論文。
[2]吳英孝 (民93)。網路化數學學習之成效研究-以高中三角函數複習為例。國立高雄師範大學數學系碩士論文。
[3]宋曜廷 (民89)。先前知識、文章結構與多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響，國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系未出版博士論文。
[4]杜家興 (民92)。精緻性複誦技巧訓練對慢性精神分裂症住院病人之語文工作記憶效果。私立中原大學心理學系碩士論文。
[5]李勝富與房思平（民 85）。資訊時代的教學新模式，美國教育新知選輯。192-200 頁。
[6]周斯畏 (民88)。網路科技對教育的影響-學習環境、學習型式、師生互動、教學內容的探討。中華管理評論，第三期，頁89-96。
[7]洪明洲 (民88)。網路教學課程設計對學習成效的影響研究。台大管理論壇網站，http://mgt.ba.ntu.edu.tw/management/。
[8]徐易稜(民90) 。多媒體呈現方式對學習者認知負荷與學習成效。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
[9]郭璟諭(民92) 。媒體組合方式與認知型態對學習成效與認知負荷之影響。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
[10]黃雅慧 (民92)。教師資訊素養對學習成效之影響探討。網路社會學通訊期刊，第三十三期，http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/。
[11]謝盛文（民95）。植基於短期記憶能力導向之適性化行動學習之研究。國立中山大學資訊管理學系博士論文。


英文參考文獻
[1]Alavi, M., Yoo, Y. & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1310-1333.
[2]Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C. & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using IT to Reengineer Business Education: An Exploratory Investigation of Collaborative Tele-learning. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 293-313.
[3]Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes, In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation. London: Academic Press.
[4]Baddeley, A. D. & Watts, F. N. (1995). Handbook of memory disorders. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[5]Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. New York: Psychology Press.
[6]Bagui, S. (1998). Reasons for increased learning using multimedia. Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 7(1), 3-18.
[7]Barron, A. & Atkins, D. (1994). Audio Instruction in Multimedia Education: Is Textual Redundancy Important? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 295-306.
[8]Beccue, B., Vila, J. & Whitley, L. (2001). The Effects of Adding Audio Instructions to a Multimedia Computer Based Training. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(1), 47-67
[9]Betrancourt, M. & Bisseret, A. (1998). Integrating Textual and PictorialInformation Via Pop-up Windows: An Experimental Study. Behaviour &Information Technology, 17(5), 263-273.
[10]Cerpa, N., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1996). Some Conditions Under Which Integrated Computer-Based Training Software Can Facilitate Learning. Journal of Educational Research, 15(4), 345-367.
[11]Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 1991, 293-332.
[12]ChanLin & Lih-Juan (1998). Animation to Teach Students of Different Knowledge Levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(3), 166-175.
[13]Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24(1).
[14]Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571
[15]Elliott, M. T. & Speck, P. S. (1998). Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its impact across various media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29-41.
[16]Hede, A. (2002). An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 177-191.
[17]Hooper, K. (1990). Hypercard: A key to educational computing, Learning With Interactive Multimedia Developing and Using Multimedia Tools in Education, In Ambron, Hooper, Apple Computer Computer Inc. Washington: Microsoft Press.
[18]Iding, M. (2000). Is seeing believing? Features of effective multimedia for learning science. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4), 403-415.
[19]Kai, H. L. & Benbasat, I. (2002). The Influence of Multimedia on Improving the Comprehension of Organizational Information. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 99-127.
[20]Kalyuga, S. (2000). When using sound with a text or picture is not beneficial forlearning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 2002, 16(2), 161-172.
[21]Keefe. (2000). Cognition in Schizophrenia: Impairments, importance, & treatment strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.
[22]Korgaonkar, P. & Wolin, L. D. (2002). Web usage, advertising, and shopping: Relationship patterns. Internet Research, 12(2), 191-204.
[23]Knowels, M. S. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education, New York : Association Press.
[24]Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W .A. & Kealy, W. A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text. Educational Technology Research & Development, 41(4), 47-62.
[25]Lai, S. L. (1998). The effects of visual display on analogies using computer-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 151-160.
[26]Lai, S. L. (2000). Influence of Audio-Visual Presentations on Learning Abstract Concepts. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 199-207.
[27]Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A. & Renaud, A. (1994). Multimedia and comprehension: A cognitive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 515-528.
[28]Lee, R. & Mary M. (2005). Podcasting catches on, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Retrieved April 21, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_podcasting.pdf
[29]Leidener, D. & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving Student Learning of Conceptual Information: GSS Supported Collaborative Learning vs. Individual Constructive Learning. Decision Support System, 20(2), 149-163.
[30]Lesh, R. (1979). Mathematical learning disabilities: Considerations for identification, diagnosis, and remediation. In R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, & M. G. Kantowski (Eds.). Applied mathematical problem solving. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
[31]Lindsay, P. H. & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Inc.
[32]Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279-281.
[33]Marcus, N., Cooper, M. & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.
[34]Marki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Patterson, M. & Whittaker, P. D. (2000). Evaluation of a Web-based Introductory Psychology Course: I. Learning and Satisfaction in On-line Versus Lecture Courses. Behavior Research Methods. Instruments and Computers, 32(2), 230-239.
[35]Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations Need Narrations: An Experimental Test of a Dual-Coding Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484-490.
[36]Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational psychology, 84(4), 444-452.
[37]Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing system in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
[38]Mayer, Moreno, Boire, & Vagge. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638-643.
[39]Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J. & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedialearning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journalof Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
[40]Mayer, R. E. (1993). Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview. Learning and Instruction, 3, 239-245.
[41]Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
[42]Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. USA: Cambridge University Press.
[43]Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
[44]Mayer, R. E. & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
[45]Mayer, R. E. & Sims, 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(3), 389-401.
[46]Miller, G. (1959). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97
[47]Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive prnciples of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
[48]Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A Coherence Effect in Multimedia Learning : The Case for Minimizing Irrelevant Sounds in the Design of Multimedia Instructional Messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.
[49]Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R. & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing Cognitive Load by Mixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 87(2), 319-334.
[50]Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
[51]Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H. & Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
[52]Paas, F. & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 51-71.
[53]Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
[54]Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[55]Paivio, A. & Begg, I. (1981). Psychology of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[56]Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 44(4), 369-378.
[57]Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality Effects and the Structure of Short-Term VerbalMemory. Memory & Cognitive, 17(4), 398-422.
[58]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(4), 401-427.
[59]Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M. & Mayer, R. E. (1998). Supporting Visual and Verbal Learning Preferences in a Second-Language Multimedia Learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
[60]Posner (1986). Chronometrix Explorations of Mind, New York: Oxford University Press.
[61]Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1982.) Negative Judgments in and about Semantic Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(6), 664-681.
[62]Riessman, F. (1964). Styles of learning. In D. H. Clark (Ed.),Psychology of Education, New York, 1964.
[63]Sadoski, M. & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and Text: A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[64]Spence, R. B. & Evans, L. H. (1956). Dropouts in adult education. Adult Education, 6(4), 221-225.
[65]Schooler, J. W. & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal Overshadowing of Visual Memories: Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 36-71.
[66]Smith, S. M. & Woody, P. C (2000). Interactive effect of multimedia instruction and learning styles. Teaching of Psychology, 27(3), 220-223.
[67]Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
[68]Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457-466.
[69]Sweller, J. (1993). Some cognitive processes and their consequences for the organization and presentation of information. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 1-8.
[70]Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
[71]Sweller, J. Chandler, P. Tierney, P. & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 119, 176-192.
[72]Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
[73]Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. G. W, C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-297.
[74]Tarmizi, R. & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424-436.
[75]Tiene, D. (2000). Sensory Mode and ‘Information Load’: Examining the Effectsof Timing on Multisensory Processing. International Journal of InstructionalMedia, 27(2), 183-198.
[76]Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(4), 257-287.
[77]Tough, A. (1982). Some major reasons for learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction, Service No. ED 033-251)
[78]Vaughan, T. (1993).Multimedia: Making it Work, New York: McGraw-Hill.
[79]Ward, M. & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1-39.
[80]Wierwille, W. W. & Eggmeier, F. L. (1993). Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Human Factor, 35, 263-281.
[81]Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.
[82]Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376
[83].Wolin, L. D. & Korgaonkar, P. K. (2002). Web advertising: discerning Web users'' beliefs, attitudes, and demographics. International Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 2002, 50-68.
[84]Wortman, C. B., Loftus, E. F. & Marshall, ME. (1992). Psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
[85]Yeung, A. S., Jin, P. & Sweller, J. (1997). Cognitive Load and LearnerExpertise：Split-Attention and Redndancy Effects in Reading with ExplanatoryNotes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 1-21.
[86]Yeung, A. S. (1999). Cognitive Load and Learner Expertise: Split Attention andRedundancy Effects in Reading Comprehension Tasks with VocabularyDefinitions. The Journal of Experiment Education, 67(3), 197-217.
[87]Wallys, W. C. (2005). IPod Sprouts Successful Changes in Media Landscape. Information Today, 22(3), 25-26.