本研究之目的為探討國中電子教科書物理單元中表徵之使用情形與教學上的輔助功能，採用內容分析法，以靜態與動態表徵等各項表徵類別與輔助功能為主要分析架構，針對台灣目前國中常用教科書版本所提供之理化電子教科書，以其中所有物理相關單元為範圍進行分析討論，藉以了解物理電子教科書中靜態表徵與動態表徵之類型與數量以及表徵本身輔助教學之功能性，並討論表徵分佈之差異性。分析結果顯示，平均每頁電子教科書共出現20.9個表徵，表示學習者閱讀電子書時必須同時接收約20個表徵並決定閱讀順序，可能有增加外在認知負荷的風險。此外，電子教科書中文字表徵的使用數量遠多於圖形表徵與動畫、影片等動態表徵，代表書中物理概念的陳述仍以文字表達為主，圖形表徵與動態表徵主要功能為運用其本身固有特性以詮釋文字不易表達之概念，同時促使學習者運用不同於文字處理的認知通道，以增加學習效果。另外，在圖形表徵的運用上，除了例題圖形之外，使用最多的是具象再現圖，主要協助學習者將物理概念與生活經驗相互結合，而情境抽象圖則是在實物情境圖片中加上抽象符號代表抽象概念，以協助學習者建立心像，主要出現在光、功與能、電與磁等單元。本研究未來可繼續探討不同科學學習領域如化學與生物單元中各類表徵使用情形的異同，同時也可以檢測各種表徵組合對於學習者可能造成的認知負荷以及對學習過程和學習成效的影響。

This study conducted a content analysis of the static and dynamic representations shown in the e-books provided by textbook publishers for Taiwan junior high school physics curriculum. Based on a framework of static and dynamic representations, the type, quantity and function of each representation were analyzed, and the distribution difference of representation was also analyzed and discussed. A total of 18 physics learning units in the e-books provided by two of the most popular publishers (the same 9 units from each publisher) in Taiwan served as the samples of this study. A framework of five dimensions has been developed and used to conduct the content analysis in this study. The results showed that junior high school physics e-books had an average of 20.9 representations in each page, which indicates that the students received about 20 representations simultaneously when reading the e-books. This may increase the extraneous cognitive load of the students. In addition, the text representation in the electronic textbooks is shown far more than the representations of graphs, animation, videos and other dynamic representations. However, for the graphical representations, in addition to the “exemplary graphics” used for showing examples, the most commonly used representation was the “concrete phenomena image” which aims to connect students’ physical concepts with their own daily live experiences. The third most used image was “situational abstract image,” such as the light spectrum and magnetic field lines, in order to help students develop abstract mental imagery. Suggestions for future studies include to broaden the analyses into the chemical and biological fields, to compare the similarities and differences in the uses of representations in different learning domains, and to explore the impacts of different combinations of representations on learning process and learning outcomes.

江文瑋、劉嘉茹（2013）。運用嵌入式動畫 PPT 簡報教學之有效性研究以高中氣體概念學習為例。科學教育研究與發展季刊，67，51-71。
朱慶琪（2008）。從一個簡單的物理演示「雙珠競走」看大一學生的力學概念。物理教育學刊，9（1），137-150。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習----概念構圖之研究。台北：商鼎。
吳明玨、蔡孟蓉（2014）。高中生物科動畫教材表徵分析：以循環、消化與呼吸系統為例。第十屆台灣數位學習發展研討會，國立臺灣師範大學。
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（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
周怡君、伊彬（2008）。電子童書之互動程度對三年級與五年級兒童閱聽程度之影響。教育資料與圖書館學，45(3)，371-401。
何冠慧（2009）。揭開教科書發展的新篇章：談電子教科書的發展、特色與展望。教科書研究，2（2），126-131。
林宜蓉（2009）。多媒體電子書對英語學習者閱讀態度的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
邱韻如（2006）。從學生對牛頓第三定律的迷思概念探討教學上的一些問題。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會發表之論文，國立臺灣師範大學。
徐新逸、賴婷鈴（2013）。國際經驗對臺灣電子教科書發展之啟示。教科書研究，6（2），1-31。
張力夫（2011）。探討利用「動態表徵」與「靜態表徵」教學對概念學習成效影響之研究－以「波的重疊原理」單元為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學，新竹市。
張春興（2006）。教育心理學--三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華。
陳月香、楊美雲、梁佳玲（2013）。探討國內電子教科書之未來應用與發展。黃埔學報，65，201-210。
陳志偉、蔡孟蓉（2014）。國中物理動畫教材表徵之內容分析：以力與運動單元為例。中華民國第30 屆科學教育學術研討會發表之論文，國立臺灣師範大學。
陳怡妏（2010）。兒童讀者電子童書閱讀行為之分析研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣大學，台北市。
陳昭珍、林惠愛（2014）。國小學童使用平板電腦閱讀電子書之行為研究。王振鵠教授九秩榮慶論文集，371-388。
陳章正、陳輝雄（2006）。運用「簡報式多媒體」教學策略 於高一電磁學之研究。物理雙月刊，28（3），586-591。
陳淑筠（2002）。國內學生自然科學迷思概念研究之後設研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺東師範學院，臺東市。
陳偉慈（2010）。淺談電子教科書之發展。網路社會學通訊，91。
陳穎青（2009）。教科書與數位衝擊。教科書研究，2（2），122-126。
鄒佩琪、葉蓉樺（2005）。由教學演示活動看學習者對「感應產生電流」之另有概念。科學教育研究與發展季刊，40，1-12。
楊宗榮、黃鴻博（2009）。臺灣與新加坡國小自然科教科書生命科學類插圖比較研究。中華民國第25 屆科學教育學術研討會發表之論文，國立臺灣師範大學。
楊明獻（2008）。改進國中理化課程教學—以「光的折射」單元為例。科學教育月刊，306，27-42。
楊國揚（2011）。中小學電子教科書發展與品質保證機制。取自http://lms.utaipei.edu.tw/course_open.php?courseID=4116&f=open_doc&cid=27771
廖信、郝宗瑜、張簡碧萱（2010）。國小教科書數位化出版之探討：以康軒出版社為例。中華印刷科技年報，3，439-449。
歐用生（1994）。教育研究法。台北：師大書苑。
劉光夏、陳麗華、林吟霞、楊國揚、賴阿福（2012）。中小學電子教科書政策推展之評估整合研究研究報告（PG10110-0028）。國家教育研究院（2012/04/01-2012/12/31）。
劉長庚（2011）。探討動靜態圖對於八年級學生學習X-t與V-t圖的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣大學，台北市。
藍治平、簡秀玲、張永達（2002）。教學表徵多樣化的理論與應用－以國中生物『遺傳』的概念為例。科學教育月刊，248，41-53。

Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131-152.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191-208). Netherlands: Springer.
Ainsworth, S. E., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241-255.
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
Brunye, T. T., Taylor, H. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2008). Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 877-895.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.
ChanLin, L. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 409-419.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.　Learning and Skills Research Centre. Retrieved May 8, 2004.
Cox, R., & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239-302.
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane Load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-234
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124-158.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-99.
Linn, M. C., Chang, H. Y., Chiu, J. L., Zhang, Z., & McElhaney, K. (2011). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: a Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 235-258). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Luik, P., & Mikk, J. (2008). What is important in electronic textbooks for students of different achievement levels? Computers & Education, 50(4), 1483-1494.
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J (1996). Understanding instruction. Journal of Wducayional Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth 1000 words e Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capability for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Moher, T., Johnson, A., Ohlsson, S., & Gillingham, M. (1999). Bridging strategies for VR-based learning. Paper presented at CHI ‘99, 1999, May, Pittsburgh, PA.
Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575 -596. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9245-2
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization . Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Project Tomorrow. (2009). Selected national findings: Speak up 2008 for students, teachers,　parents and administrators. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU08_findings_final_mar24.pdf
Purchase, H.C. (1998) Defining Multimedia. IEEE Multimedia, 5(1). 8-15.
Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32,159-194.
Sally Maynard, Emily Cheyne, (2005). Can electronic textbooks help children to learn? The Electronic Library, 23(1), 103–115.
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of HumaneComputer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary e Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120.
Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation.Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
Slavin, R. E. (2012). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (10th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 97-140.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effect on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251 – 296.
Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Sweller, J.(2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (2), 147 – 177.
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-140.
White, B., & Schwarz, C. (1999). Alternative approaches to using modeling and simulation tools for teaching science. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzeig, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education (pp. 226-256). New York: SpringerVerlag.
Wiebe, E. & Annetta, L. (2008). Influences on Visual Attentional Distribution in Multimedia Instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 259-277.
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition, 27(6), 1073-1079.
Zhang, J. J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87-122.