圖像編碼靜態版面與單一意義圖形符號動態版面學習成效之研究

Date
2021-12-??
Authors
陳明聰
陳芳宇
陳思涵
Ming-Chung Chen, Fang-Yu Chen, Szu-Han Kay Chen
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立台灣師範大學特殊教育中心
National Taiwan Normal University Special Education Center
Abstract
輔助溝通系統使用者透過溝通版面上的符號來產生訊息,隨著溝通訊息量增加,如何讓使用者有效來使用溝通版面上的符號產生所要表達的訊息,一直是受到關注的議題。一般而言,利用拼音或字根輸入和單一意義圖形符號是最常見的兩種訊息產生方式,但前者需有讀寫能力,而後者需要大量符號可能造成找尋不易的問題,為了解決這些限制,圖像編碼方式成為另一種選項,只是其學習成效仍有待探討。因此,本研究旨在探討一般大學生在學習圖像編碼與單一意義圖形符號版面的學習成效。本研究採團體實驗研究中的等組前後測設計,並以兩個獨立樣本的 Mann-Whitney U 考驗進行統計考驗,共招募 32 名一般大學生為研究對象,隨機分配受試者至圖像編碼組與單一意義圖形符號。自變項為版面類型,分別為靜態的圖像編碼版面及動態的單一意義圖形符號版面;依變項為學習成效,分別為語詞和句子產生的正確率。研究結果指出,前測時,圖像編碼組在語詞層面和句子層面的輸入正確率均比單一意義圖形符號組差,但後測時,在語詞層面和句子層面的輸入正確率上,兩組並無顯著差異。
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) users use symbols on different high-technology AAC layouts to generate messages. Therefore, the effectiveness and rapidness during message generation have been among the main topics in the field, especially when the number of messages is increased. When AAC users use a spelling system, they need to be literate. When they use a single-meaning picture system, they face the issue of organizing enormous amounts of vocabulary items. Iconic encoding might be one of the options to solve the abovementioned limitations. However, the learning effect of iconic encoding has not been explored. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the learning effect of a static iconic encoding layout and a dynamic single-meaning picture layout on message generation. Thirty-two university students participated voluntarily in this randomized pre and post-test experiment. Each group included 16 participants. The independent variable was the types of layout: iconic encoding and single-meaning picture. The dependent variable was the learning effect, i.e., the accuracy of generating target words and sentences. The results of the experiment indicated that the single-meaning picture group had significantly better accuracy in generating target words and sentences than the static group in the pre-test. However, there were no significant differences in accuracy in the post-test.
Description
Keywords
Citation