| 摘要: | 一篇高品質的學術論文，必須使用正確的英文文法撰寫，才能夠清楚地表達思想，但學習英文文法對學習者而言是相當困難的，尤其是非英文母語的學習者，這是因為英文的語言結構與寫作風格與其他語言大不相同。因此非英文母語的學習者在學習的過程中可能產生挫敗感，並失去學習動機。
另一方面，遊戲式學習是一個能提升學習動機的數位學習工具，有鑑於此，本研究利用遊戲式學習來解決上述的問題。而本研究所發展的遊戲式學習有三個創新點，第一個創新點乃是本研究試圖將兩種不同類型的競爭遊戲納入遊戲式學習之中，以便能夠滿足學習者的多樣性。在各種不同的數位遊戲中，競爭遊戲被廣泛應用於遊戲式學習內，而競爭可以依據競爭對象的不同分成虛擬競爭和自我競爭，這兩種不同的競爭方式都有各自的優點。儘管如此它們依舊是屬於一種競爭，所以會有容易焦慮或分心的缺點，而非競爭遊戲較能使學習者專注於學習任務，因此本研究的第二個創新點乃是將虛擬競爭和自我競爭與非競爭遊戲進行整合。更明確的說，在研究一中開發了一項「競爭型遊戲式英語學習系統」，讓學生與虛擬競爭遊戲和非競爭遊戲互動，此「競爭型遊戲式英語學習系統」著重在讓學生經由單一的英文句子學習英語文法。另一方面，在研究二中開發了一項「競爭型遊戲式進階英語學習系統」，讓學生與自我競爭遊戲和非競爭遊戲互動，此「競爭型遊戲式進階英語學習系統」則強調幫助學生透過英語文章學習英語文法。此外，研究一的結果被用於開發研究二的「競爭型遊戲式進階英語學習系統」。
前述的「競爭型遊戲式英語學習系統」和「競爭型遊戲式進階英語學習系統」都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幫助學習者完成學習任務，也可以使學習者獲取英語文法知識，此為本研究的第三個創新點。簡言之，本研究所發展的遊戲式學習有多項創新點。在另一方面，學習者也有多種特質，因此需要考慮個體差異性。在眾多個體差異性中發現，先備知識尤為重要，這是因為先備知識可以反映學習者在獲得新知識之前所具備的認知能力。有鑒於此，本研究之目的乃是運用上述之「競爭型遊戲式英語學習系統」和「競爭型遊戲式進階英語學習系統」，探討先備知識對學習英語文法的影響。而研究一和研究二則分別有與此研究目的呼應的研究問題。研究一為探討學習者先備知識如何影響學習者與「競爭型遊戲式英語學習系統」的互動，研究二為探討學習者先備知識如何影響學習者與「競爭型遊戲式進階英語學習系統」的互動。此兩個研究所探討的面向皆包括測驗成效、任務成效、學習行為與遊戲成效。
研究一與研究二的結果有一些相似處，也有一些相異處。關於相似處，在測驗成效和任務成效方面，高先備學習者都是優於低先備學習者。此外，高先備學習者與低先備學習者獲得相似的進步分數。另一方面，在學習行為方面，高先備學習者熱衷於使用各種鷹架輔助提示，而低先備學習者則專注於文法書。而在遊戲成效方面，高先備學習者在非競爭遊戲上表現優於低先備學習者，然而，高低先備學習者在競爭遊戲上卻有著相似的成效。不論是虛擬競爭或是自我競爭。關於相異處，在研究一中，低先備學習者的後測成績大於前測成績。然而，在研究二中，低先備學習者的後測成績與前測成績相當。此外，研究一的結果表明，鷹架輔助提示可能無法對全體學習者帶來正面或負面的影響。然而，研究二的結果表明，文法書和中文提示可以有效的幫助低先備學習者學習英文文法，相反地，中文提示可能不利於高先備學習者學習。
綜上所述，上述兩個研究有助於深入了解先備知識對使用鷹架輔助提示和遊戲式學習的影響。 同時，它們還指引了設計者如何有效地將競爭與非競爭遊戲和鷹架輔助提示納入遊戲式學習。這種貢獻的最終目標是善用遊戲式學習的特色，來滿足不同學習者的需求和偏好。
;Academic papers must be presented with correct English grammar so that ideas can be clearly delivered. However, learning English grammar is very difficult for learners. This might be due to the fact that English is different from other languages, in terms of language structure, ideas expression, and writing styles. Therefore, non-native English learners can encounter considerable barriers, which make students feel frustrated and lack motivation.
On the other hand, game-based learning (GBL) is a digital learning tool, which can enhance learners’ learning motivation. Accordingly, GBL was employed to solve the aforesaid problem in this research. The GBL provided by this research possessed three aspects of novelty. The first aspect of novelty was that this research attempted to incorporate two different kinds of competition games into GBL to accommodate the diverse needs of learners. Among various digital games, competitive games are widely used in GBL. There are two types of competition, i.e., virtual competition and self-competition, which have different advantages. However, they still pertained to competition, which can cause distraction or anxiety. Conversely, non-competitive game can make learners concentrate on learning tasks. Therefore, the second aspect of novelty was the integrations of a virtual competitive game and self-competitive game with non-competitive game.
More specifically, a Competitive Entertaining English Learning (CEEL) was developed in Study One, where learners could interact with the virtual competitive game and non-competitive game. The CEEL was applied to help students learn English grammar via English sentences. On the other hand, an Advanced-Competitive Entertaining English Learning (Advanced-CEEL) was developed in Study Two, where learners could interact with the self-competitive game and non-competitive game. The Advanced-CEEL was used to support students learn English grammar via English articles. Furthermore, the results from Study One were employed to develop the Advanced-CEEL in Study Two.
The CEEL and the Advanced-CEEL both provided diverse scaffolding hints, which could not only help learners to undertake learning tasks smoothly but also enabled learners to acquire the knowledge of English grammar. This was the third aspect of novelty. In brief, the GBL developed 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, prior knowledge is essential because it can reflect cognitive abilities that learners possess before they acquire new knowledge. Owing to such essence, the aim of this research was to provide a deep understanding of the effects of prior knowledge on learners’ reactions to the CEEL and the Advanced-CEEL. Research questions of Study One and Study Two corresponded to this aim. Study One examined how learners′ prior knowledge affected learners’ interactions with CEEL while Study Two investigated how learners′ prior knowledge influenced learners′ interactions with Advanced-CEEL. Regardless of Study One or Study Two, comprehensive investigation was conducted, including test performance, task performance, learning behavior, and game performance.
Results from Study One and those from Study Two shared some similarities: (1) High Prior Knowledge learners (HPK) performed better than Low Prior Knowledge Learners (LPK) in test performance and task performance; (2) HPK and LPK possessed similar gaining scores; (3) HPK were keen to used diverse scaffolding hints while LPK focused on the grammar book only; (4) HPK performed better than LPK in the non-competitive game, However HPK and LPK showed compatible performance in the competitive game, in irrespective of the virtual competitive game or self-competitive game.
There were also differences between Study One and Study Two. The post-test scores of LPK was significantly higher than their pre-test scores in Study One. However, the LPK’s pre-test score scores and post-test scores were not significantly different in Study Two. Furthermore, the usage frequencies of scaffolding hints might be associated with neither good performance nor bad performance in Study One. On the other hand, the use of the Chinses hint and the grammar book could effectively support LPK to learn English grammar. However, the Chinese hint might not be beneficial for HPK.
In summary, these two empirical studies contributed to developing the deep understanding of the effects of prior knowledge on the use of scaffolding hints and GBL. Meanwhile, they also provided guidance for designer on how to incorporate the competitive game, the non-competitive game and scaffolding hints into GBL effectively. The ultimate goal of such contributions was to make the best use of GBL to accommodate the needs and preferences of diverse learners. |
