dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |