| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |