以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：102

、訪客IP：3.145.110.107

姓名	陳建宇(Chien-Yu Chen)  查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱	從認知風格的角度探討愉悅型英語邏輯學習的影響 (An Investigation of the Influences of Entertaining English Logic Learning: A Cognitive Style Perspective)
相關論文	★ 將可用性整合融入遊戲式學習 ★ 探討認知風格對於行動學習與合作學習的影響 ★ 學習型網站的可用性評估：從問題到解決方案 ★ 從人因的觀點評估遊戲式學習 ★ 探討認知風格在遊戲式學習中對於客製化與個人化系統的影響 ★ 探討認知風格在行動學習中對於客製化與個人化系統的影響 ★ 性別差異與認知風格對合作化遊戲式學習的影響 ★ 探討認知風格如何影響使用者在行動載具下使用電子期刊 ★ 探討專家和新手對遊戲式學習進行可用性評估的觀感差異 ★ 毒品經驗與遊戲先備知識對客製化與個人化遊戲式反毒宣導系統的影響 ★ 探討背景音樂和認知風格對遊戲式學習的影響 ★ 以多媒體科技和數位遊戲為小小人兒及患者家屬發展線上生活百科 ★ 先備知識對註記式多媒體電子書的影響研究：從個別環境到分享環境 ★ 從認知風格的角度探討提示對學習英文片語與文法的影響 ★ 探討先備知識對學習者在使用鷹架英文學習系統的影響: 限制與扣分機制 ★ 發展動畫電子書之研究：從性別差異到性別均等之歷程
檔案	[Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)
摘要(中)	遊戲式學習的主要元素是數位遊戲，數位遊戲能夠使學習者有快樂的體驗。因此，他們的學習動機能夠被提高。由於這項優點，遊戲式學習經常被應用在不同領域，其中之一就是英文學習。除了用於普通英文課程外，遊戲式學習也被用於學術英文課程。然而，很少的研究使用遊戲式學習來提高學術寫作的邏輯能力。有鑑於此，本研究利用遊戲式學習來彌補此缺失。 更具體的說，本研究包含兩個實證探討。在研究一中開發了「愉悅型英語邏輯學習」，讓學生可以學習如何為學術論文創建大綱，和根據大綱排序學術論文中的句子。另一方面，在研究二中開發了「三層式愉悅型英語邏輯學習」讓學生可以學習如何對學術寫作中的句子進行排序，並獲得如何正確地使用連接詞的知識。 「愉悅型英語邏輯學習」和「三層式愉悅型英語邏輯學習」包括三個創新點。第一個創新點乃是學習者可獲得對於學術寫作邏輯的全面理解，包括建立大綱、英文句子排序及英文連接詞的使用。第二個在於「愉悅型英語邏輯學習」和「三層式愉悅型英語邏輯學習」提供了多樣化的鷹架輔助提示，這些鷹架輔助提示不僅可以使學習者獲得英文寫作知識，也可以幫助學習者順利地完成學習任務。第三個乃是「愉悅型英語邏輯學習」和「三層式愉悅型英語邏輯學習」提出的數位遊戲具有雙重的功能。一個是可以提供學習者快樂的體驗，以達到寓教於樂之目的。另一個是從數位遊戲中獲得之獎勵可以讓他們得到額外的機會去使用鷹架輔助工具，簡言之，本研究所發展的遊戲式學習有多項創新點。 另一方面，學習者也有多種特質，所以需考慮個體差異性。在眾多個體差異性中，認知風格尤為重要，因它影響到學習者如何處理和組織資訊。認知風格有多個維度。其中Pask的整體型-序列型維度對學習有很大的影響。故本研究之目的是從認知風格角度深入了解學習者對「愉悅型英語邏輯學習」和「三層式愉悅型英語邏輯學習」的影響。而研究一和研究二則分別有與此目的呼應的研究問題。研究一為探討認知風格如何影響學習者與「愉悅型英語邏輯學習」的互動，研究二為探討認知風格如何影響學習者與「三層式愉悅型英語邏輯學習」的互動，而此兩個研究所探討的面向皆包括學習成效和學習行為。 研究一與研究二的結果有一些相似處：(1)整體型學習者在第一次紙本測驗中的表現優於序列型學習者；(2)整體型學習者和序列型學習者花費了相似的任務時間以及擁有相似的遊戲分數；(3)整體型學習者和序列型學習者都重複去使用鷹架輔助工具，例如：中譯提示、句意提示、關鍵字提示以及筆記本。研究一與研究二之間也存在著差異：  學習成效： ₋ 在研究一，學習者的第二次紙本測驗分數都與第一次紙本測驗分數相似。然而，在研究二中，他們的第二次紙本測驗分數都高於第一次紙本測驗分數。 ₋ 在研究一，整體型學習者的第二次紙本測驗分數以及任務分數優於序列型學習者。然而，在研究二中，他們的第二次紙本測驗分數以及任務分數是相似的。 ₋ 在研究一，整體型學習者和序列型學習者都獲得相似的進步分數。然而，在研究二中，序列型學習者獲得的進步分數大於整體型學習者。  學習行為： ₋ 在研究一中，序列型學習者在鷹架輔助工具的使用頻率上高於整體型學習者。然而，在研究二中，他們表現出相似的鷹架輔助工具的使用頻率。 ₋ 在研究一中，整體型學習者單獨地觀看計分規則。然而，在研究二中，整體型學習者將計分規則與其他不同的鷹架輔助工具一起使用，包括位置提示和筆記本。 ₋ 在研究一中，序列型學習者在起初之學習任務採取嘗試錯誤的方法。另一方面，在研究二中，序列型學習者在起初之學習任務傾向從各種鷹架輔助工具尋求幫助。 ₋ 在研究一中，唯獨序列型學習者在句意提示和筆記本之間來回切換。然而，在研究二中，整體型學習者和序列型學習者都有這種行為。 根據這些結果，本研究貢獻了一個框架，以深入了解認知風格如何影響學習者與「愉悅型英語邏輯學習」和「三層式愉悅型英語邏輯學習」的互動。同時，此框架也為教學者提供具體的指引，以便幫助他們知道如何利用遊戲式學習去引導學生有效地學習學術寫作的邏輯結構。這種貢獻的最終目標是提供個人化，以滿足不同認知風格群的需求和偏好。
摘要(英)	Game-based learning (GBL) involves digital games, which provide learners with joyful experience. Thus, learners’ learning motivation could be improved. Because of such an advantage, GBL is often applied in a variety of curriculums, one of which is English learning. In addition to supporting the course of general English, GBL is also employed to facilitate the course of academic English. However, paucity of past research used GBL to improve learners’ logical abilities of academic writing. To fill in this gap, GBL was used to solve the aforementioned problem in this research. More specifically, this research consisted of two empirical studies. An Entertaining English Logic Learning (E2L2→[EL]²) was developed in Study One, where learners could learn how to create an outline for an academic paper and how to sort English sentences according to the outline. On the other hand, a Three-Tier Entertaining English Logic Learning (T2E2L2→[TEL]²) was developed in Study Two, where learners could learn how to sort English sentences presented in academic writing and could acquire the knowledge of how to use conjunctions properly. The design features of the [EL]² and [TEL]² encompassed three aspects of novelty. The first aspect of novelty was that learners could acquire the comprehensive understandings of the logic of academic writing, including the creation of an outline, the arrangement of the sequences of English sentence and the use of English conjunctions. The second aspect lied within the fact that the [EL]² and the [TEL]² both provided diverse scaffolding hints, which could not only enabled learners to obtain the knowledge of English writing but also help learners undertake learning tasks smoothly. The third aspect of novelty is that the digital games presented in the [EL]² and the [TEL]² had dual functions. One was that learners could be provided with joyful experience for the purpose of edutainment. The other was that learners could be given extra opportunities to use scaffolding hints based on rewards that they earned from the digital games. In brief, the [EL]² and [TEL]² proposed by this research has diverse aspects of novelty. On the other hand, learners also have diverse characteristics so there is a need to consider individual differences of learners. Among various individual differences, cognitive style is essential because it affects how learners process and organize information. There are various dimensions of cognitive styles. Among them, Pask’s Holist–Serialist dimension greatly affected student learning. Owing to such great effects, the aim of this research was to provide a deep understanding of the effects of cognitive styles on learners’ reactions to the [EL]² and the [TEL]². The research questions of Study One and Study Two corresponded to this aim. Study One examined how cognitive styles affected learners’ interactions with [EL]² while Study Two investigated how cognitive styles affected learners’ interactions with [TEL]². Regardless of Study One or Study Two, comprehensive investigation was conducted, including learning performance and learning behavior. Results from Study One and those from Study Two shared some similarities: (1) Holists performed better than Serialists in the 1st Paper-based Test; (2) Holists and Serialists spent a similar amount of task time and possessed similar game scores; (3) Holists and Serialists repeated to use the scaffolding tools, such as the Chinese translation of vocabulary, the Chinese translation of a sentence, the keyword hint and the notebook. There were also differences between Study One and Study Two:  Learning Performance: ₋ Learners’ scores from the 2nd Paper-based Test were similar to those from the 1st Paper-based Test in Study One while their scores from the 2nd Paper-based Test were higher than those from the 1st Paper-based Test in Study Two. ₋ Holists gained higher the 2nd Paper-based Test scores and task scores than Serialists in Study One while their 2nd Paper-based Test scores and task scores were similar in Study Two. ₋ Holists and Serialists possessed similar gaining scores in Study One while Serialists obtained higher gaining scores than Holists in Study Two.  Learning Behavior ₋ Serialists were superior to Holists in the usage frequencies of the scaffolding tools in Study One while they demonstrated similar usage frequencies of the scaffolding tools in Study Two. ₋ Holists viewed the rule of coins solely in Study One whereas Holists used the rule of coins with other different scaffolding tools together in Study Two, including the correct location hint and notebook. ₋ Serialists intended to take a try-error approach at the beginning of undertaking the learning tasks in Study One. On the other hand, Serialists sought support from a variety of scaffolding tools at the beginning of undertaking the learning tasks in Study Two. ₋ Only Serialists switched between the Chinese translation of a sentence and the notebook in Study One while both Holists and Serialists had such behavior in Study Two. As shown in the aforementioned results, the contributions of these empirical studies are the development of a framework for the deep understandings of the effects of cognitive styles on learners’ interactions with [EL]² and the [TEL]². Meanwhile, they also provide guidance for instructors on how to make the best use of GBL features to support students to learn the logical structure of academic writing effectively. The ultimate goal of such contributions was to provide personalization so that the needs and preferences of diverse cognitive style groups can be accommodated.
關鍵字(中)	★ 遊戲式學習 ★ 學術英文 ★ 論文寫作 ★ 英文邏輯 ★ 認知風格	關鍵字(英)	★ Game-Based Learning ★ Academic English ★ Academic writing ★ English logic ★ Cognitive style
論文目次	摘要 i ABSTRACT iii Table of Contents vi List of Figures ix List of Tables x Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Aim and Novelty 3 1.3 Significance 4 1.4 Chapter Outline 5 1.5 Summary 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review 7 2.1 Digital learning in Academic English 7 2.2 Game-Based Learning 11 2.3 Cognitive Styles 12 2.4 Summary 15 Chapter 3 Methodology Design 16 3.1 Introduction 16 3.2 Conceptual Framework 17 3.3 Study Preferences Questionnaire (SPQ) 18 3.4 Data Analysis 18 3.5 Summary 19 Chapter 4 Study One – Sentence Sorting 20 4.1 Participants 20 4.2 Research Instruments 20 4.2.1 Entertaining English Logic Learning 20 4.2.2 Paper-based Tests 27 4.3 Experimental Procedures 27 4.4 Data Analysis 28 4.5 Results: Test Performance 29 4.5.1 1st Paper-based Test vs. 2nd Paper-based Test 29 4.5.2 Holists vs. Serialists 29 4.6 Results: Task Performance 30 4.6.1 Task scores 30 4.6.2 Task time 30 4.6.3 Game scores 31 4.7 Results: Behavior Frequencies 32 4.7.1 Arrangement of an Outline 32 4.7.2 Sorting of English Sentences 32 4.8 Results: Relationships between Performance and Behavior 34 4.8.1 Test performance and the Usage Frequencies of Scaffolding Tools 34 4.8.2 Task Time and the Usage Frequencies of Scaffolding Tools 36 4.8.3 Task Scores and the Usage Frequencies of Scaffolding Tools 37 4.9 Results: Behavior Sequences 41 4.9.1 Arrangement of an Outline 41 4.9.2 Sorting of English Sentences 46 4.10 Discussions 53 4.10.1 Arrangement of an Outline vs. Sorting of English Sentences 53 4.10.2 Serialists vs. Holists 54 4.11 Summary 55 Chapter 5 Study Two – Sentence Sorting with English Conjunctions 56 5.1 Participants 56 5.2 Research Instruments 56 5.2.1 Three-Tier Entertaining English Logic Learning 56 5.2.2 Paper-based Tests 64 5.3 Experimental Procedures 65 5.4 Data Analysis 65 5.5 Results: Test Performance 66 5.5.1 Holists vs. Serialists 66 5.5.2 1st Paper-based Test vs. 2nd Paper-based Test 67 5.6 Results: Task performance 68 5.6.1 Task scores 68 5.6.2 Task time 68 5.6.3 Game scores 69 5.7 Results: Behavior Frequencies 69 5.7.1 The Selection of English Conjunctions 69 5.7.2 Sorting of English Sentences 70 5.8 Results: Relationships between Performance and Behavior 71 5.8.1 Test performance and the Usage Frequencies of Scaffolding Tools 71 5.8.2 Task Time and the Usage Frequencies of Scaffolding Tools 72 5.8.3 Task Scores and the Usage Frequencies of Scaffolding Tools 72 5.9 Results: Behavior Sequences 73 5.9.1 The Selection of English Conjunctions 74 5.9.2 Sorting of English Sentences 76 5.10 Discussions 82 5.10.1 Selection of English Conjunctions vs. Sorting of English Sentences 82 5.10.2 Serialists vs. Holists 82 Chapter 6 Conclusions 84 6.1 Main Conclusions 84 6.1.1 Answers to Research Questions 84 6.2 Summary of Results 89 6.2.1 Study One 89 6.2.2 Study Two 90 6.3 Development of a Framework 91 6.4 Contributions of this Research 94 6.5 Limitations and Future works 94 References 95
參考文獻	Allen, L. K., Crossley, S. A., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). L2 writing practice: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 124-150. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An Introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Barrett, N. E., Liu, G. Z., & Wang, H. C. (2021). Student perceptions of a mobile learning application for English Oral Presentations: the case of EOPA. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-26. doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1881975 Barroga, E., & Matanguihan, G. J. (2021). Creating logical flow when writing scientific articles. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36(40). Cardinot, A., & Fairfield, J. A. (2022). Game-based learning to engage students with physics and astronomy using a board game. In Research Anthology on Developments in Gamification and Game-Based Learning (pp. 785-801): IGI Global. Chang, C.-Y., Chung, M.-H., & Yang, J. C. (2022). Facilitating nursing students’ skill training in distance education via online game-based learning with the watch-summarize-question approach during the COVID-19 pandemic: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 109, 105256. Chang, H.-Y., Lin, H.-C., Wu, T.-T., & Huang, Y.-M. (2019). The Influence of Interactive Art of Visual Music on the Creativity of Science and Engineering Students. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1087-1092). Dubai. Chang, H. J., & Windeatt, S. (2021). Using VoiceThread for extended independent practice in giving short academic presentations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-30. doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.2003407 Chang, W.-L., & Yeh, Y.-c. (2021). A blended design of game-based learning for motivation, knowledge sharing and critical thinking enhancement. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(2), 271-285. Chen, S.-l., & Liu, Y.-T. (2021). Learning by designing or learning by playing? A comparative study of the effects of game-based learning on learning motivation and on short-term and long-term conversational gains. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1-15. doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.1961159 Chen, S. Y., & Chang, L.-P. (2016). The influences of cognitive styles on individual learning and collaborative learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 458-471. Chen, S. Y., & Chang, Y. M. (2020). The impacts of real competition and virtual competition in digital game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106171. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.106171 Chen, S. Y., & Tseng, Y. F. (2021a). The impacts of scaffolding e-assessment English learning: a cognitive style perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(8), 1105-1127. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1661853 Chen, S. Y., & Tseng, Y. F. (2021b). An Investigation of the Effects of Scaffolding Task-Based English Logic Learning: A Cognitive Style Approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1-10. doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.2002047 Chen, S. Y., & Yeh, C. C. (2017). The Effects of Cognitive Styles on the Use of Hints in Academic English: A Learning Analytics Approach. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 251-264. Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., Cheng, G., & Liu, C. (2022). Two Decades of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 28-47. Chen, Z.-H., Chen, S. Y., & Chien, C.-H. (2017). Students’ reactions to different levels of game scenarios: A cognitive style approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 69-77. Chen, Z.-H., Lu, H.-D., & Lu, C.-H. (2019). The effects of human factors on the use of avatars in game-based learning: Customization vs. non-customization. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4-5), 384-394. Chua, H. W., & Lin, C. Y. (2020). The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching in Learning Motivation. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 2(1), 41-48. Deng, L., Wu, S., Chen, Y., & Peng, Z. (2020). Digital game‐based learning in a Shanghai primary‐school mathematics class: A case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 709-717. doi:10.1111/jcal.12438 Durga, S. S., & Rao, C. S. (2018). Developing students’ writing skills in English-A process approach. Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1-5. Eltahir, M., Alsalhi, N. R., Al-Qatawneh, S., AlQudah, H. A., & Jaradat, M. (2021). The impact of game-based learning (GBL) on students’ motivation, engagement and academic performance on an Arabic language grammar course in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3251-3278. Fadhilawati, D. (2021). Using Quizizz Application for Learning and Evaluating Grammar Material. Journal of Students Academic Research, 6(1), 85-94. Ford, N. (1985). Learning styles and strategies of postgraduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 65-77. Fu, Q.-K., Lin, C.-J., Hwang, G.-J., & Zhang, L. (2019). Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Computers & Education, 137, 59-77. Gao, Y., & Bartlett, B. (2014). Opportunities and challenges for negotiating appropriate EAP in China. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds.), English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Asia: Negotiating appropriate practices in a global context (pp. 13-32). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hadwen-Bennett, A., & Economou, D. (2019). Adaptive Hypermedia Driven Serious Game Design and Cognitive Style in School Settings: An Exploratory Study. In International Conference on Immersive Learning (pp. 144-157). Springer, Cham. Hagedorn, C., Renz, J., & Meinel, C. (2017). Introducing digital game-based learning in MOOCs: What do the learners want and need? In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1101-1110). Athens. Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Hsu, H.-T., & Tai, K.-H. (2021). Gestalt perception: A game designed to explore players’ gameplay self-efficacy and anxiety reflected in their learning effects. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-18. doi:10.1080/15391523.2021.1967819 Howie, D. (1995). To the beat of a different drummer: The role of individual differences in ecological interface design. [Technical Report]. Cognitive Engineering Laboratory. University of Tornado, Canada. Hung, C.-Y., Sun, J. C.-Y., & Liu, J.-Y. (2019). Effects of flipped classrooms integrated with MOOCs and game-based learning on the learning motivation and outcomes of students from different backgrounds. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1028-1046. Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (2016). The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes: Routledge London. Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (Vol. 20160129). London: Routledge. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Individual differences and instruction. New York: Allen & Bacon. Kartawijaya, S. (2018). Improving students’ writing skill in writing paragraph through an outline technique. Curricula: Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(3). Khalilian, B., Hosseini, H., & Ghabanchi, Z. (2021). On the Effect of Employing the Online Kahoot Game-Based App on Iranian EFL Learners’ Structural Ability and their Motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 42-60. Khan, T. J., & Khan, N. (2016). Obstacles in learning English as a second language among intermediate students of districts Mianwali and Bhakkar, Pakistan. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(02), 154. Kim, T. K. (2015). T test as a parametric statistic. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 68(6), 540. Ku, O., Hou, C.-C., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Incorporating customization and personalization into game-based learning: A cognitive style perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 359-368. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.040 López-Fernández, D., Gordillo, A., Alarcón, P. P., & Tovar, E. (2021). Comparing traditional teaching and game-based learning using teacher-authored games on computer science education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 64(4), 367-373. Li, K. L., & Razali, A. B. (2022). Writing Essays Using E-Book Writing Application: Analyses of Teacher Candidates’ Interactive Narratives. Repertus: Journal of Linguistics, Language Planning and Policy, 1(1), 16-36. Liao, C.-W., Chen, C.-H., & Shih, S.-J. (2019). The interactivity of video and collaboration for learning achievement, intrinsic motivation, cognitive load, and behavior patterns in a digital game-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 133, 43-55. Lim, S., Kim, Y., & Kim, K. (2020). A study on puzzle game-based learning content for understanding Mandala. International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology, 8(2), 34-41. Lin, C.-J., Hwang, G.-J., Fu, Q.-K., & Cao, Y.-H. (2020). Facilitating EFL students’ English grammar learning performance and behaviors: A contextual gaming approach. Computers & Education, 152, 103876. Lin, C.-J., Hwang, G.-J., Fu, Q.-K., & Chen, J.-F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 117-131. Lugli, L., Ragni, M., Piccardi, L., & Nori, R. (2017). Hypermedia navigation: Differences between spatial cognitive styles. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 191-200. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.038 Ma, Q. (2020). Examining the role of inter-group peer online feedback on wiki writing in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197-216. doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1556703 Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational psychologist, 19(2), 59-74. Miklošíková, M., & Malčík, M. (2016). The use of eye tracking for the analysis of students’ learning process when working with a concept map. In 2016 International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA) (pp. 227-232). Stary Smokovec. Naik, N. (2017). The use of GBL to teach mathematics in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(3), 238-246. Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 572-590. Pack, A., Barrett, A., Liang, H.-N., & Monteiro, D. V. (2020). University eap students’ perceptions of using a prototype virtual reality learning environment to learn writing structure. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 27-46. Pan, Z., Xue, J., & Ge, T. (2022). Intuitive Searching: An Approach to Search the Decision Policy of a Blackjack Agent. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Sixth International Congress on Information and Communication Technology. Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British journal of educational psychology, 46(2), 128-148. Perrotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H., & Houghton, E. (2013). Game-based learning: Latest evidence and future directions (NFER research programme: Innovation in education). Slough: NFER. Pfändler, A. M. (2021). Development and Pilot Testing of a Financial Literacy Game for Young Adults: The Happy Life Game. In Game-based Learning Across the Disciplines (pp. 61-87). Springer, Cham. Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, play and games: What makes games engaging. Digital game-based learning, 5(1), 5-31. Quílez, J. (2021). Supporting Spanish 11th grade students to make scientific writing when learning chemistry in English: the case of logical connectives. International Journal of Science Education, 1-24. doi:10.1080/09500693.2021.1918794 Rao, P. S. (2019). The role of English as a global language. Research Journal of English, 4(1), 65-79. Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215. Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (2013). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behavior: David Fulton Publishers. Sajid, M., & Siddiqui, J. A. (2015). Lack of academic writing skills in English language at higher education level in Pakistan: causes, effects and remedies. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(4), 174-186. Saritepeci, M., Duran, A., & Ermis, U. F. (2019). A new trend in preparing for foreign language exam (YDS) in Turkey: Case of WhatsApp in mobile learning. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2677-2699. doi:10.1007/s10639-019-09893-4 Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Chantarangkul, V. (2020). Promoting Thai EFL Learners’ Ability to Self-Correct Errors in Written English Sentences through Games. English Language Teaching, 13(6), 118-126. Sibahi, R. (2015). English triumphalism in academic writing: the price of global visibility. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 6(3), 205-218. Simanjutak, R. R. (2020). Learning specific academic vocabulary using mall: experience from computer science students. Teaching English with Technology, 20(5), 87-107. Sung, H.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., Lin, C.-J., & Hong, T.-W. (2017). Experiencing the Analects of Confucius: An experiential game-based learning approach to promoting students’ motivation and conception of learning. Computers & Education, 110, 143-153. Tapingkae, P., Panjaburee, P., Hwang, G. J., & Srisawasdi, N. (2020). Effects of a formative assessment-based contextual gaming approach on students’ digital citizenship behaviours, learning motivations, and perceptions. Computers & Education, 159, 16. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103998 Trisna, B. N., Budayasa, I. K., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2018). Students’ metacognitive activities in solving the combinatorics problem: The experience of students with holist-serialist cognitive style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1), 012072. IOP Publishing. Tsai, M.-C., & Lin, H.-C.-K. (2017). A Study on the Behavioral Patterns Formed by Subjects with Different Cognitive Styles in Playing Augmented Reality Interaction Games. In International Symposium on Emerging Technologies for Education (pp. 372-381). Springer, Cham. Velliaris, D. M., & Coleman-George, D. (2015). Academic English: Different from speaking and more professional. Advanced Science, Engineering and Medicine, 7(7), 597-602. Waluyo, B., & Bucol, J. L. (2021). The impact of gamified vocabulary learning using Quizlet on low-proficiency students. Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 22(1), 164-185. Wang, D., & Khambari, M. N. M. (2020). The Application of a Game-Based AR Learning Model in English Sentence Learning. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), 63-71. Wang, J.-H., Chang, L.-P., & Chen, S. Y. (2018). Effects of cognitive styles on web-based learning: Desktop computers versus mobile devices. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(5), 750-769. Wang, J., & Song, B. (2022). Impacts of Mobile-Game-Based Collaborative Prewriting on EFL Students’ Individual Writing in Student-Centered Class Context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1-12. Wu, C.-H., Tzeng, Y.-L., & Huang, Y.-M. (2020). Measuring performance in leaning process of digital game-based learning and static E-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2215-2237. Wu, S.-Y. (2016). The effect of teaching strategies and students’ cognitive style on the online discussion environment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(2), 267-277. Wu, S.-Y., & Hou, H.-T. (2015). How cognitive styles affect the learning behaviors of online problem-solving based discussion activity: A lag sequential analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 277-298. Wu, T. T. (2018). Improving the effectiveness of English vocabulary review by integrating ARCS with mobile game-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 315-323. doi:10.1111/jcal.12244 Xodabande, I., & Atai, M. R. (2020). Using mobile applications for self-directed learning of academic vocabulary among university students. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-18. Yang, J. C., Quadir, B., & Chen, N. S. (2016). Effects of the Badge Mechanism on Self-Efficacy and Learning Performance in a Game-Based English Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(3), 371-394. doi:10.1177/0735633115620433 Yang, T.-C., Chen, M. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2019). The effects of background music on game-based learning: a cognitive style approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(6), 495-508. Yang, T.-C., & Chen, S. Y. (2020). Investigating students’ online learning behavior with a learning analytic approach: field dependence/independence vs. holism/serialism. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-19. Yanti, A. W., Kusaeri, K., & Kustianingsih, M. (2020). Profile of cybernetic thinking of students in Mathematical problem solving based on serialist and holist thinking style. Jurnal Teori dan Aplikasi Matematika, 4(2), 122-132. Zhao, J. (2017). Native speaker advantage in academic writing? Conjunctive realizations in EAP writing by four groups of writers. Ampersand, 4, 47-57. Zhou, Z.-h., & Yu, Z.-g. (2022). The Impact of Gamification on the Time-Limited Writing Performance of English Majors. Education Research International, 2022. Zou, B., Li, H., & Li, J. Y. (2018). Exploring a curriculum app and a social communication app for EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 694-713. doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1438474 Zou, B., Liviero, S., Wei, K., Sun, L., Qi, Y., Yang, X., & Fu, J. (2021). Case Study 11, Mainland China: The Impact of Pronunciation and Accents in Artificial Intelligence Speech Evaluation Systems. In Language Learning with Technology (pp. 223-235). Springer, Singapore. Zou, D., Zhang, R., Xie, H., & Wang, F. L. (2021). Digital game-based learning of information literacy: Effects of gameplay modes on university students’ learning performance, motivation, self-efficacy and flow experiences. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 152-170.
指導教授	陳攸華(Sherry Y. Chen)	審核日期	2022-8-26
推文	facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare