本研究目的在探討靜態和動態視覺表徵對國小五年級學生在「星星位置的改變」、「燃燒與滅火」兩個單元中，科學學習成就及認知負荷的影響，並進一步探討不同的教材特性(靜態、動態教材)對視覺表徵(靜態、動態)教學有效性的影響。
本研究採準實驗研究設計，參與的樣本為新竹縣一所公立國小五年級四個班級共103位學生，兩班為實驗組S-靜態視覺表徵組，兩班為實驗組D-動態視覺表徵組。研究工具包括：星星位置的改變成就測驗、燃燒與滅火成就測驗和認知負荷量表。資料分析方法包含：獨立樣本單因子共變數分析(One-way ANCOVA)、獨立樣本t檢定(Independent-samples t test)、皮爾遜相關分析(Pearson correlation analysis)。
本研究的重要發現如下：
一、在「星星位置的改變」單元中，動態視覺表徵組的科學學習成就顯著優於靜態視覺表徵組。
二、在「燃燒與滅火」單元中，動態視覺表徵組的科學學習成就顯著優於靜態視覺表徵組。
三、不同特性的教材(靜態、動態教材)對視覺表徵(靜態、動態)在教學的有效性上沒有影響。
四、在「星星位置的改變」單元中，靜態視覺表徵組的認知負荷大於動態視覺表徵組，且達到顯著差異。
五、在「燃燒與滅火」單元中，靜態與動態視覺表徵組的認知負荷未達顯著差異。
六、認知負荷與科學學習成就呈現負相關。

The purposes of this study are to explore the effects of static and dynamic visualizations on fifth grade elementary school students’ science achievement and cognitive load related to “Changes of Stars’ Positions” and “Combustion and Firefighting”, but also to explore how teaching materials (static, dynamic teaching materials) mediate the effects of visualizations (static, dynamic) on students’ learning performances.
In this study, quasi-experimental research design was adopted. Samples were taken from 103 students 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 to1 experimental group D – dynamic visualization group. Research instruments included changes of stars’ positions achievement test, combustion and firefighting achievement test, and cognitive load scale. Data analyses included One-way ANCOVA, Independent-samples t test, and Pearson correlation analysis.
The major findings of this study are as follows:
1.In the unit “Changes of Stars’ Positions”, students in the dynamic visualization context tended to exhibit better science achievement compared to them in the static visualization context.
2.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.
3.Different teaching materials (static, dynamic teaching materials) did not mediate the effectiveness of visualization (static, dynamic) teaching.
4.In the unit “Changes of Stars’ Positions”, students in the static visualization context tended to exhibit larger cognitive load compared to them in the dynamic visualization context.
5.In the unit “Combustion and Firefighting”, there was no significant difference in cognitive load between static and dynamic visualization groups.
6.There was a negative correlation between cognitive load and science achievement.

一、中文部分
毛松霖(1995）。國小五、六年級兒童「傳達」及「解釋資料」能力與天文概念架構之研究。國科會專題研究報告（NSC82-0111-S003-069-N）。
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。
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。國立師範大學教育數學系未出版碩士論文，臺北市。
吳明隆(2007)。SPSS統計應用學習實務：問卷分析與應用統計。臺北縣：知城圖書。
宋曜廷(2000）。先前知識、文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。國立師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所未出版博士論文，臺北市。
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。
邱皓政(2007)。量化研究法(二)。統計原理與分析技術。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
徐易稜(2001)。多媒體呈現方式對學習者認知負荷與學習成效之影響研究。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所未出版碩士論文，桃園市。
陳怡潔(2013)。以認知負荷觀點探討動態簡報對國中學生學習成效之影響－以遺傳單元為例。國立彰化師範大學生物學系未出版碩士論文，彰化縣。
陳密桃(2003）。認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。教育學刊，21，29-51。
郭生玉(1995)。心理與教育測驗。臺北市：精華書局。
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。
教育部(2008)。中小學資訊教育白皮書。
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。
張世彥(2012)。視覺注意力引導在動態數位教學設計上對學習成效與認知負荷之影響-以國中「凸透鏡折射成像」補救教學為例。國立交通大學理學院科技與數位學習學程未出版碩士論文，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。
黃克文(1996）。認知負荷與個人特質及學習成就之關聯。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所未出版碩士論文，臺北市。
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。

二、英文部分
Beccue, B., Vila, J. , & Whitley, L. K. (2001). The effects of adding audio instructions to a multimedia computer based training environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(1), 47-67.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Wiley.
Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895-935.
ChanLin, L. J. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 17, 409-419.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Ebel, R. L. (1979). Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). Englewowod, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
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.
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. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157-176.
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., 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.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist , 38(1), 43-52.
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.
Paas, F. (1992) . Training strategies for attaining transfer of problemsolving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
Paas, F. G. W., & van Merriënboer J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,122-133.
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.
Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 135-140.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 49-69.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-285.
Tversky, B., Bauer-Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
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.
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.