| dc.description.abstract | Previous research indicates that game-based learning can increase learners’ motivation and interests. However, some studies indicate that game-based learning can cause learners′ cognitive overload and distraction. Such problems can be solved through user interface and instructional videos. Therefore, user interface and instructional videos play an important role, so some mechanisms are needed to evaluate user interfaces and instructional videos. However, peer assessment can help designers to improve the user interface and instructional videos presented in game-based learning. Peer assessment refers to the process whereby individuals or groups of students assess the work of their peers, through the collection of assessor’s perceptions, effectiveness, and feedback. It can help designers to reflect game design and develop game-based learning systems that are suitable to every learner. On the other hand, the learner will also play the role of both the designer and the assessor in the peer assessment. Different roles have different game preferences. These preferences are different because each individual has different background, needs, and learning preferences. Such differences are related to individual differences. Among many individual differences, cognitive styles pertain to the preferred ways of organizing and processing information. Hence, there is a need to investigate how learner′s cognitive style affect game design and evaluation.
However, this study aims to examine the impact of peer assessment on game development from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles. To fill this gap, this study examined the main purpose of this research is to ＂ From the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, we have a comprehensive understanding of the impact of cognitive style on the production and evaluation of user interfaces and instructional videos in the process of peer review. More precisely, this research includes two secondary purposes:
1) In the process of peer assessment, compare the differences caused by three different cognitive style production combinations from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, including the stage of user interface and instructional videos.
2) In the process of peer assessment, compare the scoring differences of the three different cognitive styles production combination produced by two different cognitive style assessors from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, including the stage of user interface and instructional videos.
In order to achieve the above purposes, this study goes through two stages of the experiment. Stage one focus on the user interface, and that the team members need to evaluate the user interface of the game-based learning system with Nielsen usability principles. Stage two focus on instructional videos, and that the team members need to evaluate the instructional videos of the game-based learning system with the principles of the instructional video. Regarding the role of designers, all members were divided into three groups according to their cogitative styles, i.e., field-independent & field-dependent (FI&FD), field-independent & field- independent (FI&FI), field-dependent & field- dependent (FD&FD). Regarding the role of evaluators, there are field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) assessors. The assessors will be divided into field-independent assessors and field-dependent assessors.
There are two conditions of cognitive style matching and mismatch between the designer and the assessors. The matching conditions include: 1. The two designers have the same cognitive style, include FI+FI, FD+FD.2. The design combination and the assessors have all of the same cognitive style, include FD+FD with FD assessor, FI+FI with FI assessor. On the contrary, all other conditions are mismatching conditions.
The stage of user interface and the stage of instructional videos stage share some similar results but the cognitive style combinations that can get better scores in the two stages are different. In stage one, the score of FI+FI is significantly higher, while the score of FD+FD is higher in stage two. Another similar result is that the FI learners score significantly higher than the FD learners in the mismatching FI+FD group.
The stage of user interface and the stage of instructional videos stage have three different results. The first difference is that the matching and mismatching of the cognitive style design combination do not have significantly different scores for the advantages of user interface, but it has significantly different score of the advantage of the instructional videos. The second difference is that the matching between the assessors’ cognitive style and the designer′s cognitive style combination does not have significantly different score of the disadvantage of the user interface, but has a significant different score for the disadvantages of instructional videos of the heterogeneous group′s. The third difference is that the matching between the assessors’ cognitive style and the cognitive style of each combination has a significant different score in the stage of the user interface, but does not have significantly score differences in the stage of instructional videos.
The findings of the above-mentioned research can provide valuable reference significance. It contains two aspects, namely the academic aspect and the application aspect. Regarding the academic aspect, this research found that the matching cognitive style combination can get better scores. In the stage of user interface, FI+FI scores higher, while in the stage of instructional videos, FD+FD scores higher. In other words, cognitive style plays an important role. This result will provide researchers with the ability to matching and mismatching different cognitive styles. When there is a mismatching, there is a deeper understanding of the user interface and the instructional videos of the game-based learning system, and this understanding will help the subsequent research in various fields, more specifically, including cognitive style, game-based learning, peer assessment.
Regarding the application aspect, this research found that in the process of making user interfaces and instructional videos, it is understood that producers of different cognitive styles have different production preferences, thus indicating that cognitive styles play an important role, so the findings of this research can be applied to production In the process of user interface and instructional videos, the production team can find a suitable cognitive style producer according to the characteristics of the task, for example: Matching FI+FI combination can apply the characteristics of analysis to produce a user interface with better functions, matching FD +FD is good at oral expression, using this feature to record better instructional videos, so that it can more effectively produce user interfaces and instructional videos, and complete a better game-based learning system.
The above results provide the understandings of how the matching and mismatching of different cognitive style design combinations in the process of designing and evaluating game-based learning through peer assessment, in terms of user interface s and the instructional videos. On the other hand, the matching and mismatch between different cognitive style design combinations and different cognitive styles assessor could bring different outcomes for both the user interface and instructional videos. In other words, the matching and mismatching of cognitive styles play an important role. Such results could provide guidance for future researchers so that they can know how to undertake peer assessment from matching and mismatching of cognitive style perspective. | en_US |