為使嵌入式動畫 PPT 簡報教學之有效利用，教師首先確定學生的先備知 識，並準備簡報教材，使其在課堂上的講授中更具融貫性與系統性。簡報可用 於向學生傳授新的概念以及內容必須清晰與整齊。多位學者曾詳細介紹在課堂 中最有效率的 PPT 使用方式及特性。例如：文字大小必須依教室規模大小來調 整至適中(Rickman & Grudzinzki, 2000)；Holzl (1997)建議在少於 50 個座位的教 室中，簡報軟體之標題字體須採用 32 點大小，而文字字體則採用 24 點大小；
而教室人數在 50 到 200 個座位的教室中，簡報軟體之標題字體採用 36 點大小，
而文字字體採用 28 點大小。況且，簡報亦可運用其設計版面的圖文配置多樣性，
依有條理的方式，來解決學生在學習上可能會遇到的困難。
再者，當設計出一套完備的教學簡報，將可以反覆使用在教學上，並與其 他教師共享。同時教師若能配合行動載具(mobile device)的使用，提供嵌入式動 畫 PPT 讓學生下載，將能使學生更為有效運用科技進行課前預習與課後複習。
呼應先前的研究，結合科技以及課題研究教學法能夠促使學生自我探索，學生 對於能夠自主決定學習內容，以及藉由 PPT 呈現其所學，都感到十分的興奮；
教學過程中也發現，將資訊科技帶入課堂的同時，也必須教導學生資訊素養以 及圖像素養的概念(Allen & Seaman, 2010; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004)。
未來可進一步探討簡報軟體融入教學之相關研究，擴大研究範圍至學生在 科學教育的知覺與知識理解(楊凱悌、王子華、邱美虹，2011b)，然而除了量化 測驗與統計外，亦可兼採訪談，進行質性與量化的混合研究，以實際理解學生 對於 PPT 融入教學的知覺感受。
運用嵌入式動畫 PPT 簡報教學之有效性探究－以高中生氣體概念學習為例
致謝
作者們衷心感謝總編輯暨審查委員對本文所提供之寶貴意見使本文能夠以 更清晰且結構化的系統性呈現。
參考文獻
丁慕玉(2008)。數位學習對微積分的影響－以虎尾科技大學為例。國立虎尾科技 大學學報，27(1)，109-128。
王千倖(2010)。「資訊科技融入教學」推廣政策之敘說研究。教育實踐與研究，
23(1)，31-56。
林汝佑、林曉芳(2010)。電腦多媒體融入教學對高職生英語學習動機之研究。明 道通識論叢，8，67-96。
徐式寬、關秉寅(2011)。國民中小學教師資訊融入教學素養評量表之建構與調 查。科學教育學刊，19(4)，335-357。
張世忠(2000)。建構教學：理論與應用。臺北市：五南。
張國恩(2001)。從學習科技的發展看資訊融入教學的內涵。北縣教育，41，16-25。
張靜嚳(1996)。傳統教學有何不妥？建構與教學，4，1-3。
陳彥廷(2010)。運用非同步網路科學教學案例討論學習課程促進技專校院學生網 路態度與網路自我效能之研究，科學教育研究與發展季刊，59，55-88。
陳振榮(2002)。資訊科技融入國小數學科教學對學童學習成就與態度影響之研究 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
陳章正、陳輝雄(2006)。運用「簡報式多媒體」教學策略於高一電磁學之研究。
物理雙月刊，28(3)，585-590。
蔡秉恒(2002)。國小六年級學生運用網路數位學校學習柱體與錐體成效之研究
賴澤仁(2007)。臨床生物化學檢驗 Microsoft PowerPoint 教學課件的製作及其應 用。中國熱海醫學，2，320。
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Atkinson, C. (2005). Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations That Inform, Motivate and Inspire. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77-86. doi: Doi 10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7
Basturk, R. (2008). Applying the many-facet Rasch model to evaluate Microsoft PowerPoint presentation performance in higher education. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 431-444. doi: Doi 10.1080/
02602930701562775
Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms.
運用嵌入式動畫 PPT 簡報教學之有效性探究－以高中生氣體概念學習為例
Communication Education, 50, 230-240.
Cassady, J. C. (1998). Student and instructor perceptions of the efficacy of computer-aided lectures in undergraduate university courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19, 175-189.
Clark, J. (2008). Microsoft PowerPoint and Pedagogy: Maintaining Student Interest in University Lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39-45.
Dale, E. (1946). Audio-visual methods in teaching. New York: The Dryden Press.
Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of speciWc instructional dimensions and student achievement: reWning and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 30, 583-645.
Frey, B. A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learners’ perceptions on the value of Microsoft PowerPoint in lectures. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg.
Gregorius, R. (2011). Student Performances in Various Learning Protocols. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(5), 85-95.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Gunduz, S. (2006). Comparing student understanding of quantum physics when embedding multimodal representations into two different writing formats: Presentation format versus summary report format.
Science Education, 90(6), 1092-1112. doi: Doi 10.1002/Sce.20160
Hay, D., & Kinchin, I. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies.
Education and Training, 48(2/3), 127-124.
Hlynka, D., & Mason, R. (1998). Microsoft PowerPoint’ in the classroom: What is the point? Educational Technology, 38(5), 45-48.
Holzl, J. (1997). Twelve tips for effective Microsoft PowerPoint presentations for the
behavior of gas particles and mismatch of teacher predictions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 238-250. doi: Doi 10.1039/
C1rp90029c
Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures-Effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, 3, 18-21.
McGreal, R., Cheung, B., Tin, T., & Schafer, S. (2005). Implementing mobile environments using learning objects: The Athabasca University digital reading room. Paper presented at the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE’05), Tokushima, Japan.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Perry, A. E. (2003). Microsoft PowerPoint presentations: A creative addition to the research process. English Journal, 92(6), 64.
Perry, T., & Perry, L. A. (1998). University students’ attitudes towards multimedia presentations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 375-377.
Rickman, J., & Grudzinzki, M. (2000). Student expectations of information technology use in the classroom. Educause Quarterly, 1, 24-30.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues:
Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
Su, K.-D. (2008). The Effects of a Chemistry Course with Integrated Information Communication Technologies on University Students' Learning and Attitudes International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 225-249.
Susskind, J. E. (2005). Microsoft PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203-215.
Susskind, J. E., & Gurien, R. A. (1999). Do computer-generated presentations influence psychology students’ learning and motivation to succeed? . Paper presented at the Annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Denver, CO.
Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should
運用嵌入式動畫 PPT 簡報教學之有效性探究－以高中生氣體概念學習為例
we replace the blackboard with Microsoft PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35(3), 175-187.
Tang, T. L. P., & Austin, M. J. (2009). Students' perceptions of teaching technologies, application of technologies, and academic performance. Computers &
Education, 53(4), 1241-1255. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.007
Tufte, E. R. (2003). The Cognitive Style of Microsoft PowerPoint. Retrived from www.edwardtufte.com
Tufte, E. R. (2006). The cognitive style of Microsoft PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within (2nd Ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics.
Wang, C. H., Ke, Y. T., Wu, J. T., & Hsu, W. H. (2012). Collaborative Action Research on Technology Integration for Science Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 125-132. doi: DOI 10.1007/
s10956-011-9289-0
Wang, T. H. (2007). What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an e-learning environment? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 171-186. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00211.x
West, R. L. (1997). Multimedia presentations in large classes: a field experiment.
Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Yang, K. T., Wang, T. H., & Kao, Y. C. (2012). How an interactive whiteboard impacts a traditional classroom. Education as Change, 16(2), 313-332. doi: Doi 10.1080/16823206.2012.745759
Yilmaz, S., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Integrating Gender and Group Differences into Bridging Strategy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4),