論文摘要
現今利用多媒體教材輔助教學已經成為重要的趨勢。然而，是否讓越多不同媒體組合在一起使資訊呈現的方式愈多元，資訊接收者就愈能夠有效地吸收資訊、愈能增進學習效率？本研究以訊息設計的角度，探討不同媒體組合方式與認知型態對學習成效與認知負荷的影響；並探討認知負荷與學習成效之間的關係。
本研究採3x2二因子實驗設計，自變項為：「媒體組合方式」分為三種類型：「文字」、「圖形＋文字」、「影片＋文字」；以及「認知型態」分為兩種類型：「視覺導向」、「語文導向」認知型態。依變項為「學習成效」與「認知負荷」。研究對象為高中一年級兩班共102名學生。實驗首先對受測者進行先備知識前測，並依據Childers, Houston, & Heckler（1985）發展的SOP量表將受測者分成兩類並隨機平均分配到三個不同媒體組合教材以進行實驗，隨後並評估受測者學習成效與認知負荷。
研究結果發現：
1. 不同媒體組合方式對學習成效有影響，但對認知負荷沒有影響。
2. 認知型態對學習成效與認知負荷的影響均未達顯著水準。
3. 不同媒體組合方式與認知型態的交互作用對學習成效與認知負荷有影響。
4. 認知負荷與學習成效之間呈現負相關。
根據以上結果，本研究最後提出設計多媒體時應該注意的事項，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。

Abstract
Multimedia today has become a main role in representing teaching materials as it becomes the main trend in society today. The question is this: will the information be absorb and learn effectively by the student as diversification of multimedia ripples in our present society? This research approaches the topic on multimedia combinations towards different cognitive style learners’ performance and cognitive load, and the relationship between the two.
This research uses 3x2 two factor experiment design, the independent variables are “the mode of multimedia presentation”, which is divided into: text; graphic and text; motion pictures and text; and “learners’ cognitive style”, which is divided into: visualizer and verbalizer. Participants were 102 senior high school students who were classified to visualizer and verbalizer based on their SOP scores. Then Subjects were randomly assigned to different media presentation mode based on their own cognitive type. After the experiment, subjects received a leraning effect test and a seven-point Likert scale questionnaire which assessed their cognitive load.
The main results of this study are:
1. Subjects’ performances were significantly better when they were in both visual and verbal media presentation mode. But the subjects’ cognitive loads weren’t significantly different in the three different media presentation mode.
2. The effects of cognitive style on learners’ performances and cognitive loads weren’t significantly different.
3. The interaction of different media presentation mode and cognitive style did have significantly effect on subjects’ performances and cognitive loads.
4. There has a negative relationship between subjects’ cognitive loads and performances.
According to the results above, some implications for future research and practical application were provided at the end of this study.

參考文獻
中文部分
1. 張春興(民80)，現代心理學，台北：東華書局。
2. 鄭昭明(民85)，認知心理學：理論與實踐，台北：桂冠圖書公司。
3. 宋曜廷(民89)，「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學系未出版博士論文。
4. 徐易稜(民90)，「多媒體呈現方式對學習者認知負荷與學習成效」，國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
英文部分
1. Baddeley, A.D. (1992). “Is working memory working?” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A(1), 1-31.
2. Boswell, D.L., and Picket, J.A. (1991). “A study of the internal consistency and factor structure of the Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire,” Journal of Mental Imagery, 15, 33-36.
3. Carlson, H.L. (1991). “Learning style and program design in interactive multimedia,” Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 41-48.
4. Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., and Sweller, P. (1996). “Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning,” Journal of Educational Research, 15(4), 345-367.
5. ChanLin, and Lih-Juan (1998), “Animation to Teach Students of Different Knowledge Levels,” Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(3), 166-175.
6. Childers, T.L., Houston, M.J., and Heckler, S.E. (1985). “Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 125-134.
7. Di Vesta, F.J., Ingersoll, G., and Sunshine, P. (1971). “A factor analysis of imagery tests,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 471-479.
8. Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching Secondary Students Through Their Individualized Learning Styles. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Co.
9. Edwards, J.E., and Wilkins, W. (1981). “Verbalizer-visualizer questionnaire: Relationship with imagery and verbal-visual ability,” Journal of Mental Imagery, 5, 137-142.
10. Hede, A. (2002). “An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning,”
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 177-191
11. Jonassen, D., and Grabowski, B. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Kalyuga, S. (2000). When using sound with a text or picture is not beneficial for learning,” Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 2002, 16(2), 161-172.
13. Keefe, J.W. (1987). Learning Style: Theory and Practice. Reston, Virginia: National association of secondary school principals.
14. Kirby, J.R., Moore. P.J., and Schofield, N.J. (1988). “Verbal and visual learning styles,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 169-184.
15. Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., and Kealy, W.A. (1993). “How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text,” Educational Technology Research & Development, 41(4), 47-62.
16. Lai, S.L. (1998), “The effects of visual display on analogies using computer-based learning,” International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 151-160.
17. Lai, S.L. (2000), “Influence of Audio-Visual Presentations on Learning Abstract Concepts,” International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 199-207.
18. Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A., and Renaud, A. (1994). “Multimedia and comprehension: A cognitive study,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 515-528.
19. Liao, Y. (1998). Effects of hypermedia versus traditional instruction on students'' achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(4), 341-360.
20. Lindsay, P.H., and Norman, D.A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Inc.
21. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., and Sweller, J. (1996). ” Understanding Instructions,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.
22. Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., and Vagge, S. (1999). “Maximizing Constructivist Learning From Multimedia Communications by Minimizing Cognitive Load,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638-643.
23. Mayer, R.E., and 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.
24. Mayer, R.E. (1997). “Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?” Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
25. Mayer, R.E., and 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.
26. Mayer, R.E. (1993). “Comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview,” Learning and Instruction, 3, 239-245.
27. Mayer, R.E., and Gallini, J.K. (1990). “When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
28. Messick, S. (1984). “The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice,” Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 59-74.
29. Miller, G.A. (1956). “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information,” Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
30. Moreno, R., and Mayer, R. E. (1999). “Cognitive Prnciples of Multimedia Learning： The Role of Modality and Contiguity,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
31. Moreno, R., and Mayer, R.E. (2000). “A Coherence Effect in Multimedia Learning ： The Case for Minimizing Irrelevant Sounds in the Design of Multimedia Instructional Messages,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.
32. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., and Sweller, J. (1995). ”Reducing Cognitive Load by Mixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.
33. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
34. Paivio, A., and Begg, I. (1981). Psychology of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
35. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
36. Plass, J.L., Chun, D.M., and Mayer, R.E. (1998). “Supporting Visual and Verbal Learning Preferences in a Second-Language Multimedia Learning enviroment,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
37. Parrott, C.A. (1986). “Validation report of the Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire,” Journal of Mental Imagery, 10, 39-42.
38. Paas, F.G.W.C., and 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.
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. Richardson, A. (1977). “Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension,” Journal of Mental Imagery, 1(1), 109-126.
41. Sergent, J. (1982). The cerebral balance of power: confrontation or cooperation?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 253-272.
42. Smith, S.M., and Woody, P.C (2000). “Interactive effect of multimedia instruction and learning styles,” Teaching of Psychology, 27(3), 220-223.
43. Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). “Why some material is difficult to learn,” Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
44. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., and Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). “Cognitive architecture and instructional design,” Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-297.
45. Stevens, M.J., Rapp, B.J., Pfost, K.S., and Johnson, J.J. (1986) “Further evidence of the stability of the Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 301-302.
46. Sullivan, G.L., and Macklin, M.C. (1986). “Some psychometric properties of two scales for the measurement of verbalizer-visualizer differences in cognitive style,” Journal of Mental Imagery, 10, 75-85.
47. Tindall-Dord, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J., (1997). “When two sensory modes are better than one,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(4), 257-287.
48. Tiene, D. (2000). “Sensory mode and ‘Information Load’: Examining the effects of timing on multisensory processing,” International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 183-198.
49. Van Gerven, P.W.H., Paas, F.G.W.C., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., and Schmidt, H.G. (2000). “Cognitive load theory and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills in the elderly: Towards an integrative framework,” Educational Gerontology, 26(6), 503-521.
50. Waber, D. (1989). The biological boundaries of cognitive styles: A neuropsychological analysis. In Globerson, Tambar & Zelniker, Tamar(Eds.), Cognitive Style and Cognitive Development(pp. 11-35). Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
51. Wierwille, W.W., and Eggmeier, F.L. (1993). “Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment,” Human Factor, 35, 263-281.
52. Wittrock M.C. (1974). “Learning as a generative process,” Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.
53. Wittrock, M.C. (1990). “Generative processes of comprehension,” Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376.
54. Wortman, C.B., Loftus, E.F., and Marshall, ME. (1992). Psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.