本研究之目的在發展動畫輔助評量，來降低學生答題時非必要之外在認知負荷，此多餘認知負荷與評量目標無關，但可能導致學生解題錯誤，進而影響作答表現。本研究評量內容為國中自然科之地球科學天文月相單元，受試對象為105名九年級學生，其中49名分配到動畫輔助評量組，另外56名為圖文評量組。在評量信度方面，動畫輔助評量的信度為0.6，圖文評量信度為0.5。此外，本研究也試圖分析空間能力及作答成績間的關連性。
研究結果發現，動畫輔助評量組學生的表現顯著高於圖文評量組，且在解題過程有較低的認知負荷；另外，學生對於動畫輔助評量的接受程度亦較圖文評量高。除此之外，學生的空間能力與評量表現有某種程度相關，動畫輔助評量對高空間能力組的學生較低空間能力組有助益，但低空間能力組的學生則未達顯著。因此，在未來的研究上，動畫輔助評量的設計應更仔細考慮學生個體的空間能力差異。

In order to improve the validity of science testing design to evaluate students’ conceptual understanding of the relative motion of the Earth, sun, and moon, this study developed an Animation-Based Assessment (ABA) to ease secondary students’ extraneous cognitive load. A total of 105 ninth-grade students participated in this study. Forty-nine of the students were assigned to take the ABA, and the others were assigned to take the Graph-Based Assessment (GBA). The reliability estimates of the GBA and ABA are acceptable; the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .50 for GBA and .60 for ABA, respectively. The results of the analysis on students’ scores indicate that, in comparison with those of GBA, the students of ABA significantly got higher scores and reported lower cognitive load while solving test questions. Moreover, students’ acceptance towards the ABA was significantly higher than the GBA. Furthermore, it was found that the level of students’ spatial ability was associated with students’ test performance. The students with higher spatial ability significantly benefited from the ABA more than the GBA, but the students with lower spatial ability did not. Future research into animation-based testing design should carefully take the individual differences in spatial ability into account.

中文部分
王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧(2004)。教育測驗與評量—教室學習觀點。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
李坤崇（1999）。多元化教學評量。台北：心理出版社。
余芳如（2003）。不同教學策略對國小高年級學生學習「月相盈虧」概念的影響。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。
何榮桂（1990）。電腦教學系統中的測驗設計。中等教育，41(2)，29-34。
呂志峰（2008）。中學生月相盈虧相關迷思概念類型與概念改變過程之探討。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所，台北市。
宋曜廷（2000）。先前知識、文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
邱美虹、陳英嫻（1995）。月相盈虧之概念改變。師大學報，40，509-548。
林敏芳（2005）。 線上評量應用於教學上的現狀與發展。生活科技教育月刊，38(1)， 74-85。
周文正（1998）。www 上電腦輔助測驗系統之研製。國立高雄師範大學：第七屆電腦輔助教學研討會論文集。國立高雄師範大學。
孫光天、陳新豐、吳鐵雄（1998）。線上測驗回饋對作答情緒與動機影響之研究。國立高雄師範大學：第七屆電腦輔助教學研討會論文集。國立高雄師範大學， 9-14。
教育部（民99）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。
教育部（民100）。教育施政理念與政策。
郭生玉（2007）。教育測驗與評量。台北：精華書局。
梁勇能（2000）。動態幾何環境下，國二學生空間能力學習之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學數學研究所，台北市。
張俊彥和陳盈霖 （2000）。不同電腦輔助教學(CAI)模式對高中學生「恆星演化」學習成就及其態度之影響。台灣師範大學學報：科學教育類，45(2)，1-20。
張俊彥和董家莒 （2000）。「問題解決」或「無問題解決」？電腦輔助教學設計成效之比較研究。科學教育學刊，8(4)，357-377。
張春興（1997）。教育心理學。台北：五南圖書。
陳密桃（2003）。認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。教育學刊，21，29-51。
黃克文（1996）。認知負荷與個人特質及學習成就之關聯。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
黃柏勳（2003）。認知上的瓶頸—認知負荷理論。教育資料與研究，55，71-78。
董家莒和張俊彥（1999）。以「問題解決」為策略之電腦輔助教學學習成效：以土石流單元為例。中華民國第十五屆科學教育學術研討會手冊，133。
廖焜熙、邱美虹（1996）。立體化學與空間能力。化學，54(2)，145-151。
潘文福（2001）。應用學習單的網路化教學設計與成效分析。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
盧雪梅（1998）。實作評量的應許，難題與挑戰。教育資料與研究，20，1-5。
簡茂發、李琪明、陳碧祥（1995）。心理與教育測驗發展的貴與展望。測驗年刊，42，1-12。

英文部分
Airasian P. W. (1996). Assessment in the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hall.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A. & Kulik, C-L. C. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12, 59-68.
Baecker, R. & Small, I. (1990). Animation at the Interface. The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design,251-267.
Bishop, J. E. (1987). Developing students’ spatial ability. The science Teacher, 20-23.
Bloomer, C.M., (1990). Principles of Visual Perception. New York: Design Press.
Boyle, T. (1997). Design for multimedia learning. New York: Prentice Hall.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cavin. C. S., & Lagowski, J. J. (1987). Effects of computer simulated or laboratory experiments and student aptitude on achievement and time in a college general chemistry laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(2),145-160.
Chang, C. Y. (2000). Enhancing tenth graders’ earth-science learning through computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Geoscience Education, 48, 636-640.
Chang, C. Y. (2002). The impact of different forms of multimedia CAI on students’ science achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 280-288.
ChanLin, L. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 409-419.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representation in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073-1091.
Cooper, G. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. From http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/CLT_NET_Aug_97.HTML.
Dancy, M.H. & Beichner, R. (2006). Impact of animation on assessment of conceptual understanding in Physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2(1), 1-7.
Geban, O., Askar, P., & Ozkan, I. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problemsolving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5-10.
Hughes, W. R. (1974). A study of the use of computer simulated experiments in the physics classroom. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 1, 1-6.
Jex, H. R. (1988). Measuring mental workload: Problems, progress and promises. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload, 5-39. Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland.
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (1987). Educational testing and measurement(2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Linn, M. C., & Peterson, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.
Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in teaching(7th. Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence,181-248. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 395-405.
McGee, G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal,and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 899-918.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Macnab, W., & Johnstone, A. H. (1990). Spatial skills which contribute to competence in the biological science. Journal of Biological Education, 24(1), 37-41.
Okamura Kazumi, & Nakagawa Masaki (2002). A System for Preparing Animation by Pen Interfaces. IPSJ SIGNotes Human Interface, No.067.
Orion, N., Ben-Chaim, D., & Kali, Y. (1994). Relationship between earth science education and spatial visualization. Paper presented for annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.
Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
Park, O. C. & Hopkins R. (1993). Instructional conditions for using dynamic visual displays: a review. Instructional Science, 21, 427-449.
Payne. D. A. (1997). Applied Educational Assessment. Boston : Wadsworth Publishing.
Reimann, P. (2003). Multimedia learning: beyond modality. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 245-252.
Stevens, J. (1996, 3rd ed). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , 159-167. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive bases of human creativity. Educational Psychology Review.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-295.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Does it facilitate learning? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
White, B. Y., & Schwarz, C. V. (1999). Alternative Approaches to Using Modeling and Simulation Tools for Teaching Science. In W. Feurzeig & R. N. (Eds.). Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education , 226-255. New York: Springer.
Wouters, P., Paas, F, & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78, 645-675.
Wu, H. C., Yeh, T. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2010). The design of an animation-based test system in the area of Earth sciences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), E53-E57.