| 摘要: | 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。
;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. |
