本研究的目的在探討三種教學策略（靜態、動態、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學）對國小六年級學生科學學習成就與概念理解的影響，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六年級六個班級的學生，共164 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）以及實驗組SD（結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學）。研究工具包含：天氣變化成就測驗、二階診斷測驗、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)、卡方檢定(chi-square)以及獨立樣本t檢定(independent-sample t test)。
本研究的重要發現如下：
一、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學對於學生自然科學習成就的影響顯著優於單獨使用靜態及動態視覺表徵融入教學。
二、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學對於促進學生正確科學概念理解以及概念澄清的成效優於單獨使用靜態或動態視覺表徵融入教學，且學生能達到較佳的概念理解程度；實驗教學後三實驗組的學生仍然存在一些共同的另有概念。
三、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學有助於提升低空間能力學生的自然科學習成就。
四、在不同的視覺表徵環境下，學生的認知風格對自然科學習成就的影響沒有顯著差異。
五、動態視覺表徵融入教學及結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學有助於提升低先前知識學習者的學習成就。

The aim of this study was to explore the effects of the three learning conditions (static visualization instruction, dynamic visualization instruction, and combining static and dynamic visualization instruction) on sixth- grade elementary school students’learning outcomes in the
domain of weather changes, and to explore how learning outcomes in these environments are mediated by students’ spatial ability, cognitive style, and prior knowledge.
The quasi-experimental design was used in this study. Participants included 164 sixth-grade students from six classes in an elementary school. The first condition consisted of 54 students in two classes that used static visualizations alone, the second condition consisted
of 56 students in two classes that used dynamic visualizations, and the third condition consisted of 54 students in two classes that used combining static and dynamic visualizations.
Data were collected from four data sources: (a) science achievement test, (b) two-tier diagnostic test, (c) PMA Spatial Relations Test, and (d) The Style of Processing Scale. Data were analyzed using one-way ANCOVA, chi-square, and independent samples t-test.
The results of this study are as follows:
1. The use of a combination of static and dynamic visualizations enhanced students’ science achievement in the domain of weather changes more than the use of static or dynamic visualizations alone.
2. The combination of static and dynamic visualizations was more effective in promoting students’understanding of concepts in the domain of weather changes than the use of
static or dynamic visualization alone. However, several alternative conceptions continued to occur in students of three learning conditions after experimental instruction.
3. The combination of static and dynamic visualizations enhanced the science achievement of low spatial ability students.
4. The effects of the students’ cognitive style on science achievement were not significantly different using the various visualizations.
5. Both dynamic visualizations and the combination of static and dynamic visualizations enhanced the science achievement of students having low prior knowledge.

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、動態和結合靜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13
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15
第五節 多變的天氣另有概念的相關研究17
第三章 研究方法與設計25
第一節 研究架構25
第二節 研究流程28
第三節 研究設計30
第四節 研究對象32
第五節 研究工具33
第六節 教學教材內容39
第七節 資料收集與分析46
第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 靜態、動態、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學對自然科學習成就的影響49
第二節 靜態、動態、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學對概念理解的影響49
第三節 靜態、動態、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學和不同空間能力學生在科學學習成就的影響124
第四節 靜態、動態、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學和不同認知風格學生在科學學習成就的影響126
第五節 靜態、動態、結合靜動態視覺表徵融入教學和先前知識學生在科學學習成就的影響127
第五章 結論與建議130
參考文獻132
一、中文部分133
二、英文部分134
附錄140
附錄一 多變的天氣成就測驗140
附錄二 多變的天氣二階式問卷144
附錄三 空間關係測驗151
附錄四 認知風格量表159
附錄五 教案設計160

一、 中文部分
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。
林寶源 (2003)。國小中年級學童天氣迷思概念之研究。臺中師範學院未出版碩士論文，台中市。
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。
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。
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。國立中央大學未出版碩士論文，桃園市。
陳彥任 (2007)。中學生「二段式大氣迷思概念診斷測驗」的發展與應用。中原大學未出版碩士論文，桃園市。
陳依禪 (2010)。台北市國小高年級學童與氣象報告有關的天氣概念認知探討。台北市立教育大學未出版碩士論文，台北市。
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。
張敬宜 (1997)。國小高年級學童蒸發,凝結與沸騰概念之研究。Chinese Journal of Science Education, 5(3), 321-346。
張凱綸 (2002)。國小學童對 [水的三態變化] 概念之研究。屏東師範學院未出版碩士論文，屏東縣。
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。
楊毅立 (2005)。天氣迷思概念二階段測驗的發展與應用。國立臺南大學未出版碩士論文，台南市。
楊金芳 (2006)。以概念構圖的動態評量課程設計探究國小六年級學童「天氣變化」的概念學習。國立臺北教育大學未出版碩士論文，台北市。
劉雪華 (2005)。國小五年級學童對氣團、鋒面等天氣變化概念之認知研究。臺北市立師範學院未出版碩士論文，台北市。
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，台北市。
二、英文部分
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education,33(2-3), 131-152. doi: 10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00029-9
Bar, V. & Galili, I. (1994). Stages of children’s views about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 157-174.
Brody, M. J. (1993). Student understanding of water and water resources: A Review of the Literature., Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Atlanta,
Georgia.
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.
Chikowero, A. (2010). Effects of cognitive style and curiosity on multitasking. Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
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 perform 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),65-69.135
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.
Henriques, L. (2002). Children's ideas about weather: A review of the literature. School Science and Mathematics, 102(5), 202-215.
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.136
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 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.
McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental,genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Sychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889~918.
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.
Özmen, H. (2011). Effect of animation enhanced conceptual change texts on 6th grade students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and transformation during
phase changes. Computers & Education. 57, 1114-1126.
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.
Polito, E., Tanner, K. D., & Monteverdi, J. P. (2008). Assessing middle school and College students' conceptions about tornadoes and other weather phenomena.Paper presented at the 24th conference on severe local storms. San Francisco State University, San Francisco.
Richardson,A. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension.Journal of Mental Imagery, 1(1), 109-126.
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.
Shepardson, D. P., Wee, B., Priddy, Michelle, Schellenberger, L., & Harbor, J. (2009). Water
transformation and storage in the mountains and at the coast: Midwest students’disconnected conceptions of the hydrologic cycle. International Journal of Science
Education, 31(11), 1447-1471.
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.
Tran, L. U. (2009). Children and adults’ understanding of ocean and climate sciences. Paper prepared at the Committee for the Review of the NOAA Education Program. University of
California, Berkeley.
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.
Zacharia, Z. C. & Anderson O.R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71,
618–629.