從認知負荷理論檢視文字型前導組織對聽力理解的效果

Abstract

許多研究指出前導組織對於增進聽力理解有正面的效益。但因為每個研究的研究方法和實驗設計不同，所以無法切卻得知前導組織能夠影響聽力理解到什麼程度，以及哪一種類型的前導組織對聽力最有幫助。再者，前導組織的效益往往只取決於學習者的聽力表現，而非深入探討學習者的認知系統使否有因前導組織而改變。而檢視教學設計是否對學習者的認知系統有所效益的方法之一是測量認知負荷量。因此，本研究採用認知負荷理論來解釋三種文字型前導組織增進聽力理解的效益。 受試者為60位九年級的國中生。他們將會在閱讀三種不同的前導組織後接受聽力測驗，此三種文字型前導組織分別為單字、句子和問題。此外，他們也會在沒有前導組織的狀況下接受聽力測驗，視為對照組。閱讀完前導組織後，受試者會接受聽力測驗並完成一份認知負荷量的問卷。此外，每一次的測驗後將會訪問兩位學生對於前導組織增進聽力理解的態度與看法。 根據重複量數單因子變異數分析的結果，問題型前導組織對於增進學習者的聽力理解有顯著的影響。而單字型前導組織與對照組和句子型前導組織之間並無顯著差異。至於測得的認知負荷量，重複量數單因子變異數分析的結果顯示學習者閱讀問題型前導組織後再接受聽力測驗所測得的認知負荷量最低；相反地，沒有閱讀任何前導組織而直接接受聽力測驗的對照組所承受的認知負荷量最高。最後，根據本研究的發現，文末提供有關前導組織對於聽力理解的應用與設計之建議，以及對未來研究的建議。

A great deal of research has reported the effectiveness of advance organizers (AO) in enhancing listening comprehension. To what extent an AO can facilitate listening comprehension and which type of AOs is more effective remains inclusive due to the separate nature of previous studies. Moreover, the effectiveness of AOs were mainly determined by comparing learners’ listening performance rather than probing into learners’ cognitive system in the learning context. Therefore, the present study attempts to use cognitive load theory (CLT) to interpret the effects of three written AOs on listening comprehension. The participants were 60 9th graders in junior high school. They were required to listen to passages under three written AOs conditions, namely, vocabulary previewing, sentences previewing, and questions previewing. They also listened to a passage without the presence of AO prior to listening as a control condition. After each treatment, the learners took a listening comprehension test and completed a questionnaire which measured the imposed cognitive load on learners. Moreover, an oral interview was conducted after each test with AOs to further investigate learners’ perception of AOs. The results of the one-way ANOVA with repeated measures showed that the students performed significantly better on the listening test when previewing test questions prior to listening. No significant difference was found between vocabulary previewing and no AO treatment, neither between vocabulary previewing and sentences previewing. With respect to cognitive loads, the learners experienced the lowest cognitive load when they could preview questions, and perceived the highest cognitive load when no AO was available. Finally, the limitation of the present study and some pedagogical implications would be discussed to shed lights on further research.