以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：10

、訪客IP：18.118.0.240

姓名	洪培鈞(Pei-chun Hung)  查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	資訊工程學系
論文名稱	從認知風格角度比較教師評量與同儕互評之差異：從英語寫作到遊戲製作 (The Effects of Cognitive Styles on Differences between Teacher Assessment and Peer Assessment: From English Writing to Game Development)
相關論文	★ 以Q-學習法為基礎之群體智慧演算法及其應用 ★ 發展遲緩兒童之復健系統研製 ★ 基於檢驗數值的糖尿病腎病變預測模型 ★ 模糊類神經網路為架構之遙測影像分類器設計 ★ 複合式群聚演算法 ★ 身心障礙者輔具之研製 ★ 指紋分類器之研究 ★ 背光影像補償及色彩減量之研究 ★ 類神經網路於營利事業所得稅選案之應用 ★ 一個新的線上學習系統及其於稅務選案上之應用 ★ 人眼追蹤系統及其於人機介面之應用 ★ 結合群體智慧與自我組織映射圖的資料視覺化研究 ★ 追瞳系統之研發於身障者之人機介面應用 ★ 以類免疫系統為基礎之線上學習類神經模糊系統及其應用 ★ 基因演算法於語音聲紋解攪拌之應用 ★ 虹膜辨識系統之研究與實作
檔案	[Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)
摘要(中)	近年來，許多研究者發現到以利用同儕互相給予回饋的方式進行相關能力培養的同儕互評活動，對於學生能力以及作品之品質有不錯的提升效果。其中，它對於英文寫作能力的訓練更有不錯的成效；另一方面，遊戲式學習也被視為是一個有效提升學生學習的方法，因此對於開發遊戲式學習系統人才的需求也逐漸增長；為此，似乎可利用同儕互評的機制來培養學生開發遊戲式學習的能力，以解決設計人才需求的問題。 然而，儘管同儕互評有許多優點，但還是發現學生因為自身能力與經驗的不足，導致所給予的回饋似乎無法如同老師所給予的評論一樣有幫助；此外，學生的個體差異似乎對於同儕評論有相當的影響，像是學生可能因為自身特質的關係，而影響其給予評論的樣式以及策略。而在眾多造成個體差異的因素中，認知風格似乎對於人們處理及組織資訊有相當的影響，因此似乎是有必要在進行同儕互評時，考慮學生認知風格的差異。 因此，本研究進行了兩個實驗。在實驗一中，本研究以認知風格的角度，探究了學生與老師在進行英文寫作同儕互評活動中，雙方評估的差異。其結果指出學生似乎缺乏相關的專業能力去理解同儕英文文章中多樣的字彙，因此他們無法準確的指出同儕作品中的進步之處；再者，整體型學生在給予Task Achievement的建議時，似乎多專注在較為淺層文章架構，而序列型學生則是專注於文章主題與細節內容的連結，另外，他們似乎也在活動中無法清楚地分辨字彙與文法的錯誤。 另一方面，實驗二則是以認知風格的角度，探討在培養遊戲式學習系統設計人才為目的同儕互評活動中，學生與老師評估上的差異。其結果顯示學生因為無法完整的詮釋Gameplay方面的建議，導致對於自身作品的修改可能無法達到老師的要求；另外，也因為學生與同儕的觀點較為相似，導致他們對於作品的期許並沒有像老師的高，而序列型學生則是因為自身較容易以局部方式進行學習的關係，導致他們似乎無法完整地掌握Gameplay面向上多樣的評估內容，以及在Artistic/Graphics面向上，必須評估完整的遊戲圖像與物件有相對的困難。 透過以上兩次的實驗，使我們對於學生與老師的評估差異有更深的了解，而以上的結果更可以幫助學生、教學者以及研究者，架構可因應學生因不同認知風格而有不同偏好的同儕互評活動。
摘要(英)	Peer assessment is a process through which students give feedbacks for their peers’ works. In recent years, it was found that peer assessment could improve students’ works and abilities. In particular, it was useful to improve English writing. On the other hand, peer assessment can also be applied to train students to design game-based learning systems, which have been recognized as an effective instructional strategy so there is a great demand for designers who can develop game-based learning systems. In spite of such significance, it was found that the quality of feedback from peers might not be as helpful as that from teachers because students might lack sufficient knowledge and experience. In addition, students might have their distinctive characteristics. In other words, individual differences might be a factor that affect the process of the peer assessment. Among various individual differences, cognitive styles affect how people process and organize information. Thus, there is a need to consider cognitive styles in the peer assessment. Hence, the research presented in this dissertation conducted two empirical studies. Study One is to identify assessment differences between the students and the teachers in the context of English writing from a cognitive style perspective. The results of Study One demonstrate that the students did not have sufficient competence to identify various vocabularies so they were not able to identify the improvement that authors made. Moreover, Holists usually paid more attention to the superficial structure of the work in the Task Achievement aspect while Serialists focused on the connection between the topic and the details presented in the content, and cannot determine the mistakes of vocabulary and grammar. On the other hand, Study Two emphasizes on the incorporation of peer assessment into the training for the designers of game-based learning systems and to examine assessment differences between teachers and students from a cognitive style perspective. The results from Study Two suggest that the students could not completely understand the comments in the Gameplay aspect so the revision might not satisfy the teachers’ expectations. Furthermore, the students could stand on the same status to evaluate their peers’ revised game-based learning systems in the Gameplay aspect so their expectations were not as high as teachers’. Furthermore, Serialists, who usually used a local approach to learning, could not grasp all of the design features in the Gameplay aspect and had difficulties to evaluate the entire pictures and objects in Artistic/Graphic aspect. The results from the aforementioned two studies provide a deep understanding of assessment differences between the students and the teachers during the process of peer assessment. Such understandings can help students, instructors, and researchers to implement peer assessment that can accommodate the preferences and needs of different cognitive style groups.
關鍵字(中)	★ 同儕互評 ★ 遊戲式學習 ★ 認知風格	關鍵字(英)	★ peer assessment ★ game-based learning ★ cognitive styles
論文目次	摘要 i ABSTRACT iii Table of Contents v List of Figures viii List of Tables ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Research Objectives 4 1.3 Chapter Outline 5 1.4 Summary 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review 8 2.1 Peer Assessment 8 2.2 Cognitive Styles 11 2.3 English wrting 15 2.4 Game-based learning 17 2.5 Summary 20 Chapter 3 Research Design 22 3.1 Introduction 22 3.2 Methodological Approaches 23 3.3 Conceptual Framework 23 3.4 Research Instruments 26 3.4.1 Study Preferences Questionnaire (SPQ) 26 3.4.2 Other Instruments 26 3.5 Summary 26 Chapter 4 Study One: The Context of English Writing 27 4.1 Overview 27 4.1.1 Peer Assessment of Writing System (PAWS) 27 4.1.2 Participants 31 4.1.3 Research Instruments 32 4.1.4 Experimental Procedures 33 4.1.5 Data Analyses 35 4.2 Results & Discussion 36 4.2.1 Overall Assessment 36 4.2.2 Detailed Assessment 39 4.3 Summary 53 Chapter 5: Study Two: The training of Game-based learning 54 5.1 Overview 54 5.1.1 GameMaker 54 5.1.2 Participants 56 5.1.3 Research Instruments 57 5.1.4 Experimental Procedures 65 5.1.5 Data Analyses 67 5.2 Results & Discussion 68 5.2.1 Overall Assessment 69 5.2.2 Detailed Assessment 72 5.3 Summary 95 Chapter 6 Conclusions 96 6.1 Main conclusions 96 6.2 Development of a Framework 99 6.4 Limitations and Future Work 104 References 105 Appendix 113
參考文獻	[1] All, A., Castellar, E. P. N., & Van Looy, J. (2016). Assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning: Best practices. Computers & Education, 92, 90-103. [2] Aziz, E., Corter, J. E., Chang, Y., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2012). Evaluation of the learning effectiveness of game-based and hands-on gear train laboratories. Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2012 (pp. 1-6). IEEE. [3] Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427-441. [4] Baytak, A., Land, S. M., & Smith, B. K. (2011). Children as Educational Computer Game Designers: An Exploratory Study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(4), 84-92. [5] Boeker, M., Andel, P., Vach, W., & Frankenschmidt, A. (2013). Game-based e-learning is more effective than a conventional instructional method: a randomized controlled trial with third-year medical students. PLoS One, 8(12), e82328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082328 [6] Bostock, S. (2000). Student peer assessment. Learning Technology. [7] Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. [8] Chan, C.-H., Hsieh, C.-W., & Y. Chen, S. (2014). Cognitive styles and the use of electronic journals in a mobile context. Journal of Documentation, 70(6), 997-1014. doi: 10.1108/jd-02-2014-0035 [9] Chen, C. H., Wang, K. C., & Lin, Y. H. (2015). The Comparison of Solitary and Collaborative Modes of Game-based Learning on Students′ Science Learning and Motivation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 237-248. [10] Chen, N. S., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Transforming the classrooms: innovative digital game-based learning designs and applications. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 62(2), 125. [11] Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. (2010). Web-based interaction: A review of three important human factors. International Journal of Information Management,30(5), 379-387. [12] Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining students′ learning patterns and performance in Web-based instruction: a cognitive style approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), 179-192. doi: 10.1080/10494820802667256. [13] Chen, S. Y., Huang, P.-R., Shih, Y.-C., & Chang, L.-P. (2013). Investigation of multiple human factors in personalized learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-23. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.825809 [14] Chen, H. J. H., & Yang, T. Y. C. (2013). The impact of adventure video games on foreign language learning and the perceptions of learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 129-141. [15] Cheng, C. H., & Su, C. H. (2012). A Game-based learning system for improving student′s learning effectiveness in system analysis course. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 669-675. [16] Clewley, N., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining learning preferences in web-based instruction: Holists vs. serialists. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 266-277. [17] DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of educational research, 58(2), 119-149. [18] Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher education, 24(3), 331-350. [19] Dorji, U., Panjaburee, P., & Srisawasdi, N. (2015). Gender differences in students’ learning achievements and awareness through residence energy saving game-based inquiry playing. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(2), 227-243. [20] Ford, N. (1985). Learning styles and strategies of postgraduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 65-79. [21] Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation, and learning: an empirical study. Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 9(4), 281-311. [22] Ford, N., Wilson, T. D., Foster, A., Ellis, D., & Spink, A. (2002). Information seeking and mediated searching. Part 4. Cognitive styles in information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(9), 728-735. [23] Franklin, D. M., & Markley, K. L. (2014). Multi-Agent Artificial Intelligence in Pursuit Strategies: Breaking through the Stalemate. In The Twenty-Seventh International Flairs Conference. [24] Gedera, D. S. (2012). The dynamics of blog peer feedback in ESL classroom.Teaching English with technology, 12(4), 16-30. [25] Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370-386. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012 [26] Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and writing, 26(1), 1-15. [27] Green, A. (2005). EAP study recommendations and score gains on the IELTS Academic Writing test. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 44-60. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.002 [28] Hamer, J., Purchase, H., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2015). A comparison of peer and tutor feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 151-164. [29] Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of second language writing, 11(4), 329-350. [30] Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. [31] Hedberg, E. C., & Ayers, S. (2015). The power of a paired t-test with a covariate. Social science research, 50, 277-291. [32] Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133-152. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019 [33] Hung, C. Y., Sun, J. C. Y., & Yu, P. T. (2015). The benefits of a challenge: student motivation and flow experience in tablet-PC-game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 172-190. [34] Huang, Y.-M., Hwang, J.-P., & Chen, S. Y. (2014). Matching/mismatching in web-based learning: a perspective based on cognitive styles and physiological factors. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.978791 [35] Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Lin, C. Y., & Hu, P. M. (2014). Development of children′s creativity and manual skills within digital game‐based learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 377-395. [36] Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., & Chen, C. C. (2012). An online game approach for improving students’ learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1246-1256. [37] Hwang, G.-J., & Wu, P.-H. (2012). Advancements and trends in digital game-based learning research: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E6-E10. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01242.x [38] Hwang, G.-J., Chiu, L.-Y., & Chen, C.-H. (2015). A contextual game-based learning approach to improving students′ inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses. Computers & Education, 81, 13-25. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.006 [39] Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Ernst Klett Sprachen. [40] Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students′ writing. Language Teaching, 39(02), 83. doi: 10.1017/s0261444806003399. [41] Jonassen, D.H. and Grabowski, B.L. (2012), Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning and Instruction, Routledge, New York, NY. [42] Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem‐based gaming. British journal of educational technology, 38(3), 394-404. [43] Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students′ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149-159. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011. [44] Leedham, M. (2014). Chinese students’ writing in English: Implications from a corpus-driven study. Routledge. [45] Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing:Revision-related discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 45-64. [46] Liu, E. Z. F., & Chen, P. K. (2013). The Effect of Game-Based Learning on Students’ Learning Performance in Science Learning–A Case of “Conveyance Go”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1044-1051. [47] Liu, E. Z. F., & Lin, S. S. (2007). Relationship between peer feedback, cognitive and metacognitive strategies and achievement in networked peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1122-1125. [48] Liu, E. Z. F., & Lee, C. Y. (2013). Using peer feedback to improve learning via online peer assessment. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1). [49] Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer′s own writing. Journal of second language writing, 18(1), 30-43. [50] Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y., Ghinea, G., & Chen, M.-P. (2011). Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: A cognitive style approach. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1003-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.018 [51] Manchon, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language, 61-84. [52] McGarrell, H. (2010). Native and non-native English speaking student teachers engage in peer feedback. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 13(1), 71-90. [53] Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769. [54] Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational psychologist, 19(2), 59-74. [55] Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J. L., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2008). Educational game design for online education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2530-2540. [56] Morton, J., Storch, N., & Thompson, C. (2015). What our students tell us: Perceptions of three multilingual students on their academic writing in first year. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.007. [57] Mu, C., & Carrington, S. B. (2007). An investigation of three Chinese students′ English writing strategies. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language-EJ, 11(1), 1-23. [58] Nacke, L. E., Drachen, A., & Göbel, S. (2010). Methods for evaluating gameplay experience in a serious gaming context. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 9(2), 1-12. [59] Nicolaidou, I. (2013). E-portfolios supporting primary students′ writing performance and peer feedback. Computers & Education, 68, 404-415. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.004. [60] Overmars, M. (2004). Teaching computer science through game design.Computer, 37(4), 81-83. [61] Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British journal of educational psychology, 46(2), 128-148. [62] Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 265-289. [63] Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2015). Affect and willingness to communicate in digital game-based learning. ReCALL, 27(01), 38-57. [64] Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (2013). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. Routledge. [65] Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci003. [66] Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73-82. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001. [67] Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53. [68] Sharifian, F. (Ed.). (2009). English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (Vol. 11). Multilingual Matters. [69] Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829-845. [70] Shute, V. J., & Regian, J. (1993). Principles for evaluating intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. [71] Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189. [72] Silva, T., & Brice, C. (2004). 4. RESEARCH IN TEACHING WRITING. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 70-106. [73] Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357-358. [74] Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 76-103. [75] Stuart, A., Kendall, M. G., & Ord, J. K. (1991), Classical Inference and relationship. Oxford University Press, New York. [76] Suen, H. K. (2014). Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3). [77] Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., & Wind, A. P. (2014). Game-Based Learning. 485-503. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_38 [78] Topping, K. (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276. [79] Tsai, C. H., Kuo, Y. H., Chu, K. C., & Yen, J. C. (2015). Development and Evaluation of Game-Based Learning System Using the Microsoft Kinect Sensor. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks. [80] Villacís, C., Fuertes, W., Bustamante, A., Almachi, D., Procel, C., Fuertes, S., & Toulkeridis, T. (2014, October). Multi-player Educational Video Game over Cloud to Stimulate Logical Reasoning of Children. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM 18th International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications (pp. 129-137). IEEE Computer Society. [81] Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008. [82] Wang, J. H., Hsu, S. H., Chen, S. Y., Ko, H. W., Ku, Y. M., & Chan, T. W. (2014). Effects of a Mixed-Mode Peer Response on Student Response Behavior and Writing Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 233-256. [83] Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331. [84] Woo, J. C. (2014). Digital Game-Based Learning Supports Student Motivation, Cognitive Success, and Performance Outcomes. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 291-307. [85] Wyrick, J. (2010). Steps to writing well. Cengage Learning. [86] Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students′ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 186-193. [87] Yien, J. M., Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Lin, Y. C. (2011). A Game-Based Learning Approach to Improving Students′ Learning Achievements in a Nutrition Course. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(2), 1-10. [88] Yu, F. Y., & Sung, S. (2015). A mixed methods approach to the assessor′s targeting behavior during online peer assessment: effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive Learning Environments, (ahead-of-print), 1-18. [89] Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2014). An analysis of Chinese EFL students’ use of first and second language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System, 47, 28-38. [90] Zlatovi’c, M., Balaban, I., & Kermek, D. (2015). Using online assessments to stimulate learning strategies and achievement of learning goals. Computers & Education, 91, 32-45.
指導教授	蘇木春、陳攸華	審核日期	2016-4-29
推文	facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare