| 摘要: | 有鑑於優化電腦模擬輔助學習的重要性與急迫性，本研究奠基於認知負荷理論，提出與驗證「多重視窗」介面設計、「提問法」認知支持以及「多重視窗」介面設計結合「提問法」認知支持對提升電腦模擬輔助學習的有效性，並根據研究結果省思認知負荷理論中的重要論點：認知負荷的可加性假設。本研究以兩個研究達成上述研究目的。其中，研究一以140名高一學生為研究對象，採用混合研究法中的「實驗鑲嵌式設計」研究之。研究二則是以40名大學生為研究對象，以單因子實驗設計研究之。兩項研究皆以統計「相關概念」為學習主題，以電腦模擬輔助統計學習軟體的設計作為自變項，以學習時間、認知負荷、學習表現與教學效能作為依變項。又為了深入瞭解「多重視窗」介面設計、「提問法」認知支持以及結合上述兩者的設計有效與否的原因，在研究二中，研究者以眼動儀作為重要的研究工具，蒐集使用不同設計之學習者的眼動行為。本研究之重要發現說明如下1.「多重視窗」介面設計會增加外在認知負荷，降低學習者對於重要表徵與表徵關聯的注意力。2.「提問法」認知支持會提升增生認知負荷，提升學習者對於重要表徵與表徵關聯的注意力。3.相較於單獨使用「多重視窗」介面設計或「提問法」認知支持，結合兩者的設計有最差的學習效果，降低學習者對於重要表徵與表徵關聯的注意力。4.在學習者處於認知負荷超載風險的情況下，兩種教學設計搭配使用對學習的影響並不等於單一設計影響的加總。此外，認知負荷的加總並不等於學習成效的加總。In view of the importance and urgency in optimizing computer simulation assisted learning, three designs including “multiple-frame” interface design, “questioning technique” cognitive support and “multiple-frame” combining “questioning technique” were proposed based on the cognitive load theory for improving computer simulation assisted learning. Two studies were conducted to examine the effects of the three designs. In addition, “additivity hypothesis of cognitive load”, which is an important concept of cognitive load theory, was reflected and revised based on the results. In the first study, a mixed method (embedded experiment model) was utilized as the research method and 140 10th-grade students participated in this study. In the second study, a single factor experiment was used as the research method and 40 undergraduates participated in this study. In both studies, the statistical concepts about “correlation” were used as the learning topic. The independent variable was different designs of computer simulation assisted learning statistics software and the dependent variables included learning time, cognitive load in learning and test phases, learning performance, and instructional efficiency. To understand the reasons for effectiveness of: (1) the “multiple-frame” interface design, (2) the “questioning technique” cognitive support, and (3) software design combining (1) and (2), eye tracker was adopted for the sake of data collection in the second study. The main results of the two studies are summarized as follows: First, the effectiveness of the “multiple-frame” interface design was not proved. The use of “multiple-frame” leaded to extraneous cognitive load and distracted the learners from the important representations of understanding the concepts about “correlation” (i.e., correlation coefficient, scatter plot, and X Y table) and the relationships of the important representations.Second, the effectiveness of the “questioning technique” cognitive support was proved. The use of “questioning technique” leaded to germane cognitive load and let learners concentrated on the important representations and the relationships of the important representations.Third, comparing to the design using “multiple-frame” and “questioning technique” individually, the design combining “multiple-frame” and “questioning technique” leaded to the worst effects. The learners were distracted from the important representations and the relationships of the important representations.Last but not the least, when learners are in the risks of cognitive overload situation, the effect resulted from the combination of two instructional designs was not equal to the additivity of the effects resulted from the two single instructional design. In addition, the additivity of cognitive load was not equal to the additivity of learning effect. |
