中學生對於「直線運動」的基本概念是相當模糊，亦容易混淆位移、速度、加速度這些物理量代表的意義，而造成學生學習困難的原因，很可能是因為學生在學習這些物理量，特別是位移、速度與加速度間的轉換時，需要同時運用大量的工作記憶以進行概念暫存、概念轉換等心智活動。近年來，數位學習領域的研究顯示，動態呈現方式有助於學生降低認知負荷。研究者認為，若教學者將位移、速度、加速度等相關物理量以動態的方式呈現，很可能可以有效降低學習者認知負荷，並提升學習成效。本研究的目的即在於利用心智負荷量表與心智努力量表評估學習者使用動態或靜態呈現方式學習X-t圖與V-t圖時的心智狀態，並與學習成就比對，以探討動態與靜態學習方式對不同先備知識程度的學習者在學習成就及心智狀態的差異。希冀研究結果能提供教育實務上，有關如何幫助學生進行更有效的學習X-t圖與V-t圖的相關資訊。
本研究發現(1)動態圖形確實可以幫助學習者學習（F(1,153)＝8.911，p＝.003，f＝0.24）。如果以先備知識程度將學生分組，則發現動態圖形學習對高先備知識學習者效果最佳(d＝0.44)，低先備知識次之(d＝0.26)，對於中等先備知識學習者效果最小（d＝0.10）。(2)動態或靜態的呈現方式對學習者的學習興趣則沒顯著影響（t(1,153)＝-1.93， p＝.055，d＝0.31）。（3）動態圖形確實可以有效的降低學習者的心智負荷（t(1,153)＝-7.75， p＝.000，d＝1.25），並(4)降低學習者的心智努力（t(1,153)＝-2.82， p＝.006，d＝0.45），顯示學習者可以使用更少的心智努力就可以達到一樣甚至更佳的學習成就。
最後，我們利用迴歸分析發現動態圖形與靜態圖形的學習方式，對學習者的學習成就有不同的影響，動靜態呈現方式在學習成就的方程式分別為：
靜態：學習成就＝0.526×先備知識-0.374×心智負荷+0.221×心智努力
動態：學習成就＝0.594×先備知識-0.192×心智努力
由上方可知靜態圖學習組學習者的學習成就為先備知識輔以較低的心智負荷，與學習者付出心智努力，這個結果似乎與符合我們的預期。但是使用動態圖形學習時，卻變成先備知識然後少量的心智努力，顯示心智負荷不再是影響學習成就的重要因素，且學習者僅需要付出少許量的心智努力。

Junior high school student’s basic concepts in “linear motion” is vague. They are confused about the meaning of displacement, velocity and acceleration. The reason that causes students hard to learn is because that when students leran those phasics,especially in transformation of displacement, speed, acceleration, students need lots of working memory to do mental activities such as storation or transformation of those concepts. In recent years, several e-learning studies have shown that dynamic presentation helps students to reduce cognitive load. Researchers believe that if we present displacement, velocity, acceleration and other related physical in a dynamic method, it is possible to reduce the cognitive load and prmote effectiveness.The target of this study is that useing mental effort rating-scale and mental load rating-scale to measure learners’ mental status when they learn X-t and V-t material by using dynamic or static presentation , and we also compared their achievements. I hope the results help students learn X-t graphics and V-t graphics more effectively.
This research found that(1) dynamic graphics improved learners’ performances, students in dynamic graphics group performed better than students in static graphics groups significantly with respect to academic performance （F(1,153)＝8.911，p＝.003，f＝0.24）. If we divided student in three groups according to their prior knowledge, we found that dynamic graphics have the best effect on high prior knowledge learners (d＝0.44), medium effect on low prior knowledge learners (d＝0.26), and less effect on medium prior knowledge learners (d＝0.10). (2) The presenting methods have low effect on learners（t(1,153)＝-1.93， p＝.055，d＝0.31）. (3) Dynamic graphics can reduce the learners’ mental loadt(1,153)＝-7.75， p＝.000，d＝1.25）, and (4) the learner's mental effort （t(1,153)＝-2.82， p＝.006，d＝0.45）. It is shown that students can use less mental effort and resource to achieve the same or better achievements.
Finally, we used regression analysis to find that learners learnd by using dynamic or static graphics were different in achievement. When learners used dynamic and static graphics, the two groups lof earners’ achievement equation were shown as :
Static graphs group:
Achievement ＝ 0.526 × prior knowledge －0.374 ×mental load +0.221 ×mental effort
Dynamic graphs group:
Achievement ＝ 0.594 × prior knowledge －0.192 ×mental effort

The equation revealed that the achievements of static group learners required more prior knowledge, less mental load and more mental effort, which is consistent with our expectations.When learners learned with dynamic graphics, more prior knowledge and less mental effect are needed, it is shown that mental load isn’t the key factor to effect learners’ achievements, it is also shown that learners just took less mental effort.

中文文獻
王鼎銘（1997）。動畫影像科技在教育上之應用及未來發展。資訊與教育，58，24-28。
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。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
李世峰（2001）。高中學生應用勒沙特列原理判斷非均勻相系化學平衡的迷思概念探討。科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班。
邱惠芬（2003）。多媒體介面對國小學童學習動機、學習成就及學習保留的影響。國立屏東師範學院教育科技研究所碩士論文。
林麗娟（1996）。多媒體電腦圖像設計與視覺記憶的關係。教學科技與媒體，28，3-12。
郭重吉 (1988)：從認知觀點探討自然科學的學習。國立台灣教育學院學報，13，351-379。
徐易稜（2001）。多媒體呈現方式對學習者認知負荷與學習成效之影響研究。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
梁雪娟（2005）。空間能力與動畫學習對學習成效影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學商業教育學系碩士論文。
陳密桃（2003）。認知負荷理論及其對教學的啟示。國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育學刊，21，29-51。
莊新怡（2005）。先備知識與動畫學習對學習成效影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學商業教育學系碩士論文。
張國恩（2002）從學習科技的發展看資訊融入教學的內涵,北縣教育,41,16-25。
張瓊方（2004）。多媒體教學對在職教師數位教材製作成效之探討。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系碩士論文。
戴嘉亨（2002）。使用網際網路動態媒體對提昇高中物理學習興趣之探討─以幾何光學單元教學為例。國立高雄師範大學物理學系碩士論文。
顏若映（1993）。先前知識在閱讀理解上之認知研究。教育心理與研究，16，385-412。
鄭茹芬（2001）。國中學生在力學課程後對力與運動概念認知之現況調查研究。
劉佳綺（2005）。合作學習與動畫學習對學習成效影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學商業教育學系研究所碩士論文。
蔡昆諭(2005)。國中學生力與運動的迷思概念。國立臺灣師範大學物理學系碩士論文。

英文文獻
Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3),241-255.
Anderson, J.R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Asoodeh, M. M. (1993). Static visuals vs. computer animation used in the d evelopment of spatial visualization. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University,United States -- Texas.
Baek, Y. K., & Layne, B. H. (1988). Color, graphic, and animation in computer-assisted learning tutorial lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(4), 131-135.
Bove, T., C. Rhodes. (1990), Que's Macintosh multimedia handbook, Carmel, Ind.: Que Corp.
Braune, R., & Foshay, W. (1983). Towards a practical model of cognitive information processing task analysis and schema acquisition for complex problem-solving situations. Instructional science, 12, 121-145.
Brickley, D. J. (2003). The effect of media form upon the rating of web-based portfolio assessment. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the Pennsylvania State University, United States -- Pennsylvania.
Burnken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D.（2003）. Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38（1）, 53-61.
Chan, M. S. (2008). Learning and reasoning about systems through direct-manipulation animation. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, United States --New York.
ChanLin, L. J. (1997). The effects of verbal elaboration and visual elaboration on student learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(4), 333-339.
ChanLin, L. J. (1999). Gender differences and the need for visual control. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(3), 329.
ChanLin, L. J. (2000). Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4), 228-239.
Chen. A. (1996). Student interest in activities in a secondary physical education curriculum: An analysis of student subjectivity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 424-432.
Chen, A., Dart, P. W., & Pangrazi. R. P. (1999). What constitutes situational interest? Validating a construct in physical education. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 3, 157-180.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Clement, J.（1982）. Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
Cook, M.P.(2006) .Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education , 90 (6), 1073–1091.
Cronbach, L. (1957). The Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology.American Psychologist,12, 671-684.
Di Sessa, A. (2004).How should we go about attributing knowledge to students?Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Società Italiana di Física,Bologna.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A.（1985）. Children's Ideas in Science. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.
Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1),53-62.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading and expository writing. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi. & A. Krapp (Eds.). The sole of interest in learning and development (pp. 215-238). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Jacek, L. L. (1997). Gender differences in learning physical science concepts: Does computer animation help equalize them? unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, United States - Oregon.
Johnson, M. A.,& Lawson.A. E.(1998). What Are the Relative Effects of Reasoning Ability and Prior Knowledge on Biology Achievement in Expository and Inquiry Classes? ,Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (1) ,89-103.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Marbach,G., Rotbain,Y.,& Stavy,R.(2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(3),273-292.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted stricture in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85, 424-436.
Hagit, Y., Anat ,Y. (2010) Learning Using Dynamic and Static Visualizations: Students’ Comprehension, Prior Knowledge and Conceptual Status of a Biotechnological Method, Research in Science Education,40(3), 375-402.
Hays, T. A. (1994). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short term comprehension and long term conceptual understanding. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, United States -- Oklahoma.
Head, J. (1986). Research into ‘alternative frameworks’: promise and problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 203-211.
Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
Huib, K. T., Rob, L. M., & Jeroen, J. G. v. M. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81.
Jex, H. R. (1988). Measuring mental working : Problems, progress and promises. In P. A. Hancock & N. M. Meshkati, (Eds). Human mental workload. Amsterdam North-Holland: Elsevier.
Kalyuga, S.,Chandler,P., & Sweller,J.(1999) Managing Split-attention and Redundancy in Multimedia Instruction.Cognitive Phychology,13, 351-371.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J.（2000）. Incorporating Learning Experience into the Design of Multimedia Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92（1）, 126-136.
Kim, H. (1998). Effects of animated graphics of plate tectonics on students' performance and attitudes in multimedia computer instruction. unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, United States -- Texas.

Kozma, R.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-212.
Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1994). Multimedia and comprehension : A cognitive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 515-528.
Lai, Shu-Ling (1998). The Effects of Visual Display on Analogies Using Computer-Based Learning, International Journal of Instructional Media, 25（2）, 151-160.
Lai, Shu-Ling (2000). Influence of Audio-Visual Presentations on Learning Abstract Concepts, International Journal of Instructional Media,27（2）,199-207.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lin, H., & Dwyer, F. (2009). The Effect of static and animated visualization: A perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Educational Technology Research & Development.
Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225-244.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Mayer, R. E. and Sims, V. K. (1994). For Whom Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Word? Extensions of a Dual-Coding Theory of Multimedia Learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 86（3）, 389-401.
Miller, E. S. (2005). Multimedia learning of fine arts: The effects of animation, static graphics, and video. unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Arizona State University,United States -- Arizona.
Moon, J. L. (2007). Effect of a computer-based multimedia educational module on knowledge of the menstrual cycle. unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, United States -- Ohio.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.

Morrell, D.（1992）. The Effects of Computer Assisted Instruction on Student Achievement in High School Biology. School Science and Mathematics, 92（4）, 177-181.
Novak, J.（1997）. A Theory of Education. Ithaca Cornell University Press.
Osborne, R. J., Bell, B. F. & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Science teaching and children’s views of the world. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1-14.
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., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., & Darabi, A. A.(2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3),25 - 34.
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.
Paivio, A. (1986), Mental representations: a dual coding approach, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Park, O. (1998). Visual displays and contextual presentations in computer-based instruction. ETR & D, 46(3), 37-50.
Park, O., & Gittelman, S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(4), 27-38.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harachiewicz (Eds.). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 373-404). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318-328.
Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2000). Self-regulating interest: When, why and how. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp.341-372). New York: Academic Press.
Smither, D. D. (1999). Animation and text quality as mediators of knowledge acquisition of rudimentary physics principles. unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Memphis, United States -- Tennessee.
Scharmann, L.C. (1991). Teaching angiosperm reproduction by means of the learning cycle. School Science and Mathematics, 91(3), 100-104.
Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp, (Eds), The role of interest in learning and development (pp.183-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Education Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.
Sirikasem, P., & Shebilske, W. L. (1991). The perception and metaperception of architectural designs communicated by video-computer imaging. Psychological Research, 53, 113-126.
Strike, K. A. & Posner, G. J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 231-240.
Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture.The psychology of learning and motivation, 43, 215–266.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998 ). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-285.
Szabo, M. and Poohkay, B. (1996).An Experimental Study of Animation ,Mathematics Achievement, and Attitude Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction,Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28（3）,390-402

Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B. & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? Human - Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
Valcke, M. （2002）. Cognitive load: Updating the theory？ Learning and Instruction,12, 147-154.
Wierwille, W.W., and Eggmeier, F.L. (1993). Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment, Human Factor, 35, 263-281.
Wright, P., Milroy, R., & Lickorish, A. (1999). Static and animated graphics in learning from interactive texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 203-224.
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. （1997）. Cognitive Load and Learner Expertise:Split-Attention and Redndancy Effects in Reading with Explanatory Notes.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 1-21.
Yeung, A. S.（1999）. Cognitive Load and Leearner Expertise: Split Attention andRedundancy Effects in Reading comprehension Tasks with VocabularyDefinitions. The Jounal of Experiment Education, 67（3）, 197-217.