簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 林明錚
Ming-Cheng Lin
論文名稱: 認知型態對國小學生在資訊擷取能力、空間能力影響之探索研究
A Study on the Influences of Cognitive Style to Elementary School Students in Information Searching and Spatial Abilities
指導教授: 洪榮昭
Hong, Jon-Chao
楊紹裘
Yang, Shao-Cho
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 工業教育學系
Department of Industrial Education
畢業學年度: 87
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 217
中文關鍵詞: 國小學生認知型態空間能力場地獨立場地依賴
英文關鍵詞: elementary school students, cognitive style, spatial ability, field independent, field dependent
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:297下載:0
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 本研究旨在分析不同年級、作答型態之小學生在認知型態量表藏圖測驗之差異,並進一步探討認知型態對小學生在資訊擷取能力、空間能力之影響及其相關性。
    為達上述目的,研究者以1999少年發明教室3-6年級國小學生(N=59)為研究對象,在實施「團體藏圖測驗」後,分為場地獨立(N=18)與場地依賴(N=17)兩組;以國科會研究成果「安可的假期」錄影帶及研究者設計之「資訊擷取能力測驗」、「空間能力測驗」為主要研究工具,所得資料以獨立樣本t考驗、單因子變異數分析、事後比較分析及pearson積差相關等統計方法進行資料分析處理。茲就本研究的主要結果說明如下:
    一、 不同年級之國小學生在認知型態量表測驗,差異如下:
    1-1、 國小三年級學生與六年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
    存在。
    1-2、 國小四年級學生與六年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
    存在。
    1-3、 國小五年級學生與六年級學生在認知型態量表測驗無明顯差異
    存在。
    1-4、 國小三年級學生與五年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
    存在。
    1-5、 國小四年級學生與五年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
    存在。
    1-6、 國小三年級學生與四年級學生在認知型態量表測驗無明顯差異
    存在。
    1-7、 中年級學生與高年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異存
    在。
    二、 不同作答型態之國小學生在認知型態量表-藏圖測驗上、無顯著差
    異。
    三、 場地獨立組學生在資訊擷取能力明顯優於場地依賴組。
    四、 認知型態對國小學生在空間能力差異如下:
    4-1、場地獨立組學生對空間能力-圖形製作(一)明顯優於場地依賴
    組。
    4-2、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-圖形製作(二)明顯優於場地
    依賴組。
    4-3、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-圖形製作(三)明顯優於場地
    依賴組。
    4-4、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-圖形製作(綜合)明顯優於場
    地依賴組。
    4-5、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-物件拆解、組合能力明顯優於
    場地依賴組。
    五、 不同認知型態之國小學生在資訊擷取能力與空間能力有顯著相關。
    最後,本研究對上述研究結果加以討論之外,並綜合研究結論,提出未來研究上的建議,以作為後續研究之參考。
    關鍵詞:國小學生、認知型態、空間能力、場地獨立、場地依賴

    A Study on the Influences of Cognitive Style to Elementary School Students in Information Searching and Spatial Abilities
    Ming–Cheng Lin
    Abstract
    The purpose of this research was to analyze the differences in cognitive style hidden figures test of elementary school students in different grades and answer mode. It also explores the influences and relationships of cognitive style of elementary schoolers in information searching and spatial abilities.
    In order to achieve the goal, researcher chose third to six graders (N=59) in 1999 Youth Creativity Classroom as the study target, and divided them into groups of field independent(N=18) and field dependent(N=17) after giving them “hidden figure test”.
    The research tools were the video tape entitled “Ann’s Vacation” from the research product of Country Science Council, “information searching test” and “spatial ability” designed by researcher. All collected data were analyzed by statistic methods such as independent sample t test, one-way ANOVA, a posterior comparison, and Pearson product-moment correlation. The main outcomes of this study were described as following:
    A. The differences in cognitive style test among different graders were described as below:
    A-1. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between third and six graders.
    A-2. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between forth and six graders.
    A-3. There is no distinct difference in cognitive style test between fifth and six graders.
    A-4. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between third and fifth graders.
    A-5. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between forth and fifth graders.
    A-6. There is no distinct difference in cognitive style test between third and forth graders.
    A-7. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between Middle and higher graders.
    B. No distinct differences on the different answer mode to cognitive style-hidden figure test in elementary school students.
    C. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in the ability of information searching.
    D. The differences in cognitive style of elementary school students in spatial ability described as below:
    D-1. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (I).
    D-2. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (II).
    D-3. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (III).
    D-4. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (multiple).
    D-5. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-disassembled and combination abilities.
    E. The elementary schoolers who have different cognitive styles have distinct relationship in information searching and spatial abilities.
    This research did not only discuss the above research outcomes, but also synthesized these outcomes and provided suggestions as a reference for the further study.
    Keywords: cognitive style, spatial ability, field independent, field dependent

    總 目 錄 中文摘要 Ⅰ 英文摘要 Ⅲ 總目錄 Ⅴ 圖目錄 Ⅷ 表目錄 Ⅹ 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究動機.....................................1 第二節 研究目的.....................................5 第三節 研究問題.....................................6 第四節 研究假設.....................................7 第五節 研究範圍與限制...............................9 第六節 名詞詮釋.................................... 11 第二章 文獻探討 第一節 認知型態相關理論............................13 第二節 從認知型態到學習型態........................ 25 第三節 場地獨立性與場地依賴相關理論................41 第四節 資訊擷取能力相關理論........................52 第五節 空間能力相關理論及研究探討..................57 第六節 認知型態之相關研究探討......................72 第三章 研究設計與實施 第一節 研究架構....................................81 第二節 研究方法....................................83 第三節 研究對象....................................85 第四節 研究工具....................................87 第五節 研究實施....................................98 第六節 資料處理...................................103 第四章 資料分析與討論 第一節 藏圖測驗資料之分析..........................105 第二節 不同作答型態對國小學生在FI/FD測驗分析.......115 第三節 認知型態對國小學生在資訊擷取能力差異之分析..121 第四節 認知型態對國小學生在空間能力差異之分析......122 第五節 不同認知型態對國小學生在空間能力 資訊擷取能力間相關分析.....................127 第六節 考驗對立假設................................132 第五章 結論與建議 第一節 研究發現....................................137 第二節 結論與討論..................................141 第三節 建議........................................145 參考文獻 壹、中文部分.......................................151 貳、英文部分.......................................158 附錄 附錄一 認知型態量表-藏圖測驗........................179 附錄二 資訊擷取能力測驗.............................185 附錄三 空間能力平面測驗表...........................189 附錄四 專家會議公函、會議記錄、會議資料.............193 附錄五 受試樣本各測驗原始成績資料...................215

    一、 中文部份
    丁振豐(民75):學生場地獨立性與教師教學方法的交互作用對認知及情
    意學習效果之影響。國立臺灣師範大學心輔研究所碩士論文(未出
    版)。
    丁振豐(民78):場地獨立性認知型式個別差異現象及其對教學歷程的影
    響之探討。台南師範學院學報,第22期,頁135-150。
    丁振豐(民83):三個心理學派典型對空間能力研究的比較。國立台南師
    範學院初等教育學報,第7期,頁213-249。
    丁興祥(民66):認知形式與圖片不一致性對有易學習與偶發學習的影
    響 。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    王三幸(民81):影響國小高年級學生數學學業成就的相關因素研究。國
    立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    王文科(民82):教育研究法。台北:五南。
    王玉蘭(民81):對4歲與6歲幼童認知的調查研究。教育理論與實踐,
    3期,頁52~54。
    王春龍(民87):認知型態與多媒體電腦輔助教學策略對電機控制學習成
    效之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    朱則剛(民82):教學設計核心理念-學習理論與教學理論知識基礎的研
    究。視聽教育雙月刊,35(2),頁1-23。
    朱敬先(民77):教育心理學。台北:五南。
    吳天方(民70):我國師範大學工業教育學生學習風格之相關研究。教育
    研究資訊,5期,頁114-132。
    吳百薰(民87):國小學生學習風格相關因素之研究。國立台中師範學院
    國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    吳武典(民75):國中資優學生的認知方式與學習方式之探討。特殊教育
    研究學刊,第2期,頁219-230。
    吳武典(民82):輔導原理。台北:心理出版社。
    吳知賢(民78):國小高年級兒童之人格特質、媒體偏好、科目興趣與其
    認知型態的關係。國立台南師範學院學報,第22期,頁29-54。
    吳新華(民83):國小學童班級適應、學習方法之效率與學業成就之關
    係。台南師範學報,27期,頁31-73。
    吳裕益(民78):認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。高雄師範學
    院,教育學刊,第7期,頁143-173。
    吳靜吉(民68):藏圖測驗。台北:遠流。
    李永吟(民78):教學原理。台北:遠流。
    李金泉(民86):如何精通 SPSS for Windows 統計分析。台北:松崗。
    林 華(民85):認知型態與遊歷輔助工具種類對超媒體學習系統中使用
    者表現與態度之影響。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。(未出
    版)
    林生傳(民74):國中學生學習式態之相關因素及其與學校教育態度、學
    業成就關係。教育學刊,6期,頁41-94。
    林邦傑(民71):國中及高中學生具體運思,形式運思與學業成就之關
    係。測驗年刊,28期,頁23-32。
    林美和(民76):數學障礙兒童學習問題之研究。國立臺灣師範大學社會
    教育學刊,16期,頁43-76。
    林美和(民81):學習型態的剖析及其在成人教育上之研究。婦女教
    育, 頁179-196。台北:師大書苑。
    林偉人(民84):國小學生場地獨立性及握信念對數學科電腦輔助教學學
    習成效之研究。國民教育研究集刊,第1期,頁267-295。
    林清山 譯(民85):教育心理學-認知取向。台北:遠流。
    林清山(民 64):多變項分析統計法。台北:東華。
    林清山(民74):魏肯氏心裡分化理論相關問題之實證性研究。師大教育
    心理學報,第18期,頁39-54。
    林清山(民81):心理與教育學。台北:東華。
    林義男(民79):大學生的學習參與、學習型態與學習成果的關係。輔導
    學報,13期,頁79-128。
    林錦雪(民84):CAI與傳統教學對不同學習風格之國小學生學習自然科
    學成就和態度之影響。台南師範初等教育研究所碩士論文(未出
    版)。
    林麗娟(民83):互動式教育環境與科學性知識的學習。教學科技與媒
    體,16期,頁3-13。
    林麗琳(民84):國小資優班與普通班學生學習風格、學習適應與學業成
    就關係之研究。國立台南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文(未出
    版)。
    洪榮昭(民79):學習型態分組在CAI學習成效之研究。國科會計劃:
    NSC79-0111-S-003-007。頁9-15。
    洪榮昭(民84):不同學習型態在問題解決思維發展之研究。國科會計
    劃:NSC84-2511-S-003-081-CL。頁22-38。
    洪榮昭、 劉明洲(民86):電腦輔助教學之設計原理與應用。台北:師
    大書苑。
    候雅齡(民83):促進教學成效的新教學策略--了解學生的學習式態並予
    以設計相合的教學活動。國教天地,103期,頁69-75。
    袁之琦、游恒山(民77):心理學名詞辭典。台北:五南。
    馬德強(民85):場地獨立性對全球資訊網資料搜尋成效之研究。國立高
    雄師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文(未出版)。
    高德鳳等(民64):國中學生場地獨立性與智力、性別、自我接受度三者
    關係。中國心理學刊,17期,頁105-108。
    張玉燕(民74):學習型態分析。中等教育,1期,頁32-38。
    張芝萱(民84):國民小學資優生學習動機、學習認知、學習方式偏好與
    學校生活素質感之相關研究。國立新竹師範學院初等教育研究所碩士
    論文(未出版)。
    張春興(民77):知之歷程與教之歷程:認知心理學的發展及其教育上的
    應用。師大教育心理學報,21期,頁17-28。
    張春興(民78):張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華書局。
    張春興(民83):現代心理學。台北:東華,頁258-278。
    張春興(民85):教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華,頁
    211-250。
    張景媛(民77):教學類型與學習類型適配性研究暨學生學習適應理論模
    式的驗證。國立臺灣師範大學心理與輔導研究所碩士論文(未出
    版)。
    張麗芬(民78)兒童空間認知能力發展之研究。教育與心理研究,12期,
    頁249-281。
    郭生玉(民73):心理與教育研究法。台北:精華。
    郭生玉(民82):心理與教育測驗。台北:精華。
    郭重吉(民76):英美等國晚近對學生學習風格之研究。資優教育季刊,
    第22期,頁2-8。
    郭重吉(民76):評介學習風格之有關研究。資優教育季刊,第23期,頁
    7-16。
    郭重吉(民77):從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。國立臺灣教育學院
    學報,13期,頁352-378。
    陳如山(民82):成人學習型態及其相關因素之研究。空大社會科學學
    報,1期,頁59-105。
    陳婉如(民87):認知型態與空間能力對程式設計學習成效之研究。國立
    彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    陳清泉(民79):大學生生活壓力、認知型態與憂鬱傾向相關之研究。國
    立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    陳惠貞(民84):電腦輔助音樂教學與傳統教學對不同學習式態的國小學
    生音樂學習之成效之探討。台南師範初等教育研究所碩士論文(未出
    版)。
    陳景堂(民87):統計分析 SPSS for Windows 入門與應用。台北儒林。
    曾淑容(民68):我國高中學生性別、智力、創造力三者與場地獨立關係
    之研究。教育學院學報,第4期,頁251-280。
    曾盛琳(民79):創造思考、認知型態與產品設計能力的關係。國立成功
    大學工業管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    游朝煌(民84):大學學生空間能力、邏輯思考能力、不同補充教學策略
    及相關因素對程式設計學習成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育
    研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    鈕文英(民83):學習障礙學生的學習風格與教學。教育研究雙月刊,37
    期,頁67-74。
    黃玉枝(民74):國中資優學生與普通學生學習風格及學校適應比較研
    究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    黃瑞琴(民83):質的教育研究方法。台北:心理。
    楊坤原(民85):認知風格與科學學習成就的關係。科學教育月刊,194
    期,頁2-12。
    楊家興(民75):個別化教學,智慧型電腦輔助教學的展望。科學教育,
    94期,頁14-23。
    路約君等(民78):修訂區分性向測驗。台北:中國行為科學社。
    劉信雄(民81):國小學生認知風格、學習策略、自我效能與學業成就關
    係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
    歐陽鍾玲(民71):學童空間概念的發展。臺灣師範大學地理研究所碩士論
    文(未出版)。
    蔡翠華(民85):國小數學學習障礙學生學習型態與學習策略之相關研
    究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    鄭昭明(民76):認知心理學與教學研究:一般介紹。現代教育,2期,
    頁86-114。
    鄭昭明(民82):認知心理學。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
    鄭晉昌(民82):自情境學習的認知觀點探討電腦輔助教學中教材內容的設
    計一從幾個學科教學系統談起。教學科技與媒體,12期,頁3-14。
    戴久永(民80):統計概念與方法。台北:三民。
    戴文雄(民81):高工學生認知型態與空間觀念對機械製圖學習成效與態
    度之研究。高雄:復文。
    戴文雄(民83):學習型態與電腦輔助學習對機械製圖學習成效之研究。臺
    北:第九屆全國技術及職業教育研討會論文集一般技職及人文教育類,
    頁231-240。
    戴文雄(民87):不同正增強回饋型式電腦輔助學習系統對不同認知型態與
    空間能力高工學生機械製圖學習成效之研究。行政國科會計劃:NSC
    86-2516-S-018-010-TG,頁25-48。
    戴文雄、陳華昌、游朝煌、陳培文(民83):高工學生空間觀念對機械製圖
    學習成效與態度之研究。行政國科會委託專案研究報告。
    簡紅珠(民81):學習型態與教學型態--研究發現與應用。國教世紀,4
    期,頁28-32。
    簡茂發、蘇建文、陳淑美(民75):國小系列學業性向測驗指導手冊。台
    北:中國行為科學社。
    豐佳燕(民88):特教師資班學員認知型態對使用網路互動式遠距學習系統
    之影響。師大特殊教育碩士論文,頁38-64(未出版)。
    魏丕信(民84):不同介面表現形式及個人認知型態差異對使用超媒體資
    訊系統搜尋效果的影響。第四屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會論文集。頁
    21-38。新竹:交通大學。
    羅德望 譯(民76):視覺心理學。台北:五洲出版社。
    蘇育任(民84):國小教師教學模式與學生認知型態對自然科學習成效成
    績之影響。初等教育研究集刊。
    鐘 菁(民83):學生學習型態與學業成績關係之研究。國立台北商專學
    報,43期,頁209-243。

    二、 西文部份
    Abouserie, R. & Moss, D. (1992) Cognitive style, gender
    attitude toward computer-assisted learning and academic
    achievement. Educational Studies, 18(2), 151-160.
    Akin, A. (1992) An analysis of the effect of matching student
    learning style to method of instruction. Dissertation
    Abstracts International, 53, 1331A. (University Microfilms
    NO. 931-446).
    Anamuah-Mensay, J. (1986). Cognitive strategies used by
    chemistry students solve volumetric analysis problems.
    Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(9), 759-762.
    Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing. New York: Mac
    Millan.
    Ausubel. David. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive
    view. New York: Holt, Rinehart. & Winston, Inc.
    Baker, P. & King, T. (1993). Evaluating interactive multimedia
    courseware methodology. Computer Educating. 21(4) 307-319.
    Baker, P. R. & Belland, J. C. (1986). Developing spatial skills
    with experLOGO on the Macintosh.ERIC ED 281 490.
    Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
    NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Barry, M. H. (1986). The effect of field-dependence-
    independence match and mismatch of student and teacher on
    science achievement. ED 293898.
    Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender
    difference in high school geometry. Journal for Research in
    Mathematics Education, 21(1), 41-60.
    Bell-Gredler, Me. (1986). Learning and instruction: Theory into
    practice. NY: Macmillan.
    Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group difference in study
    processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 48,
    266-279.
    Bisop, A. J. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathematics
    education: A review. Educational Studies in Mathematics 11,
    257-269.
    Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in
    classroom instruction. New York: Macmillan.
    Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human Characteristics and school learning.
    New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Bloom, B. S., Engelhard, M., Hill, W., Furst, E., & Krathwohl,
    D. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
    Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
    Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. J., & Hastings, J. T. (1981).
    Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGrew-Hill.
    Boehm, B. (1988). A spiral model of software development and
    enhancement. IEEE Computer, 21(5), 67-72.
    Bonham, L. A. (1988). Learning style use: In need of
    perspective. Lifelong Learning. 11(5), 14-17.
    Borich, G. D. (1992). Effective teaching methods (2nd Ed.) New
    York: Maxwell Macmillan International.
    Boutwell, R. C., & Barton, G. E. (1974). Toward an adaptive
    learner-control led model of instruction: A place for the
    new cognitive aptitudes. Educational Technology, 14(5),
    13-18.
    Bove, T. & Rhodes, C. (1990). Que's Macintosh multimedia
    handbook. Indianapolis, IN: QUE.
    Boysen, V. A. (1980). Interaction of field dependence-
    independence with type of feedback used in computer-assised
    equation solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa
    State University.
    Broverman, D. M. (1960). Cognitive styles and intraindivisual
    variation in abilities. Journal of Personality, 28, 240-
    256.
    Burkhalter, B. B., & Schaer, B. B. (1985). The effect f
    cognitive style and cognitive learning in a nontraditional
    educational setting, Educational Research Quarerely, 9(4),
    12-18.
    Canfield, A. A. (1988). Canfield learning styles inventory
    manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
    Carter, C. S., Larussa, M. A., Bodner G. M. (1985). Spatial
    ability in general chemistry. NARST,French Lick.
    Chase, W. G. & Chi M. T. H. (1981). Cognitive skill :
    Implications in Largi-Scale Environments. In Harvey, J. H.
    (ed). Cognition, social behavior, and the environment
    Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum Assoc, 111-136.
    Claxton, C. S. & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning Styles:
    Implications for improving educational practices.
    Washington D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher
    Education.
    Claxton, S. and Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning Styles: Their
    impact on teaching and administration. AAHE-ERIC Higher
    Education Research Report, No.lO. Washington, D.C.:
    American Association for Higher Education. (Eric Document
    Reproduction Service. No. ED. 167 065).
    Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-
    based instructional design. Educational Technology. 25(1),
    33-37.
    Connor, J. M. & Serbin, L. A., & Schackamn, M. (1977). Sex
    difference in children's response to train on a Visual-
    Spatial Test. Developmental psychology, 13(3), 293-294.
    Cornett, C .E. (1983). What you should know about teaching and
    learning styles. (Eric Document Reproduction Service.No.ED
    228 235).
    Cosky M .J. (1980). Computer-based instruction and cognitive
    styles: Do they make a difference? National Conference on
    Computer-Based Education, Bloomington, MN. (ERIC Document
    Reproduction service No, ED 201299)
    Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and
    instructional methods: A handbook for research on
    interactions. New York: Irvington.
    Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles,theory and
    constructs. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No. Ed 235
    185).
    Curry, L. (1990a). Learning styles in secondary schools: A
    review of instruments and implications for their use. (Eric
    Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 317 283).
    Curry, L. (1990b). A critique of the research on learning
    styles. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 50-56.
    Daniel, A. et al. (1986). Cognitive style as a predicter of
    Achievement: A Multivariate Analysis.ERIC ED 248217.
    De Soto, D. B. et al. (1965). Social reasoning and spatial
    paralogic. J. Of personality and social psychology. V2 (4),
    513-521.
    Dembo, M. H. (1988). Applying educational psychology in the
    classroom (3rd Ed). NY:Longman.
    Donelson, F. L. (1990) The development, testing, and used of a
    computer interface to evaluate an information processing
    model describing the rate of encoding and mental rotation
    in high students of high and low spatial ability. (ED 326
    396).
    Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their
    individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston,
    Va.: Reston publishing Company.
    Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1994). Teaching young childrn through
    their individual learning styles: practical approaches for
    grades K-2. Massachusetts : Simon & Schuster.
    Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of Learning and Teaching.
    Chihester: Johnson Wiley and Sons.
    Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Cognitive style and learning. In K.
    Mar joribanks (Ed.), The foundations of students' learning.
    (p.139-145). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
    Federico, P. N., & Landis. D. B. (1984). Cognitive styles,
    abilities, and appititudes: Are They Dependent or
    Independent. Contemporary Educational Psychology 9,146-161.
    Francis, M. D. & David, M. M. (1995). Effect of color coding
    and test type (visual/verbal) on student identified as
    possessing defferent field dependence levels. Selected
    Readings from the Annual Congruence of the International
    Vesual Literacy Association.
    Frey. D & Simonson, M.(1990). Cognitive style, perceptual
    modes, anxiety, attitude, and achievement. (ED 323 929).
    Gagne, R. & Briggs, L. (1992). Principles of instructional
    design (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
    Publisher.
    Gagne, R. M. (1974). Essentials of learning for instruction.
    Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
    Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of
    instruction. NJ: CBS College Publishing.
    Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
    intelligence. N. Y.: basic books, Inc.
    Garrott, Carl L. (1986). Cognitive Style and Impressions of
    Student Achievement in College French Class. ED 277 276.
    Gearheart, B. R., & Gearheart, C. J. (1989). Learning
    disabilities: Educational strategies. Columbus: Merrill
    Publishing Company.
    Glaser, R. (1972). Individuals and learning: The new aptitudes.
    Educational Researcher, 1(6), 5-13.
    Glaser, R., & Resnick, L. B. (1972). Instructional psychology.
    In P. B. Muessen & M. R. Rosenweig (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. Pale Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
    Gregoric, AF (1979). Learning /Teaching Styles: Potent Forces
    behind Them. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 234-236.
    Guilfod, J.P. (1980). Cognitive styles: What are they?
    Educational and Psychological Measurement. 40(3), 715-735.
    Hill J. E. (1970). Cognitive style as an educational science.
    Bloom field Hills, Michigan: Oakland Community College
    Press.
    Hill W. F. (1985). Learning A survey of psychological
    interpretations. (4th Ed.) New York: Harper Row.
    Hoffman, D. A. (1978). Field independence and intelligence:
    Their relation to leadership and self-concept in six-grade
    boys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 827-832.
    Holley, C. D., & Dnsereau, D. F. (1984). Spatial learning
    Strategies. NY. : Academic press.
    Hong, J. C. (1994). A study of discovery learning with
    different learning style in a CAI environment. Proceeding
    of National Science Council, Part D Math. SCI. Technical.
    Educ., 4(2), 70-80.
    Hooper, E. B. (1982). The effects of field dependence and
    instructional sequence on student learning. In a computer-
    based algebra lesson. Unpublished master's thesis, Iowa
    state University.
    Hooper, K. (1990). HyperCard: A key to educational computing.
    Learning with Interactive Multimedia development and Using
    Multimedia Tool in Education, Apple computer Inc.
    Hsu, T. E. (1994). Effects of learner cognitive style and
    metacognitive tools information acquisition paths and
    learning in hyperspace environment (pp.291-306). ERIC NO.ED
    373721.
    Hudson, T. (1992). Teaching with interactive multimedia. Paper
    presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western State
    Communication Association (63rd, Boise, ID, Fe bursary 21-
    25, 1992).
    Hunt D. E. (1979). Learning Style and Student Needs: An
    Introduction to Conceptual Level. In NASSP (ED). Student
    learning style: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (27-
    38). Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company.
    Hunt, E., & pellegrino, J. (1984). Using interactive computing
    to expand intelligence testing: A critique and prospectus.
    (ERIC ED 250 320).
    Joan, P. G. (1985). An investigation of relationship between
    field dependent-independent cognitive style, interpersonal]
    orientation, and learning preference among head nurses and
    a selected group of staff nurese. Unpublished doctoral
    dissertation, University of Boston.
    Johnson, S., Flinn, J. M., & Tyer, Z. E. (1979). Effect of
    practice and training in spatial skill in Embedded Figures
    score of males and females. Perceptual and motor skills,
    48, 975-984.
    Jonasen. D. H. & Grabowski, B, L. (1993). Handbook of
    individual differences learning and instruction. Hillsdale,
    NJ: Lawrence Erbium associates.
    Jonassen, D. ed. (1988). Instructional designs for
    microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
    Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    Jonassen, E. H. (1991). Learning VS. Information. Journal of
    Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 3-5.
    Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality
    and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal
    Psychology. 71, 17-24.
    Keefe, J, W. (1987). Learning style theory and practices.
    Virginea: National Association of Secondary School
    Principals.
    Keefe, J, W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and the
    instructional leadership series. ERIC Document NO: ED
    355634.
    Keefe, J, W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and thinking
    skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED355634).
    Kemp, J. (1985). The instructional design process. New York:
    Holt, Rinehart & Winston Publisher.
    Kirby, J. R. (1984). Cognitive strategies and educational
    performance. New York: Academic Press.
    Kirby, J. R. (1988). Style, strategy and skill in reading. In
    R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning style
    (pp.229-274). New York: Plenum Press.
    Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variations in childhood and
    adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive style. In
    J. H. Flavell, E, M. Markman, & P.H. Mussen (Eds.),
    Handbook of Child psychology (vol. 3, Cognitive
    development). New York: Wiley.
    Kogan, Nathan. (1972). Educational implications of cognitive
    styles. In Gerald Lesser (ED.), Psychology and educational
    practice. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Froesman.
    Kolb, D. D. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual.
    Boston: McDer and Company.
    Kornbluth, J. A. (1982). The effect of cognitive style and
    study method on mathematical achievement of disadvantaged
    Students. School Science and Mathematics, 2, 141-147.
    Kosslyn et al. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial
    representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical
    and coordinate relations. Journal of Experimental
    Psychology, 15, 723-735.
    Kulik, J. A. & Banget, R. L. (1983). Effectiveness of
    technology in precoll ege mathematics and science teaching.
    Journal of Educational Technology System, 12(2), 137-158.
    Liben, L. S. (1981). Spatial representation and behavior:
    Multiple perspectives. In L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson & N.
    Newcombe (Eds.). Spatial representation and behavior
    across the life span: Theory and application. N. Y.:
    Academic Press.
    Lin, C. H. & Davidson, G. (1994). Effects of Linking structure
    and cognitive style on students' performance and attitude
    in computer-based hypertext environment.(ERIC NO.ED373734)
    Little, T. (1991). Spatial ability: A review and reanalysis of
    the correlation literature. Stanford, C. A.: Stanford
    university.
    Liu, M. & Reed, W. (1994). The relationship between the
    learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia
    environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(4), 419-434.
    Liu, M. & Reed, W. (1994). The relationship between the
    learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia
    environment. (Pp. 1-12). (ERIC NO.ED372727)
    Load T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visual- spatial aptitude of
    students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5),
    395-405.
    Load T. R. (1987). Spatial teaching. The Science Teacher. 52
    (5), 32-34.
    Loerke, A. M. (1993). Instructional preferences of students in
    a collaborative nursing program. AAC MM88237.
    Lohman, D. F. (1979). Spatial ability: Individual differences
    in speed and level (Tech. Rep. No. 9). Stanford, CA:
    Stanford University, Aptitude Research Project, and School
    Of Education. (NTIS No. AD-A075973)
    Lohman, D. F., & Kyllonen, P. C. (1984). Individual
    differences in solution strategy on spatial and change. In
    S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of Science, 3, and 423-
    475). New York: McCraw-Hill CO.
    Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visual spatial aptitude of
    students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5),
    395-405.
    Lord, T. R. (1987). Spatial teaching. The Science Teacher, 52
    (2), 32-34.
    Lowery, B. R., & Knirk, F. G. (1982). Microcomputer video games
    and spatial visualization acquisition. Journal of
    Educational Technology System, 11(2), 155-156.
    MacNal, W. et al. (1991). Cognitive style and analytic ability
    and their relationship to competence in the biological
    science. Journal of Biological education.
    Marshall, J. C. (1987). Examination of a learning style
    inventory. Research in Higher education, 206(4), 417-429.
    McCormack, A. (1988). Visual/spatial thinking: An element of
    elementary school science. Council for elementary science
    international, San Diego State University.
    Mckeachie, W.J. (1987). The new look in instructional
    psychology: Teaching strategies for learning and thinking.
    In E. D.Corte, H.L.Wijks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span, (Eds.),
    Learning and Instruction (pp.443-456). Leuven University
    Press and Pergam on Press.
    Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design.
    Educational Technology, 31(5). 45-53.
    Merrill, M. D., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Second generation
    instructional design (ID2). Educational Technology. 30(2),
    7-14.
    Messer, S. B. (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco:
    Jossey-Bass.
    Messick, S. (1970). The criterion problem in the evaluation of
    instruction: Assessing Possible, not just intended,
    outcomes. In M. C. Wittrock & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The
    evaluation of instruction: Issues and problems. New York:
    Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and
    creativity. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in Learning
    (pp. 4-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality.
    American Psychologist. 24, 1012-1018.
    More, A. J. (1993). Adapting teaching top the learning styles
    of native Indian students. ERIC Document NO: ED 366493.
    Mory, E. D. (1992). The use of information feedback in
    instruction: Implications for future research. Educational
    Technology research and Devek\lopment, 40(3), p5-22.
    Mumaw, R. J. & Pellegrino, J. W. (1984). Individual differences
    in complex spatial processing. Journal of Educational
    Psychology, 76(5), 920-939.
    Newcombe, N, & Bandura, M.M. (1983). Eect of age at puberty on
    spatial ability in girls: A question of mechanism.
    Developmental Psychology, 19, 215-224.
    Nordstrom, B. H. (1989). Non-traditional students: Adults in
    transition. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No. ED
    310686).
    Paiget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child.
    New York: Basic books.
    Paiget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to
    adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12.
    Pallrand, G., & Seeber, F. (1984). Spatial ability and
    achievement in introductory physics. Journal of Research in
    Science Teaching, 21(5), 507-516.
    Pearson, J. L., & Ialongo, N. S. (1986). The relationship
    between spatial ability and environment knowledge. Journal
    of Environmental Psychology, 6, 299-304.
    Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets construction: A state-
    of-the art assessment. NY: Educational Technology, 31(5).
    18-23.
    Post P. E. (1987). The effect of field independence/field
    dependence on computer-assisted instruction achievement.
    Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. 25(1), 60-67.
    Prey, D & Simonson, M. (1990). Cognitive style, perceptual
    modes, anxiety, attitude, and achievement. (ED 323 929).
    Pribly, J. R. & Bodner, C. M. (1985). The Role of spatial
    ability and achievement in organic chemistry. (ERIC ED 255
    393).
    Roberge, Janes J. and others (1984), Cognitive style,
    operatively and reading achievement. American Educational
    Research Journal, 21(1), 27-36.
    Roberston, I. T. (1982). Individual differences in formation
    processing strategy and style. Paper presented at the of
    the international conference on Man/Machine Systems (pp. 85-
    88), London.
    Satterly, D, J, (1976). Cognitive styles, spatial
    ability and school achievement. Journal of Educational
    Psychology, 68(1), 36-42.
    Satterly, D, J, (1985). Cognitive styles, spatial ability and
    school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56
    (1), 36-42.
    Schimmel, B. J. (1986). Feedback use by Low-Ability students in
    computer-based education. Dissertation Abstracts
    International, 47(11), 4068.
    Schimmel, B. J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in
    courseware. In D. H.Jonassen (ED), Instructional designs
    for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale.NJ: Lawrence
    Erlbaum Associates.
    Schmeck, R. R. (1982). Inventory of learning Process. In
    Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior (p.73-80).
    Reston, VA: NASSP. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No.
    ED 227565)
    Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor learning & performance from
    principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
    Publications.
    Semple, E. E. (1982). Learning style. A review of the
    literature. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 222
    477)
    Shymansky, J. & YORE, L. (1980). A study of teaching
    strategies, student cognitive development, and cognitive
    style as they relate to student achievement inscience. The
    Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17,369-382.
    Skinner, B. F. (1983). Science and human behavior. Ontario,
    Canada: Macmillan Co.
    Slavin, R. E. (1988). Educational Psychology.Englewood Cliffs,
    NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    Smith, C. L. (1985). Relationship of microcomputer-based
    instruction and learning style. Journal of Educational
    Technology System. 13(4), 265-270.
    Smith, E. S. (1993). Myers-Briggs type indictor and computer
    liberty: A study of adult learners in a technological
    business environment. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania
    University.
    Smith, I. M. (1985). Spatial ability: Its educational and
    social significance. San Diego: Knapp. 40sp.
    Smith, L., & Renzulli, J. S. (1984). Learning style prefernces:
    A practical approach for classroom teachers. Therory into
    practice, 23(1), 44-50.
    Smith, R. M. (1952). Learning How to Learn: Applied Theory for
    Adult. Chicago: follett Publishing Company.
    Stahlnecker, R.K. (1988). Relationships between learning style
    preferences of selected elementary pupils and their
    achievement in Math and Reading (Doctoral dissertation,
    University of Loma Linda, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts
    International, 50, 3471A.
    Stanto, N, A., & Baber, C, (1992). An investigation of styles
    and stregies in self-directed learning. Journal of
    Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(4), 147-167.
    Steussy, C. (1988). Path analysis: A model for the development
    of scientific reasoning abilities in adolescents. Journal
    of Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), 41-53.
    Strauss, E, & Kinsbourne, M. (1981). Does age at menarche act
    the ultimate level of verbal and spatial skills? Cortex,
    17, 323-325.
    Strawitz, B, M. (1984a). Cognitive style and the acquisition,
    transfer of the ability to control variable. Journal of
    Research in Science Teaching. 21,133-141.
    Strawitz, B, M. (1984a). Cognitive style and the effect of two
    instruction treatments on the acquisition and transfer of
    their ability to control variable. A longitudinal syudy.
    Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 21,833-841.
    Tai, W. S. & Kang, F. M (1995). A Study on task analysis for
    engineering drawing technicians. Fourth World Conference on
    Engineering Education. Oct. 15-20, 1995, Saint Paul.
    Tai, W. S. (1987). The study of interaction between student
    characteristics and teaching methods on achievement of
    selected drafting concepts. Unpublished doctorial
    dissertation. Iowa State University.
    Tai, W. S., Yue, C. H., Chen, H. C., & Chen, P. W. (1995). The
    study of spatial ability and computer assisted learning on
    achievements of engineering drawing. The International
    Conference on Skill Formation Curriculum and Instruction,
    ICsF-95, TAIPEI, 61-67.
    Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London:
    Routledge.
    Thorndyke. P. W. (1981). Spatial cognition and reasoning. In
    Harvey, J. H. (Ed). Cognition social behavior and the
    environment. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum Assoc. 137-149.
    Vernon, P, E. (1972), The distinctiveness of field dependence,
    Journal of Personality, 40, 366-391.
    Vigil. P. J. (1988). Oline retrieval: Analysis and strategy.
    NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 242p.
    Waber, D. P., Mann, M. B., Merola, J, & Moylan, P. M. (1985),
    Physical maturation rate and cognitive performance in early
    adolescence: A longitudinal examination, Developmental
    Psychology, 21, 666-681.
    Waldrop, P. B. (1984). Behavior reinforcement strategies for
    computer assisted instruction: programming for success.
    Educational Technology, 24(9), 38-41.
    Wavering, M. J. (1986). Performance of students in grades six,
    nine, twelve on five logical, spatial, and formal tasks.
    Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 321-329.
    Wertheimer, M. (1979). A brief history of psychology. N. Y.:
    Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    Wertheimer,M.(1979).A brief history of psychology. N.Y.Holt,
    Rinehary and Winston.
    West, C. E. (1984). Enhancing mathematics ability in sixth
    grade females via computer based graphics and problem
    solving. (Doctoral dissertation university of southern
    California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45.1985.
    Winn, W. (1988). Recall of the pattern, sequence, and name of
    concepts presented in instructional diagrams. Journal of
    Research in Science Teaching, 25, 315-386.
    Within, H. A. et al. (1962). Psychological differentiation.
    New York: Wiley.
    Witkin, G., Mackle, D., & Cooper, 5. (1985). Gender and
    Computer: Two surveys of compuer-related attitudes. Sex
    Role, 13(3/4), 215-228.
    Witkin, H. A. & Berry, J.W. (1975). Psychological
    differentiation in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of
    cross-cultural Psychology. 6(1). 4-87.
    Witkin, H. A. (1976). Cognitive styles in learning and
    teaching. In Messich et. al. (Ed.). Individuality in
    learning. S. F. Ca: Jossey-bass Publishers.
    Witkin, H. A. (1977). Role of the field-dependent and field-
    independent cognitive styles in academic evolution: A
    longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69
    (3), 197-211.
    Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and
    interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84,661-689.
    Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive style. New
    York: International Universities Press, Inc.
    Witkin, H. A., & Moore, C. A.(1974). Cognitive style and
    teaching learning process. (ERIC Document Reproduction
    Service No.ED097356)
    Witkin, H. A., (1978). Cognitive style in personal and cultural
    adaptation (vol. XI). 1977 Heinz Werner lecture series.
    Worcester, MA: Clark University.
    Witkin, H., 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.
    Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E. & Kaerp, S.A.( 1971 ) .
    A manual for the embedded finures tests.California:
    Consulting psychologist Press Inc.
    Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Educational psychology(5th ed). Bostom:
    Allyn & Bacon,459-643.
    Zavotka, S. (1985). The use of three-dimensional computer
    graphics animation to teach spatial skills to home
    economics college students. Unpublished doctoral
    dissertation, the Ohio states university.

    無法下載圖示
    QR CODE