本研究旨在探討融入圖像認知處理原則的科學教科書圖像設計對於國小五年級不同學業成就學生在圖文學習表現上的影響，以達到圖像設計促使深度學習的目的。以準實驗設計為主，輔以半結構問卷和訪談進行研究，研究對象取自某國小五年級57位學生，實驗組（N=30）實施融入圖像認知處理原則的科學教科書圖像設計，對照組（N=27）則依照民間出版業者編輯的科學教科書圖像設計，量化資料以施測圖文學習表現自編評量進行分析，質性資料以實施學生圖表知覺問卷、高、低分組各取9位（N=36）進行半結構式晤談加以收集，研究方法著重於獨立樣本t檢定進行分析，以半結構式問卷和晤談內容探究使用圖像知覺。結果顯示：（1）高分組學生在圖文學習表現知識層面和認知過程層面皆達顯著水準的正向差異且具高度效果量，以實驗組優於對照組；在低分組學生則為兩組並無顯著差異；（2）基模組織圖提升高分組學生概念知識建構，輔助低分組學生認識教材概要；實驗流程圖增進高分組學生程序知識運用，協助低分組學生參與操作實驗。

This study aimed to investigate the influence of science textbook graphical design based on principles of cognitive process on graphical-textual learning performance of different academic achievement fifth graders students. A quasi-experimental design mainly and auxiliary to half-structure questionnaire and interview, fifty-seven elementary students participated in this research. The experiment treatment was students in different classes used different graphical science textbook (one was based on cognitive principles, and another was published by civil). The influences of learning performance compared to published science textbook were assessed using self-developed tests and the qualitative data were analyzed using independent sample t-test. Administration of a student graph perceptive questionnaire and then nine students from high and low achievement groups in each class were interviewed; qualitative data analyzed to infer the mental process. The results showed:(1) High academic achievement students were significantly enhanced leaning performances on knowledge dimension and cognitive process dimension and had strong effect size, the experimental group was better than the contol group. As to low academic achievement students, there was no significant different between these two groups. (2) Schema organizational graph enhance high academic achievement students on conceptual knowledge and assist low academic achievement students recognize material outline; experimental transformational graph enhance high academic achievement students on procedural knowledge and assist low academic achievement students participate in the experiment.

論文審定書 I
誌謝 II
中文摘要 III
英文摘要 IV
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 待答問題 4
第三節 研究假設 5
第四節 名詞釋義 7
第五節 研究限制 11
第二章 文獻探討 12
第一節 科學教科書圖像的相關研究 12
第二節 圖像的認知處理理論 19
第三節 圖像的設計原則 27
第三章 研究設計 38
第一節 研究架構 38
第二節 研究設計 41
第三節 研究對象 42
第四節 研究工具 44
第五節 工具實施方式 63
第六節 資料處理與分析 66
第七節 研究程序 68
第四章 研究結果與討論 70
第一節 科學教科書圖像設計對學生在圖文學習表現之影響 70
第二節 科學教科書圖像設計對高、低分組學生在圖文學習表現之影響 79
第三節 科學教科書圖像設計對高、低分組學生在圖文學習表現之效用 100
第五章 結論與建議 110
第一節 結論 110
第二節 建議 112
參考文獻 116
附錄一 融入圖像認知處理原則的科學教科書 121
附錄二 融入圖像認知處理原則的科學教科書-「空氣與燃燒」教案 135
附錄三 圖文學習表現-「學習單」自編評量 146
附錄四 圖文學習表現-「平時考」自編評量 152
附錄五 圖文學習表現-「月考」自編評量 153
附錄六 「學生圖表知覺問卷」 154

壹、中文部分
江淑卿（2001）。概念構圖與圖示兒童自科學的知識結構、理解能力。教育季刊，9( 1)，35-54。
陳黎枚（2003）。國小自然科學教科書圖解設計類型之研究。國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計所碩士論文，未出版，雲林縣。
許良榮（1996）。圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊，4 (4 )，121-131。
教育部（2006）。國民小學及國民中學教科圖書審定辦法。2011年3月25日，取自httP：//www.nict.gov.tw/tc/filemgr/Public_info/laws/law_textbook_06.Pdf
黃顯華、霍秉坤（2005）。尋找課程論和教科書設計的理論基礎（增訂版）。北京：人民教育出版社。
貳、英文部分
Ametller, J., & Pinto, R. (2002). Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 285-312.
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Rath, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A review of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. NewYork: Longman.
Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load: Recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139-146.
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155-166.
Candler, P., & Swell, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Carney, R., & Levin, J. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5-26.
Clark, R.C., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Clark. R. C., Nguyen, F., & Swell, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guildlines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155-159.
Cook, M. (2008). Students’ comprehension of science concepts depicted in textbook illustrations. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 39-54.
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-2340.
Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., & Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 677-681.
Hannus, H., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook paasages among low-and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.
Holliday, W. G. (1990). Textbook illustrations: Fact of filler? Science Teacher, 57(9), 27-29.
Kester, L., Lehen, C., van Gerven, P., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Just-in -time, schematic supportive information presentation during cognitive skill acquisition. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 93-112.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Marcus, N., CooPer, M. & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Commentary comprehension of graphics in texts: An overview , Learning and Instruction, 3, 239-245.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. (Vol.4, PP. 253-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. USA: 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, 125-139.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Designing multimedia technology that supports human learning. In M. Rabinowitz., F.C. Blumberg, & F.T. Everson (Eds.), The design of instruction and evaluation:Affordances of using media and technology (PP.33-49).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assicuates.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental
test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4),
484-490.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 42-52.
Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & CamPbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus marrated anomations in multimedia instruction. Jounal of experimental Psuchology: Applied, 11(4),256-265.
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustration to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and DeveloPment, 43(1), 31-43.
Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instuructional Science, 38(2), 135-141.
Ollerenshaw, A., Aidman, E., & Kidd, G. (1997). Is an illustration always worth ten thousand words? Effects of prior knowledge, learing style and multimedia illustrations on text comprension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(3), 227-238.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental RePresentation: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving: A cognitive approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 123-133.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61-86.
Pozzer, L. L., & Roth,W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 40 (10), 1089-1114.
Stull, A.T., & Mayer, R.E. (2007). Learning by doing versuslearning byviewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808-820.
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.
Veriki, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychological Review, 14, 261-312.