1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Liberal Arts
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 基於資訊圖表設計之數位教材的學習成效評估與眼動歷程分析
Assessing learning performance and eye tracking process for Infographic-based digital learning material
作者 顏琳
Yen, Lin
貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chin Ming
顏琳
Yen, Lin
關鍵詞 多媒體教材
資訊圖表教材
眼動分析
閱讀時間
閱讀效率
認知負荷
Multimedia courseware
Inforgraphic-based learning materials
Eye movement analysis
Reading time
Reading efficiency
Cognitive load
日期 2017
上傳時間 28-Aug-2017 11:36:50 (UTC+8)
摘要 目前大部分教材仍以純文字方式呈現為主，少有教材以資訊圖表方式呈現；然而，近年來資訊以視覺化的方式呈現越來越受到重視，資訊圖表以具故事性且有組織等引人入勝的方式呈現、解釋複雜的資料，用圖像說故事，讓重點更加容易吸收。因此，應用資訊圖表方式所設計之教材，是否能達成比傳統教材更有效的知識吸收與成效，是一個值得深入探討的研究議題。
     本研究透過資訊圖表的設計原則，將傳統教材製作成資訊圖表教材，採準實驗研究法探討兩組分別使用資訊圖表教材與傳統教材輔助學習的學習者，在閱讀時間、閱讀效率、認知負荷，以及眼動歷程上是否具有顯著的差異。同時進一步探討不同性別與認知風格學習者，在使用資訊圖表所設計教材與使用傳統教材輔助學習，在閱讀時間、閱讀效率、認知負荷，以及眼動歷程上是否具有顯著的差異。本研究以國小兩班合計47個五年級學童為研究對象，隨機挑選一班學生為採用資訊圖表教材的實驗組，以及另一班為採用傳統教材的控制組進行閱讀實驗，兩組的閱讀教材內容相同，但閱讀時間則以學習者完全讀完教材之時間為量測基礎，並於完成兩種教材學習後進行後測。此外，為了深入了解學習者對於兩種不同教材呈現方式的想法與感受，本研究亦輔以訪談法進行質化資料之蒐集，針對學習者對於這兩種教材呈現方式的外觀、排版、內容及吸收難易等進行訪談，以輔助解釋量化分析結果，使研究結果更具客觀性。
     研究結果發現，控制組學習者採用傳統教材所需花費的教材閱讀時間，顯著高於採用資訊圖表所設計教材之實驗組學習者，並且多了近一倍的時間，也就是採用資訊圖表設計之教材輔助學習，有助於降低閱讀時間。此外，採用資訊圖表教材實驗組學習者的閱讀效率，亦顯著優於採用傳統教材的控制組學習者，顯示資訊圖表教材較傳統教材更容易吸收、理解教材內容，因此有更高的閱讀效率。而採用資訊圖表教材實驗組學習者的認知負荷，與採用傳統教材的控制組學習者的認知負荷不具有顯著差異。
     另外，眼動指標分析結果發現，部分傳統教材AOI區塊凝視時間、凝視次數及回視次數顯著高於資訊圖表教材。同時，訪談結果也指出資訊圖表設計之教材整體的視覺動線閱讀順暢，大部分內容都看得懂，圖文搭配較容易理解，同時也會提升學習興趣。最後，本研究亦針對資訊圖表應用於教學輔助學習教材，提出設計及教學實施上的建議，對於教材的創新設計具有貢獻。
Most of learning materials are currently presented with pure texts, but rarely presented with inforgraphics. Nevertheless, the visualization of information is getting emphasized in past years. Inforgraphics attracts people with stories and organization in order to explains complicated data. Telling stories with images allows the points being more easily absorbed. In this case, it is worthy of in-depth discussion whether applying inforgraphic learning materials could achieve more effective knowledge absorption and achievement than traditional learning materials.
     With inforgraphic-based design principles, traditional learning materials are made into inforgraphic-based learning materials in this study. Quasi-experimental research is utilized for discussing the difference in reading time, reading efficiency, cognitive load, and eye tracking process between learners with inforgraphic-based learning materials and traditional material assisted learning. Meanwhile, the difference in reading time, reading efficiency, cognitive load, and eye tracking process between learners, with different gender and cognitive styles, with inforgraphic-based learning materials and traditional material assisted learning. This study involves two fifth-grade classes with a total of 47 students. A class is randomly selected as the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials, and the other class as the control group with traditional learning materials for the reading experiment. The reading materials for both groups are identical, but the reading time is based on learners completely finishing the learning materials. Posttest is preceded after completing the learning with such two learning materials. Moreover, in order to deeply understand learners’ opinions and perception of such two learning materials, interviews are also preceded in this study for collecting qualitative data. The learners are interviewed about the appearance, layout, contents, and absorption difficulty of the learning materials to explain the quantitative analysis results so as to make the research results more objective.
     The research findings show that learners in the control group with traditional learning materials spend about one time more reading time than those in the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials. That is, assisting learning with inforgraphic-based learning materials could reduce reading time. Furthermore, learners in the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials outperform those in the control group with traditional learning materials on reading efficiency, showing that inforgraphic-based learning materials are more easily absorbed and comprehended the contents than traditional learning materials to present higher reading efficiency. Learners in the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials do not appear significant differences from those in the control group with traditional learning materials on cognitive load.
     What is more, the eye tracking analysis results reveal that the AOI block fixation time, fixation times, and regression times of some traditional learning materials are notably higher than those of inforgraphic-based learning materials. Meanwhile, the interviews also point out the smooth visual circulation reading of inforgraphic-based learning materials. Most contents are understandable, the match with images and texts can be more easily comprehended, and the learning interests could also be enhanced. Finally, suggestions for design and teaching practice, aiming at the application of inforgraphics to auxiliary learning materials, are proposed in this study, presenting contribution to the innovative design of learning materials.
參考文獻 关中客（2012）。Infographic: 信息图? 知识图!。中國信息技術教育，2012（9），17。
     教育部（2016）。教育部國民中學‧學習資源網。國民中學-學習資源網。上網日期：2016年11月16日，檢自：http://siro.moe.edu.tw/fip/index.php?n=0&m=0
     教育部統計處（2015年10月22日）。教育部統計處全球資訊網[教育統計相關資料]。統計處。上網日期：2017年2月27日，檢自：http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/News.aspx?n=B31EC9E6E57BFA50&page=2&PageSize=20
     李芝、涂忠彬（2014）。基于 Infographic 的高中地理翻转课堂教学研究。新课程学习，11，1–2。
     王文科、王智弘（2014）。教育研究法。臺北市：台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
     衛生福利部國民健康署（2016）。衛生福利部國民健康署。上網日期：2017年2月27日，檢自：http://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=542&pid=709
     許峰銘（2010）。童詩圖像教學。臺北市：秀威出版。
     趙雅麗（2003）。符號版圖的迷思: 影像化趨勢下語言的未來發展。新聞學研究，77，187–215。
     邱淑惠、廖儷湘（2014）。學前幼兒如何閱讀繪本-眼動歷程之初探。教育傳播與科技研究，109，57–73。
     陳學志、賴惠德、邱發忠（2010）。眼球追蹤技術在學習與教育上的應用。教育科學研究期刊 第五十五卷第四期，55（4），39–68。
     陳李綢（1985）。布魯納理論應用於中小學生認知學習的成效研究。教育心理學報，18，191–227。
     黄婷（2015）。浅谈信息时代现代信息图设计。西安文理学院学报: 社会科学版，18（3），117–120。
     Allison, P. D., & Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A comment on Gottman. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 393-403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.393
     Alyahya, D., & Alyahya, S. (2015). Students learning style and attitude with information visualization. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 3(3), 49-54.
     Archambault, S. G. (2016). Telling Your Story: Using Dashboards and Infographics for Data Visualization. Computers in Libraries, 36(3), 4–7.
     Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1-15. doi:10.1037/h0044160
     Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7
     Card, S. K., & Mackinlay, J. (1997). The Structure of the Information Visualization Design Space. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis ’97). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=857188.857632
     Cawthon, N., & Moere, A. V. (2007). The effect of aesthetic on the usability of data visualization. In Information Visualization, 2007. IV’07. 11th International Conference (pp. 637–648). IEEE. doi:10.1109/IV.2007.147
     Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125–134. doi:10.1086/208501
     Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. doi:10.1007/BF01320076
     Davidson, R. (2014). Three investigations in which students present their results in infographics. The Science Teacher, 34–39.
     Davis, M., & Quinn, D. (2013). Visualizing text: The new literacy of infographics. Reading Today, 31(3), 16–18.
     de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111–122. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010
     Dodge, R., & Cline, T. S. (1901). The angle velocity of eye movements. Psychological Review, 8(2), 145. doi:10.1037/h0076100
     Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 455-470. doi:10.3758/BF03195475
     Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice. London: Springer. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=337177
     Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning Styles/Teaching Styles: Should They ... Can They ... Be Matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238-44.
     Featherstone, R. (2014). Visual research data: An infographics primer. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l’Association Des Bibliothèques de La Santé Du Canada, 35(3), 147–150. doi:10.5596/c14-031
     Fekete, J.-D., Wijk, J. J. van, Stasko, J. T., & North, C. (2008). The Value of Information Visualization. In A. Kerren, J. T. Stasko, J.-D. Fekete, & C. North (Eds.), Information Visualization (pp. 1-18). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70956-5_1
     Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (2000). Learning styles and strategies. At URL: Http://Www. Engr. Ncsu. Edu/Learningstyles/Ilsweb. Html. Retrieved from http://www.cityvision.edu/courses/coursefiles/402/STYLES_AND_STRATEGIES.pdf
     Fredrick, K. (2013). Visualize This: Using Infographics in School Libraries. School Library Monthly, 30(3), 24.
     Gans, R. E. (2001). Video-oculography: A new diagnostic technology for vestibular patients. The Hearing Journal, 54(5), 40–42. doi:10.1097/01.HJ.0000294840.79013.39
     Gazepoint. (2016). Gazepoint – The first affordable eye-tracker! Professional performance at a consumer price! gazepoint. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://www.gazept.com/
     Gershon, N., Eick, S. G., & Card, S. (1998). Information Visualization. Interactions, 5(2), 9–15. doi:10.1145/274430.274432
     Guzmán-Cedillo, Y. I., Lima-Villeda, N., & Ferreira-Rosa, S. (2015). La experiencia de elaborar infografías didácticas sobre diversidad sexual/An Experience of Elaborating Didactic Infographics on Sexual Diversity. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (70), 961-981. doi:10.4185/RLCS-2015-1080en
     Harrison, L., Reinecke, K., & Chang, R. (2015). Infographic Aesthetics: Designing for the First Impression. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1187–1190). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702545
     Haselmayr, M. (2013). Use Infographics To Boost Your Credibility And Traffic. Forbes. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusiness/2013/08/02/use-infographics-to-boost-your-credibility-and-traffic/#6ed35faf2234
     Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 786-797. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.009
     Huey, E. B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading; with a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. Cambridge [Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
     Hughes, A., Wilkens, T., Wildemuth, B. M., & Marchionini, G. (2003). Text or pictures? An eyetracking study of how people view digital video surrogates. In International Conference on Image and Video Retrieval (pp. 271–280). Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-45113-7_27
     Jacob, R. J., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 4.
     Joy, E. H., & Garcia, F. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 33–39.
     Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes: a practical guide. Ireland: University College Cork.
     Koć-Januchta, M., Höffler, T., Thoma, G.-B., Prechtl, H., & Leutner, D. (2017). Visualizers versus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures–An eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170–179. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.028
     Kowler, E., & Schnitzer, B. S. (2006). Eye movements during multiple readings of the same text, 46(10), 1611-1632. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.09.023
     Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 47–77. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2001_3
     Krauss, J. (2012). More than words can say: infographics. Learning and Leading with Technology, 5(39), 10–14.
     Kuchinskas, G. (1979). Whose Cognitive Style Makes the Difference? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 269–271.
     Matrix, S., & Hodson, J. (2014). Teaching with infographics: Practicing new digital competencies and visual literacies. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 4(2), 17-27.
     Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6
     Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833-846. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.833
     Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
     Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389
     Merriam-Webster. (2017). Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/
     Moon, J. (2004). Linking levels, learning outcomes and assessment criteria. In Edinburgh. Online: http://www. bologna-bergen2005. no/EN/Bol_sem/Seminars/040701-02Edinburgh/040701-02Linking_Levels_plus_ass_crit-Moon. pdf (Zugriff: 10.06. 2008) (Vol. 12). Retrieved from http://aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/Bologna/Bol_semin/Edinburgh/J_Moon_backgrP.pdf
     Navarro, O., Molina, A. I., Lacruz, M., & Ortega, M. (2015). Evaluation of Multimedia Educational Materials Using Eye Tracking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2236–2243. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.366
     Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York; Oxford [Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press ; Clarendon Press.
     Paivio, A. (2006). Dual coding theory and education. In The Conference on Pathways to Literacy Achievement for High Poverty Children (pp. 1–20). Retrieved from http://www.csuchico.edu/~nschwartz/paivio.pdf
     Pallapu, P. (2007). Effects of visual and verbal learning styles on learning. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1(1), 34–41.
     Passig, D., & Levin, H. (1999). Gender interest differences with multimedia learning interfaces. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2), 173–183. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00016-3
     Piktochart. (2011, October 16). Create Easy Infographics, Reports, Presentations | Piktochart. Piktochart Infographics. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from https://piktochart.com/
     Pimenta, S., & Poovaiah, R. (2010). On defining visual narratives. Design Thoughts, 3, 25–46.
     Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.25
     Rezaei, N., & Sayadian, S. (2015). The Impact of Infographics on Iranian EFL Learners’ Grammar Learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 78–85.
     Ru, G., & Ming, Z. Y. (2014). Infographics applied in design education. In Advanced Research and Technology in Industry Applications (WARTIA), 2014 IEEE Workshop on (pp. 984–986). IEEE. doi:10.1109/WARTIA.2014.6976439
     Sankey, M. (2003). Visual and multiple representation in learning materials: an issue of literacy. Create. Ed 2003: Elearning for the Creative Industries, 51.
     Schott, E. (1922). Über die Registrierung des Nystagmus und anderer Augenbewegungen vermittels des Saitengalvanometers. Dtsch Arch Klin Med, 140, 79–90.
     Siricharoen, W. V. (2013). Infographics: The new communication tools in digital age. In The International Conference on E-Technologies and Business on the Web (EBW2013) (pp. 169–174). The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communication. Retrieved from http://sdiwc.net/digital-library/infographics-the-new-communication-tools-in-digital-age
     Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J. J. G. van, & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
     Tufte, E. R. (1995). Envisioning information. Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press.
     Viswanathan, A. R. (2011). HEAD-MOUNTED EYE TRACKER. Cornell University. Retrieved from https://people.ece.cornell.edu/land/courses/eceprojectsland/STUDENTPROJ/2010to2011/arv44_zx52/arv44_report_201105200944.pdf
     Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L., & Dicarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 153–157. doi:10.1152/advan.00060.2006
     Weidenmann, B. (1989). 9 When Good Pictures Fail: An Information-Processing Approach to the Effect of Illustrations. Advances in Psychology, 58, 157–170.
     Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi:10.2307/1169967
     Yildirim, S. (2016). Infographics for Educational Purposes: Their Structure, Properties and Reader Approaches. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 15(3), 98–110.
     Young, L. R., & Sheena, D. (1975). Survey of eye movement recording methods. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 7(5), 397–429. doi:10.3758/BF03201553
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
104155002
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104155002
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chin Mingen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 顏琳zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yen, Linen_US
dc.creator (作者) 顏琳zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yen, Linen_US
dc.date (日期) 2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned 28-Aug-2017 11:36:50 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 28-Aug-2017 11:36:50 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 28-Aug-2017 11:36:50 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104155002en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112193-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊與檔案學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 104155002zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 目前大部分教材仍以純文字方式呈現為主，少有教材以資訊圖表方式呈現；然而，近年來資訊以視覺化的方式呈現越來越受到重視，資訊圖表以具故事性且有組織等引人入勝的方式呈現、解釋複雜的資料，用圖像說故事，讓重點更加容易吸收。因此，應用資訊圖表方式所設計之教材，是否能達成比傳統教材更有效的知識吸收與成效，是一個值得深入探討的研究議題。
     本研究透過資訊圖表的設計原則，將傳統教材製作成資訊圖表教材，採準實驗研究法探討兩組分別使用資訊圖表教材與傳統教材輔助學習的學習者，在閱讀時間、閱讀效率、認知負荷，以及眼動歷程上是否具有顯著的差異。同時進一步探討不同性別與認知風格學習者，在使用資訊圖表所設計教材與使用傳統教材輔助學習，在閱讀時間、閱讀效率、認知負荷，以及眼動歷程上是否具有顯著的差異。本研究以國小兩班合計47個五年級學童為研究對象，隨機挑選一班學生為採用資訊圖表教材的實驗組，以及另一班為採用傳統教材的控制組進行閱讀實驗，兩組的閱讀教材內容相同，但閱讀時間則以學習者完全讀完教材之時間為量測基礎，並於完成兩種教材學習後進行後測。此外，為了深入了解學習者對於兩種不同教材呈現方式的想法與感受，本研究亦輔以訪談法進行質化資料之蒐集，針對學習者對於這兩種教材呈現方式的外觀、排版、內容及吸收難易等進行訪談，以輔助解釋量化分析結果，使研究結果更具客觀性。
     研究結果發現，控制組學習者採用傳統教材所需花費的教材閱讀時間，顯著高於採用資訊圖表所設計教材之實驗組學習者，並且多了近一倍的時間，也就是採用資訊圖表設計之教材輔助學習，有助於降低閱讀時間。此外，採用資訊圖表教材實驗組學習者的閱讀效率，亦顯著優於採用傳統教材的控制組學習者，顯示資訊圖表教材較傳統教材更容易吸收、理解教材內容，因此有更高的閱讀效率。而採用資訊圖表教材實驗組學習者的認知負荷，與採用傳統教材的控制組學習者的認知負荷不具有顯著差異。
     另外，眼動指標分析結果發現，部分傳統教材AOI區塊凝視時間、凝視次數及回視次數顯著高於資訊圖表教材。同時，訪談結果也指出資訊圖表設計之教材整體的視覺動線閱讀順暢，大部分內容都看得懂，圖文搭配較容易理解，同時也會提升學習興趣。最後，本研究亦針對資訊圖表應用於教學輔助學習教材，提出設計及教學實施上的建議，對於教材的創新設計具有貢獻。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Most of learning materials are currently presented with pure texts, but rarely presented with inforgraphics. Nevertheless, the visualization of information is getting emphasized in past years. Inforgraphics attracts people with stories and organization in order to explains complicated data. Telling stories with images allows the points being more easily absorbed. In this case, it is worthy of in-depth discussion whether applying inforgraphic learning materials could achieve more effective knowledge absorption and achievement than traditional learning materials.
     With inforgraphic-based design principles, traditional learning materials are made into inforgraphic-based learning materials in this study. Quasi-experimental research is utilized for discussing the difference in reading time, reading efficiency, cognitive load, and eye tracking process between learners with inforgraphic-based learning materials and traditional material assisted learning. Meanwhile, the difference in reading time, reading efficiency, cognitive load, and eye tracking process between learners, with different gender and cognitive styles, with inforgraphic-based learning materials and traditional material assisted learning. This study involves two fifth-grade classes with a total of 47 students. A class is randomly selected as the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials, and the other class as the control group with traditional learning materials for the reading experiment. The reading materials for both groups are identical, but the reading time is based on learners completely finishing the learning materials. Posttest is preceded after completing the learning with such two learning materials. Moreover, in order to deeply understand learners’ opinions and perception of such two learning materials, interviews are also preceded in this study for collecting qualitative data. The learners are interviewed about the appearance, layout, contents, and absorption difficulty of the learning materials to explain the quantitative analysis results so as to make the research results more objective.
     The research findings show that learners in the control group with traditional learning materials spend about one time more reading time than those in the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials. That is, assisting learning with inforgraphic-based learning materials could reduce reading time. Furthermore, learners in the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials outperform those in the control group with traditional learning materials on reading efficiency, showing that inforgraphic-based learning materials are more easily absorbed and comprehended the contents than traditional learning materials to present higher reading efficiency. Learners in the experimental group with inforgraphic-based learning materials do not appear significant differences from those in the control group with traditional learning materials on cognitive load.
     What is more, the eye tracking analysis results reveal that the AOI block fixation time, fixation times, and regression times of some traditional learning materials are notably higher than those of inforgraphic-based learning materials. Meanwhile, the interviews also point out the smooth visual circulation reading of inforgraphic-based learning materials. Most contents are understandable, the match with images and texts can be more easily comprehended, and the learning interests could also be enhanced. Finally, suggestions for design and teaching practice, aiming at the application of inforgraphics to auxiliary learning materials, are proposed in this study, presenting contribution to the innovative design of learning materials.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
     第一節 研究背景與動機 1
     第二節 研究目的 3
     第三節 研究問題 4
     第四節 研究範圍與研究限制 4
     第五節 名詞解釋 5
     第二章 文獻探討 9
     第一節 資訊圖表的相關研究 9
     第二節 教材呈現方式之相關研究 17
     第三節 眼動儀應用於教材呈現之相關研究 21
     第四節 小結 25
     第三章 研究方法與實驗設計 27
     第一節 研究架構 27
     第二節 研究方法 30
     第三節 研究對象 31
     第四節 研究設計 32
     第五節 研究工具 34
     第六節 資料蒐集與分析方法 41
     第七節 研究實施步驟 42
     第四章 實驗結果分析 45
     第一節 研究對象背景 45
     第二節 閱讀理解成效分析 46
     第三節 閱讀時間分析 47
     第四節 閱讀效率分析 51
     第五節 認知負荷分析 56
     第六節 文字與圖片區塊的眼動指標分析 58
     第七節 訪談結果分析 64
     第八節 綜合討論 75
     第五章 結論與建議 85
     第一節 結論 85
     第二節 教學實施建議 87
     第三節 未來研究方向 89
     參考文獻 93
     附錄一 閱讀測驗 103
     附錄二 認知負荷量表 105
     附錄三 認知風格SOP量表 107
     附錄四 訪談大綱 109
     附錄五 資訊圖表教材 111
     附錄六 傳統教材 115		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104155002en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多媒體教材zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊圖表教材zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 眼動分析zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀時間zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 閱讀效率zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 認知負荷zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Multimedia coursewareen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inforgraphic-based learning materialsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Eye movement analysisen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading timeen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading efficiencyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cognitive loaden_US
dc.title (題名) 基於資訊圖表設計之數位教材的學習成效評估與眼動歷程分析zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Assessing learning performance and eye tracking process for Infographic-based digital learning materialen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 关中客（2012）。Infographic: 信息图? 知识图!。中國信息技術教育，2012（9），17。
     教育部（2016）。教育部國民中學‧學習資源網。國民中學-學習資源網。上網日期：2016年11月16日，檢自：http://siro.moe.edu.tw/fip/index.php?n=0&m=0
     教育部統計處（2015年10月22日）。教育部統計處全球資訊網[教育統計相關資料]。統計處。上網日期：2017年2月27日，檢自：http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/News.aspx?n=B31EC9E6E57BFA50&page=2&PageSize=20
     李芝、涂忠彬（2014）。基于 Infographic 的高中地理翻转课堂教学研究。新课程学习，11，1–2。
     王文科、王智弘（2014）。教育研究法。臺北市：台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
     衛生福利部國民健康署（2016）。衛生福利部國民健康署。上網日期：2017年2月27日，檢自：http://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=542&pid=709
     許峰銘（2010）。童詩圖像教學。臺北市：秀威出版。
     趙雅麗（2003）。符號版圖的迷思: 影像化趨勢下語言的未來發展。新聞學研究，77，187–215。
     邱淑惠、廖儷湘（2014）。學前幼兒如何閱讀繪本-眼動歷程之初探。教育傳播與科技研究，109，57–73。
     陳學志、賴惠德、邱發忠（2010）。眼球追蹤技術在學習與教育上的應用。教育科學研究期刊 第五十五卷第四期，55（4），39–68。
     陳李綢（1985）。布魯納理論應用於中小學生認知學習的成效研究。教育心理學報，18，191–227。
     黄婷（2015）。浅谈信息时代现代信息图设计。西安文理学院学报: 社会科学版，18（3），117–120。
     Allison, P. D., & Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A comment on Gottman. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 393-403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.393
     Alyahya, D., & Alyahya, S. (2015). Students learning style and attitude with information visualization. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 3(3), 49-54.
     Archambault, S. G. (2016). Telling Your Story: Using Dashboards and Infographics for Data Visualization. Computers in Libraries, 36(3), 4–7.
     Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1-15. doi:10.1037/h0044160
     Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7
     Card, S. K., & Mackinlay, J. (1997). The Structure of the Information Visualization Design Space. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis ’97). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=857188.857632
     Cawthon, N., & Moere, A. V. (2007). The effect of aesthetic on the usability of data visualization. In Information Visualization, 2007. IV’07. 11th International Conference (pp. 637–648). IEEE. doi:10.1109/IV.2007.147
     Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125–134. doi:10.1086/208501
     Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. doi:10.1007/BF01320076
     Davidson, R. (2014). Three investigations in which students present their results in infographics. The Science Teacher, 34–39.
     Davis, M., & Quinn, D. (2013). Visualizing text: The new literacy of infographics. Reading Today, 31(3), 16–18.
     de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111–122. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010
     Dodge, R., & Cline, T. S. (1901). The angle velocity of eye movements. Psychological Review, 8(2), 145. doi:10.1037/h0076100
     Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(4), 455-470. doi:10.3758/BF03195475
     Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice. London: Springer. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=337177
     Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning Styles/Teaching Styles: Should They ... Can They ... Be Matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238-44.
     Featherstone, R. (2014). Visual research data: An infographics primer. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l’Association Des Bibliothèques de La Santé Du Canada, 35(3), 147–150. doi:10.5596/c14-031
     Fekete, J.-D., Wijk, J. J. van, Stasko, J. T., & North, C. (2008). The Value of Information Visualization. In A. Kerren, J. T. Stasko, J.-D. Fekete, & C. North (Eds.), Information Visualization (pp. 1-18). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70956-5_1
     Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (2000). Learning styles and strategies. At URL: Http://Www. Engr. Ncsu. Edu/Learningstyles/Ilsweb. Html. Retrieved from http://www.cityvision.edu/courses/coursefiles/402/STYLES_AND_STRATEGIES.pdf
     Fredrick, K. (2013). Visualize This: Using Infographics in School Libraries. School Library Monthly, 30(3), 24.
     Gans, R. E. (2001). Video-oculography: A new diagnostic technology for vestibular patients. The Hearing Journal, 54(5), 40–42. doi:10.1097/01.HJ.0000294840.79013.39
     Gazepoint. (2016). Gazepoint – The first affordable eye-tracker! Professional performance at a consumer price! gazepoint. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from http://www.gazept.com/
     Gershon, N., Eick, S. G., & Card, S. (1998). Information Visualization. Interactions, 5(2), 9–15. doi:10.1145/274430.274432
     Guzmán-Cedillo, Y. I., Lima-Villeda, N., & Ferreira-Rosa, S. (2015). La experiencia de elaborar infografías didácticas sobre diversidad sexual/An Experience of Elaborating Didactic Infographics on Sexual Diversity. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (70), 961-981. doi:10.4185/RLCS-2015-1080en
     Harrison, L., Reinecke, K., & Chang, R. (2015). Infographic Aesthetics: Designing for the First Impression. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1187–1190). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702545
     Haselmayr, M. (2013). Use Infographics To Boost Your Credibility And Traffic. Forbes. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusiness/2013/08/02/use-infographics-to-boost-your-credibility-and-traffic/#6ed35faf2234
     Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 786-797. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.009
     Huey, E. B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading; with a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. Cambridge [Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
     Hughes, A., Wilkens, T., Wildemuth, B. M., & Marchionini, G. (2003). Text or pictures? An eyetracking study of how people view digital video surrogates. In International Conference on Image and Video Retrieval (pp. 271–280). Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-45113-7_27
     Jacob, R. J., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 4.
     Joy, E. H., & Garcia, F. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 33–39.
     Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes: a practical guide. Ireland: University College Cork.
     Koć-Januchta, M., Höffler, T., Thoma, G.-B., Prechtl, H., & Leutner, D. (2017). Visualizers versus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures–An eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170–179. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.028
     Kowler, E., & Schnitzer, B. S. (2006). Eye movements during multiple readings of the same text, 46(10), 1611-1632. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.09.023
     Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 47–77. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2001_3
     Krauss, J. (2012). More than words can say: infographics. Learning and Leading with Technology, 5(39), 10–14.
     Kuchinskas, G. (1979). Whose Cognitive Style Makes the Difference? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 269–271.
     Matrix, S., & Hodson, J. (2014). Teaching with infographics: Practicing new digital competencies and visual literacies. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 4(2), 17-27.
     Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6
     Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833-846. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.833
     Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
     Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389
     Merriam-Webster. (2017). Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/
     Moon, J. (2004). Linking levels, learning outcomes and assessment criteria. In Edinburgh. Online: http://www. bologna-bergen2005. no/EN/Bol_sem/Seminars/040701-02Edinburgh/040701-02Linking_Levels_plus_ass_crit-Moon. pdf (Zugriff: 10.06. 2008) (Vol. 12). Retrieved from http://aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/Bologna/Bol_semin/Edinburgh/J_Moon_backgrP.pdf
     Navarro, O., Molina, A. I., Lacruz, M., & Ortega, M. (2015). Evaluation of Multimedia Educational Materials Using Eye Tracking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2236–2243. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.366
     Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York; Oxford [Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press ; Clarendon Press.
     Paivio, A. (2006). Dual coding theory and education. In The Conference on Pathways to Literacy Achievement for High Poverty Children (pp. 1–20). Retrieved from http://www.csuchico.edu/~nschwartz/paivio.pdf
     Pallapu, P. (2007). Effects of visual and verbal learning styles on learning. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1(1), 34–41.
     Passig, D., & Levin, H. (1999). Gender interest differences with multimedia learning interfaces. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2), 173–183. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00016-3
     Piktochart. (2011, October 16). Create Easy Infographics, Reports, Presentations | Piktochart. Piktochart Infographics. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from https://piktochart.com/
     Pimenta, S., & Poovaiah, R. (2010). On defining visual narratives. Design Thoughts, 3, 25–46.
     Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.25
     Rezaei, N., & Sayadian, S. (2015). The Impact of Infographics on Iranian EFL Learners’ Grammar Learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 78–85.
     Ru, G., & Ming, Z. Y. (2014). Infographics applied in design education. In Advanced Research and Technology in Industry Applications (WARTIA), 2014 IEEE Workshop on (pp. 984–986). IEEE. doi:10.1109/WARTIA.2014.6976439
     Sankey, M. (2003). Visual and multiple representation in learning materials: an issue of literacy. Create. Ed 2003: Elearning for the Creative Industries, 51.
     Schott, E. (1922). Über die Registrierung des Nystagmus und anderer Augenbewegungen vermittels des Saitengalvanometers. Dtsch Arch Klin Med, 140, 79–90.
     Siricharoen, W. V. (2013). Infographics: The new communication tools in digital age. In The International Conference on E-Technologies and Business on the Web (EBW2013) (pp. 169–174). The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communication. Retrieved from http://sdiwc.net/digital-library/infographics-the-new-communication-tools-in-digital-age
     Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J. J. G. van, & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
     Tufte, E. R. (1995). Envisioning information. Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press.
     Viswanathan, A. R. (2011). HEAD-MOUNTED EYE TRACKER. Cornell University. Retrieved from https://people.ece.cornell.edu/land/courses/eceprojectsland/STUDENTPROJ/2010to2011/arv44_zx52/arv44_report_201105200944.pdf
     Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L., & Dicarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 153–157. doi:10.1152/advan.00060.2006
     Weidenmann, B. (1989). 9 When Good Pictures Fail: An Information-Processing Approach to the Effect of Illustrations. Advances in Psychology, 58, 157–170.
     Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi:10.2307/1169967
     Yildirim, S. (2016). Infographics for Educational Purposes: Their Structure, Properties and Reader Approaches. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 15(3), 98–110.
     Young, L. R., & Sheena, D. (1975). Survey of eye movement recording methods. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 7(5), 397–429. doi:10.3758/BF03201553		zh_TW