中文摘要
本研究的目的在探討靜態、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就、概念理解與概念改變之影響，以國小四年級月亮單元為例，並進一步探討不同教學策略對於不同空間能力(高、低)學童科學學習成就之影響。
本研究採準實驗研究設計，參與的樣本來自一所公立國小四年級四個班的學生，共88人。分別隨機選派兩班至實驗組A(知識屬性為陳述性融入靜態多媒體；程序性融入動態多媒體)及實驗組B(知識屬性為程序性融入靜態多媒體；陳述性融入動態多媒體)。研究工具包含：月亮單元科學學習成就測驗、月亮單元二階診斷測驗及空間關係測驗。資料分析方法包含：獨立樣本單因子共變數分析(one-way ANCOVA)、獨立樣本雙因子共變數分析(two-way ANCOVA)、卡方檢定(chi-square)、精確檢定(Exact Test)及敘述統計(descriptive statistics)。

本研究的重要發現如下：
一、靜態、動態多媒體教學對於學童學習成就之影響，其教學策略以知識屬性為陳述性者融入靜態多媒體、程序性者融入動態多媒體較優。
二、陳述性知識以靜態多媒體融入，程序性知識以動態多媒體融入的教學策略對於學童概念理解與概念改變，皆有正向的影響。
三、動靜態多媒體融入教學後仍有些難以改變的迷思概念類型。這些共同的迷思概念可分為三個概念向度：月亮位置變化、月相盈虧週期及月相盈虧成因，其中以月亮位置變化向度的迷思概念最多。
四、「教學策略」與「空間能力」對於學童科學學習表現呈現交互作用的現象，即學童空間能力不同會因教學策略不同而有不同的學習表現。

Abstract
The major purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the procedural and declarative knowledge teaching strategies on fourth graders’ science achievement, specifically the understanding and conceptual change that occurs before and after the “Moon” lesson, and to investigate the effects of the two teaching strategies in regards to different spatial abilities on student’s science achievement.
A quasi-experimental design was used in this study. The participants were 88 fourth grade students from four science classes in an elementary school in Taoyuan, Taiwan. Of the four science classes, two science classes were assigned to group A (static visualization instruction to declarative knowledge; a dynamic visualization instruction to procedural knowledge), while the other two science classes were assigned to group B (static visualization instruction to procedural knowledge; a dynamic visualization instruction to declarative knowledge), respectively. The instruments used were the “Moon Achievement Test”, the “Two-Tier Moon Conceptual Test”, and the “PMA Spatial Relations Test”. Collected data were analyzed using one-way ANCOVA, two-way ANCOVA, chi-square, Exact Test, and descriptive statistics.

The major findings of this study are as follows：
1.Students in group A tended to exhibit better science achievement compared to group B.
2.The teaching strategy (static visualization instruction to declarative knowledge; a dynamic visualization instruction to procedural knowledge) that tended to make students learn further towards comprehension and conceptual change post the “Moon” lesson.
3.After dynamic and static multimedia instruction, some of the students still had alternative conceptions. There were three conceptual dimensions: the position of the moon, the phases of moon and the cause of the phases of the moon. The most common alternative concept was the position of the moon.
4.“Teaching strategy” and “spatial ability” have interaction. This interaction directly influences the achievement of students with different spatial ability.

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王立行（1992）。電腦輔助教學的理論與實務探討。資訊與教育雙月刊，30，24－33。
王美芬（1992）。我國五、六年級學生有關月亮錯誤概念的診斷及補救教學策略的應用。台北市立師範學院學報，23，357-380。
王美芬（1994)。職前教師所具有的月亮錯誤概念診斷。台北市立師範學院學報，25，465-482。
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關係研究。行政院國科會補助專題研究計畫。
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。國立新竹教育大學數理教育所碩士論文。
余芳如（2003）。不同教學策略對國小高年級學生學習「月相盈虧」概念的影響。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。
呂志峰（2008)。中學生月相盈虧相關迷思概念類型與概念改變過程之探討。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
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。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
李思嫺（2012)。運用網路資源進行探究教學-以四年級月相概念學習為例。國立交通大學資訊學院圖書管理資訊學程碩士論文。
李原富（2010)。不同多媒體教學對四年級月相概念學習成就與學習動機之研究。國立臺南大學材料科學系自然科學教育碩士論文。
李琛玫（1996）。資優生空間能力之相關研究。資優教育季刊，59，21-24。
李曉雯（2001)。國小四年級學生「月相」迷思概念之研究。國立臺南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林月芳（2005)。資訊融入教學以提昇國小學童天文學習效能之研究-以「月亮」單元為例。屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
林郁芬（2011）。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。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
邱美虹（1993）。科學教科書與概念改變。科學教育月刊，163，2-8。
邱美虹（2000）。概念改變研究的省思與啟式。科學教育學刊，8（1），1-34。
邱美虹、陳英嫻(1995)。月相盈虧之概念改變。師大學報，40，509-548。
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碩士論文。
姜滿（1993）。國小學童地球科學概念之理解。台南師院學報，26，193-219。
范懿文、陳彙芳（2000）。認知負荷對多媒體電腦輔助學習成效之影響研究。資訊管理研究，2，45-60。
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碩士論文。
徐照麗（2003)。教學媒體：系統化的設計、製作與運用。台北：五南。
張立夫（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。國立交通大學理學院科技與數位學習學程碩士論文。
張霄亭、朱則剛（1998）。教學媒體，台北：五南。
莊豐洲（2013)。探討運用不同表徵順序融入5E探究式學習環對概念學習成效影響之研究─以「簡諧運動」單元為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
許禎元（2004)。社會科學信度與效度的檢定及其關聯性。醒吾學報，第27期。
陳政瑜（1994）。由球體透視概念探討學生學習月相成因之困難。國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
陳翠雯、侯依伶、劉嘉茹（2010）。不同非語詞刺激對國小學生月相概念學習之影響。科學教育學刊，第18 卷4 期，277-304。
陳燕磁（2014）。Adobe Presenter 多媒體排球基礎動作教材之設計。臺灣教育評論月刊，3（7），67-71。
黃克文（1996）。認知負荷與個人特質及學習成就之關聯。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
黃柏勳（2003）。認知上的瓶頸-認知負荷理論。教育與資料研究，55，71-78。
楊孝（1995)。社會研究實務。台北：國立編譯館。
劉伍貞（1996）。國小學生月相概念學習之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
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。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
劉信吾（1994)。教學媒體，心理出版社，台北。
賴瑞芳（2001）。小學生月亮迷思概念之研究。臺中師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文。
戴文雄（1998）。不同正增強回饋刑事電腦輔助學習系統對不同認知型態與空間能力之高工學生機械製圖學習成效之研究(Ⅱ)。行政院國科會補助專題研究計畫。
羅綸新（1994)。互動式多媒體在教育上的應用與考量。臺灣教育月刊。第521期,12-14 頁。

二、英文部分
Abimbola, I. O. (1988). The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science. Science Education, 72(2), 175-184.
Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-52.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). Retrieval of information from long-term memory. Science, 220 (4592), 25-30.
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R.(Ed.)(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revison of Bloom’s educational objectives. New York: Longman, 46-47.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 267-272.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York：Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Ayres, P. & Paas. F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach. Cognitive Psychology. 21(6), 695-700.
Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students’ thinking and motivation.Computers & Education, 56(3), 839-846.
Barak, M. & Dori. Y.D. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 88(1), 117-139.
Barnea, N., & Dori, Y.J. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling the new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1) 109-120.
Baxter, J.（1989）.Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events. International Journal of science Education, 11, 502-513.
Bishop, J. E. (1978), Developing students’ spatial ability, The Science Teacher, 45, 20-23.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objective:The Classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Wiley.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
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), 147-153.
ChanLin, L . (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 409-419.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in sciences. In R.Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science:Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp.129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27-43.
Chi, M.T.H. & Roscoe, R.D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon and L. Mason (Eds). Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice,3-27.
Chi, M.T.H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199.
Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Individual differences in use of external visualizations to perform an internal visualization task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 701-711.
Dalacosta, K., Kamariotaki-Paparrigopoulou.M., Palyvos J. A.,& Spyrellis. N. (2009). Multimedia application with animated cartoons for teaching science in elementary education. Computers & Education,52, 741–748.
Diakidoy, I. A.N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335-356.
Driver, R. (1983): The pupil as scientist. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Driver, R. & Easley, J., (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: A Review of Literature Related to Concept Development and Adolescent Science Studies, Studies in Science Education, 5,61-84.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing Scientific Knowlege in the Classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children's ideas and their implications for teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.),. Children's ideas in science. (pp. 193-201). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education. 75(6), 649-672.
Duncan, I.M. & Johnstone, A.H., (1973). The Mole Concept. Education in Chemistry, 10,213-214.
Ebenezer, J. V., & Fraser, D. M. (2001). First year chemical engineering students’ conceptions of energy in solution progress: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education, 85(5), 509-535.
Feuerstein, R.（1979）. The Dynamic Assessment of retarded performers：The learning potential assessment device theory, instruments, and techniques. Glenview, IL：Scott, Foresman and Company.
Field, A（2009）. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (Introducing Statistical Methods series) (3 Ed.)
Gregourius, R. M., Santos. R., Dano. J. B.,& Gutierrez. J. J. (2010). Can animations effectively substitute for traditional teaching methods? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 253-266.
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(2), 139-155.
Head, J. (1986). Research into alternative framworks: promise and problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 203-211.
Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 447–465). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hegarty, M.,& Kriz, S. (2008).Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design.(pp.3-29).Cambrige, England： Cambridge University Press.
Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003).The Roles of Mental Animations and External Animations in Understanding Mechanical Systems.Cognition & Instructio. 21(4), 325-360.
Hegarty, M., & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 411-430.
Helm, H., & Novak, J. D. (1983). Overview of the seminar. In H. Helm and J. D. Novak (chairs), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Misconception in Science and Mathematics, 1-4. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Herron, J. C. (1996). Evolution of thermal sensitivity in Volvox. Ph.D. Diss., University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383-396.
Höffler, T . N., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2006). The role of spatial ability when learning from an instructional animation or a series of static pictures. In J. Plass (Ed.), Proceedings of the NYU Symposium on Technology and Learning, New York University.
Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 22, 392-404.
Jerrold F,Deane K,Ron C.,& Richard F.,(1985).Planning and Producing Instructional Media,5th edition,Harper & Row Publishers Inc,New York, 5-6.
Jex, H. R. (1988). Measuring mental working: Problems, progress and promises. In P. A. Hancock & N. M. Meshkati, (Eds). Human mental workload, 5-40. Amsterdam North-Holland: Elsevier.
Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Designing Effective Visualizations for Elementary School Science. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 181-198.
Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2007). Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 413–429.
Kim, S., Yoon. M., Whang. S. M., Tversky. B.,& Morrison, J .B. (2007). The effect of animation on comprehension and interest. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 260–270.
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.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962, 1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmers. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth and the knowledge, 91-195. Cambridge University Press.
Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1996). Effect of animation in enhancing descriptive and procedural texts in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 437-448.
Lecoutre, M.-P. (1992). Cognitive models and problem spaces in “purely random” situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 557-568.
Lee, H. (2007). Instructional design of web-based simulation for learner with different levels of spatial ability. Instructional Science, 35, 467-479.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitives trategies for learning from static and Dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction. 13, 177–189.
Linn, M. C. & Petersen A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a metaanalysis. Child Development. 56, 1479-1498.
Lohman, D. F., Pellegrino J.W., Alderton D.L. & Regian J.W.(1984). Dimensions and components of individual differences in spatial abilities. Intelligence and Cognition: Contemporary Frames of Reference (edsS. H. Irvine & S. E. Newstead), 253–312. Martinis Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.
Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Science, 6(1), 91-142.
Marbach-Ad, M., Santos. R., B. Dano. J.,& J. Gutierrez. J. (2008). Can animations effectively substitute for traditional teaching methods? Part I: preparation and testing of materials. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 11, 253–261.
Marcus,N.,Cooper,M.,& Sweller,J(1996).Understanding instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.
Marek, E. A. (1986). They misunderstand, but they’ll pass. The Science Teacher, 53, 32-36.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). The role of history and philosophy of science, New York: Routledge.
Mayer, R. E., Hegarty. M., Mayer. S.,& Campbell. J. (2005). When Static Media Promote Active Learning: Annotated Illustrations Versus Narrated Animations in Multimedia Instruction. 11(4), 256–265.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University press.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). A taxonomy for computer-based assessment of problem-solving. Computer in Human Behavior, 18, 623-632.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno R.(2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
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 Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.
Mayer, R.E. & Anderson, R.B. (1991). Animation need narrations : an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 , 484-490.
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(4),444-452.
McCloskey, M.(1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D.Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models, 299-324. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influence. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889-918.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118-124.
Najjar, L. J. (1996). Multimedia information and Information Learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hyper Media, 5 , 129-150.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984).Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Orion, N. Ben-Chaim, D., & Kali, Y. (1994), Relationship between earth science education and spatial visualization, National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA, .
Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Osborne, R. J. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children ’s science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Osborne, R. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1980). A technique for exploring students’ views of the world. Physics Education, 15 , 376-379.
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.
Özmen, H., Demircioğlu, H., &; Demircioğlu, G. (2009). The effects of conceptual change texts accompanied with animations on overcoming 11th grade students' alternative conceptions of chemical bonding. Computers &; Education, 52(3), 681-695.
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., & 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.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach: Oxford University Press, USA.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental reoresentations:adual coding approach, Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
Paivio, A. (1991). Images in mind: The evolution of a theory. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Pallrand, G. J. & Seeber, F. (1984), Spatial ability and achievement in introductory Physics, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 507-516.
Paske,R.(1990).Hypermedia:A brief history and progress report.T.H.E.Journal, 53-56.
Phye, G. D. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of academic learning: The construction of knowledge. San Diego: Academic Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2),211-227.
Rebetez, C., Be ´trancourt. M., Sangin. M.,& Dillenbourg. P. (2010). Learning from animation enabled by collaboration. Instructional Science. 38, 471–485.
Rieber, L P. (1990). Using Computer animated graphics in Science instruction with Children. Journal of Educational Psychology,82(1), 135-140.
Rieber, L. P. & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Effects of textual and animated orienting activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction. Computers in the Schools, 5(1/2), 77-89.
Roald, I.＆ Mikalsen, O. (2001). Configuration and dynamics of the earth-sun-moon system: An investigation into conceptions of deaf and hearing pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 423-440.
Robins, S. & Mayer, R.E. (1993). Schema training in analogical reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 529-538.
Rosen, Y. (2009). Tth eeffects of ananimation-based on-line Learning environment on transfer of knowledge and on motivation for scienceand technology learning. Journal of educational computing research. 40(4), 451-467.
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1981). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In R. Klatsky & J. W. Cotton (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sadoski, M., & Palvio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A DuaI coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M.（2003）. Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13（2）, 141-156.
Schnotz, W. & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animation in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 47-58.
She, H. C., & Lee, C. Q. (2008), SCCR digital learning system for scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning, Computers & Education, 51, 724-742.
Shepherd, D. L. & Renner, J. W. (1982). Students' understandings and misunderstandings of the states of matter and density changes. School Science and Mathematics, 82(8), 650-665.
Smaldino, D. Lowther, J. Russell (2012). Instructional Technology and Media for Learning. 10th ed.
Strike, K. A. & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change, 211-231.
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Lee, M. D. (2008), Designing multimedia games for young children’s taxonomic concept development, Computers & Education, 50, 1037-1051.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
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.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thurstone, T. G. (1962). PMA (Primary Mental Abilities) Grade 4-6 (rev. ed.). Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University press.
Treagust, D. F.; Haslam, F. (1986). Evaluating Secondary Students' Misconceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration in Plants Using a Two-Tier Diagnostic Instrument. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (59th, San Francisco, CA).
Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2007). Fourth-grade Elementary Students' Conceptions of Standards-based Lunar Concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 595-616.
Trundle, K. C.& Bell. R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: Aquasi-experimentalstudy. Computers & Education. 54, 1078–1088.
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tversky, B., Bauer-Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
Vosniadou, S. (1991). Conceptual development in astronomy. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Brotton (Eds.). The psychology of learning science. NJ: Erlbaum, 149-177.
Walter A.Wittich and Charles F.Schuller (1973) Instructional Technology,Fifth edition,Harper & Row,Publishers,New York,San Francisco,London. p.33-34
Wang, T. L. (2008). Brain hemispheric preferences of fourth- and fifth-grade science teachers and students in : 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).
Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1992). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of homeostasis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 51 -61.
White, R.,& Gunstone. R. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In: R White and R Gunstone (eds), Probing understanding, 44-64. London:The Falmer Press.
Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521-534.
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.
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P. & Sweller, J. (1997). Cognitive load and leaner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 1-21.
Zacharia Z.C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 120–132.