博碩士論文 105554003 詳細資訊




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:17 、訪客IP:3.215.79.116
姓名 吳嘉銘(WU-CHIA-MING)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱 從認知風格的角度探討同儕互評分組對遊戲製作與評量之影響
(The Impacts of Peer Assessment Grouping on the Design and Evaluation of Games: A Cognitive Style Approach)
相關論文
★ 探討認知風格於數位遊戲式英語學習環境對遊戲行為與學習成效之影響★ 由空間能力探討遊戲式英語學習如何影響學習者之遊戲行為和遊戲表現
★ 從全面性的角度探討先備知識對同儕互評中受評與 評分之影響★ 從認知風格的角度探討同儕互評對遊戲式學習系統製作與評量之影響
★ 在數位遊戲式學習環境中先備能力對兩種學習內容整合方式之影響:緊密結合 vs. 鬆散結合
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) 同儕互評為一個廣泛被應用的評量機制,例如:書面作業、口頭報告等各種不同的項目,亦有著為數眾多的研究結果顯示同儕互評有著許多的優點,如增進學習表現及加強解決問題的能力等優點,卻未有太多研究利用同儕互評於DGBL上,然而,近年來DGBL的學習已經被廣泛應用在許多的教學現場,相當多的研究指出,DGBL可以幫助學習者學習,例如:提升學習成效、增加學習動機等,但因每一個人的背景、需求及學習偏好是不同的,所以尚未確定的是,所設計的DGBL是否能適用於每一個學習者,因此需要從人因的角度來研究,在人因方面,本研究著重於認知風格,因為認知風格會影響資訊處理以及資訊組織的方式,所以也可能主導著DGBL的設計與評量。
然而,現今缺少研究從認知風格的角度探討同儕互評對遊戲製作與評量之影響。為了填補這一空白,本研究著重於不同認知風格組合的設計差異,以及不同認知風格的評量者差異,為進行全面性的探討,本研究共有十個研究問題,即: 1. 在遊戲元素製作方面,認知風格之組合如何影響遊戲設計者的得分? 2.在遊戲元素製作方面,認知風格如何影響遊戲評分者的評分? 3.在遊戲元素製作方面,認知風格如何影響遊戲評分者對各認知風格組合的評分? 4.在遊戲介面提案方面,認知風格之組合如何影響遊戲設計者的得分? 5.在遊戲介面提案方面,認知風格如何影響遊戲評分者的評分、6.在遊戲介面提案方面,認知風格如何影響遊戲評分者對各認知風格組合的評分? 7.在遊戲介面製作方面,認知風格之組合如何影響遊戲設計者的得分? 8.在遊戲介面製作方面,認知風格如何影響遊戲評分者的評分? 9.在遊戲介面製作方面,認知風格如何影響遊戲評分者對各認知風格組合的評分? 10.認知風格之組合如何影響遊戲元素與遊戲介面製作上之相關性。
為了回答上述研究問題,本研究受測者將同時扮演設計者與評量者兩種角色,關於設計者部分,將依照認知風格,將設計組別分為場獨立&場獨立(FI&FI)、場獨立&場依賴(FI&FD)、場依賴&場依賴(FD&FD)等三組。關於評量者部分,將區分為場獨立學習者及場依賴學習者。不論是設計者或評量者,都需經歷三階段的實驗,第一階段著重在遊戲元素,而第二和第三階段著重在使用者介面的優化。更明確的說,第一階段的任務是小組成員需將遊戲性、新奇性、功能性等三個遊戲元素融入於所製作的遊戲式學習系統中,第二階段為小組成員需依據尼爾森準則, 提出優化使用者介面的提案,第三階段為需根據提案內容,製作適當的機制,以便使用者介面能符合尼爾森準則。
不論是哪一個階段,本研究的結果都包含得分部分與評分部分,在遊戲元素製作階段的得分上,FI&FI在遊戲性、新奇性、功能性,都顯著高於FI&FD,在評分上,FI&FI及FI&FD,在遊戲性、新奇性、功能性都呈現場獨立學習者評分高於場依賴學習者的情況。遊戲介面提案階段的得分上,H1-H10的項目中,都呈現FI&FI得分高於FD&FD,在評分上,FI&FI的組別,在H2、H3、H4、H5、H7、H8等項目,都呈現場獨立學習者的評分都高於場依賴學習者的結果,而在FD&FD的評分結果,則是場獨立學習者的評分在H1-H10都顯著高於場依賴學習者,遊戲介面製作時期的得分上,FI&FI於H3-H9都顯著高於FI&FD,在評分上, FI&FI在H2-H8的項目,場獨立學習者都顯著高於場依賴學習者,在對FD&FD的評分,場獨立學習者在H3、H4、H6、H7、H8等項目顯著高於場依賴學習者。
本研究有助於了解,在運用同儕互評,設計與評量DGBL的過程中,不同認知風格的設計組合,在遊戲元素及尼爾森準則的十個H上,所著重的項目亦會有所不同,在另一方面,不同認知風格的評分者,在遊戲元素及尼爾森準則的十個H上,亦會因認知風格的差異,而在不同的項目呈現出不同的結果,換句話說,認知風格扮演一個重要的角色。此結果將可提供後進者,於使用同儕互評的方式,對於不同認知風格,或是認知風格組合上參考的依據。

關鍵字:同儕互評、數位遊戲式學習、認知風格、尼爾森準則
摘要(英) Peer assessment is a mechanism widely used for assessing students’ learning outcome, such as written assignments and oral reports. Some studies indicated that peer assessment brings many benefits to student learning, e.g., improving learning performance and strengthening the ability of problem solving. However, there is a lack of research to use peer assessment to support the design and evaluation of DGBL. On the other hand, DGBL is widespread in educational settings. A great amount of research indicated that DGBL can improve students’ learning outcomes, increase their learning motivation, etc. However, each individual has different background, needs and learning preferences so it is doubtful whether the design approaches used for the DGBL can be suitable to every learner. Thus, there is a need to consider human factors. Among various human factors, this study focuses on cognitive styles, which refer to the way of how learners process and organize information. Accordingly, cognitive styles may drive the design and evaluation of DGBL.
However, paucity of research examined the impacts of cognitive styles on the design and evaluation of DGBL of peer assessment. To fill this gap, this study examined the differences of design and evaluation among different cognitive style combinations. To achieve comprehensive understandings, this study addressed ten research questions, i.e., 1. How the combination of cognitive styles affects the scores that game designers obtain during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game elements? 2. How cognitive styles affects the scores that evaluators marks during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game elements? 3. How cognitive styles affects the scores that evaluators mark for each cognitive style combination, in terms of game elements? 4. How the combination of cognitive styles affects the scores that game designers obtain during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game proposals? 5. How cognitive styles affects the scores that evaluators marks during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game proposals? 6. How cognitive styles affect the scores that evaluators mark for each cognitive style combination, in terms of game proposals? 7. How the combination of cognitive styles affects the scores that game designers obtain during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game implementation? 8. How cognitive styles affects the score that evaluators mark during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game implementation? 9. How cognitive styles affect the scores that evaluators mark for each cognitive style combination, in terms of game implementation? 10. How the combination of cognitive styles affects the relationship between scores from game element and those from game interface design.
In order to answer the above questions, the subjects of this study play as both the roles of designers and evaluators. Regarding the role of designers, all members were divided into three groups according to their cogitative styles, i.e., field-independent & field- independent (FI&FI) 、field-independent & field-dependent (FI&FD) 、field-dependent & field- dependent (FD&FD). Regarding the role of evaluators, there are field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) evaluators. All members should go through three stage of this experiment. Stage one focus on the implementation of game elements while stage two and stage three emphasize on the improvement of user interface. More specifically, all members need to incorporate three game element, i.e., playfulness、novelty and functionality, into game design in stage one. All member should make a proposal for improving uses interface based on Nielsen heuristics in stage two and then make implementation according to what they propose in stage three.
The result of this study include scores that designers obtain and those that evaluators marks at each stage. Regarding the implementation of game elements, the scores that FI&FI obtained are higher than those of FD&FD, regardless of playfulness, novelty or functionality. On the other hand, the scores that FI mark for FI&FI and FD&FD are higher than those from FD, regardless of playfulness, novelty or functionality. Regarding the stage of the proposal of game interface, the scores that, the scores that FI&FI obtained are higher than those of FD&FD, including H1-H10. On the other hand, the scores that FI mark for FI&FI are higher than those from FD, in terms of H2, H3, H4, H5, H7, H8. Furthermore, the scores that FI mark for FD&FD are higher than those of FD, including H1-H10. Regarding the stage of the implementation of game interface, the scores that FI&FI obtained are higher than those of FD&FD, including H3-H9. On the other hand, the scores that FI mark for FI&FI are higher than those from FD, including H2-H8. Furthermore, the scores that FI mark for FD&FD are higher than those of FD, in terms of H3, H4, H6, H7, H8.
The above results provide the understandings of how different cognitive style combinations react to game elements and Nielsen’s ten heuristics during the process of game design and evaluation. In addition, evaluators with different cognitive styles also mark differently, regardless of game elements or game interface. In other words, cognitive styles play a key role. Such results can provide guidance for future researchers so that they how to undertake peer assessment from a cognitive style perspective.
Keywords: peer assessment, Digital Game Base Learning cognitive styles, Nielsen Heuristic.
關鍵字(中) ★ 同儕互評
★ 數位遊戲式學習
★ 認知風格
★ 尼爾森準則
關鍵字(英) ★ peer assessment
★ Digital Game Base Learning
★ cognitive styles
★ Nielsen Heuristic
論文目次 圖目錄 XII
表目錄 XIII
摘要 I
Abstract VI
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 名詞釋義 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1遊戲製作與評量 6
2.2 尼爾森準則 7
2.3同儕互評 9
2.3.1 同儕互評的優點 9
2.3.2 同儕互評在遊戲式學習及設計上的應用 11
2.4 認知風格 13
2.4.1 場獨立型學習者與場依賴型學習者 13
2.4.2 認知風格與遊戲式學習 14
第三章 研究方法 17
3.1 實驗目的 17
3.2 研究對象 17
3.3 研究工具 18
3.3.1 藏圖測驗 18
3.3.2 遊戲元素評量 19
3.3.3 尼爾森準則 19
3.4 實驗流程 22
3.4.1遊戲元素製作階段 22
3.4.2遊戲介面提案階段 24
3.4.3遊戲介面製作階段 25
3.5 資料處理與分析 26
3.5.1 認知風格對於遊戲元素評分與得分之影響 27
3.5.2 認知風格對於遊戲提案製作評分與得分之影響 28
3.5.3 認知風格對於遊戲製作評分與得分之影響 28
3.5.4 遊戲元素與遊戲介面之相關性 28
第四章 研究結果與討論 30
4.1 認知風格對於遊戲元素製作階段得分之影響 30
4.1.1 不同認知風格組合對於遊戲元素得分之影響 30
4.1.2不同認知風格評量遊戲元素之差異 31
4.1.3不同認知風格評量者對不同認知風格組合之遊戲元素評量差異 32
4.1.4 討論 34
4.2 認知風格對於遊戲介面提案階段得分之影響 36
4.2.1不同認知風格組合之遊戲介面提案得分差異 36
4.2.2不同認知風格評量遊戲介面提案之差異 38
4.2.3不同認知風格評量者對不同認知風格組合之評量差異 39
4.2.4 討論 43
4.3 認知風格對於遊戲介面製作階段得分之影響 45
4.3.1不同認知風格組合之遊戲介面製作得分差異 45
4.3.2不同認知風格評量遊戲介面製作之差異 48
4.3.3不同認知風格評量者對不同認知風格組合之評量差異 50
4.3.4 討論 54
4.4 遊戲元素與遊戲介面之相關性 56
4.4.1 場獨立型學習者評分 56
4.4.2 場依賴型學習者評分 65
第五章 結論 76
5.1 研究結果彙整 76
5.2研究貢獻 89
5.2.1 學術面向 89
5.2.2 應用面向 89
5.3 未來研究方向 90
參考文獻 91
參考文獻 參考文獻
中文部分:
于富雲、鄭守傑(2004)。網路同儕互評與標準建構歷程對國小學生後設認知影響的實證性研究。國立臺北師範學院學報,17(1),197-226。
林英文 (2002)。線上同儕評量對國中生簡報製作技能學習成效之研究。臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系在職進修碩士班學位論文,1-78.
吳裕益 (1987)。認知能力與認知型態個別 差異現象之探討。教育學刊,7,51-98。
李世忠、徐瑜璘 (2004)。網路教學互動討論方法之介面設計與發展。教育資料與圖書館學,41(3),389-404。
林珊如、楊國鑫、劉旨峰、袁賢銘(2001)。工業職業學校組合語言程式設計推行同儕互評的個案研究:互評效度及學生態度。技術學刊,16(4),613-623。
范含芸、吳佳娣、黃思華、楊忠曉(2016)。導入認知風格之遊戲式學習輔助系統對學習成效影響之探究。教育科技與學習,4(1),59-86。
彭妮絲 (2013)。同儕評量於華語文師資培育學習成效探究。人文研究期刊,11,99-118。









英文部分:
Agbonifo, O. C., & Ofueu, S. (2018). A digital game-based quadratic factorisation learning system using tic-tac-toe. Nigerian Journal of Technology, 37(2), 463-469.
Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65-79.
Carvalho, L. R. D., Évora, Y. D. M., & Zem-Mascarenhas, S. H. (2016). Assessment of the usability of a digital learning technology prototype for monitoring intracranial pressure. Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem, 24. 4-6
Chang, B., Chen, S. Y., & Jhan, S. N. (2015). The influences of an interactive group-based videogame: cognitive styles vs. prior ability. Computers & Education, 88, 399-407.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1), 93-121.
Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2002). Cognitive styles and hypermedia navigation: Development of a learning model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 3-15.
Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive modeling of student learning in web-based instructional programs. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17(3), 375-402.
Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2005). The assessment of usability of electronic shopping: A heuristic evaluation. International Journal of Information Management, 25(6), 516-532.
Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2010). Web-based interaction: A review of three important human factors. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 379-387.
Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Students′ online interactive patterns in augmented reality-based inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 78, 97-108.
Chou, C., & Lin, H. (1997). Navigation Maps in a Computer-networked Hypertext Learning System. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, NM.
Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education, London, UK: RoutledgeFalm.
Fatemi, A. H., Vahedi, V. S., & Seyyedrezaie, Z. S. (2014). The effects of top-down/bottom-up processing and field-dependent/field-independent cognitive style on Iranian EFL learners′ reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 686-693.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/Mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5-22.
Ford, N., Wilson, T., 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.
Goodenough, D. R. (1976). The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 675-694.
Guo, P. J., & Reinecke, K. (2014). Demographic Differences in How Students Navigate through MOOCs. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference, 4, Atlanta, Georgia (pp. 21-30). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566247.
Hao, Y., Hong, J. C., Jong, J. T., Hwang, M. Y., Su, C. Y., & Yang, J. S. (2010). Non‐native Chinese language learners′ attitudes towards online vision‐based motion games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 1043-1053.
Hsieh, Y. Z., Su, M. C., Chen, S. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2015). The development of a robot-based learning companion: a user-centered design approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 356-372.
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Tam, K. P., Lai, Y. H., & Liu, L. C. (2012). Effects of cognitive style on digital jigsaw puzzle performance: A GridWare analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 920-928.
Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129-145.
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.
Liu, M., & Reed, W. M. (1995). The effect of hypermedia assisted instruction on second language learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 159-175.
Lu, C. H., Hong, J. C., & Huang, P. H. (2007). The Effects of Individual Characteristics on Children’s Problem Solving Perfromances in the Context of Game-based Learning. Paper presented at the Culture, Knowledge and Understanding. National Institute of Education, Singapore. (pp.9-15). doi:10.1.1.537.1789
McDaniel, R., & Kenny, R. (2013). Evaluating the relationship between cognitive style and pre-service teachers’ preconceived notions about adopting console video games for use in future classrooms. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 3(2), 55-76.
Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic Evaluation. In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods (pp.25-64), New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239-250.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 128-148.
Pask, G. (1979). Final report of SSRC Research programme HR 2708. Richmond (Surrey): System Research Ltd.
Prensky, M. (2001). The games generations: How learners have changed. In Prensky, M. (Ed.), Digital game-based Learning (pp. 8-10). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Puegphrom, P., & Chiramanee, T. (2011). The Effectiveness of Implementing Peer Assessment on Students’ Writing Proficiency. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences, Prince of Songkla University.
Purchase, H. C. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 341-352.
Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50-58.
Raptis, G. E., Fidas, C. A., & Avouris, N. M. (2016). Do field dependence-independence differences of game players affect performance and behaviour in cultural heritage games. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 38-43), Austin, Texas, USA.
Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559-578.
Riding, R. J., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some implications for training design. International Journal of Training and Development, 1(3), 199-208.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.
Shneiderman, B. (1998), Eight golden rules for interface design. In B. Shneiderman (3rd ed.). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human Computer Interaction. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Sitthiworachart, J. & Joy, M. (2003). Deepening computer programming skills by using web-based peer assessment. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.
Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Student Involvement in Assessment: The Training of Peer Assessment Skills. Doctoral thesis, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen. Retrieved from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/1034/1/dissertation%20Sluijsmans%20%202002.pdf.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Wang, X. M., Hwang, G. J., Liang, Z. Y., & Wang, H. Y. (2017). Enhancing students’ computer programming performances, critical thinking awareness and attitudes towards programming: An online peer-assessment attempt. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 58-68.
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation: Studies of development. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Witkin, H. A., & Moore, C. A. (1974). Cognitive Style and the Teaching Learning Process. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association 59th, Chicago, IL .
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64.
Wu, H. (2018). The Effects of Field Independent/Field Dependent Cognitive Styles on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition under Reading Task. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(7), 813-822.
Yeh, Y.-T., Hung, H.-T., & Hsu, Y.-J. (2017). Digital Game-Based Learning for Improving Students’ Academic Achievement, Learning Motivation, and Willingness to Communicate in an English Course, 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), (pp. 560–563). doi: 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2017.40.
Yen, L., Chen, C. M., & Huang, H. B. (2016). Effects of Mobile Game-Based English Vocabulary Learning APP on Learners’ Perceptions and Learning Performance: A Case Study of Taiwanese EFL Learners. In ICEL2016-Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on e-Learning: ICEl2016 (p. 255). Academic Conferences and publishing limited.
Yen, J. C., & Lee, C. Y. (2011). Exploring problem solving patterns and their impact on learning achievement in a blended learning environment. Computers & Education, 56(1), 138-145.
Yinjaroen, P., & Chiramanee, T. (2011). Peer Assessment of Oral English Proficiency. Paper presented at The 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences. Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand. Retrieved from http://tar.thailis.or.th/bitstream/123456789/660/1/001.pdf
Zin, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1-12.
Zin, N. A. M., Jaafar, A., & Yue, W. S. (2009). Digital game-based learning (DGBL) model and development methodology for teaching history. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 8(2), 322-333.
指導教授 楊接期 陳攸華(Jie Chi Yang Sherry Y. Chen) 審核日期 2019-4-18
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   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明