為了解國中自然科電子教科書化學單元中多重表徵的運用以及和教材內容的關係，本研究採用內容分析法進行分析：先建立化學科電子教科書中多重表徵的類型、內容、互動方式和功能的分析架構，用來分析在臺灣國中教學現場由教科書出版社提供的兩個版本自然科電子教科書。國中自然電子教科書的化學單元每頁平均使用20.2個表徵，其中靜態表徵的密度約為動態表徵的四倍，且動態表徵的比例高於靜態圖形表徵。靜態表徵主要是標籤圖例文字和具體再現圖，其次是說明實驗的圖形和文字。動態表徵內容主要為解析例題和演示原理，幾乎都經由點擊方式進行操作；影片或動畫多以時間控制工具列操作，數量最少的動態模擬則以物件拖曳、數據輸入、滑桿或資訊選項來互動。靜態圖形表徵和動態表徵對文字表徵的主要功能皆為補充認知過程或以表徵固有的特性來限制對文字表徵的詮釋。多重表徵的運用和功能與內容性質有關：在包含微觀抽象概念的單元中，多使用輔以標籤圖例的抽象說明圖，故文字對圖形表徵的比例較高；並提供大量的例題圖表和用來解析例題的動態表徵；同時也運用較多的表格和動態模擬來補充資訊、幫助抽象思考和建立表徵關聯性。再者，科學概念的描繪以文字敘述為主，內容越抽象使用越多的圖形表徵，表徵的運用會因學科屬性而有差異。電子教科書的表徵密度較教學投影片為高，故建議使用電子教科書時，需提供閱讀的架構，且僅播放相關度高的影片片段。另外，設計電子教科書時應避免使用干擾或重複的表徵，並提供概念衝突的表徵來引起動機。建議未來研究可將本研究之分析架構經適度修改後，用來探討高中化學科電子教科書內多重表徵的運用情形；或運用本研究之表徵類型和數量分析結果來探討對化學教學或學習的影響。

This study used content analysis method to explore the usage of the multiple representations in the junior high school chemistry e-textbooks and its relationship with the learning contents. We established a framework for analyzing the types, contents, interactions, and functions of multiple representations in chemistry e-textbooks and analyzed two science e-textbooks provided by two textbook publishers in Taiwan.The results show that, in average, there are 20.2 representations per page in the e-textbooks. The density of static representations is approximately quadruple of that of dynamic ones, while the dynamic representations are used in a higher proportion than the static image representations. The most utilized static representations are the tag-legend texts and the concrete-reappearing images, followed by the explanatory images and texts demonstrating the experiments. The dynamic representations mainly show the quiz solutions and demonstrate the principles, and most of them are operated by clicking. The videos or animations are mostly operated by time-controlling dashboard. The dynamic simulations which are the least used are interacted with object dragging, data inputting, scrolling bars or information options. The main functions of static images and dynamic representations are to complement the cognitive process for processing the text or to constrain the textual interpretation by the inherent properties. The use and the function of multiple representations are related to content properties. The abstract explanatory diagrams with the tags and legends are used mostly for the microscopic abstract conceptual learning, so that the ratio of the texts to the image representations is higher. The diagrams in the quiz and the dynamic representations for the quiz solutions are enormously provided. Numerous tables and the dynamic simulations are used to supplement information, to help abstract thinking and to establish the relationships among the representations.Furthermore, the depiction of the scientific concept is mainly based on textual narrative. The more abstract of the content, the more image representations are used. The frequency of the representations shown in the e-textbooks is higher than that shown in the teaching slides, therefore the structure of reading should be provided and only the relevant segment in the videos should be played when using e-textbooks. It is also suggested to avoid using the representations that would cause interference or duplication and to provide a representation of conceptual conflicts to stimulate motivation when designing e-textbooks. Future studies are suggested to revise the representation analysis framework proposed in this study and to analyze the high school chemistry e-textbooks or to use the results of representations analysis in this study to explore the effect on chemistry teaching or learning.

王姿陵、曾易寬、邱美燕（2015）。評析電子教科書對教與學的影響。教科書研究，8(2)，175-188。取自http://120.127.166.90/handle/392440000Q/5500
方志華、楊國揚、劉宇陽，葉興華、張芬芬、黃欣柔、…張復萌（2012）。中小學電子教科書政策推展之評估整合研究。教育部委託之專題研究成果報告（編號：PG10110-0028），未出版。取自http://wd.naer.edu.tw/project/NAER-101-07-G-4-01-00-2-03.pdf
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。
李宗薇（2009）。電子教科書的時代已來臨？教科書研究，2(2)，118-122。取自http://ej.naer.edu.tw/JTR/v02.2/2009-12-jtr-v2n2-111.pdf
李素卿（譯）（2003）。認知心理學 (原作者：M. W. Eysenck, M. T. Keane)。台北：五南（原著出版年：2000）
李文瑞、單文經、朱則剛、吳明德、沈中偉、黃雅琴…楊美雪（譯）（1995）。教學媒體與教學新科技 (原作者：R. Heinich, M. Molenda, & J. D. Russell)。台北：心理出版社（原著出版年：1993）
何冠慧（2009）。掀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。取自http://ej.naer.edu.tw/JTR/v02.2/2009-12-jtr-v2n2-111.pdf
吳明玨（2015）。以表徵觀點分析高中基礎生物多媒體教材（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣科技大學，台北。
林小慧（2008）。CISC教學策略與國中生微粒概念學習成效之相關研究。教育心理學報，39(4)，533-554。
林郁芬（2011）。空間能力、先備知識與表徵順序對七年級概念理解之影響：以人體呼吸運動單元為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北。
林建宏、洪唯晃、鄭榮錄（2017）。教師對電子教科書的認知及使用意願之探討。管理資訊計算，6(2)，96-105。取自http://ir.lib.isu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/21818
邱懿歆（2013）國中生化學表徵形成與轉換能力之研究—以『酸、鹼、鹽』單元為例。（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，台中。
周進洋、邱美虹（2005）。化學概念學習。取自http://www.dorise.info/DER/04_SLS_html/SLS_05_science.html
卓憲瑞（2009）。探究多重表徵教學對於八年級學生學習化學平衡概念與概念改變的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北。
卓群真、葉玉婷、蔡孟蓉（2015）。高中基礎物理教科書教學投影片之動態表徵分析。台灣教育傳播暨科技學會2015年國際學術研討會張貼之論文，國立臺灣大學。
徐新逸、賴婷鈴（2013）。國際經驗對台灣電子教科書發展之啟示。教科書研究，6(2)，1-31。
陳穎青（2009）。教科書與數位衝擊。教科書研究，2(2)，122-126。取自http://ej.naer.edu.tw/JTR/v02.2/2009-12-jtr-v2n2-111.pdf
陳志偉（2015）。國中理化電子教科書之多重表徵分析：以物理單元為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣科技大學，台北。
陳彙芳、范懿文（2000）。認知負荷對多媒體電腦輔助學習成效之影響研究。資訊管理研究，2，45-60。
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。
張文華（2004）。同步網路合作學習中學習風格對國小學童學習之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台南大學，台南。
康軒文教事業（2015）。國中自然電子教科書。取自https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tw.com.knsh.G7EEE14151BF34E928C10F828AD5D8A4B
許書豪（2016）。國中數學電子教科書之分析研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北。
許振家、翁福元（2014）。娛樂至死方休？反思電子教科書的美麗與哀愁。臺灣教育評論月刊，3(7)，39-44。
黃英倫（2017年12月12日）。中英文互譯，各文體的中文字數和英文詞數的比例大約是多少？【線上論壇】。取自https://www.zhihu.com/question/263941124
傅小蘭（2007）。概念的表徵與結構。載於陳煊之（主編），認知心理學（225-284）。台北：五南
彭文萱、熊召弟（2015）。優質科學電子教科書指標的建立與評鑑研究初探。教科書研究，8(2)，1-38。
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/sys/read_attach.php?id=26806
廖酉鎮（2016）。國中自然教科書針對化學迷思概念引發概念衝突之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立嘉義大學，嘉義。
廖焜熙（1999）。有機立體化學成就影響因素及解題模式之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北。
廖冠智、張藝樺、朱璟淳（2010）。初探國內電子書學位論文研究之趨向與分析。電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會之論文。新竹教育大學。
歐用生（1993）。內容分析法。載於黃光雄、簡茂雄（主編），教育研究法（229-254頁）。台北市：師大書苑。
顧翼東（主編）（1994）。化學辭典。台北市：建宏。
顧大維（2005）。從數位教學平台使用的迷思:看教學設計在數位學習應扮演的角色。教育研究月刊，131，118-126。
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & education, 33(2-3), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
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). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ainsworth, S. E., & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction,14(3), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.002
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359
Boulter, C. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In Developing models in science education (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht: Springer.
Barke, H. D., & Engida, T. (2001). Structural chemistry and spatial ability different cultures. Chemistry Education: Research and practice in Europe, 2(3), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1039/B1RP90025K
Brunye, T. T., Taylor, H. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2008). Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 877-895. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1396
Chittleborough, G. D. (2014). The development of theoretical frameworks for understanding the learning of chemistry. In I. Devetak & S. A. Glazar (Eds.), Learning with Understanding in the chemistry classroom (pp. 25-40). Dordrecht: Springer.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164
Chiu, M. H., Chou, C. C. & Liu. C. J. (2002) Dynamic processes of conceptual change: analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 39, 688-712. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10041
Cuiillier, C. A., & Dewland, J. C. (2014). Understanding the key factors for e-textbook integration into a business course: A case study. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(1), 32-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2013.824338
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and instruction, 20(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014
Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 189-216.
Finley, F.N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W.L. (1982). Teachers' perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66, 531-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660404
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, Th. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. W. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 65-97). New York, NY: Macmilan.
Haseman, W. D., Nuipolatoglu, V., & Ramamurthy, K. (2002). An empirical investigation of the influences of the degree of interactivity on user-outcomes in a multimedia environment. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2002040104
Höffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1716-1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.012
Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64(227), 377–379.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p701
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.003
Mardis, M. A., & Everhart, N. (2013). From paper to pixel: The promise and challenges of digital textbooks for K-12 Schools. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.) Educational media and technology yearbook: Volume 37 (pp. 93-118). New York, NY: Springer.
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science education, 88(3), 465-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126