|摘要: ||英文現今已經是國際化語言，促進英文能力對學生來說可以說是非常的重要。為了提升英文能力，鷹架已經廣泛的被用來幫助學習者學習英文，這是由於它可以促進反思、論證以及科學的辯證。雖然使用鷹架有許多好處，但該鷹架的輔助有可能會造成學習者只依賴該鷹架而不去學習，學習者的學習意願也不會太高。為了解決這些問題，本研究在一開始就用有成本的鷹架來避免學習者依賴鷹架，並且將遊戲融入學習來提升學習者的興趣。但將遊戲和有成本的鷹架融入學習並不一定適合全部的學習者，這可能是因為學習者擁有不同的先備知識，而這項人因還可能會影響學習者使用遊戲和鷹架的模式。因此，在英文學習中將先備知識列入探討是有必要的。 |
本研究進行了兩個實驗，兩個實驗都以先備知識的人因探討學習者如何在三週中與英文學習系統互動。值得注意的是高先備知識在兩個實驗都學會了策略。在實驗一中，我們用有成本的鷹架工具來幫助學習者。實驗結果顯示，高先備知識一開始就會試著去避免使用扣分提示，但是低先備知識需要練習才能夠避免使用該種提示。另外，高先備知識比較會以「使用者控制的方式」(User-Driven Approach)，藉由選定特定字母來猜測答案。相反的，低先備知識則會用「系統控制的方式」(System-Driven Approach)，由系統隨機給字母來猜測答案。此外，高先備知識還似乎需要更強大的提式來幫助他們解答系統給予的問題，不好用的提示不但沒辦法幫助高先備知識，反而會降低高先備知識的學習成效。而為了提供適合高先備知識者的強大提示，實驗二提供了更多的成本鷹架供學習者使用，包含了對遊戲或學習上的幫助，以使高先備知識者能夠藉由這些不同類型的鷹架得到需要的提示。
;English is an international language all over the world, so facilitating English ability is very essential for students. To improve English abilities, scaffolding instruction has been used to help learners learn English. This is due to the fact that the scaffolding could facilitate reflection, argumentation and scientific explanation.
Despite such advantages, the scaffolding still has some disadvantages. For instance, the scaffolding could increase the learners’ reliance on such support and they might have low motivation. To solve this problem, costed scaffolding was initially provided to prevent learners from relying on scaffolding and a digital game was applied to motivate learners.
Even though we could employ a digital game and costed scaffolding to help learners, such support might still not suit for all the learners. This might be owing to the fact that learners might possess different levels of prior knowledge, which might affect the way learners used the digital game and costed scaffolding. Therefore, there is a need to take into account prior knowledge.
Thus, this research conducted two empirical studies and considered prior knowledge as a human factor to examine learners’ reactions. In Study One, costed scaffolding tools were employed to help learners learn English, including deduction hint and limitation hint. The results from three weeks suggested that the high prior knowledge learners (HPK) tended to avoid using deduction hints initially while the low prior knowledge learners (LPK) needed to practice to avoid using those hints. Moreover, the HPK tended to use a user-driven approach to get hints from the specific letters of the answer while the LPK tended to use a system-driven approach to get the letters randomly. Furthermore, the HPK needed more powerful hints to help them complete the tasks and useless hint might hinder their performance. On the other hand, the LPK needed to rely on the hints and useful hints could improve their performance. In order to provide more powerful hints for the HPK, more powerful hints were provided in Study Two.
Accordingly, Study Two included more hints, including English hints (e.g., scaffolding information and lexical information) and game hints (e.g., local view and global view). More specifically, a digital game was also applied to improve learners’ motivation to learn English in three weeks. The result indicated that digital games might remove performance differences between the LPK and the HPK but this phenomenon disappeared after they did some practice. Moreover, the HPK seemed easier to use hints to improve their performance than the LPK. Furthermore, the LPK used both of the English hints and game hints through three weeks while the HPK did not rely on the support of the hints and they only used both English hints and game hints when they faced the challenges at the difficult level in the third week.
Even though the learners showed different learning patterns in these two studies, there were still some similarities. For instance, the HPK learnt learning strategy in both studies. In summary, the results from both studies provide deep and comprehensive understandings of costed scaffolding in the context of English learning. Such information could help instructors, researchers, and learners develop costed scaffolding that tailored the needs and preference of different prior knowledge groups.