| 摘要: | 在數位遊戲式學習（DGBL）的遊戲元素中，競爭和目標受到了許多關注，一方面，競爭是一種普遍的社會現象，並且在遊戲式學習中能提供許多好處。此外，競爭可以依據競爭對象的不同分成真實競爭和虛擬競爭，更明確的說，前者是與真實的玩家進行競爭，而後者則是與虛擬的電腦進行競爭，然而這兩種不同的競爭方式都有各自的優點與缺點。另一方面，目標不僅是努力的動力，也是一種自我期待，因此在數位遊戲式學習中，常將遊戲目標與學習目標結合，以能幫助學生獲得更好的成效。此外，目標可以分為相同目標與不同目標，前者會使成員專注於個人目標，而後者允許成員互相幫助並改善自己的表現，當成員的目標相同並彼此排斥時，就會激發成員的競爭，因此目標與競爭有著緊密的關係，由於這種密切關係，這項研究將開發數位遊戲式學習，來了解競爭和目標之間的相互影響。
此數位遊戲式學習將被用來幫助學習者學習學術英語，因為許多研究生缺乏學術英語的相關知識和課程培訓，為了解決此問題，本研究開發二個學術英語競爭遊戲來幫助學習者學習學術英語，為了提高學習的效果，此二個遊戲皆加入了競爭元素，學習者必須和對手們同時進行任務，並且彼此競爭，此外學習者在進行學習任務時可能會遇到一些困難，為了避免任務所帶來的挫折會降低他們的學習意願，此二個遊戲也提供了許多鷹架輔助來協助學習者解決問題，並藉由鷹架輔助引導學習者學習正確的知識。
另一方面，在數位遊戲式學習中，競爭的對象和競爭的目標可能都會影響學習者的學習，因此這項研究包括兩個實驗，來探討在數位遊戲式學習情景下，目標與競爭對學習者的影響，包括學習成效和學習行為。兩個實驗的受試者皆為北部某大專院校學生。實驗一探討學習者在為了相同目標而競爭時，真實競爭和虛擬競爭的差異，其結果顯示，由於真實競爭的學習者需要和真實玩家競爭，因此比虛擬競爭的學習者有更強烈的競爭意識，然而這種強烈的競爭意識產生了一些負面的影響，強烈的競爭意識使真實競爭的學習者缺乏動力，而在任務剛開始就依賴鷹架輔助，相反，虛擬競爭的學習者由於競爭意識較低，因此有較高的動力願意使用多樣的鷹架輔助收集額外的訊息，這也使得虛擬競爭的學習者比真實競爭的學習者獲得了更高的學習分數。
實驗二探討學習者在為了不同目標而競爭時，學習者進行真實競爭和虛擬競爭的差異，其結果顯示，由於學習者有各自的目標，因此他們不需要搶奪他人的分數，因此他們的學習成效沒有差異，但是由於真實競爭的學習者需要考慮更多的人為因素，因此他們需要大量的時間來解決任務。另一方面，虛擬競爭的學習者由於與虛擬對手競爭而降低警覺性，因此常常沒有在規定時間內給予答案，導致卡片被自動送出。
綜上所述，無論是實驗一或實驗二，都會發現真實競爭的負面影響，包括學習成效或學習行為。關於學習成效，真實競爭的學習者在實驗一中的任務得分相對較低，並且花了相當多的時間完成實驗二中的任務。關於學習行為，實驗一中的真實競爭的學習者沒有很高的內在動機收集額外的資訊，而是依賴特定的鷹架輔助。同樣的，實驗二中的真實競爭的學習者也因為內在動力較弱，而沒有在任務開始時收集資訊。總之，與真人的競爭可能會對學習者的學習成效和學習行為產生負面影響。這可能是由於與真人的競爭增加了競爭意識。因此，有必要考慮如何改進真人競爭的設計，使學習者也能從真人競爭中受益。
;Digital game-based learning (DGBL) included various game elements. Among them, competition and goals are frequently considered in DGBL. On the one hand, competition was a manifestation of social comparison and could provide many benefits in DGBL. In addition, there are two types of competition, i.e., real competition, where players compete with real persons and real competition, where players compete with computers but these two different types of competition have their own advantages and disadvantages. On the other hand, the goal was not only the main driver of achievement, but also was concerned with the perceptions of expected future outcomes. Therefore, this research incorporated goals into competition in the context of DGBL, where there are two types of context, i.e., same goal and different goals. In the former, individuals focused on achieving their personal goals. In the latter, individuals could help each other improve performance. When individuals′ goals were the same and mutually exclusive, they would stimulate individuals′ competition. Thus, competition and goals were associated with each other. Thus, this research examines the effects of competition and goals on student learning in the context of DGBL.
More specifically, DGBL was implemented to help learners learn academic English in this research because insufficient training was provided to research students. There is a need to guide them on how to write correct English academic papers so this research developed two academic English competition games to help research students learn academic English. These two games had competition elements and learners must compete with their opponents. In addition, these two games provided some scaffolding hints to help learners solve problems and guide them to learn the knowledge of academic English. By doing so, their frustrations could be reduced while their motivation could be enhanced.
In addition to implementing the aforementioned two games, two studies were conducted to examine the effects of goals and competition in the context of DGBL, including learning performance and learning behavior. The participants were research students who came from a university in the north Taiwan. Study One explored differences between real competition game (RCG) and virtual competition game (VCG) when learners competed for a same goal. The results indicated that the RCG learners had the stronger sense of competition than the VCG learners because the RCG learners needed to compete with real players. However, this strong sense of competition made the RCG learners lack motivation so they relied on the scaffolding hints at the beginning of doing the tasks. On the contrary, the VCG learners had the lower sense of competition so they had higher motivation to use various scaffolding hints to collect additional information. Accordingly, the VCG learners could achieve better learning performance than the RCG learners.
Study Two explored differences between real competition and virtual competition when learners compete for different goals. The results showed that the RCG learners and the VCG learners demonstrated similar learning performance. However, the RCG learners needed to consider a variety of factors so they needed more time to undertake tasks. On the other hand, the VCG learners were less alert when competing with virtual opponents. Thus, they did not send an answer within the limited time and their cards were automatically sent out.
In summary, both Study One and Study Two found the negative effects of real competition, including learning performance or learning behavior. Regarding learning performance, the VCG learners seemed to have better learning performance than the RCG learners, regardless of the Study One or Study Two. However, the VCG learners got higher task scores than the RCG learners in Study One. On the other hand, the VCG learners spent less time for undertaking the tasks than the RCG learners in Study Two. Regarding learning behavior, the RCG learners in Study One did not have high intrinsic motivation to collect more information. Likewise, the RCG learners in Study Two also had less intrinsic motivation because they did not collect sufficient information at the beginning of doing the tasks. In short, the RCG might have a negative impact on learners′ learning performance and learning behavior. This might be due to the fact that competition with real persons increased the sense of competition. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how to improve the design of competition with real persons so that learners can also benefit from real competition. |
