English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 68069/68069 (100%)
Visitors : 23222265      Online Users : 151
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/81916


    Title: 從認知風格的角度探討同儕互評對遊戲式學習系統製作與評量之影響;The Impacts of Peer Assessment on the Implementation and Evaluation of Game-based Learning: A Cognitive Style Approach
    Authors: 李靜怡;Lee, Jing-Yi
    Contributors: 網路學習科技研究所
    Keywords: 遊戲式學習;同儕互評;認知風格;Game-Based Learning;peer assessment;cognitive styles
    Date: 2019-10-07
    Issue Date: 2020-01-07 14:37:50 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 國立中央大學
    Abstract: 近年來,遊戲式學習被廣泛應用在許多教學現場,透過遊戲式學習實現教學、提升學習成效、以及跨越不同學科和背景的相關研究越來越多,因遊戲式學習有許多的好處,如促進學生認知增長、數位素養、社交情感增長、軟實力的發展、增強決策和問題解決能力、批判性思維等,而能達到這些好處,乃是由於遊戲式學習涵蓋了許多遊戲元素,如明確的目標、規則、控制、挑戰、即時回饋、獎勵、互動、故事、複雜等許多遊戲元素,各類遊戲元素有不同的特色,能影響學習者在使用遊戲式學習系統之不同反應,另一方面,學生有不同的特質,其中認知風格和每一個人處理和組織資訊的方式有關,此種處理和組織資訊的方式可能會影響設計者與評量者重視不同的遊戲元素,可能在他們之間發生歧異,產生落差,因此需要一些機制來連結設計者與評分者所重視的遊戲元素。在眾多機制中,其中同儕互評有助於學習,因為學生同時扮演了設計者與評分者兩種角色。
    然而,透過同儕互評探討認知風格對遊戲設計與評量之影響的研究較缺乏,對於遊戲設計者而言,可能會影響遊戲開發的視角,對於遊戲評分者而言,可能會影響使用他人遊戲時的不同看法以及所重視的遊戲元素,為了更進一步了解此影響,本研究探討了五個研究問題,即:1. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段,認知風格如何影響遊戲設計評分者之評分? 2. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段,認知風格之組合如何影響遊戲設計者之得分? 3. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段,認知風格如何影響遊戲設計評分者對各認知風格組合之評分? 4. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段,不同認知風格學習者對不同認知風格組合評分之相關性? 5. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段,認知風格如何影響遊戲設計評分者之意見?
    為了回答上述研究問題,本研究的受測對象同時擔任設計者與評分者兩種角色,關於設計者的部分,每一組設計組合由兩位受測對象所組成,依照認知風格將設計組合分為整體型學習者與整體型學習者(H&H)、整體型學習者與序列型學習者(H&S)、序列型學習者與序列型學習者(S&S)之三種組合。關於評分者的部分,分為整體型學習者與序列型學習者。設計者與評分者都需經歷兩階段的實驗,第一階段為構思階段,著重於受測對象對設計遊戲式學習系統方面的發想。第二階段為實作階段,著重於將構思階段之想法實踐出來。更明確地說,第一階段小組成員討論如何進行遊戲式學習系統之設計,此為初步的設計構想,需包括兩個面向,即「學習內容」與「遊戲性」,他們需發想如何能達成此二個項目,並上台報告他們所規劃的設計。第二階段小組成員必須將「挑戰」、「明確的目標」、「複雜」、「控制」、「即時回饋」、「互動」、「獎勵」、「規則」、「學習內容」九大項遊戲設計整合至他們的遊戲,而此九大項遊戲設計由受測對象於構思階段之意見所歸納出的九個項目。
    本研究結果在兩個階段都包含評分與得分的部分,在遊戲構思階段的評分上,整體型與序列型評分者的評分無顯著差異,在得分上,「遊戲性」的得分結果為H&H組合與S&S組合之得分皆顯著高於H&S組合之得分,而在「學習內容」的得分有著相反結果,即H&S組合之得分顯著高於S&S組合之得分。在遊戲實作階段的評分上,整體型與序列型評分者的評分結果大部分都相同,僅在「明確的目標」上,整體型評分者之評分顯著高於序列型評分者之評分,在得分上,三種認知風格組合在「學習內容」、「挑戰」、「獎勵」的得分有相同的結果,即H&H組合之得分顯著高於S&S組合之得分,另一方面,在「學習內容」、「控制」、「即時回饋」的得分亦有相同的結果,即H&S組合之得分顯著高於S&S組合之得分。
    上述研究結果乃是運用同儕互評機制在遊戲式學習的設計與評量上,發現不同認知風格的評分者或設計組合所重視的遊戲元素會有所不同,並依據上述的發現產生了一個架構圖,此架構圖顯示認知風格在遊戲設計的評分差異、得分差異、意見差異等三方面之影響,這個架構圖可以指導後進研究者,探討遊戲式學習系統之設計或開發如何能符合每一個認知風格族群之需求,以達到個人化學習。;Game-based learning has been widely applied in education settings for recent years. Some studies indicated that game-based learning offers many benefits, e.g., cognitive growth, digital literacy, social-emotional growth, soft skills development, enhanced decision making, problem-solving skills and critical thinking. This is because game-based learning covers many game elements, such as Clear Goals, Rules, Control, Challenge, Immediate Feedback, Rewards, Interactivity, Story, Complexity. Such game elements have different characteristics, which can affect learners’ reactions to game-based learning. On the other hand, individual differences exist among learners. Among various individual differences, cognitive style is related to the way of processing and organizing information, which may make designers and evaluators focus on different game elements. Hence, there is a need to link game elements valued by designers and those valued by evaluators. Among various mechanisms, peer assessment brings many benefits to student learning because students play as both designers and evaluators.
    However, paucity of research used peer assessment to examine the impacts of cognitive styles on the design and evaluation of game-based learning. To fill this gap, five research questions were investigated in this study, i.e., 1. How cognitive styles affect the scores that evaluators mark during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 2. How the grouping of cognitive styles affects the scores that game designers obtain during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 3. How cognitive styles affect the scores that evaluators mark for each cognitive style grouping, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 4. How cognitive styles affect e relationships between scores from each evaluator, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 5. How cognitive styles affect the comments that evaluators give for each cognitive style grouping, in terms of game proposal and game implementation?
    In order to answer the above questions, the subjects of this study play as both the designers and evaluators. Regarding the former, all members were divided into three groups according to their cogitative styles, i.e., Holist & Holist (H&H), Holist & Serialist (H&S), Serialist & Serialist (S&S). Regarding the latter, the evaluators included Holists and Serialists. All members should go through two stage of this experiment. In Stage One, each cognitive group needed to make a proposal for game-based learning. In Stage Two, each cognitive style needed to implement game-based learning. More specifically, all members need to discuss how to design the game-based learning system in Stage One, which focused on two aspects, namely “Learning Material” and “Playfulness”. In Stage Two, all member should implement game-based learning, which included nine game elements, i.e., “Challenge”, “Clear goals”, “Complexity”, “Control”, “Immediate feedback”, “Interactivity”, “Rewards”, “Rules”, “Learning Material”. The nine game elements are summarized based on opinions that learners gave at Stage One.
    The result of this study include scores that evaluators marks and those that designers obtain at each stage. Regarding Stage One there was no significant difference between the scores from Holists and those from Serialists. On the other hand, the scores that H&H and S&S obtained were higher than those from H&S, in terms of playfulness. On the contrary, the scores that H&S obtained were higher than those from H&H and S&S in terms of Learning Material. Regarding Stage Two, the scores that Holist marked for clear goals were higher than those that Serialists did. On the other hand, the scores that H&H obtained were higher than those from S&S, regardless of Learning Material, Challenge or Rewards. Furthermore, the scores that H&S obtained were higher than those from S&S, regardless of Learning Material, Control or Immediate Feedback.
    The above results showed that cognitive styles affect game elements that designers and evaluators emphasize on. According to the above findings, a framework was proposed and it showed the influences of cognitive styles on the design and assessment of game-based learning. The framework can guide future researchers on how to design game-based learning system that meet the needs of each cognitive style group so that personalized learning can be achieved.
    Appears in Collections:[網路學習科技研究所 ] 博碩士論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML57View/Open


    All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    ::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期:8-24-2009 :::
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback  - 隱私權政策聲明