Exploring Computer-based Nature Science Instruction Based on the Cognitive Load Theory: Spatial Contiguity Effect, and Effects of Prior Knowledge on Performance Assessments

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：14

、訪客IP：3.142.98.108

姓名

葉曉萍(Shiau-ping Yeh) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

Exploring Computer-based Nature Science Instruction Based on the Cognitive Load Theory: Spatial Contiguity Effect, and Effects of Prior Knowledge on Performance Assessments
(Exploring Computer-based Nature Science Instruction Based on the Cognitive Load Theory: Spatial Contiguity Effect, and Effects of Prior Knowledge on Performance Assessments)

相關論文

★ 以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現 ~以行動學習輔具教室為例	★ 以眼動型態探討背景知識對詞彙辨識的影響
★ 以言談分析方法解析鷹架輔助之線上即時互動	★ 『教學決策參照架構』對教師應用無線科技進行數學教學成效影響之實驗研究
★ 高中生「相關」迷思概念診斷工具之發展歷程研究	★ 合作寫作對於國小學童科學概念學習之影響
★ 以模擬為基礎的統計學習軟體之初探性評估研究	★ 影響國小學童家長送子女參加課後補習之相關因素研究---以桃園縣中壢市為例
★ 線上同儕互評對國小六年級學童寫作學習成效影響之實驗研究	★ 模擬輔助理解系統對高中生統計「相關」概念學習成效之實驗研究
★ 認知風格對模擬為基礎之電腦輔助學習的影響	★ 國小學童圖文閱讀的理解策略
★ 幼童敘說書面故事之後設認知表現	★ 新移民家庭子女口語敘說能力之發展
★ 認知風格對學習者於互動多媒體輔助統計學習之影響－以圖像型與文字型為例	★ 圖文提示對學童閱讀科學說明文記憶與理解之影響

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)

本研究目的是去檢視「空間整合效應」以及學習者本身所具備的先備知識程度，在一個電腦學習情境下，且其科目為自然科學，對於學習者學習過程所承受的認知負荷以及學習表現有什麼樣的影響。本研究想了解「空間整合效應」是否真能輔助學習者學習，即是當學習者在閱讀一個在空間上加以整合過的教材時，學習過程中的認知負荷是否能因此減輕，進而提升他們的學習成果。本研究用以空間整合的技術為：在教材中，不同的訊息來源之間用具有連結功能的線條加以整合。透過這些線條，研究者期待學習者在連結圖文兩者不同訊息來源時，能夠降低認知負荷，提升學習成果。
另外研究者也試著去了解是否「學習者本身所具備的先備知識程度」會影響學習過程中的認知負荷和學習表現。更甚者，本研究也探討「空間整合效應」是否會因為學習者本身所具備的先備知識程度高低不同，對學習者的影響也會因此不同。
本研究結果顯示「教材整合組」的學生在學習表現上顯著優於「教材非整合組」的學生；但是在兩組在認知負荷上沒有達到顯著差異。「先備知識較高的學習者」在學習表現上顯著優於「先備知識較低的學習者」，然而兩者在認知負荷上也沒有達到顯著差異。最後，「空間整合效應」對於「先備知識較高的學習者」影響較大，相對於「先備知識較低的學習者」而言。換句話說，「先備知識較高的學習者」在「教材整合組」的學習表現顯著優於在「教材非整合組」的學習表現。

摘要(英)

The purpose of this study was to examine the “spatial contiguity effect” in computer-based nature science instruction, as well as investigated the possible effect(s) prior knowledge may have on student cognitive load and performance. We accounted for “spatial contiguity effect” in instruction to support student learning, and were interested in if an integrated presentation format could lighten the cognitive load a student needs to undergo in the learning process and facilitate understanding of information. The technique used for spatially integration was connecting lines between the different modes of information within the instruction. By using the lines, learners were expected to reduce cognitive load inducing search for diagrammatic referents in the text, and thus enhanced their learning.
We also tried to understand if prior knowledge could mediate students’ cognitive load and learning performance. Of particular interest to this study was the spatial contiguity effect on learners with different qualities, in this study, especially different levels of prior knowledge.
The results of the study showed that the performance of the students in the group with integrated presentation format group was significantly higher than that of students in the group with separated presentation format, but there was no significant difference between the two groups for cognitive load. The performance of the students with high-prior knowledge was significantly higher than that of students with low-prior knowledge, but there was no significant difference in cognitive load between the two groups.
Finally, the spatial contiguity effect was larger on the learners with high-prior knowledge, compared to the low-prior ones. They had significant better performance in the integrated condition than in the separated condition.

關鍵字(中)

★ 先備知識
★ 自然科學
★ 空間整合效應
★ 認知負荷

關鍵字(英)

★ Cognitive Load
★ Nature Science
★ Spatial Contiguity effect
★ Prior knowledge

論文目次

1. Introduction ......................................................1
1.1 Research background and motivation ……………………....…..1
1.2 Noun interpretation …………………………….…………...…..3
2. Research goals...................................................5
3. Literature review ……………………………..6
3.1 Multimedia learning …………………………….…………..…..6
3.2 Cognitive load ……...…………………………….…………..…9
3.3 Spatial contiguity effect ………………………………………..14
3.4 The influence of prior knowledge on cognitive load …….…....17
3.5 The impact of prior knowledge on the spatial contiguity effect .20
4. Research hypotheses .....................................25
5. Methodology ………………………………...26
5.1. Participants ……………………………………………………26
5.2. Research design …….…………………………………………27
5.3. Learning materials …………………………………………….30
5.4. Research tools …………………………………………………31
5.5. Research procedure ……………………………………...……33
5.6. Data analysis …………………………………………………..34
6. Results ……...……………………………......36
6.1. The effects of different instructional designs (if the material has
been integrated or not) and prior knowledge (high or low) on
cognitive load ……………....………………………………..36
6.2. The effects of different instructional designs (if the material has
been integrated or not) and prior knowledge (high or low) on
learning performance ……...……………….…………………...38
6.3. The spatial contiguity effect on the learners with high-prior
knowledge and the low-prior ones …………………………….42
7. Discussion ……...……………………….........43
7.1. The effects of different instructional designs (if the material has
been integrated or not) and prior knowledge (high or low) on
cognitive load…………………………………………………..44
7.2. The effects of different instructional designs (if the material has
been integrated or not) and prior knowledge (high or low) on
learning performance ……………………………………...…48
7.3. The spatial contiguity effect on high- and low-prior knowledge
learners……………………………………………………….52
8. Conclusion and suggestion ………………....54
8.1 Conclusion …………………………….…………………....….54
8.2 Suggestion ……………………....……………………………..56
References ...........................................................58
Appendixes..........................................................65

參考文獻

References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131–152.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.
Braune, R., & Foshay, W. R. (1983). Towards a practical model of cognitive information processing task analysis and schema acquisition for complex problem-solving situations. Instructional Science, 12(2), 121–145.
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 1–20.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–209.
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.
De Westelinck, K., Valcke, M., De Craene, B., & Kirschner, P. (2004). Multimedia learning in social sciences: Limitations of external graphical representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 555–573.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186.
Erhel, S., & Jamet. E. (2006). Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 137–147.
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(1), 33–41.
Gilabert, R., Martínez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 45–68.
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.
Glaser, T., Walton, D. S. & Maas, R. L. (1992). Genomic structure, evolutionary conservation and aniridia mutations in the human PAX6 gene. Nature Genetics, 2, 915–920.
Gyselinck, V., Ehrlich, M. F., Cornoldi, C., de Beni, R., & Dubois, V. (2000). Visuospatial working memory in learning from multimedia systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(2), 166–176.
Harter, C., & Ku, H. (2008). The effects of spatial contiguity within computer-based instruction of group personalized two-step mathematics word problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1668–1685.
Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195–211.
Kablan, Z., & Erden, M. (2008). Instructional efficiency of integrated and separated text with animated presentations in computer-based science instruction. Computers & Education, 51(2), 660–668.
Kahtz, A. W., & Kling, G. (1999). Field dependent and Field independent conceptualisations of various instructional methods: A qualitative analysis’. Educational Psychology, 19(4), 413–429.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351–371.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriёnboer, J. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 71–85.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Lester, J. C., Stone, B. A., & Stelling, G. D. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9(1-2), 1–44.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.
Lowe, R.K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(4), 377–397.
Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A Comparison of Anonymous Versus Identifiable e-Peer Review on College Student Writing Performance and the Extent of Critical Feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6 (2), 100–115.
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49–63.
Mayer, R. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240–246.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Vol. 1, Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mayer, R.E. (2001) Multimedia Learning. New York: 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. (2005a). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge: University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–287.
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia.
Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 99–113.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35–45.
Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: the effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173–199.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J G., (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional
design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
Paas, F. Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R.K. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 117–123.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237.
Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159–189.
Snyder, J. L. (2000). An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (9), 979–992.
Spyridakis J. H., & Isakson C. S. (1991). Hypertext: a new tool and its effect on audience comprehension. IEEE-IPCC, 37–44.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., and Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.
Sweller, J., van Merriёnboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
Tabbers, H., Martens, R., and van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 71–81.
Tarmizi, R., and Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424–436.
Van Gerven, P.W.M., Paas, F., van Merriёnboer, J.J.G., & Schmidt, H.G. (2002). Cognitive load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 87–105.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd edition). New York: Harper Collins.

指導教授

劉子鍵、辜玉旻
(Tzu-chien Liu、Yu-min Ku)

審核日期

2011-1-24

推文