| 摘要: | 在學術界中，學術英文是一個主流的語言。這是因為學術英文的用法不僅比一般英文的用法更為嚴謹，而且使用的字彙也與一般英文的不同。另一方面，學術英文包含許多的面向，其中，學術英文寫作是最重要的。這是因為學生需要使用學術英文來撰寫學術論文。然而，學習學術英文寫作對學習者是困難的，尤其是他們對於英文文法不熟悉以及在英文造句中犯錯，從而使他們在學習學術英文寫作中產生挫敗感。這可能是因為他們在日常生活中缺乏練習英文的機會。因此，降低了他們學習英文文法和英文句子的動機。
另一方面，遊戲式學習可以提升學習者的學習動機。此乃是因為遊戲式學習包含了許多遊戲元素。在各種的遊戲元素中，競爭廣泛被用於遊戲式學習，並用來增加學習者的競爭意識、內在興趣與參與感。由於這些優點，本研究利用競爭元素來開發兩個遊戲式英語學習系統，以提升學生的學習動機，進而改善他們的英語能力。學生的英語能力在很多方面都需要被提升，其中一個方面就是英語文法，因為英語文法牽扯到很多複雜的規則。因此，其中一個遊戲式競爭英語學習系統是用來幫助學生學習英文文法。而當學生對英文文法有了足夠的了解時，下一步就是要學習如何使用英語文法來造句，所以另一個遊戲式競爭英語學習系統是用來幫助學生學習英文造句。更具體地說，在實驗一，黑白棋遊戲被用來幫助學生學習英文文法，而在實驗二，接龍遊戲被用來幫助學生學習英文造句。
在另一方面，遊戲式學習也有它的缺點，例如:會造成認知負荷。然而，不是所有的學習者都能接受這種認知負荷。此外，競爭對於能力較弱的學生可能會有負面的影響。因此，有必要探討個體差異的影響，在各種不同個體差異面向中，先備知識扮演著重要的角色，因為先備知識影響到現有知識與新知識的連接，由於這樣的影響性，本研究藉著進行兩個實驗，來探討先備知識如何影響學生與競爭性遊戲式英語學習系統的互動。
無論是實驗一和實驗二，受測者皆為北部某大專院校的學生，實驗一探討學習者如何使用學術英文競爭黑白棋遊戲來學習英文文法。其結果顯示，高先備者和低先備者展現出不同的學習成效、學習行為、遊戲成效和遊戲行為。在學習成效方面，無論是在前測分數、後測分數、任務分數或答題狀況，高先備者皆比低先備者有更好的表現。而在學習行為方面，高先備者和低先備者都喜歡系統所提供的半控制方法。然而，相較於高先備者，低先備者有額外的學習行為，例如: 低先備者在最後一題中不願意學習英文文法知識。另外，在遊戲成效方面，無論是遊戲分數或獎勵分數，高先備者的表現都比低先備者來的更好。而在遊戲行為方面，高先備者和低先備者在黑白棋遊戲中都獲得最終的勝利。然而，相較於高先備者，低先備者有額外的遊戲行為，例如: 在虛擬對手下棋後，低先備者比虛擬對手獲得較多的棋子。
實驗二探討學習者如何使用學術英文競爭接龍遊戲來學習英文造句。其結果顯示，高先備者和低先備者顯示出不同的學習成效和學習行為。在學習成效方面，無論是前測分數或任務分數，高先備者皆比低先備者有更好的表現。然而，在後測分數中，高先備者與低先備者獲得相似的分數。而在學習行為方面，高先備者和低先備者也有許多不同之處。整體而言，高先備者偏好收集大範圍的資訊；而低先備者傾向於收集小範圍的資訊。除此之外，高先備者會直接尋找他們所要的資訊；而低先備者則嘗試獲得額外的線索。在簡單任務中，高先備者試圖收集全面性的資訊；而低先備者顯示出零碎的行為來收集資訊。在困難任務中，低先備者需要額外的資訊來進行困難任務。
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競爭性遊戲式英語學習系統中，有相似和相異的學習方式。相似處在於高先備者和低先備者都喜歡半控制方法。而在相異處上，高先備者偏好收集大範圍的資訊並直接尋找他們所要的資訊；而低先備者傾向於收集小範圍的資訊並嘗試獲得額外的線索。因此，在未來本研究的結果可以被用於開發個人化的學習系統，以兼顧不同先備知識學習者的需要。
;In the academic area, academic English is a main language because the usage of academic English is not only stricter than general English, but also the usages of some vocabularies are different from those used in general English. On the other hand, academic English involves many aspects. Among them, academic English writing is the most important because students need to write academic papers via academic English. However, learning academic English writing is difficult for students; in particular, they are not only unfamiliar with English grammar, but also make mistakes in English sentences. Therefore, they obtain frustration in learning academic English writing. This may be due to the fact that they lack opportunities to practice English in their daily life so that they have low motivation to learn English grammar and English sentences.
On the other hand, game-based learning, which includes various game elements, can improve learners’ learning motivation. Among various game elements, competition is widely used in game-based learning because it can increase learners’ sense of competition, intrinsic interest and engagement. Due to the aforementioned advantages, this research integrated competition into the development of two game-based English learning systems, which were applied to enhance learners’ learning motivation as well as their English abilities. However, learners’ English abilities needed to be improved in many aspects, one of which is English grammar. This is because English grammar involves many complex rules. Thus, one of the competitive game-based English learning systems was applied to help learners learn English grammar. Subsequently, learners needed to learn how to make English sentences after they had sufficient understandings of English grammar. Accordingly, the other competitive game-based English learning system was used to help learners learn how to make English sentences. More specifically, the Reversi game was applied to help learners learn English grammar in Study One while the Solitaire game was used to help them learn how to make English sentences in Study Two.
Furthermore, game-based learning also has some disadvantages, such as cognitive overload. However, such cognitive overload cannot be copied by all learners. Moreover, low-ability learners might show negative reaction to competition. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the impacts of individual differences. Among various individual differences, prior knowledge plays an influential role because it affects connections between existing knowledge and new knowledge. Due to such influences, this research conducted two empirical studies to examine how prior knowledge affected learners’ reactions to the competitive game-based English learning systems.
Regardless of Study One or Study Two, participants were research students, who came from a university in the north Taiwan. More specifically, Study One explored how learners learned English grammar via the Academic English Competitive Reversi Game (AECRG). The results showed that differences existed between HPK learners and LPK learners, in terms of learning performance, learning behavior, gaming performance and gaming behavior. Regarding learning performance, HPK learners performed better than LPK learners, regardless of pre-test scores, post-test scores, task scores or answer statuses. Regarding learning behavior, both HPK learners and LPK learners appreciated the semi-control approach provided by AECRG. However, LPK learners had additional learning behavior when compared with HPK learners. For instance, LPK learners were not willing to learn English grammar knowledge when they undertook the last task. Regarding gaming performance, HPK learners performed better than LPK learners, regardless of gaming scores or bonus scores. Regarding gaming behavior, both HPK learners and LPK learners attained final winning in the Reversi game. Nevertheless, LPK learners had additional gaming behavior when compared with HPK learners. For example, LPK learners obtained more chess pieces than virtual opponents after virtual opponents placed chess pieces.
Study Two explored how learners made English sentences via the Academic English Competitive Solitaire Game (AECSG). The results indicated that differences existed between HPK learners and LPK learners, in terms of learning performance and learning behavior. Regarding learning performance, HPK learners performed better than LPK learners, regardless of pre-test scores or task scores. However, HPK learners and LPK learners obtained similar post-test scores. Regarding learning behavior, there were many differences between HPK learners and LPK learners. In the overview, HPK learners preferred to collect large-scaled information while LPK learners tended to collect small-scaled information. Moreover, HPK learners directly sought information they needed while LPK learners attempted to obtain additional clues. When learners undertook easy tasks, HPK learners attempted to collect comprehensive information while LPK learners demonstrated fragmented behavior sequences. When learners undertook difficult tasks, LPK learners required extra information to conduct the difficult tasks.
To sum up, the results from these two studies showed that HPK learners and LPK learners shared some similarities but there were also differences between them. Regarding similarities, both HPK learners and LPK learners appreciated the semi-control approach. Regarding differences, HPK learners preferred to collect large-scaled information and directly sought the information they needed while LPK learners tended to collect small-scaled information and attempted to obtain additional clues. Therefore, the results from this research can be applied to develop a personalized learning system in the future so that the needs of HPK learners and LPK learners can be accommodated. |
