學習教材與認知風格對於學習績效與教材評量的影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：31

、訪客IP：3.145.48.8

姓名

王思堯(Su-Yao Wang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系

論文名稱

學習教材與認知風格對於學習績效與教材評量的影響
(The Effect of Learning Material and Cognitive Style on Learning Performance and Material Assessment.)

相關論文

★ 技術商品銷售之技術人員關鍵職能探討	★ 資訊委外之承包商能力、信任及溝通與委外成效關係之個案研究
★ 兵工技術軍官職能需求分析-以某軍事工廠為例	★ 不同楷模學習模式對VB程式語言學習之影響
★ 影響採購「網路資料中心產品」因素之探討	★ 資訊人員績效評估之研究—以陸軍某資訊單位為例
★ 高職資料處理科學生網路成癮相關因素及其影響之探討	★ 資訊服務委外對資訊部門及人員之衝擊-某大型外商公司之個案研究
★ 二次導入ERP系統之研究-以某個案公司為例	★ 資料倉儲於證券產業應用之個案研究
★ 影響消費者採用創新數位產品之因素---以整合式手機為例	★ 企業合併下資訊系統整合過程之個案研究
★ 資料倉儲系統建置之個案研究	★ 電子表單系統導入之探討 - 以 A 公司為例
★ 企業資訊安全機制導入與評估–以H公司為例	★ 從人力網站探討國內資訊人力現況–以104銀行資料為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

論文摘要
學習策略與教育訓練的成效有著緊密的關係，此外由於每個學習者都有不同的個人特質，教師也必須重視學生的學習傾向，依照不同的特質來調整教學的策略，並於教學活動進行到一個段落後，以評量的方式瞭解學生的學習績效，由學生對教學內容的評估獲得資訊，藉以調整日後的教學方針與授課內容，以求達到更好的教學果效。因此，本研究試著由學習教材與認知風格方法的角度出發，以Excel XP 2002為教學軟體，透過實地實驗法來探討此二個因素對學習績效與教材評量之影響。
本研究採2x4二因子實驗設計，自變項為：「學習教材」分為兩種類型：「文章閱讀式」、「圖文整合式」；以及「認知風格」分為四種類型：「文字與視覺導向皆強」、「文字導向強、視覺導向弱」、「文字導向弱、視覺導向強」與「文字與視覺導向皆弱」。依變項為「學習績效」與「教材評量」。以高中二年級兩班共85名學生為研究對象，依據Childers, Houston, & Heckler(1985)發展的SOP量表將受測者分成四種類型，並隨機分配班級到兩個不同學習教材以進行實驗，隨後並評估受測者學習績效(基本操作能力、函數應用能力與上機實作能力)，最後以Keller(1983)發展的的教材評量量表(IMMS)衡量受測者對學習教材的評估，經統計分析後，由研究結果發現：
1. 不同學習教材對學習績效有部分影響，但對於教材評量沒有影響。
2. 認知風格對學習績效的影響未達顯著水準，對教材評估則達顯著水準的影響。
3. 不同學習教材與認知風格的交互作用對學習績效與教材評量皆無影響。
4. 學習績效的三類測驗之間呈現正相關變動。
根據以上結果，本研究最後提出設計學習教材應該注意的事項，並對實務應用提出建議與未來的研究方向建議，期望能夠提供學術界和實務界參考之用。

摘要(英)

Abstract
There is a tight relationship between learning strategy and learning performance. Teachers can adjust their teaching strategies based on each student’s characteristics. They can get feedback from assessment to improve student’s learning performance. This research examines the plausible effect of learning material and cognitive style on student’s learning performance and material assessment.
This research use 2x4 two factor experiment design, the independent variables are “learning material”, which is divided into: text with reading strategy; graphic/text integration; and “learners’ cognitive style”, which is divided into: high verbalization and high visualization; high verbalization and low visualization; low verbalization and high visualization; and low verbal verbalization and low visualization. Participants were 85 senior high school students who were classified to four cognitive types based on their SOP scores. Then subjects were assigned to different learning materials by class and their own cognitive type. After the experiment, subjects received three learning performance test, which is divided into: basic ability test; function ability test; and hands-on test. At the end of the experiment an IMMS questionnaire was delivered to each student for material assessment.
The main findings of this research are:
1.The effect of different learning materials on learning performance was partially significantly different. But it weren’t significantly different on the material assessment.
2.The effects of cognitive style on subjects’ performances weren’t significantly different. But the scores of material assessment between four groups were significantly different.
3.The interaction effects of learning material and cognitive style didn’t have significantly effect on subjects’learning performance and material assessment.
4.There is a significantly positive relationship between subjects’three tests.
According to the results above, some implications for future research and practical implication were provided at the end of this paper.

關鍵字(中)

★ 學習績效
★ 學習教材
★ 學習策略
★ 教材評量
★ 認知風格

關鍵字(英)

★ learning performance
★ learning material
★ learning strategy
★ material assessment
★ cognitive style

論文目次

目錄
第一章緒論 ………………………………………………………… 1
第一節研究背景與動機 …………………………………………… 1
第二節研究目的 …………………………………………………… 2
第三節論文架構 …………………………………………………… 3
第四節研究流程 …………………………………………………… 4
第五節研究貢獻 …………………………………………………… 5
第二章文獻探討 …………………………………………………… 6
第一節訊息處理理論 ……………………………………………… 6
第二節認知風格 …………………………………………………… 8
第三節學習策略 …………………………………………………… 15
第四節學習教材 …………………………………………………… 18
第五節圖文整合相關學習理論 …………………………………… 21
第六節學習績效 …………………………………………………… 25
第七節教材評量 …………………………………………………… 26
第三章研究方法 …………………………………………………… 33
第一節研究方法的選擇 …………………………………………… 33
第二節研究架構 …………………………………………………… 34
第三節變數的操作性定義 ………………………………………… 35
第四節研究假說 …………………………………………………… 39
第五節研究問卷設計 ……………………………………………… 40
第六節實驗規劃 …………………………………………………… 42
第七節實驗流程規劃 ……………………………………………… 49
第八節實驗預試 …………………………………………………… 51
第四章資料分析 …………………………………………………… 54
第一節統計分析方法 ……………………………………………… 54
第二節修正認知風格量表 ………………………………………… 56
第三節研究問卷之信度分析 ……………………………………… 59
第四節樣本基本分析 ……………………………………………… 60
第五節假說一檢定分析 …………………………………………… 63
第六節假說二檢定分析 …………………………………………… 69
第七節假說三檢定分析 …………………………………………… 70
第八節假說四檢定分析 …………………………………………… 74
第九節假說五檢定分析 …………………………………………… 76
第十節假說六檢定分析 …………………………………………… 81
第十一節假說七檢定分析 ………………………………………… 83
第十二節研究結果與發現 ………………………………………… 85
第五章結論與建議 ………………………………………………… 86
第一節研究結論 …………………………………………………… 86
第二節研究貢獻 …………………………………………………… 89
第三節研究限制 …………………………………………………… 90
第四節對實務的建議 ……………………………………………… 92
第五節未來研究方向 ……………………………………………… 93
參考文獻 …………………………………………………………… 95
附錄A：研究問卷 ………………………………………………… A1
附錄B：學習績效測驗 …………………………………………… B1
附錄C：學習教材 ………………………………………………… C1

參考文獻

一、中文部分
1.王裕方，周惠文，(2000)，「電腦態度與學習績效的影響因素探討－中學生網頁製作教學的實地實驗研究」，資訊管理學報，7(1)，103-118, NSC 89-S-2520-009-006.
2.江高舉，王瑞琦(民91)，私房教師Excel 2002數位學習系統，台北：志凌。
3.林清山(民79)，教育心裡學—認知取向，台北：遠流出版社。
4.郭璟諭(民93)，「媒體組合方式與認知風格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之碩士論文。
5.財團法人中華民國電腦技能基金會(民89)，「Excel 2000實力養成暨評量」，台北市：全華。
6.陳國祥(民89)，「認知風格與使用者介面設計對注意力影響之研究」，國立成功大學工業設計研究所未出版之碩士論文。
7.孫琇瑩(民89)，「不同程度動機提升策略對國小學童網頁教材學習動機之影響」，國立花蓮師範學院未出版之碩士論文。
8.陸怡琮(民91)。「網路輔助教學對不同認知風格的國小學童在英語學習動機與成就之影響」，屏東師範學院教育科技研究所未出版之碩士論文。
9.張春興(民80)，現代心理學，台北：東華書局。
10.蔡長欣(民92)，Excel超簡單，台北市 : 凱信國際行銷出版。
11.謝國忠(民93)，「認知風格與訓練方法對電腦態度、電腦自我效能與學習績效之影響」，國立中央大學資訊管理研究所未出版之碩士論文。
二、英文部分
1.Ainsworth, S. & Loizou, A. T. (2003). “The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams,” Cognitive Science, 27, 669-681.
2.Anderson, A. A. (1996). “Predictors of computer anxiety and performance in information systems,” Computers in Human Behavior, 12(1), 61-77.
3.Appple. (1987). Human Interface Guidelines. New York: Addison-Wesley Inc.
4.Arnone, M. P. & Small, R. V. (1995). “Arousing and sustaining curiosity: Lessons from the ARCS model,” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 285).
5.Bannert, M. (2000). “The effects of training wheels and self learning materials in software training,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 336-346.
6.Carroll, J.M. & Carrithers, C. (1984). “Blocking learner errors in a training wheels system,” Human Factors, 26, 377–389.
7.Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel. Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
8.Carroll, John M. (1997). “Human-computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design,” Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 61-77.
9.Carroll, J. M. (1998). Minimalism Beyond the Nurnberg Funnel. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
10.Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). “Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction,” Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
11.ChanLin, L. J. & Chan, K. C. (1996). “Computer graphics and metaphorical elaboration for learning science concepts.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 391).
12.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.
13.Chou, H. W. and Y. F. Wang (1999). “Effects of learning style and training method on computer attitude and performance in world wide web page design training,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(3), 323-342.
14.Chou, H. W. and Wang, T. B. (2000). “The influence of learning style and training method on self-efficacy and learning performance in WWW homepage design training,” International Journal of Information Management, 20(6), 455-472.
15.Chou, H. W. (2001). “Effects of training method and computer anxiety on learning performance and self-efficacy,” Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 17(1), 51-69.
16.Chou, H. W. (2001). “Influences of cognitive style and training method on training effectiveness,” Computers & Education, 37, 11-25.
17.Crosby, M. E. & Iding, M. K. (1997). “The influence of a multimedia physics tutor and user difference in the development scientific knowledge,” Computers Education, 29(23), 127-136.
18.Eriksen, C. W. & St. James, J. D. (1986). “Visual attention within and around the filed of focal attention: A zoomlens modal,” Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225-240.
19.Eugene S. S. (2001). “The relationship between learning style and cognitive style,” Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 609-616.
20.Fisher, D. F., Monty, R. A., & Senders, J. W. (1981). Eye movements: Cognition and Visual Perception. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
21.Hirumi, A. & Bowers, D. R. (1990). “Enhancing motivation and the acquisition of coordinate concept through the use of concept trees.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323 931).
22.Holzman, P. S. & Klein, G. S. (1954). “Cognitive-system principles of leveling and sharpening: Individual differences in visual time-error assimilation effects,” Journal of Psychology, 37, 105-122.
23.Kames H. G. & Kuo. F. Y (1991). “Understanding human-computer interaction for information design,” MIS Quarterly, 15(4), 526-549.
24.Keller, J. M. (1987). “Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design,” Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
25.Keller, J. M. (1987a). “Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn,” Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.
26.Keller, J. M. (1987b). “The systematic process of motivational design,” Performance & Instruction Journal, 26(9), 1-8.
27.Klein, J. D., Freitag, E., & Wolf, B. (1990). “Providing practice using instructional gaming: A motivating alternative,” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323 936).
28.Leutner, D. (2000). “Double-fading support-a training approach to complex software systems,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 347-357.
29.Levin J. R. (1986). “Four cognitive principle of learning-strategy instruction,” Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-17.
30.Martin-Michiellot, S. & Mendelsohn, P. (2000). “Cognitive load while learning with a graphical computer interface,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 284-293.
31.Mayer, R. E. & Gallini, J. K. (1990). “When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
32.Mayer, R. E. (1993). “Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview,” Learning and Instruction, 3, 239-245.
33.Mayer, R. E. & Sims, 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.
34.Mayer, R. E. (1997). “Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?” Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
35.Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (1998). ”A split attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing system in working memory,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
36.Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). “Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638-643.
37.Messick, S. (1984). “The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice,” Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 59-74.
38.Najjar, L. J. (1998). “Principles of educational multimedia user interface design,” Human factors, 40(2), 311-323.
39.Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). “Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
40.Paas, F. G. W. C. & 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(1), 122-133.
41.Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
42.Paivio, A. & Begg, I. (1981). Psychology of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
43.Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
44.Passig. D. & Levin. H. (1999). “Gender interest differences with multimedia learning interfaces,” Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 173-183.
45.Powell J. V., Aeby V. G., & Aeby, T. C. (2003). “A comparison of student outcomes with and without teacher facilitated computer-based instruction,” Computer and Education, 40, 183-191.
46.Price, C. B. (1990). “Affective and Cognitive Influences of Textual Display in Printed Instruction,” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 323 941) .
47.Richardson, A. (1977). “Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension,” Journal of Mental Imagery, 1(1), 109-126.
48.Riding, R. J. & Ashmore, J. (1980). “Verbal-imager learning styles and children's recall of information presented in pictorial versus written form,” Educational Studies, 6, 141-145.
49.Riding, R. J. & Calvey, I. (1981). “The assessment of verbal-imagery learning styles and their effect on the concrete and abstract prose passages by eleven-year-old Children,” British Journal of Psychology, 72, 55-64.
50.Riding, R. J. & Anstey, J. (1982). “Verbal-Imager learning styles and reading attention in eight-year-old children,” Journal of Research in Reading, 5, 55-66.
51.Riding, R. J. & Buckle, C. E. (1990). Learning Styles and Training Performance. Sheffield: Training Agency.
52.Riding, R. J. & Cheema, I. (1991). “Cognitive styles: An overview and integration,” Educational Psychology, 3/4(11), 193-215.
53.Riding, R. J. & Pearson, F. (1994). “Cognitive styles and intelligence,” Educational Psychology, 4(14), 413-425.
54.Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). “Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation,” Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
55.Shiffrin, R. M. & Gardner, G. T. (1972). “Visual processing capacity and attentional control,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 72-82.
56.Shiffrin, R. M., Craig, J. C., & Cohen, E. (1973). “On the degree of attention and capacity limitation in tactile processing,” Perception and Psychophysics, 13, 328-336.
57.Shiffrin, R. M., Pisoni, D.B., & Castaneda-Mendez, K. (1974). “Is attention shared between the ears”, Cognitive Psychology, 6, 190-215.
58.Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. (1977). “Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory,” Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
59.Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1991). “Evidence for cognitive load theory,” Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 351-362.
60.Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). “Why some material is difficult to learn,” Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
61.Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). “Cognitive architecture and instructional design,” Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-297.
62.Visser, J. & Keller, J. M. (1990). “The clinical use of motivational messages: An inquiry into the validity of the ARCS Model of motivational design,” Instructional Science, 19(6), 467-500.
63.Yang, Y. C. (1992). “The effects of media on motivation and content recall: Comparison of computer and print based Instruction,” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 20(2), 95-105.
64.Yang, Y. C. & Chin, W. K. (1997). “Motivational analyses on the effects of type of instructional control on learning from computer-based instruction,” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25(1), 25-35.

指導教授

周惠文(Huey-Wen Chou)

審核日期

2004-6-28

推文