臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

使用媒體教學時，媒體只是工具，數位教材的設計與教師的展演更為重要。本研究主題為幾何推理單元，探討口語引導教學、直述式教學對學生學習成效、上課感知及認知負荷的影響。採準實驗研究法於七年級四個常態班級進行實驗教學，實驗組採口語引導教學，對照組採直述式教學。

實驗結果分析得到：
1 . 就整體學生而言，以口語引導教學之階段學習成就測驗及延後測表現皆高於直述式教學，且有顯著差異。以口語引導教學之「上課意願」高於直述式教學且有顯著差異。
2 . 就高學習成就學生而言，以口語引導教學之階段學習成就測驗僅推理題部分表現高於直述式教學，且有顯著差異。以口語引導教學之延後測表現高於直述式教學，且有顯著差異。以口語引導教學之「花費心力」高於直述式教學，且有顯著差異。
3 . 就中學習成就學生而言，以口語引導教學之階段學習成就測驗及延後測表現皆高於直述式教學，且有顯著差異。以口語引導教學之「上課意願」及「理解程度」高於直述式教學，且有顯著差異。
4 . 就低學習成就學生而言，不論以口語引導教學或直述式教學之階段學習成就測驗、延後測表現、上課感知及認知負荷皆無顯著差異。
5 . 在實驗教材中皆未產生專業知識反轉效應。

In medial teaching, the multimedia is only an instrument. The design of digital teaching material and the demonstration of teachers are much more important. This study focuses on the learning of geometric reasoning. It investigates the effect of oral guiding teaching or indicative teaching on learning effectiveness, the perception in class and the cognitive load of the pupils. A quasi-experimental design is implemented in this study, which targets four normalized seventh-grade classes. The experimental group was taught with oral guiding teaching while the control group was taught with indicative teaching.

The experiment results are as follows:
Firstly, all pupils’ performance of the immediate effect and delayed posttest of oral guiding teaching is better than that of indicative teaching with a significant difference. Moreover, students’ learning interest of oral guiding teaching is higher than that of indicative teaching with a significant difference.
Secondly, as for high achievement students, their performance of the problems of reasoning of the immediate effect of oral guiding teaching is better than that of indicative teaching with a significant difference. In addition, the performance of the delayed posttest of oral guiding teaching is better than indicative teaching with a significant difference. The mental effort of oral guiding teaching is higher than indicative teaching with a significant difference.
Thirdly, in terms of middle achievement students, their performance of the immediate effect and delayed posttest of oral guiding teaching is better than that of indicative teaching with a significant difference. Besides, their learning interest and the degree of understanding of oral guiding teaching are higher than that of indicative teaching with a significant difference.
Fourthly, as for low achievement students, their performance of the immediate effect, delayed posttest, the perception in class, and the cognitive load of oral guiding teaching shows no significant difference with indicative teaching.
Finally, there is little reverse effect of professional knowledge for the experimental teaching materials.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iv
目次 v
表次 viii
圖次 xi
第一章 緒論 1
1-1　　研究背景與動機 1
1-2　　研究目的 3
1-3　　研究問題 3
1-4　　研究範圍與限制 4
1-5　　名詞解釋 4
1-6　　論文架構 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
2-1　　視覺搜尋與注意力引導 6
2-1-1　選擇注意力 6
2-1-2　視覺搜尋 7
2-1-3　特徵整合理論 9
2-2　　認知負荷理論 10
2-2-1　認知負荷的基本假定 11
2-2-2　認知負荷的類型 12
2-2-3　認知負荷的教學設計原則 14
2-3　　多媒體學習理論 19
2-3-1　多媒體學習認知理論的假設 20
2-3-2　多媒體學習認知理論的認知負荷 21
2-3-3　多媒體學習的設計原則 22
2-4　　數學表徵 26
2-4-1　數學符號表徵的轉化 26
2-4-2　從表徵轉化看學習數學的困難 28
2-5　　幾何學習 29
2-5-1　幾何思考的發展層次 29
2-5-2　幾何圖形的認知理解 31
2-5-3　幾何課程的學習 34
2-6　　口語引導 35
第三章 研究方法 40
3-1　　研究流程 40
3-1-1　準備階段 41
3-1-2　實驗階段 41
3-1-3　分析階段 42
3-2　　研究設計 42
3-2-1　研究方法 42
3-2-2　研究變項與假設 42
3-2-3　實驗流程 44
3-3　　研究對象 45
3-3-1　兩組程度可視為相當 46
3-3-2　兩組間不同學習成就學生程度可視為相當 47
3-4　　研究工具 50
3-4-1　實驗教材發展與修改 50
3-4-2　實驗工具 59
3-5　　資料分析 64
3-5-1　統計軟體PASW ( SPSS ) 64
3-5-2　效果值 (Effect size) 64
3-5-3　學習效率 (Instructional efficiency) 65
3-5-4　學習投入分數 (Instructional involvement score) 66
3-5-4　綜合學習效率與學習投入分數 68
第四章 研究結果與討論 69
4-1　　階段學習成就表現及延後測分析 69
4-1-1　整體學生之分析 69
4-1-2　高學習成就學生之分析 78
4-1-3　中學習成就學生之分析 87
4-1-4　低學習成就學生之分析 96
4-2　　上課感受量表分析 105
4-2-1　整體學生之分析 105
4-2-2　高學習成就學生之分析 106
4-2-3　中學習成就學生之分析 108
4-2-4　低學習成就學生之分析 109
4-3　　階段學習成就表現與上課感受量表之相關性分析 111
4-3-1　整體學生之分析 111
4-3-2　高學習成就學生之分析 114
4-3-2　中學習成就學生之分析 116
4-3-2　低學習成就學生之分析 118
4-4　　學習效率與投入分數暨專業知識反轉效應分析 120
4-4-1　整體學生 121
4-4-2　各學習成就學生 122
4-5　　研究分析結果摘要 124
4-5-1　學習成就分析結果摘要 124
4-5-2　上課感受量表分析結果摘要 126
4-5-3　專業知識反轉效應分析結果摘要 126
第五章 研究結果分析與建議 128
5-1　研究結果分析 128
5-2　建議 129
5-3　未來研究 130
參考文獻 133
中文文獻 133
英文文獻 136
附錄一　實驗教材對照表 140
附錄二　前測卷 150
附錄三　階段學習成就測驗卷及延後測卷 152
附錄四　上課感受量表 154

中文文獻
左台益、吳慧敏、呂鳳琳、陳明璋、曾世綺與譚寧君（2011）。以分段方式降低任務複雜度對專家與生手閱讀幾何證明的影響。教育心理學報，43，291-314。

呂鳳琳（2010）。幾何證明不同文本呈現方式對學生認知負荷與閱讀理解影響之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。

李仁豪、葉素玲（2004）。選擇注意力：選空間或選物體？。應用心理研究，21，165-196。

李宬風（2011）。多元表徵的結構化數位幾何課程設計對國民中學學生在學習認知、學習成就及學習態度的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學，新竹市。

阮啟弘、呂岱樺、劉佳蓉、陳巧雲（2005）。視覺注意力的研究議題與神經生理機制(1)。應用心理研究，28，25-50。

林哲宇（2011）。引導性問話於數學教學之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立海洋大學，基隆市。

邱皓政（2010）。量化研究與統計分析　SPSS (PASW)資料分析範例。台北市：五南。

洪蘭（譯）（2009）。大腦當家－靈活用腦12守則，學習工作更上層樓（原作者：John J. Medina）。台北市：遠流。（原著出版年：2008）

張玉成（1999）。教師發問技巧（第二版）。台北市：心理。

張敬楷（2007）。中學生平行概念認知結構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。

陳一平（2011）。視覺心理學。台北市：雙葉書廊。

陳明璋（2008）。一個以授課為導向之數位教材設計及展演環境簡介－Activate Mind Attention (AMA) 系統。國民教育，48(6)，57-63。

陳烜之編著（2007）。認知心理學。台北市：五南。

黃建欽（2009）。激發式動態教學對三角形外心的學習成效之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學，新竹市。

黃敏晃（1999）。淺談數學解題。教與學，23，2-15。

楊凱琳、林福來、王繹婷（2006）。探討學生解讀證明的認知特徵。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學。

葉素玲（1999）。視覺空間注意力。載於李江山（主編），視覺與認知－視覺知覺與視覺運動系統（291-323頁）。台北市：遠流。

葉素玲、李仁豪（2005）。一心一意或三心二意？視覺注意力的統整性。應用心理研究，25，143-178。

蔡坤憲（譯）（2006）。怎樣解題（原作者：Polya, G.）。台北市：天下遠見。（原著出版版年：1957)

蔡慧玲（2001）。一個國小低年級教師引導學生說明數學解題想法的分析與批判（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南師範學院，台南市。

鄭吉松（2005）。訊息的提示對學生解題的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化市。

謝怡倫（2009）。鷹架學習對學習成效之影響－以生活中的平面圖形為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學，新竹市。
英文文獻
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-leaining and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In M. Lindquist & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, k-12, (1987 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp.1-16). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Deleeuw, K., & Mayer, R. (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. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223

Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting Mental Imagery with Computers in Mathematics Education (pp. 142-157). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century (pp. 37-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Duval, R. (2002). Proof understanding in mathematics: What ways for students? Proceeding of International Conference on Mathematics: Understanding Proving and Proving to understand (pp. 61-77).

Duval, R. (2006). A Cognitive Analysis of Problems of Comprehension in a Learning of Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1-2), 103-131.

Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 104-121. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.007

Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509-539. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3

Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. New York: Information Science Reference.

Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(7), 857-875. doi: 10.1002/acp.1061

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 11(4), 266. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.266

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitve load theory, modality of presentation and the transient infotmation effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943-951. doi: 10.1002/acp.1787

Marcus, N., Cooper M. & Sweller J. (1996). Understanding Instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.

Mayer, R. E.(2001). Multimedia learning (1st ed.). New Your: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning ( 2nd ed. ). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Müller, H. J. & Krummenacher J. (2006). Visual search and selective attention. Visual Cognition, 14(4-8), 389-410.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 63-71. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP15323801_15326988

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Aubteen Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance : Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 25-34. doi: 10.1007/BF02504795

Pass, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions : An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors : The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 35 (4), 737-743.

Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 9-31. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4d

Sweller, J. (2010). Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5

Sweller, J., Ayres P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205

Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97-136.

Treisman, A. (2006). How the deployment of attention determines what we see. Visual Cognition, 14(4-8), 411-443.

van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0

Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1,000,000 trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33-39.

Wolfe, J. M. (1999). Inattentional amnesia. In V. Coltheart (Ed.), Fleeting memories (pp.71-94). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.