先備知識對學習英語聽力的影響;The Influences of Prior Knowledge on English Listening Learning

NCU Institutional Repository > 資訊電機學院 > 網路學習科技研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/84256

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/84256

题名:	先備知識對學習英語聽力的影響;The Influences of Prior Knowledge on English Listening Learning
作者:	鄧啓宏;Deng, Qi-Hong
贡献者:	網路學習科技研究所
关键词:	數位遊戲式學習;英語聽力;先備知識;Digital Game-based Learning;English Listening;Prior Knowledge
日期:	2020-08-20
上传时间:	2020-09-02 18:34:03 (UTC+8)
出版者:	國立中央大學
摘要:	數位遊戲式學習(DGBL)包含許多遊戲元素，而這些遊戲元素可以提供學習者愉悅學習的體驗。因此，它常常被應用在不同領域當中，英語學習就是其中一個領域。英語學習包含聽、說、讀、寫四個方面，在這四者當中，聽力很重要，因此，DGBL常被用來支援聽力學習，聽力學習包含了兩個部分，一個是字彙部分，一個是句子部分，這兩個部份的複雜度有所差異，可是，過去鮮少有研究比較這兩個部份的差異。此外，鷹架輔助的學習系統能夠讓學生的挫折感降低，但是，過去的研究少有將鷹架輔助整合進入數位遊戲式英語學習，為彌補此缺失，本研究將結合鷹架輔助來發展數位遊戲式英語聽力學習。然而在另一方面，鷹架輔助具有多樣性，可是學習者之間也存在著個別差異性，所以不同的學習者可能會喜好不同的鷹架輔助，也就是說，個別差異性扮演一個重要的角色。先備知識是其中一個有影響性的個別差異性，這是因為每個人對於特定領域的所擁有的知識量不同，有鑑於此，本研究包含兩個實驗，此兩個實驗皆是從學習成效和學習行為的角度來探討先備知識對使用數位遊戲式英語聽力學習的影響，不論是實驗一或是實驗二，受試者皆為北部某大專院校的學生。然而，實驗一著重在字彙聽力，而實驗二則以句子聽力為主。更明確的說，實驗一為探討不同先備知識學習者在使用DGBL來學習字彙聽力上有何差異。其結果顯示，高先備學習者與低先備學習者展現不同的學習成效和學習行為。在學習成效方面，無論是在進行學習同義字還是反義字，兩者存在著顯著差異。無論是在任務分數、剩餘提示分數還是答題狀況，高先備學習者表現比低先備學習者有更好的學習成效。另外，在學習行為部分，不論是同義字的學習或反義字的學習，高先備學習者與低先備學習者皆有所差異。在學習同義字中，高先備學習者會使用多種策略來進行學習任務，而低先備學習者會採取固定的策略進行學習任務；在學習反義字中，高先備學習者有較多大範圍動作，而低先備學習者有較多小範圍的動作。實驗二為探討不同先備知識學習者在使用DGBL來學習句子聽力上有何差異。如同實驗一，高先備學習者與低先備學習者顯示出不同的學習成效和學習行為。在學習成效方面，無論是在學習任務還是遊戲任務，高先備學習者之表現皆優於低先備學習者。這可能是因為實驗二的學習任務和遊戲任務是有高度的關聯性。另外，在學習行為上，高先備學習者和低先備學習者亦有許多不同之處。例如高先備學習者偏好自己解決問題，而低先備學習者會尋找其他解決問題的策略。而在提示使用上，高先備學習者試圖從單一提示中獲得線索，而低先備學習者傾向於從許多提示中獲得線索。綜上所述，兩個實驗結果顯示出不同先備知識學習者在不同類型的聽力學習中，有不同的學習方式。在字彙聽力學習上，高先備學習者會採取多種策略來解決問題，而低先備學習者會採取固定式的策略來解決問題。而在句子聽力學習上，高先備學習者會偏好從單一提示中獲得線索，靠自己將問題解決；而低先備學習者偏好從不同的提示中搜尋線索來將問題解決。從前述之結果可知，差異性不僅存在高先備學習者與低先備學習者之間，而學習者對於字彙聽力和句子聽力也採用不同的方式。因此，本研究的貢獻不僅是在於其研究結果，可以用來發展個人化的英語聽力學習，以兼顧不同先備知識學習者的需要。也可提供教學者和設計者指引，使他們能用不同的策略來發展字彙聽力和句子聽力的數位學習工具。;Digital game-based learning (DGBL) contained many game elements. These game elements can provide pleasant learning experience for learners. Thus, it is often applied in a variety of fields. English learning is one of these fields. English learning includes four aspects, which are listening, speaking, reading and writing. Among them, listening is very important. Therefore, DGBL is often used to support listening learning. Listening learning consists of two parts. One part is vocabulary listening while the other part is sentence listening. The complexity of these two parts is different. However, few studies examined how students reacted to these two parts differently. On the other hand, scaffolding hints can reduce the frustration of students. Nevertheless, paucity of past research integrated scaffolding hints into digital game-based English learning. To fill in this gap, this research incorporated scaffolding hints digital game-based English listening learning. However, there are diverse scaffolding hints. On the other hand, learners have various background, knowledge and skills so that they may prefer scaffolding hints differently. In other words, individual differences play an important role. Prior knowledge is one of influential individual differences. This is because everyone has different levels of knowledge in a specific field. Accordingly, two empirical studies were conducted to examine the impacts of prior knowledge on the use of digital game-based English listening learning, in terms of learning performance and learning behavior. The participants of these two studies were students who studied in a university in the northern Taiwan, regardless of Study One or Study Two. Study One focused on vocabulary listening while Study Two emphasized on sentence listening. More specifically, Study One investigated how High Prior Knowledge (HPK) learners and Low Prior Knowledge (LPK) learners used DGBL to learn vocabulary listening. The results indicated that great differences existed between HPK learners and LPK learners, in terms of learning performance and learning behavior. Regarding learning performance, significant differences were found for both synonyms and antonyms. HPK learners performed better than LPK learners, regardless of task scores, deducted hint scores or answer status. Regarding learning behavior, there were great differences between HPK learners and LPK learners, irrespective of synonyms or antonyms. In the aspect pf synonyms, HPK learners used a variety of strategies to complete the tasks while LPK learners adopted fixed strategies. In the aspect of antonyms, HPK learners tended to make large-scale movement while LPK learners preferred to make small-scale movement. Study Two investigated how HPK learners and LPK learners used DGBL to learn sentence listening. Like Study One, HPK learners and LPK learners showed different learning performance and learning behavior. Regarding learning performance, HPK learners performed better than LPK learners, regardless of learning tasks or gaming tasks. This might be because there were high correlations between the learning tasks and the gaming tasks in Study Two. Regarding learning behavior, there were many differences between HPK learners and LPK learners. For instance, HPK learners preferred to solve problems by themselves while LPK learners looked for other problem-solving strategies. Furthermore, HPK learners tended to obtain clues from a single scaffolding hint while LPK learners preferred to obtain clues from many scaffolding hints. In summary, the results from these two studies showed that HPK learners and LPK learners used different learning approaches for different types of English listening contexts. Regarding vocabulary listening, HPK learners adopted multiple strategies to solve problems while LPK learners used fixed strategies to solve problems. Regarding sentence listening, HPK learners preferred to obtain clues from a single scaffolding hint and solved problems by themselves while LPK learners tended to acquire clues from many scaffolding hints to sort out problems. The aforementioned results not only showed differences existed between HPK learners and LPK learners, but also indicated that learners adopt different approaches for vocabulary listening and sentence listening. Therefore, the contribution of this research covered two aspects. One was results from the two empirical studies, which could be used to develop personalized English listening learning to cater for the needs of learners with different levels of prior knowledge. The other was to provide guidance for instructors and designers. By doing so, they could know how to use different strategies to develop digital learning tools for vocabulary listening and sentence listening.
显示于类别:	[網路學習科技研究所 ] 博碩士論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html		0Kb	HTML	131	检视/开启

在NCUIR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

数据加载中.....