| Summary: | 博士 === 國立中央大學 === 學習與教學研究所 === 100 === 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.
|
|---|
