本研究的目的在探討讀者的先前知識、文章結構和多媒體呈現等因素對於讀者在學習文章時的認知歷程和興趣狀態，以及對學習效果的影響，同時也希望藉由實驗結果來檢驗「認知負荷論」、「結構-處理互動模型」和「結構-趣味-投入模型」對上述影響狀態的解釋和預測效果。實驗一和實驗二以國二學生為對象，探討讀者的先前知識和文章結構對於建立內文基礎和情境模型的影響；以及文章結構和先前知識對情境模型產生交互作用的可能機轉。實驗三和實驗四分別以文章搭配插圖，或以文章搭配動畫和音效，探討多媒體材料對於提升閱讀的情境興趣和閱讀投入，進而改變上述交互作用的可能性。茲將研究結果綜合說明如下：
一、讀者的先前知識和文章結構會影響文章學習的歷程和結
果：高先前知識者在閱讀文章時，其對文章的負荷感比低先前知識者低，但興趣感和閱讀時間沒有差別。高先前知識者對於文章內文基礎(事實性知識的記憶和再認)及情境模型(學後遷移和問題解決)的建立效果要優於低先前知識讀者。連貫性較低的文章，可能引發讀者較高的認知負荷，但引發的興趣感和閱讀時間並沒有差別。高連貫文章在建立高和低先前知識讀者的內文基礎大致上有較好的效果；對於建立低先前知識讀者的情境模型也有較好的效果，此結果支持認知負荷論的「分心假說」和結構-處理互動模型的「結構增益處理假說」。但高連貫文章對於建立高先前知識讀者的情境模型未必有較好的效果。
二、讀者的先前知識和文章結構可能對學習產生交互影響的效果：讀者的先前知識和文章連貫性會對文章的學習歷程和效果產生交互作用。高連貫文章對低先前知識者在減低認知負荷和提昇內文基礎及情境模型成績的幫助作用，大於對高先前知識者。但高連貫文章對於高先前知識者建立情境模型可能有正向協助的效果，也可能產生干擾效果。但由於此種高連貫文章未必有利高先前知識者的現象並不穩定，因此無法有效重複驗證McNamara 與Kintsch(1996)及McNamara等人(1996)的研究發現。此外，對高連貫文章未必有利於高先前知識者的可能解釋，從讀者在認知負荷、閱讀時間和閱讀效果之表現上判斷，較支持「結構-處理互動模型」的「結構-處理消長假說」，而較不支持認知負荷論的「累贅效果假說」。本研究稱此種現象為「結構-處理消長現象」。
三、多媒體材料會影響文章學習的歷程和成果：在對學習歷程的影響上，多媒體材料中的插圖搭配高和低連貫文章呈現，可以降低讀者在閱讀文章時的負荷感，減少對文字的閱讀時間，但並未增加讀者的情境興趣感。多媒體材料的動畫和音效配合高和低連貫文章呈現，可以降低讀者在閱讀文章的負荷感，增進其情境興趣感，並增加其文字閱讀時間。對於閱讀材料的興趣感，可以降低其對材料的負荷感，此現象支持「結構-趣味-投入模型」的「趣味抵減負荷假說」。在對學習效果的影響上，插圖和動畫的呈現都有助於讀者的內文基礎和情境模型成績的提昇。且動畫(和音效)與高連貫文章搭配後，可提升情境興趣進而提升閱讀投入(時間)。此種閱讀投入的提升雖無法消弭「結構-處理消長現象」的發生，但有助減弱其效果。就多媒體材料提升情境興趣和閱讀投入，進而促進閱讀效果的發現，支持「結構-趣味-投入」模型的「興趣增益處理假說」。
四、以認知負荷和學習效果兩個成份，或以認知負荷、情境興趣和學習效果三個成份，作為比較教材之教學效益的指標，均有其限制存在：依據認知負荷論以認知負荷和學習成就作為計算基準的教學效益指標，在「低負荷-高成就」或「高負荷-低成就」的學習情境中，所計算出的教學效益指標對教材有不錯的區辨性。但在「高負荷-高成就」或「低負荷-低成就」的情境中，此教學效益指標不易有好的區辨性。若將「情境興趣」作為衡量教學效益的動機因素指標，將其融入原來的教學效益計算公式中，對於不同閱讀教材的區辯力雖有增加，但對於區辨上述引起「高負荷-高成就」和「低負荷-低成就」的情形之教材，仍然無法發揮更好的效果。
五、整體而言，就讀者的先前知識、文章結構和多媒體呈現等因素影響文章學習時的認知歷程、興趣狀態和學習效果的實驗結果加以觀察，「結構-趣味-投入模型」的預測獲得最多的支持。
本研究除針對上述結果加以討論外，並對本研究的限制和後續可能的應用和研究方向提出建議。

The purposes of this study were to explore the effects of a reader's prior knowledge, text structure, and multimedia presentation mode on text learning, and to test the predictions generated from the 'cognitive load theory', the 'structure-processing interaction model', and the 'structure-interestingness-engagement model'. Eighth-graders participated in the first and second experiments, which investigated the effects of prior knowledge and text structure on text learning, and the possible mechanism of their interactive effect on text learning. In the third and fourth experiment, eighth-grade students studied the text with picture-illustrations or the animation-illustrated text for investigating the possibility of using multimedia texts to enhance the reader's situational interest and reading engagement, and thereby eliminates the interactive effect of text structure and prior knowledge on text learning. The main findings are abbreviated in the following:
First, a reader's prior knowledge and the text structure may influence the process and outcome of text learning. The perceived cognitive load of the higher-prior knowledge students was significantly lower than the lower-prior knowledge students. Yet there were no significant differences in reading time and situational interest between the two student groups. The higher prior knowledge students were able to build a better textbase (recall and recognition of factual knowledge) and situation model (transfer of text content for problem solving) after reading the text. A less coherent text may induce the reader to perceive a higher cognitive load than more coherent text. Yet the same situational interest and reading time was stimulated by the more coherent text. A more coherent text was helpful for both higher and lower prior knowledge students to build a textbase. The more coherent text was also helpful to lower-prior knowledge student for building a situation model. The above findings support the 'split attention hypothesis' of the cognitive load theory and the 'structure enhances processing hypothesis' of the structure-processing interaction model.
Second, there exists an interactive effect of prior knowledge and text structure on text learning. Lower prior knowledge students benefit more from coherent text for reducing mental load and building textbase and situation model than higher prior knowledge students. For higher prior knowledge students, a more coherent text may not always be facilitative, and may sometimes be destructive to the building of a situation model. The destructive effect of a coherent text has not been completely verifiable, so the findings of McNamara & Kintsch (1996) and McNamara et al. (1996) have not been completely replicated. Besides, the data of the student's mental load, reading time, and learning performances from different reading tasks support the 'structure-processing trade off hypothesis' of the structure-processing interaction model as the most acceptable mechanism for the possible destructive effect of the coherent text on higher prior knowledge students' text learning. Therefore, in this study we named the above phenomenon the 'structure-processing trade off effect'.
Third, multimedia texts may influence the process and outcome of text learning. A picture-illustrated text can reduce a reader's mental load and reading latency in text study, yet it cannot enhance the reader's situational interest. The animation-illustrated text can reduce the reader's mental load, and enhance their situational interest and reading latency in text study. In the mean time, the enhanced situational interest decreases the reader's perceived mental load, which supports the 'interest deteriorates load hypothesis' of the structure-interestingness-engagement model. Both the picture- and animation-illustrated texts are helpful for building a student's textbase and situation model. The animation-illustrated text has a substantial effect in reducing the 'structure-processing trade off effect', though it is unable to eliminate that effect completely. The findings that the multimedia text can enhance a reader's situational interest and studying latency, thereby facilitates their reading achievement, support the 'interest enhances processing hypothesis' of the structure-interestingness-engagement model.
Fourth, both approaches using the mental load and reading achievement, or the three components of mental load, situational interest, and reading achievement, as the basis for designing the instructional efficiency indices for instructional material, have their limits. The instruction efficiency index calculated through the mental load and reading achievement is appropriate for the 'high load - high achievement' and 'high load - low achievement' learning situations. Yet this index has low discriminating efficiency for the 'high load - high achievement' and 'low load - low achievement' learning situations. When situational interest is added to the above instruction efficiency index, the discriminating efficiency of the new index is increased. Yet texts which result in 'high load - high achievement' and 'low load - low achievement' still cannot be differentiated by this new index.
Fifth, According to the prior knowledge, text structure, and multimedia presentation influences on the cognitive process, interest status, and text learning outcome, the 'structure-interestingness-engagement model' was supported more than the 'cognitive load theory' and the 'structure-processing interact model'.
These findings were discussed in detail and suggestions for further studies and applications were also recommended.

林清山（1984）: 線性結構關係（LISREL）電腦程式的理論與應用。
測驗年刊，31輯，149-164頁。
柯華葳（1992）：台灣地區閱讀文獻回顧。載於曾志朗主編：中國語文心理學研究第一年度結案報告。中正大學認知科學研究中心。
柯華葳（1990）:增進小學社會科課文理解度之研究。國教學報，3期，33-60頁。
柯華葳（1996）: 閱讀理解測驗國中版。未發表。
胡志偉、顏乃欣（1992）：閱讀中文的心理歷程。載於曾志朗主編：中國語文心理學研究第一年度結案報告。中正大學認知科學研究中心。
張必隱(1994):閱讀心理學。北京師範大學出版社。
鄭昭明(1981):漢字認知的歷程。中華心理學刊。23卷2期，137-153頁。
鄭昭明(1986):從認知心理學看華文的學習。華文世界，40期，4-15頁。
鄭昭明(1988):華文的教與學：歷程的探討。華文世界，50期，57-60頁。
Anderson, T. H.,& Ambruster, B. B. (1986). Readable textbooks, or, selecting a textbook is not like buying a pair of shoes. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C., Mason, J., & Shirey, L.L.(1984). The reading group: An experimental investigation of a labyrinth. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 6-38.
Anderson, R. C.,Shirey, L.L., Wilson, P. T.,& Fielding, L.G.(1987). Interestingness of children's reading material. In R. E. Snow,& M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction. Vol.3: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 287-299). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Alexander, P.A., Jetton, T.,& Kulikowich, J.M.(1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559-575.
Beck, I. L., McKewon, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 251-176.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for
understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 11, 717-726.
Bransford, J.D., & The CTGV (1996). MOST environments for accelerating literacy development. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives of the design of technology-supported learning environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary-
school geometry task. Learning and Instruction,3,1-21.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Britton, B.K.,& Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model
to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on
recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
329-345.
Britton, B.K., Gulgoz, S.,& Glynn, S.M. (1993). Impact of good and poor
writing on learners: Research and theory. In B.K. Britton, M. Binkley,
& A. Woodward (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chandler, P., & Sweller J.(1991). Cognitive load theory and the format
of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8,293-332.
Clark, R. E. (1984). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review
of Educational Research, 53,445-459.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42,21-29.
Cobb, T. (1996). Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 45,21-35.
Dee-Lucas,D. (1996). Effects of overview structure on study strategies and text representations for instructional hypertext. In J. F. Rouet, J. Levonen, A. Dillon, R.J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dugdale, S. (1994). Using students' mathematical inventiveness as a foundation for software design: Toward a tempered constructivism. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 57-73.
Faraday, P. & Sutcliffe, A. (1997). Evaluating multimedia presentations. The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 3, 7-37.
Federico, P. (1999). Hypermedia environments and adaptive instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 653-692.
Garner, R., Gillingham, M.G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of " Seductive
details" on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and
children. Cognition and Instruction, 6,41-57.
Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M.G., Kulikowich, J. M., & Brown, R.
(1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational
Research Journal, 28, 643-659.
Gerlic, I., & Jausovec, N. (1999). Multimedia: Differences in cognitive processes
observed with EEG. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 47, 5-14.
Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text:
Pictures help to build mental model. Journal of Memory and
Language, 31, 129-151.
Gillham, M., & Buckner, K.(1997). User evaluation of hypermedia
encyclopedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6,
77-90.
Goetz, E. T.,& Sadoski, M. (1995). Commentary: The perils of seduction:
Distracting details or incomprehensible abstractions ? Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 500-519.
Gopher, D.,& Braune, R. (1984). On the psychophysics of workload: Why bother with subjective measures ? Human Factor, 26, 519-532.
Hendy, C. H., Hamilton, K. M.,& Landry, L. N. (1993). Measuring subjective workload: When is one scale better than many? Human Factor, 35, 579-601.
Hannus, M.,& Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.
Harp, S.F. & Mayer, R. E.(1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific
text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and
cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.
Harp, S.F. & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How deductive details do their damage: A
theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 414-434.
Hegarty, M.,& Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from
text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N. H., Holmquist, S., & Moreno, R. (1999).
Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-baed
design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119-150.
Hidi, S., & Baid, W. (1986). Interestingness: A neglected variable in discourse
processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179-194.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and
student's recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly,
23,465-483.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.
Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In A. Krapp, S. Hidi, & K. A. Renniger (Eds.). The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
Jain, R. (1998). Sensory overloading in documents. IEEE Transaction on
Multimedia, Spring, p.1, p.5.
Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc..
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Just, M. A.,& Carpenter ,P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, S. (1998). Levels of expertise and
instructional design. Human Factors ,40,1-17.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A.(1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85,363-394.
Kintsch, W.(1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87-98.
Kintsch, W., & Yabrough, J. C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 828-834.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 161-195.
Kintsch, W.(1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49,292-303.
Kintsch, W.(1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Boulder, Colo: Cambridge University Press.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design (3rd ed. ). Belmont, C.A.: Wardsworth, Inc.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42,7-19.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61,179-212.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renniger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In A. Krapp, S. Hidi, & K. A. Renniger (Eds.). The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
Levie,W. H.,& Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30,195-232.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows, & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, Vol I : Basic research ( pp. 51-86). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from text books: Theory and practice( pp. 95-114). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Comprehension of graphics in text: An overview. Learning and Instruction, 3,239-246.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right question? Educational Psychologist, 32,1-19.
Mayer, R. E.,& Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narration: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490.
Mayer, R. E.,& Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-452.
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, 389-401.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Education Psychology, 82,715-726.
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88,64-73.
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31-44.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
Meyer, B. J. F.（1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text(pp.11-87). Hillsdle, NJ: Erlbaum .
Meyer,B .J .F.,& Freedle, R. O. (1984). The effect of different discourse types of recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21,121-143.
McKeown, M.G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M.,& Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79-93.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W.(1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior
knowledge and text coherence. Discourse processes, 22,247-288.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good
text always better? Interactions of text coherence , background
knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition
and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in
microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23, 305-336.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the
secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 424-436.
O'Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998).
Updating a situational model: A memory-based text processing view.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24,
1200-1210.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Paas, F. G. W. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.
Paas, F. G. W., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performances. Human Factor, 35,737-743.
Paas, F. G. W., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
Paas, F. G. W., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in educational research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430.
Peeck, J. (1987). The role of illustrations in processing and remembering illustrated text. In D. M. Willows, & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, Vol. I: Basic research ( pp. 51-86). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3,227-238.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavior research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Reid, D. J., & Beveridge, M. (1990). Reading illustrated science texts: A microcomputer based investigation of children's strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 76-87.
Rieber, L. P. (1990). Animation in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38,77-86.
Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318-382.
Roller, C. M. (1990). Commentary: The interaction between knowledge and
structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading
Research Quarterly,25,79-89
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1985). Distributed memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 25, 1-75.
Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T.,& Fritz, J.B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 291-304.
Saloman, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of educational Research, 11, 623-637.
Samuels, S. J., Biesbrock, E., & Terry, P. R. (1974). The effect of pictures on children's attitudes toward presented stories. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 243-246.
Schank, R. (1979). Interestingness: Controlling influences. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273-297.
Schank, R. (1994). Active learning through multimedia. IEEE Transaction on Multimedia, Spring. 69-78.
Schraw, G. (1997). Situational interest in literary text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22,436-456.
Schraw, G.,Bruning, R.,& Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27,1-17.
Schnotz, W. (1993a). Introduction to special issue on comprehension of graphics in texts. Learning and Instruction, 3,151-155.
Schnotz, W. (1993b). On the relation between dual coding and mental models in graphics comprehension. Learning and Instruction,3.247-249.
Schnotz, W.,& Kulhavy, R. (Eds.) (1994). Comprehension of graphics. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Schnotz, W. , & Grzondziel , H.（1996）. Knowledge acquisition with static and
animated pictures in computer-based learning. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York.
Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 3-18.
Sewell, E. H.,& Moore, R. L. (1980). Cartoon embellishments in informative
presentations. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28, 39-46.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
Tayler, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children's use of text structure in the recall of expository material. American Educational Research Journal. 20, 517-528.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37-54.
Tergan, S. (1997). Misleading theoretical assumptions in hypertext /hypermedia research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 257-284.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.
New York: Academic Press.
Voss, J. F., & Silfies, N. L. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of
knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and
Instruction, 14, 45-68.
Wade, S. E., Shraw, G., G., Buxton, W.M., & Hayes. M.T.(1993). Seduction of
the strategic reader: Effect of interest on strategies and recall. Reading
Research Quarterly, 28,93-114.
Waddill, P. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1992). Pictorial enhancement of text memory:
Limitations imposed by picture type and comprehension skill. Memory
and Cognition. 20, 472-482.
Weidenmann, B. (1989). When good pictures fail: An information-processing approach to the effect of illustrations. In H. Mandl & J. R. Levin (Eds.). Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures(pp.157-171). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24,345-376.
Wolfe, M. B. W., Schreiner, M. E., Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and texts by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.
Woodward, A. (1993). Do illustrations serve an instructional purpose in U.S. textbooks? In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from text books: Theory and practice( pp. 95-114). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, S. (1998). Cognitive load and learner expertise :
Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23 , 1-21.