中文摘要
本研究的目的在探討視覺表徵形式（靜態、動態）對國小五年級學生科學學習成就的影響，並進一步探討上述效應對不同空間能力、認知風格及先前知識對學生科學學習成就的影響。
本研究採準實驗研究設計，參與的樣本來自一所公立國小五年級四個班級的學生，共103人。分別隨機選派兩班至實驗組S（靜態視覺表徵融入教學）、實驗組D（動態視覺表徵融入教學）。研究工具包含：燃燒與滅火成就測驗、空間關係測驗以及認知風格量表。資料分析方法包含：獨立樣本單因子共變數分析(one-way ANCOVA)以及獨立樣本t檢定(independent-sample t test)。
本研究的重要發現如下：
一、在「燃燒與滅火」單元中，動態視覺表徵融入教學對於學生科學學習成就的影響
顯著優於靜態表徵融入教學。
二、使用靜動態視覺表徵對高空間能力學生的科學學習成就顯著優於低空間能力學生。
三、靜態視覺表徵與動態視覺表徵融入教學對不同認知風格的學生，在科學學習成就
上沒有顯著差異。
四、使用靜態視覺表徵對高先前知識學生的科學學習成就顯著優於低先前知識學生。

關鍵詞：燃燒與滅火、靜態視覺表徵、動態視覺表徵、空間能力、認知風格、先前知識

Abstract
The purposes of this study are to explore the effects of static and dynamic visualizations on fifth grade students’ science achievement related to “Combustion and Firefighting”, but also to explore how students’ spatial ability, cognitive style, and prior knowledge moderate the effects.
In this study, quasi-experimental research design was adopted. Samples included 103 students taken from four fifth-grade classes in a public elementary school in Hsinchu County. Two classes were assigned to experimental group S – statistic visualization group, and the other two were assigned to experimental group D – dynamic visualization group. Data were collected from three data sources: (a) science achievement test, (b) PMA Spatial Relations Test, (c) The Style of Processing Scale. Data were analyzed using one-way ANCOVA, and independent samples t-test.
The results of this study are as follows:
1. In the unit “Combustion and Firefighting”, students in the dynamic visualization context tended to exhibit better science achievement compared to them in the static visualization context.
2. In the static visualization condition, high spatial ability students tended to exhibit better science achievement compared to low spatial ability students.
3. The effects of the students’ cognitive style on science achievement were not significantly different using the various visualizations.
4. In the static visualization condition, high prior knowledge students tended to exhibit better science achievement compared to low prior knowledge students.

Keywords: combustion and firefighting, static visualization, dynamic visualization, spatial ability, cognitive style, prior knowledge.

目 次
第一章 緒論....1
第一節 研究動機....1
第二節 研究目的與問題....3
第三節 名詞釋義....4
第四節 研究範圍與限制....5
第二章 文獻探討....6
第一節 靜態和動態視覺表徵融入教學的實徵研究....6
第二節 多媒體學習環境下空間能力和學習成就的相關研究....10
第三節 多媒體學習環境下認知風格和學習成就的相關研究....14
第四節 多媒體學習環境下先前知識和學習成就的相關研究....16
第三章 研究方法與設計....19
第一節 研究架構....19
第二節 研究流程....21
第三節 研究設計....23
第四節 研究樣本....25
第五節 研究工具....24
第六節 教學教材內容....30
第七節 資料收集與分析....33
第四章 研究結果與討論....34
第一節 靜態、動態視覺表徵對學生在「燃燒與滅火」學習成就影響之差異....34
第二節 靜態、動態視覺表徵對不同空間能力的學生在「燃燒與滅火」單元學習成就的影響 ....36
第三節 靜態、動態視覺表徵對不同認知風格的學生在「燃燒與滅火」學習成就的影響 ....37
第四節 靜態、動態視覺表徵對不同先前知識的學生在「燃燒與滅火」學習成就的影響 ....38
第五章 結論與建議....40
第一節 研究架構....41
第二節 研究流程....42
參考文獻..........43
一、中文部分....43
二、英文部分....45
附 錄...........49
附錄一 燃燒與滅火成就測驗....49
附錄二 空間關係測驗....51
附錄三 認知風格量表....59
附錄四 教案設計....61

中文文獻
王思堯 （2004）。學習教材與認知風格對於學習績效與教材評量的影響。國立中央大學未出版碩士論文，桃園市。
王銘山 （2008）。多媒體呈現方式與先前知識對國小學生「氣象」主題學習結果之影響。 國立中正大學未出版碩士論文，嘉義縣。
古芝如 （2013）。探討靜態、動態、結合動靜態視覺表徵融入教學對國小學生科學學習成就和科學學習動機的影響。國立新竹教育大學未出版碩士論文，新竹市。
林郁芬 （2010）。空間能力、先備知識與表徵順序對七年級概念理解之影響：以人體呼吸運動單元為例。國立臺灣師範大學未出版碩士論文，台北市。
李幸玟 （2010）。前導組體型式與先備知識在多媒體學習成效與認知負荷上的影響──以國中地理科為例。國立嘉義大學未出版碩士論文，嘉義縣。
李俊明 （2016）。靜態、動態多媒體視覺表徵融入不同知識屬性教學對國小學童 科學學習成效之影響－以月亮單元為例。國立新竹教育大學未出版論文。新竹市。
邱惠芬 （2003）。多媒體介面對國小學童學習動機、學習成就及學習保留的影響。屏東師範學院教育科技研究所未出版碩士論文，屏東縣。
施駿宏 （2007）。多媒體呈現方式與空間能力對國二學生「地震」與「海嘯」學習結果之影響。國立中正大學未出版碩士論文，嘉義縣。
陳柏裕 （2011）。以眼動探討多媒體呈現方式及先備知識對學生學習成效與認知負荷的影響。國立嘉義大學未出版碩士論文，嘉義縣。
郭璟諭 （2003）。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未出版碩士論文，桃園市。
張力夫 （2011）。探討利用「動態表徵」與「靜態表徵」教學對概念學習成效影響之研究－以「波的重疊原理」單元為例。國立交通大學未出版碩士論文，新竹市。
許秋瑾 （2003）。學習風格與教材呈現對國小學童學習溶液酸鹼性之研究。國立臺南大學資訊教育研究所未出版碩士論文，臺南市。
曾冠雲 （2011）。發展以動畫為主的月相盈虧課程並探討學生的空間能力對學習成效與認知負荷的影響。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所未出版碩士論文，臺北市。
曾燕玲 （2006）。5E學習環教學對國小六年級學童燃燒概念改變之研究。臺北市立教育大學科學教育研究所未出版碩士論文，臺北市。
廖佩芬 （2015）。探討結合靜動態表徵對國小學生天氣變化概念理解的影響。國立新竹教育大學未出版碩士論文，新竹市。
劉長庚 （2010）。探討動靜態圖對於八年級學生學習X-t 與V-t 圖的影響。國立臺灣師範大學未出版碩士論文，臺北市。
英文文獻
Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multi-media and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935.
Chang, C. Y. (2001). Comparing the impacts of a problem-based computer-assisted instruction and the direct-interactive teaching method on student science achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 2001.
ChanLin,L. J. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson.Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 17, 409-419.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 125-134.
Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Individual differences in use of external visualisations to erform an internal visualisation task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 701-711.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum associates.
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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20164
Dove, J. (1998). Alternative Conceptions about the Weather. School Science Review, 79(289), 65-69.
Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction.
Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,35(1), 89–103.
Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 139–155.
Hegarty, Mary Kriz, Sarah, Cate & Christina (2003). The roles of mental animations and external Animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition & Instructio.21 (4), 325-360.
Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 447–465). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hegarty, M., & Kriz, S. (2008). Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. Learning with animation: Research implications for design, 3-29.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Höffler, T. N. & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738.
Höffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial Ability: Its influence on Learning with visualizations-a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 245-269. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7
Höffler, T. N., Prechtl, H., & Nerdel, C. (2010). The influence of visual cognitive style when learning from instructional animations and static pictures. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 479-483.
Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 392-404.
Isaak, M. I., & Just, M. A. (1995). Constraints on the processing of rolling motion: The curtate cycloid illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 21, 1391–1408.
Kim, H. (1998). Effects of animated graphics of plate tectonics on students' performance and Attitudes in multimedia computer instruction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, United States , Texas.
Kollöffel, B. (2011). Exploring the relation between visualizer–verbalizer cognitive styles and performance with visual or verbal learning material. Computers & Education, 58, 697–706.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their ognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.
Kühl, T., Scheiter.K, Gerjets. P., & Gemballa. S. (2011). Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? Computers & Education, 56, 176–187.
Lee, H. (2007). Instructional design of web-based simulations for learners with Different levels of spatialability. Instructional Science, 35, 467–479.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 177-189.
Lin, H. (2006). The effect of questions and feedback used to complement static and animated visualization on tests measuring different educational objectives. The Pennsylvania State University, Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No.3318901)
Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction,14(3), 257-274. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.003
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157-176.
Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16(4), 321-335.
Mathewson, J.H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by Educators Science Education, 83(1), 33–54.
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 Psycholog, 86(3), 389-401.
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 64–73.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge：Cambridge University press.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
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, 444-452.
Mayer, R. E. & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 833–846. Doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.833
Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promotes active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psycholog, 11(4), 256-265.
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.
Plass, J.L., Chun, D.M., & Mayer, R.E. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal Learning Preferences in a second-Language multimedia learning enviroment, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 135-140.
Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics, & learning. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Retrieved from http://www.nowhereroad.com/cgl/toc_validate.htm.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 49-69.
Schwartz,D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving.The Journal of the Learning Science, 4(3), 324-354.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations.Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227-237.
Schaffer, D. L. (2013). The development and validation of a three-tier diagnostic test measuring pre-service elementary education and secondary science teachers' understanding of the water cycle. University of Missouri, Columbia.
Snow, R. E. (1989). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In P. L. Ackerman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research (pp.13-59). New York: W. H.Freeman.
Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700–712.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University press.
Tim Kühl, Katharina Scheiter, Peter Gerjets, Sven Gemballa. (2011). Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? Computers & Education, 5(6), 176–187.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University press.
Tversky, B., Bauer- Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Wang, T. L. (2008). Brain hemispheric preferences of fourth- and fifth-grade science teachers and students in Taiwan: An investigation of the relationships to student spatial and verbal ability, student achievement, teacher and student attitudes, and teaching practice. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69 (08). (UMI No.3325580)
Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G. A., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 339-347.
Yang, E. M., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. Y. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 329–349.
Yarden, H. & Yarden, A. (2010). Learning using dynamic and static visualizations: Students’ comprehension, prior knowledge and conceptual status of a biotechnological method. Research in Science Education., 40(3), 375-402.