本研究旨在探討以CLIL（Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL）精神將英語學習融入國小自然科之不同的多媒體教材呈現方式對國小五年級學童自然與英語學習成效及認知負荷之影響。本實驗採準實驗設計，以方便取樣方式，以研究者任教之三個班級學生為樣本，參與實驗學生共 75 人，並隨機分派為教學設計組一到四。實驗中的自變項是多媒體呈現方式，依變項為自然學習成就、英語學習成就與認知負荷，其中多媒體呈現方式分別為 (一)「圖像＋旁白＋字近」、(二) 「圖像＋旁白＋字遠」、 (三) 先圖像再「字幕＋旁白」與 (四) 先「字幕＋旁白」再圖像等四種形式。所有研究對象在進行學習前均先接受「自然成就測驗前測」與「英語成就測驗前測」施測，並在進行不同呈現方式之多媒體教材學習後，教學設計組一到四均接受「自然成就測驗後測」、「英語成就測驗後測」及「認知負荷量表」施測。本研究根據測驗結果進行統計分析，並輔以質性訪談，根據實驗結果發現，得到以下結論：
(一) 在具有CLIL精神之教學環境中，不同多媒體呈現方式的自然學習成效有
顯著差異。
(二) 在具有CLIL精神之教學環境中，不同多媒體呈現方式的英語學習成效無顯
著差異。
(三) 在具有CLIL精神之教學環境中，不同的多媒體呈現方式對認知負荷之影響
無顯著差異。

The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of the different multimedia teaching materials presented in the spirit of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) into the science and English learning outcomes and cognitive load of grade five elementary school students. This experiment adopts the experimental design to facilitate the sampling method. The sample is taught by the three classes of the students, and 75 students participated in the experiment. They were randomly assigned to the teaching design group from one to four. The self-variation in the experiment is a multimedia presentation method. The variables are science learning achievement, English learning achievement and cognitive load. The multimedia presentation methods are (1) “graphics + narration + nearby words", (2) “graphics + narration + faraway words”, (3) first view graphics and then listen to narration with subtitles and (4) first listen to narration with subtitles and then view graphics. All subjects were tested before the "science achievement pretest" and "English achievement pretest" before the study. After the multimedia teaching materials of different presentation methods were studied, tthe teaching design teams were tested in the "natural achievement post-test", "English achievement post-test" and "cognitive load scale". The study conducted statistical analysis based on the test results, supplemented by qualitative interviews. Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions were obtained:
(1) In the teaching environment with the spirit of CLIL, the science learning effects of
different multimedia presentation methods are significantly different.
(2) In the teaching environment with the spirit of CLIL, there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of English learning in different multimedia presentation methods.
(3) In the teaching environment with the spirit of CLIL, there is no significant difference in the impact of different multimedia presentation methods on cognitive load.

表次 V
圖次 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 重要名詞釋義 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 認知負荷與其教學應用 5
第二節 多媒體學習理論 11
第三節 CLIL教學法 17
第四節 總結 21
第三章 研究設計與實施 23
第一節 研究方法與架構 23
第二節 研究對象 25
第三節 研究工具 25
第四節 研究設計 36
第五節 資料分析與處理 38
第四章 研究結果與討論 41
第一節 在具有CLIL精神之教學環境中，不同的多媒體英語教材呈現方式對自然學習成效之影響 41
第二節 在具有CLIL精神之教學環境中，不同的多媒體英語教材呈現方式對英語學習成效之影響 48
第三節 在具有CLIL精神之教學環境中，不同的多媒體英語教材呈現方式學生認知負荷的情形及其影響 58
第五章 研究結論與建議 65
第一節 研究結論 65
第二節 建議 66
參考文獻 68
附錄 71
附錄一 多媒體教材設計示意圖 71
附錄二 自然成就測驗(前測) 76
附錄三 自然成就測驗(後測) 77
附錄四 英語成就測驗(前測) 78
附錄五 英語成就測驗(後測) 80
附錄六 認知負荷量表 82
附錄七 訪談大綱 83

一、中文文獻
吳馥馨、陳熙文、吳珮旻（民107年8月27日）。賴清德：落實方案「從小學開始學文」，聯合報，頁 2。
宋曜廷（1999）。 先前知識文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系學位論文，頁 1-272。
林立群（2013）。 多媒體組合方式對學習成效與認知負荷之影響。國立臺北教育大學數學暨資訊教育學系學位論文，頁 1-119。
國家教育研究院（2016）。 國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校-語文領域（英語文）課程綱要草案。
張春興（2003）。教育心理學。台北：東華。
陳姚真、吳宇穎（2008）。 多媒體組合方式與知覺偏好對學習結果的影響。教育學刊（30），頁 29-60。
陳密桃（2003）。 認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。
黃鈺雯（2018）。 CLIL 協同教學課程設計與實施個案研究。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系英語教育碩士班學位論文，頁 1-122。
葉可嘉（2009）。 多媒體融入學科內涵與語言融合教學法 對國小英語閱讀學習成效與學習態度之影響。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士在職專班學位論文，頁 1-142。
鄒文莉、高實玫（2018）。 CLIL教學資源書：探索學科內容與語言整合教學. 臺南市: 臺南市政府，頁 19。
二、英文文獻
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice: Oxford University Press Oxford.
Brewster, J. (2004). Content-based language teaching: a way to keep students motivated and challenged. CATS: The IATEFL young learners SIG publication, 2004(Autumn), 25-28.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 243-262.
Cinganotto, L. (2013). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): linguistic and interactional aspects. Rome: Università Degli Studi Roma Tre.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning: John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (0805802835). Retrieved from
Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. Learning through a foreign language, 46-62.
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL Planning tools for Teachers: Planning and Monitoring CLILPresenting 3 Tools for Teachers.
Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum–CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. The Languages Company.
Cross, R. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools.
Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language: Cambridge university press.
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities with CD-ROM: A Resource for subject and language teachers: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182-204.
Frigols, M. J., Marsh, D., & Naysmith, J. (2007). Competence-building for teachers of CLIL: Vocational education. Diverse Contexts-Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe, 33-46.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of educational psychology, 92(1), 126.
Marsh, D. (1994). Bilingual education & content and language integrated learning. International Association for Cross-cultural Communication (Eds.), Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua). Paris: University of Sorbonne.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE-The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential.
Marsh, D., & Marsland, B. (1999). Learning with Languages: A Professional Development Programme for Introducing Content and Language Integrated Learning: English Upper Secondary Education: University of Jyväskylä.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85-139): Elsevier.
Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e‐learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education: Macmillan.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning–mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41-57.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86(1), 122.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 61-86.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.