本研究試圖將探究式行動學習系統與「校園可食植物」的七年級童軍課程結合，透過學生在運用行動載具進行學習後，跟現場教學與傳統課堂教學進行比較，藉此討論其學習成效，並透過學習者填寫的成就測驗、認知負荷與深度學習取向資料進行分析，探討不同教學法的學習者之學習成效、認知負荷與深度學習取向情形。本實驗教學採準實驗設計，實驗中的自變項是不同的教學活動，依變項為學習成效、認知負荷與深度學習取向，其中不同的教學活動分別為「傳統教室教學法」、「探究式行動學習系統教學法」與「現場導覽教學法」等三種形式，其獲得資訊，使用描述性統計以、單因子變異數與共變數來進行分析處理，分析資料包含學習者前測測驗成績、後測測驗成績、認知負荷與深度學習取向測量。獲得以下結論：1.探究式行動學習系統教學法能提升學習成效。2.探究式行動學習系統教學法對於學習者的認知負荷與成效有顯著。3.使用探究式學習系統的學習者有較高之深度學習取向。

This study Exploring to combine Inquiry-based mobile Learning System with the "Campus Edible Plants" curriculum. After learning through the use of mobile device, students can compare with traditional classroom teaching and Guide commentary with campus plant to discuss the effectiveness of their learning and Students fill in the cognitive load and deep learning approach data, analyze and discuss, and understanding of the cognitive load and deep learning approach of learners in different teaching methods.This experimental teaching has employed an experimental design. The independent variables are different teaching activities, while the dependent variables are learning outcome, cognitive load and deep learning approach. The different teaching activities are “traditional classroom teaching” and “Inquiry-based mobile Learning System” and " Guide commentary with campus plant ". The information obtained will be analyzed by utilizing descriptive statistics ,one-way analysis of variance and one-way ANCOVA. Analysis information includes pre-test test scores, post-test test scores, cognitive load measurements, and deep learning approach.The conclusions reached are: 1. The experimental group's “Inquiry-based mobile Learning System“ can improve learning outcomes. 2.The Inquiry-based mobile Learning System has a impact on learners' germane cognitive load and effectiveness.3. The learner of The Inquiry-based mobile Learning System have a higher level of deep learning approach.

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王育文、羅智耀、藍天雄(2009)。行動學習暨成效評量系統之研究。管理科學研究，5(2)，81-96。
李欣憶(2006)。問題導向學習應用於高中地理海岸環境議題教學之研究(未出版)。國立臺灣師範大學地理系，台北市。
朱則剛 (1994)。建構主義知識論與情境認知的迷思：兼論其對認知心理學的意義。教學科技與媒體，(13)，1-14。
宋曜廷(2000)。先前知識、文章結構與多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響(未出版)。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文，台北市。
徐易稜(2000)。多媒體呈現方式對學習者認知負荷與學習成效。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文，桃園市。
徐新逸(1998)。情境教學中異質小組合作學習之實證研究。教育資料與圖書館學，36(1)，30。
高台茜(2001)。未來教室學習－以無線網路應用為基礎的認知學徒制學習環境。台大教與學第九期。
周楷蓁 (2013)，翻轉教室結合行動學習之教學成效(未出版)。國立臺中教育大學教育測驗統計研究所，台中市。
張春興(2011)。教育心理學－三化取向的理論與實踐(2版)。臺北市：東華。
張菀珍(2015)。運用擴增實境學習系統輔助大學生地方宗教民俗文化學習成效之探究。數位學習科技期刊，7(3)，43-82。
張憲庭(2009)。學校實施情境教學的有效策略。新北教育,21-25。
陳佑誠(2013)。情境式網路禮儀學習網站對國小學童學習成效之研究。課程與教學，18(1)，59-92。
陳密桃(2003)。認知負荷理論在教學上的應用。國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育學刊，21，29-51。
陳慧娟(1998)。情境學習理論的理想與現實。教育資料與研究，25，47-55。
陳慧娟(2009)。情境學習理論的理想與現實。引自2018年2月5日http://www.dxes.tc.edu.tw/dxeshtml/9yr/9yr_k/k_91_02.doc
黃克文(1996)。認知負荷與個人特質及學習成就之關聯(未出版)。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所，台北市。
黃柏勳(2003)。從認知負荷省思九年一貫課程的實施。國民教育研究集刊，11，103-119。
黃國禎(2012)。行動與無所不在學 習的發展與應用。國家文官學院T&D飛訊，141，1-16。
楊家興(1995)。情境教學理論與超媒體學習環境。教學科技與媒體，22，40-48
潘文忠、陳伯璋、黃茂在、曾鈺琪、李文富、林志成、張惟亮、吳文德、陳永龍、葉鴻楨、許彩梁(2015)。戶外教育實施指引。台灣：國家教育研究院.
廖桂菁(2000)。情境式網路學習環境對科學學習之影響。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
鄭博真(2016)。技職大專生學習取向及其相關因素之研究。教育研究與發展，12(4)，57-86。
謝鴻儒(2000)。國小教師戶外教學現況與障礙之研究(未出版)。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，台北市。
鍾邦友(2000)。以情境學習為觀點的統整課程設計。新北教育，30，32-37。
蘇怡如、彭心儀、周倩(2004)。行動學習之定義與要素。教學科技與媒體，70，4-14。
蘇國章(2011)。應用認知負荷理論於資訊融入教學多媒體設計之分析-以自然與生活科技領域「電子教科書」為例。生活科技教育，44(2)，44-61。
龔旭陽、黃菁雅、鍾文凱(2007)。行動學習評量與成效分析－以高職電腦軟體應用乙級課程為例。國立屏東教育大學資訊科學應用期刊，2(2)，1-20。
 
二、英文部分
Ahonen, M., Joyce, B., Leino, M. & Turunen, H. (2003). Mobile Learning –A Different Viewpoint. Mobile Learning, Helsinki: IT-Press, 29-39.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological interpretation. New York, Holt.
Antti Syvänen(2004). In Search of Mobility in Learning (Master’s Degree Study, University of Tampere , Suomi). Retrieved from https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/92188/gradu00389.pdf?sequence=1
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Students approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Vic:Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 8, 7-25.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of student’s learning processes really measure?A theoretical review and clarifi cation. British Journal of Educational Psychology,63, 1-17.
Biggs, J. B(2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp.73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating learning approach, perceptions of context and learning outcome. Higher Education, 22, 77-87.
Brown, S. J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 322-342.
Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). Therelationship between learning approaches andlearning outcomes: A study of Lrish accountingstudents. Accounting Education, 11(1), 27-42.
Carbonell, J. R., & Collins, A. (1973). Natural semantics in artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the third international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp.344-351). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Chang,C. Y., Sheu, J. P., and Chan, T. W. (2003).Concept and design of Ad Hoc and mobile classrooms. Journal of computer assisted Learning, vol.19, 336-346.
Collins, A. (1989).Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. Technical report No. 474. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Collins, A. (1994). Goal-Based Scenarios and the Problem of Situated Learning: A Commentary on Andersen Consulting's Design of Goal-Based Scenarios. Educational Technology, 34 (9), 30-32.
DeVolder, M. L., & DeGrave, W. S. (1989). Approaches to learning in a problem-based medical program. Medical Education, 22, 262-264.
Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491-498.
Gay, R., Rieger, R. & Bennington, T. (2002). Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In Miyake, N., Hall, R. & Koschmann, T. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation Mahwah (pp.507-528). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction, Educational Psychologist, 38, 33-41.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Cierniak, G. (2009), The scientific value of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the structuralist view on theories, Educational Psychology Review, 22, 43-54.
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services.
Gijbels, D. Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P. &Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-basedlearning: A meta-analysis from the angle ofassessment. Review of Educational Research,75(1), 27-61
Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The teaching context and approaches to study of accountancy students. Issues in Accounting Education, 9(1), 118-130.
Hall, M., Ramsay A., & Raven J. (2004). Change the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505.
Hasnor, H. N., Ahmad, Z., & Nordin, N. (2013).The relationship between learning approachesand academic achievement among intecstudents, uitm shah alam. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences, 90, 178-186.
Herrington, J., Oliver, R. (1995), Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia, In Pearce, J. ; Ellis, A. (Eds), ASCILITE95 Conference Proceedings(pp.253-262). Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Hilliard, R. I. (1995). How do medical students learn: medical students learning styles and factors that affect these learning styles. Teaching and learning in Medicine, 22, 201-210.
Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Guest editorial: Wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 255-259.
Jex, H. R. (1988). Measuring mental working : Problems, progress and promises. In P. A. Hancock & N. M. Meshkati, (Eds). Human mental workload (pp.5-40). Amsterdam North-Holland: Elsevier．
Kember, D., & Leung, D. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confi rmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 395-407.
Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004).Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-280.
Kynaslahti, H. (2003). In Search of Elements of Mobility in the Context of Education. In Mobile Learning (eds. H. Kynaslahti & P. Seppala). IT Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Loring， R. (1998). Situated learning: understanding contextual learning. Connections: National Tech Prep Network. Waco， TX: National Tech Prep Network， Center for Occupational Research and Development.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
McLellan, H. (1993). Situated learning in focus: Introduction to special issue. Educational Technology, 33(3), 5-9.
McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning perspectives. N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
Miller, G. A., & Gildea, P. M. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257, 94-99.
Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995), Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.
Paas, F. G. W. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.
Paas, F. G. W. C, & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (in press-a). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors.
Paas, F. G. W., & Van Merriënboer J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
Peng, H., Su, Y-J, Chou, C., & Tsai, C-C (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: Mobile Learning Re-defined and a Conceptual Framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 171-183.
Perry, M., O'hara, K., Sellen, A., Brown, B., & Harper, R. (2001). Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 8(4), 323-347.
Pinkwart, N. & Hoope, H. U. & Milrad, M. & Perez. J. (2003). Educational scenarios for cooperative use of Personal Digital Assistants. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 383-391.
Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning: Mobile, Wireless, In-Your-Pocket Learning. Retrieved from http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cq mmwiyp.htm.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Salamonson, Y., Roslyn Weaver, R., Chang, S.,Koch, J., Bhathal, R., Khoo, C., & Wilson,I.(2013). Learning approaches as predictors of academic performance in first year health and science students. Nurse Education Today, 33,729-733.
Savill-Smith, C., Kent, P. (2003). The use of palmtop computers for learning.Learning and Skills Development Agency. UK.
Schon， D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. SanFancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sharma, D. S. (1997), Accounting students’ leaning conceptions, approaches to learning, and the influence of the learning-teaching context on approaches to learning. Accounting Education, 6(2), 125-146.
Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496-505.
Standen, P & Herrington, J.(1997). Acumen: An Interactive Multimedia Simulation Based on Situated Learning Theory[On-line]. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Standen/Standen.html
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Students’ perceptions about new modes of assessment: A review. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards , 171-223.
Suchmon (1987), Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller (2007), Cognitive Load. Cognitive Load International Academic Seminar, Kaohsiung, Oct..
Sweller, J. (1988), Cognitive load during problem solving: Effect on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Br¨unken(Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory(pp.29-47). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998), Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-285.
Topland, K. O. (2002). Mobile learning technological challenges on multi-channel e-learning services( Unpublished master’s thesis). Gimastad: Agder University College.
Trigwell, K., Ashwin, P. (2006). An exploratory study of situated conceptions of learning and learning environments. Higher Education, 51, 243-258.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approach to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87-101.
Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or parnership? Educational Technology, 33(3), 16-21.
Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning inscience: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 115-132.