教材元素之管理對學生學習成效及認知負荷之影響-以複習二元一次聯立方程式文字題列式為例

Abstract

本研究以認知負荷理論與多媒體學習理論所探討的元素管理為依據，進行「二元一次聯立方程式」文字題列式部分的教材製作。實驗組與對照組教材皆採用步驟化呈現及訊號引導方式教學，唯在題目敘述上使用不同方法。實驗組採事先語意切割，解題訊息以左右對照方式呈現；對照組採用串流方式呈現，藉由解題步驟逐步與題目連結，進而萃取語意。本研究欲探討複習時不同編排策略及不同數學能力下，學生自學對「學習成效」及「認知負荷感受」之影響。 本研究採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某國中七年級7個常態班154名學生為研究對象。使用二因子變異數分析進行實驗資料分析，以「編排策略」和「數學能力」為自變項，「學習成效」與「認知負荷感受」為依變項。 研究結果顯示：(1)不同的編排策略及不同數學能力對學生在「學習成效」上無交互作用。而主要效果分析，兩種編排策略亦無顯著差異，即兩種編排策略對學生在學習成效上的影響是沒有差異的。(2)實驗組無論在總分、合併類、比較類、改變類上，後測的表現皆比前測來得好且達顯著差異，而延後測時僅有改變類有較好的保留效果；對照組在總分、合併類、比較類、改變類上，後測表現皆比前測來得好且達顯著差異，但延後測時各分類的保留效果與前測皆無顯著差異。(3)不同的編排策略及不同數學能力對學生在「認知負荷感受」上無交互作用。而主要效果分析，兩種編排策略亦無顯著差異，即兩種編排策略對學生在認知負荷感受上是沒有差異的。(4)兩種編排策略對高數學能力學生皆不會產生專業知識反轉效應，亦即對高數學能力者沒有負面影響。

This study aims at the management of elements in designing instructional materials for translating word problem into a system of linear equations in two variables according to the theories of cognitive load and multi-media learning. Both the experimental group and the control group were given the instruction integrated with step-by-step and signaling guidance but varying in the presentation arrangement. The presentation to the experimental group was given with previous semantic splitting and horizontal symmetric arrangement. But the presentation to the control group was given with streaming arrangement in accordance with problem-solving steps to gradually relate with the subject and get the semantic meanings. This study is to investigate the effects of different arrangement for a review on the students’ performance and cognitive load. This study was carried out with a quasi-experimental design. The participants were 154 7th graders enrolled in seven classes in a junior high school in New Taipei City. Two-way ANOVA is applied for data analysis. The independent variables are "presentation arrangement" and "mathematical ability" with 3 levels (high, medium and low), while "performance" and "cognitive load" are the dependent variables. The results are as follows: (1) there’s no interaction effect contributed by different "presentation arrangement" on "performance" of students with different ability levels. There is no significance found on the main effect test for the two arrangements. (2) The experiment groups and the control groups both perform better in the posttest than in the pretest no matter on total score, combine type，compare type or change type. The results of both groups also show significant differences. As for the delayed posttest, only change type in the experiment group shows better retention effect. Each type in the control groups shows no differences on retention effect when comparing with the pretests. (3) There’s no interaction effect contributed by different instruction design on "cognitive load" of students with different abilities, either. There isn’t any significance found on the main effect test for the two arrangements. (4) No expertise reversal effect is found in either of the arrangements.