（二）鷹架教學（scaffolding instruction）

(二)請你設計一個實驗探討ViDis對-12年級的學生可能的閱讀理解效果。需寫出:1研究問題、2.自變項、3.依變項、4.統計方法、5.預期結果(須以本文訊息為基礎提出預期結果)(20分) Although increasing evidence indicates that the addition of visual displays (ViDis)contributes to students' learning (Norman 2012; Roberts et al. 2015), findings in the field can becontradictory. For instance, selected studies show presenting ViDis to students, even withoutcorresponding instruction, benefits reading comprehension (Hannus and Hyona 1999; Mayer andGallini 1990). However, other researchers (McTigue and Flowers 2011) found students oftenmisunderstand elements of abstract ViDis (e.g,, the arrows in a flow diagram). Furthermore,subsequent research concludes that simply providing students ViDis may have no impact onstudents' learning or could hinder their reading comprehension (McTigue 2009; Brookshire et al.2002). As such, these researchers recommend more active interventions that focus on the processof learning from graphics rather than manipulating the graphics themselves. Such mixed resultsalso provide few clear guidelines for ViDis instructional use. Additionally, it is not clear why researchers often derive inconsistent conclusions fromgraphics. The increasing graphical complexity may partially account for the disparity of findings,such as those in modern texts, in which visuals are rarely presented singularly within a page oflinear text (Fingeret 2012). The typical layout of informational texts has undergone recentchanges, as evidenced by the advent of more online reading of digital texts. Even traditional printtextbooks are less likely to be formatted in a linear arrangement. As such, the majority ofinformational texts students encounter are increasingly multimodal in nature (Guo et al. 2018;Fingeret 2012). For example, a paragraph on trees may have, not one, but a series ofcorresponding images, each illustrating a different leaf type. However, the texts used inoften-cited research studies from previous decades (e.g., Mayer and Gallini 1990; Hannus andHyona 1999) do not mirror such modern texts because researchers traditionally paired linear textswith a single graphic or single graphic per page. Our current work attempts to address thisdisparity by reviewing only more modern research (from 2002 forward). We work to provide richdescriptions of the types of text and graphics within reviewed studies rather than treating them asa singular construct. Furthermore, theory and research do not yet provide clear guidance on how to best visuallyillustrate content across varying disciplines. While specific learning theories, such as dual codingtheory (Paivio 1971, 1986), predict visuals to support the learning process, such theories do notpredict the specific nature of how visuals and texts should be designed. Meanwhile, researchersalso document that adding ViDis in informational text also adds new comprehension challengesfor young readers (Slough and McTigue 2010; Roberts and Brugar 2017), When reading visuallycomplex texts, readers must apply multiple literacy skills to select, interpret, and integrateinformation provided in both the text and ViDis. These processes may lead to cognitive overloadduring reading, particularly for younger and less skilled readers (McTigue and Flowers 2011;Duke and Bennett-Armistead 2003). To ensure better cost-benefits of graphics for comprehension, researchers have engaged inestablishing graphical design principles (e.g., Mayer 2001, 2006) which could assist teachers inselecting or designing appropriate visuals. For example, such graphical design principlesrecommend a close alignment of ViDis and the corresponding text (Mayer 2001). However, whileempirically based, Mayer's work primarily draws upon highly controlled research with skilledadult readers (i.e, college students) reading technical texts and may not directly apply to youngerstudents or other text genres (McTigue 2009; Sun and Lee 2016). Consequently, limited researchsupports teachers in selecting appropriate visual materials or improving younger students'content-area learning from visuals. Not surprisingly, this gap between research and K-12 readingand instruction has created a situation in which classroom visual graphic instruction (if occurring)is frequently uninformed by research (McTigue and Flowers 2011). As a result, students haveoften not fully acquired visual literacy skills before being expected to independently make senseof visually dense informational texts (Roberts and Brugar 2017). This disconnect is not the faultof teachers, but reflects an incomplete, or not fully synthesized, research base, which again weaim to partially address in this study. The need for such work is immediate, because even with anincomplete research base, teachers are responsible for content-area instruction which includesmany ViDis. 文章摘錄自Guo 等人(2020)Educational Psychology Review)

題組內容

（二）鷹架教學（scaffolding instruction）

相關申論題

相關試卷