本研究旨在以表徵觀點發展適合高中生物多媒體投影片之分析架構，採內容分析法以四大向度：表徵類型、表徵內容、動態呈現、多重表徵功能，統計兩個最普及之高中基礎生物多媒體教材表徵使用情形，並比較各章主題內容間、各版本間的分析結果，最後依分析結果提出未來投影片改善之建議。
在｢表徵類型｣方面的研究結果顯示，不同版本教科書之圖文比例差異大，整體而言，投影片每頁多為與學習主題相關之表徵，但動畫與影片較不具有互動性。｢表徵內容｣分析結果則顯示表徵內容會依章節主題，整體呈現一致的分布趨勢，在動物的構造與生理學習單元中，功能性的知識表徵出現比例較高。在｢表徵動態呈現｣方面的分析結果發現，整體而言，動態表徵每操弄一次平均約出現兩個表徵，而表徵出現速度容易被控制，但表徵動態呈現方式於版本間差異大。最後，｢多重表徵的功能｣研究結果顯示：現有生物投影片中提供之表徵功能，運用表徵固有特性提供限制詮釋功能之比例較高，但運用表徵熟悉性提供限制詮釋以及運用延伸化來建構深層理解的表徵功能使用比例則較低。此外，各章主題會影響表徵類型使用比例，同時，表徵種類與密度、動態表徵，在不同版本間也有不同的使用比例。

The purpose of this study was to analyze the multimedia representations used in high school biology learning materials. A content analysis was adopted using a framework with the following four dimensions：Forms of the representations, content of the representations, ways to represent dynamic representations, and functions of the representations. The PowerPoint materials provided in two popular high school biology textbooks were analyzed based on learning topics.
The results show that there are graph-text ratio differences between two versions of PowerPoint. The data also shows that most representations are relevant to the learning topic of each page. Most animations and videos representations are lack of interactions. It also reveals that content of representation is dependent on the learning topic. Regarding the ways to represent dynamic representations, it reveals that, in overall, about two dynamic representations show up each time when an enter key is hit. In addition, the ways to represent dynamic representation are different between different textbooks. Besides, regarding the function of representations, the study found that the proportion of interpretation constrained by inherent properties is high. However, the proportions of interpretation constrained by familiarity and of deeper understanding constructed by extension are low. Overall, we conclude that topic of different chapters will affect the proportion of the use of each form of representations. Also there is different usage distribution between two textbooks in the forms of the representations, the density of representation used in each PowerPoint page, and the ways to represent dynamic representations.

中文文獻
杜子佑（2012）。探討多媒體對於認知負載的影響：資訊重複的必要性。 第八屆知識,社群國際研討會發表之論文。臺北市中國文化大學推廣教育部。
吳伊帆（2009）。多媒體文字訊息設計與學習者控制播放模式對學習成效、使用時間及認知負荷影響之研究 （未出版之碩士論文）。佛光大學，宜蘭縣。
宋倩如（2000）。設計互動式超媒體人機介面之文獻探討。中學教育學報，7，201-217。
林郁芬（2010）。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（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北市。
洪蓉宜、黃昭仁、張欣怡（2012）。動態表徵課程之不同實施方式對高中生細胞分裂概念複習之影響。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，8(1)，71-96. 。
許良榮（1996）：圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊，4 (4)，121-131
許朝貴（1994）。國一學生理解人體血液循環路徑的困難分析（未出版碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學科學教育所。彰化市。
張春興（1989）。張氏心理學辭典。台北：東華。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學。台北：東華。
黃秀英（1999）國中生物科文本調整與學生閱讀理解之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系。高雄市。
黃雅彬（2004）。學生對國中自然科教科書不同知識表徵理解之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學生命科學系研究所，台北市。
歐用生（1994）。教育研究法。台北：師大書苑。
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。
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（未出版碩士論文）。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所。臺北市。
蔣治邦 （1994）。由表徵觀點探討新教材數與計算活動的設計。載於台灣省國民教師研習會，國民小學數學科新課程概說（低年級），60-76。新北市：台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
藍嘉淑（2000）。圖片在國中生物科教學的角色及其對學生圖片理解之影響（未出版碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。

 
英文文獻
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131-152.
Ainsworth, S., & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241-255.
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 J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhlel (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 191-208) New York: Springer.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Barak, J. (1999). As process as it can get: Students’ understanding of biological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12),1281-1292
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77-86.
Bruner, J, S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Buckley, B. C. & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the Role of Representations and Expressed in Building Mental Models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in Science Education (pp.119-135). Netherlands: Kluwer academic Publisher.
Burke, L. A., & James, K. E. (2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 278-296.
ChanLin, L. J. (2000). Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4), 228-238.
Chen, Y. T. (2012). Implementing an Interactive Powerpoint into a Self-Controlled Learning Environment. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(13): 1928-1933.
Cyphert, D. (2004). The problem of Powerpoint: Visual aid or visual rhetoric? Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 80-84
Fisher, K. M. (2000). Overview of knowledge mapping. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.). Mapping biology knowledge (pp.25-37). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Frey, B., & Birnbaum, P.(2002). Learners’ perceptions on the use of PowerPoint in lectures. Computers and Education, 41, 72-86.
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.
Hammes, T. X., (2009, July 1l).. Essay: Dumb-dumb bullets. Armed Forces Journal Retrieved from http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/essay-dumb-dumb-bullets/
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.
Koroghlanian, C. M., & Klein, J. D. (2000, October). The use of audio and animation in computer-based instruction. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Denver CO, 25–28
Kunkel, K. (2004). A research note assessing the benefit of PowerPoint software in different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology, 32, 188-196.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On Empirically Validating Functions of Pictures in Prose. In Houghton, H. A. & Willows, D.M. (Eds). The Psychology of illustration(Vol.1, pp.51-58), New York, NY: Springer
Lord, T. R. (1990). Enhancing learning in the life sciences through spatial perception. Innovative Higher Education,15(1), 5-16
Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225-244
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.
Mayer, R. E. (1994). Visual aids to knowledge construction: building mental representations from pictures and words. In W. Schnotz, & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 125–138).
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning ( I ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.) (2005). The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, P. H. (1983). The Magic seven, plus or minus two: Some limit on our capacity to process information, Psychological Review, 63, 81-87.
Palmer, S. E. (1977). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell-Gebbett, J. (1984). Pupils' perceptions of three-dimensional structures in biology lessons. Journal of Biological Education, 18(3), 220-226.
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of HumaneComputer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
Tufte, E. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57,247-262.
Wortman, C. B., Loftus, E. F., & Marshall, M. E. (1992). Psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.