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

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：11

、訪客IP：3.145.60.149

姓名

李靜怡(Jing-Yi Lee) 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對遊戲式學習系統製作與評量之影響
(The Impacts of Peer Assessment on the Implementation and Evaluation of Game-based Learning: 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分組對遊戲製作與評量之影響
★ 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)

近年來，遊戲式學習被廣泛應用在許多教學現場，透過遊戲式學習實現教學、提升學習成效、以及跨越不同學科和背景的相關研究越來越多，因遊戲式學習有許多的好處，如促進學生認知增長、數位素養、社交情感增長、軟實力的發展、增強決策和問題解決能力、批判性思維等，而能達到這些好處，乃是由於遊戲式學習涵蓋了許多遊戲元素，如明確的目標、規則、控制、挑戰、即時回饋、獎勵、互動、故事、複雜等許多遊戲元素，各類遊戲元素有不同的特色，能影響學習者在使用遊戲式學習系統之不同反應，另一方面，學生有不同的特質，其中認知風格和每一個人處理和組織資訊的方式有關，此種處理和組織資訊的方式可能會影響設計者與評量者重視不同的遊戲元素，可能在他們之間發生歧異，產生落差，因此需要一些機制來連結設計者與評分者所重視的遊戲元素。在眾多機制中，其中同儕互評有助於學習，因為學生同時扮演了設計者與評分者兩種角色。
然而，透過同儕互評探討認知風格對遊戲設計與評量之影響的研究較缺乏，對於遊戲設計者而言，可能會影響遊戲開發的視角，對於遊戲評分者而言，可能會影響使用他人遊戲時的不同看法以及所重視的遊戲元素，為了更進一步了解此影響，本研究探討了五個研究問題，即：1. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段，認知風格如何影響遊戲設計評分者之評分？ 2. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段，認知風格之組合如何影響遊戲設計者之得分？ 3. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段，認知風格如何影響遊戲設計評分者對各認知風格組合之評分？ 4. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段，不同認知風格學習者對不同認知風格組合評分之相關性？ 5. 在遊戲構思、遊戲實作階段，認知風格如何影響遊戲設計評分者之意見？
為了回答上述研究問題，本研究的受測對象同時擔任設計者與評分者兩種角色，關於設計者的部分，每一組設計組合由兩位受測對象所組成，依照認知風格將設計組合分為整體型學習者與整體型學習者(H&H)、整體型學習者與序列型學習者(H&S)、序列型學習者與序列型學習者(S&S)之三種組合。關於評分者的部分，分為整體型學習者與序列型學習者。設計者與評分者都需經歷兩階段的實驗，第一階段為構思階段，著重於受測對象對設計遊戲式學習系統方面的發想。第二階段為實作階段，著重於將構思階段之想法實踐出來。更明確地說，第一階段小組成員討論如何進行遊戲式學習系統之設計，此為初步的設計構想，需包括兩個面向，即「學習內容」與「遊戲性」，他們需發想如何能達成此二個項目，並上台報告他們所規劃的設計。第二階段小組成員必須將「挑戰」、「明確的目標」、「複雜」、「控制」、「即時回饋」、「互動」、「獎勵」、「規則」、「學習內容」九大項遊戲設計整合至他們的遊戲，而此九大項遊戲設計由受測對象於構思階段之意見所歸納出的九個項目。
本研究結果在兩個階段都包含評分與得分的部分，在遊戲構思階段的評分上，整體型與序列型評分者的評分無顯著差異，在得分上，「遊戲性」的得分結果為H&H組合與S&S組合之得分皆顯著高於H&S組合之得分，而在「學習內容」的得分有著相反結果，即H&S組合之得分顯著高於S&S組合之得分。在遊戲實作階段的評分上，整體型與序列型評分者的評分結果大部分都相同，僅在「明確的目標」上，整體型評分者之評分顯著高於序列型評分者之評分，在得分上，三種認知風格組合在「學習內容」、「挑戰」、「獎勵」的得分有相同的結果，即H&H組合之得分顯著高於S&S組合之得分，另一方面，在「學習內容」、「控制」、「即時回饋」的得分亦有相同的結果，即H&S組合之得分顯著高於S&S組合之得分。
上述研究結果乃是運用同儕互評機制在遊戲式學習的設計與評量上，發現不同認知風格的評分者或設計組合所重視的遊戲元素會有所不同，並依據上述的發現產生了一個架構圖，此架構圖顯示認知風格在遊戲設計的評分差異、得分差異、意見差異等三方面之影響，這個架構圖可以指導後進研究者，探討遊戲式學習系統之設計或開發如何能符合每一個認知風格族群之需求，以達到個人化學習。

摘要(英)

Game-based learning has been widely applied in education settings for recent years. Some studies indicated that game-based learning offers many benefits, e.g., cognitive growth, digital literacy, social-emotional growth, soft skills development, enhanced decision making, problem-solving skills and critical thinking. This is because game-based learning covers many game elements, such as Clear Goals, Rules, Control, Challenge, Immediate Feedback, Rewards, Interactivity, Story, Complexity. Such game elements have different characteristics, which can affect learners’ reactions to game-based learning. On the other hand, individual differences exist among learners. Among various individual differences, cognitive style is related to the way of processing and organizing information, which may make designers and evaluators focus on different game elements. Hence, there is a need to link game elements valued by designers and those valued by evaluators. Among various mechanisms, peer assessment brings many benefits to student learning because students play as both designers and evaluators.
However, paucity of research used peer assessment to examine the impacts of cognitive styles on the design and evaluation of game-based learning. To fill this gap, five research questions were investigated in this study, i.e., 1. How cognitive styles affect the scores that evaluators mark during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 2. How the grouping of cognitive styles affects the scores that game designers obtain during the process of peer assessment, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 3. How cognitive styles affect the scores that evaluators mark for each cognitive style grouping, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 4. How cognitive styles affect e relationships between scores from each evaluator, in terms of game proposal and game implementation? 5. How cognitive styles affect the comments that evaluators give for each cognitive style grouping, in terms of game proposal and game implementation?
In order to answer the above questions, the subjects of this study play as both the designers and evaluators. Regarding the former, all members were divided into three groups according to their cogitative styles, i.e., Holist & Holist (H&H), Holist & Serialist (H&S), Serialist & Serialist (S&S). Regarding the latter, the evaluators included Holists and Serialists. All members should go through two stage of this experiment. In Stage One, each cognitive group needed to make a proposal for game-based learning. In Stage Two, each cognitive style needed to implement game-based learning. More specifically, all members need to discuss how to design the game-based learning system in Stage One, which focused on two aspects, namely “Learning Material” and “Playfulness”. In Stage Two, all member should implement game-based learning, which included nine game elements, i.e., “Challenge”, “Clear goals”, “Complexity”, “Control”, “Immediate feedback”, “Interactivity”, “Rewards”, “Rules”, “Learning Material”. The nine game elements are summarized based on opinions that learners gave at Stage One.
The result of this study include scores that evaluators marks and those that designers obtain at each stage. Regarding Stage One there was no significant difference between the scores from Holists and those from Serialists. On the other hand, the scores that H&H and S&S obtained were higher than those from H&S, in terms of playfulness. On the contrary, the scores that H&S obtained were higher than those from H&H and S&S in terms of Learning Material. Regarding Stage Two, the scores that Holist marked for clear goals were higher than those that Serialists did. On the other hand, the scores that H&H obtained were higher than those from S&S, regardless of Learning Material, Challenge or Rewards. Furthermore, the scores that H&S obtained were higher than those from S&S, regardless of Learning Material, Control or Immediate Feedback.
The above results showed that cognitive styles affect game elements that designers and evaluators emphasize on. According to the above findings, a framework was proposed and it showed the influences of cognitive styles on the design and assessment of game-based learning. The framework can guide future researchers on how to design game-based learning system that meet the needs of each cognitive style group so that personalized learning can be achieved.

關鍵字(中)

★ 遊戲式學習
★ 同儕互評
★ 認知風格

關鍵字(英)

★ Game-Based Learning
★ peer assessment
★ cognitive styles

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract iii
致謝 vi
目錄 vii
圖目錄 ix
表目錄 x
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 名詞解釋 4
第二章文獻探討 6
2.1 遊戲式學習 6
2.2 同儕互評 10
2.2.1 同儕互評的應用 10
2.2.2 同儕互評的優點 11
2.2.3 同儕互評的缺點 12
2.3 認知風格 14
第三章研究方法 18
3.1 研究對象 18
3.2 研究工具 19
3.2.1 學習偏好問卷 19
3.2.2 遊戲設計構思階段評分意見表 19
3.2.3 遊戲設計實作階段評分意見表 20
3.3 實驗流程 25
3.4 資料處理與分析 27
第四章遊戲設計構思階段 31
4.1 量化分析 31
4.1.1 整體型與序列型評分者對遊戲設計評分之差異 31
4.1.2 不同認知風格組合與遊戲設計得分之差異 31
4.1.3 不同認知風格評分者對不同認知風格組合遊戲設計評分之差異 31
4.1.4 遊戲構思之相關性 35
4.1.5 小結 37
4.2 質化分析 38
4.3 討論 44
第五章遊戲設計實作階段 46
5.1 量化分析 46
5.1.1 整體型與序列型評分者對遊戲設計評分之差異 46
5.1.2 不同認知風格組合與遊戲設計得分之差異 47
5.1.3 不同認知風格評分者對不同認知風格組合遊戲設計評分之差異 50
5.1.4 遊戲實作之相關性 54
5.1.5 小結 62
5.2 質化分析 63
5.3 討論 70
第六章結論 72
6.1 研究結果彙整 72
6.2 研究貢獻 77
6.2.1 跨領域研究 77
6.2.2 個人化學習 77
6.3 未來研究方向 78
6.3.1 增加遊戲式學習教學領域 78
6.3.2 設計適性化的遊戲式學習系統 78
6.3.3 更多不同認知風格的探討 78
參考文獻 79
附錄一　學習偏好問卷 90
附錄二　遊戲設計構思階段評分意見表 93
附錄三　遊戲設計實作階段評分意見表 94

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。
范庭瑋（2016）。探討匿名/具名評分機制對同儕互評結果的影響。國立中央大學資訊管理學系碩士班學位論文，1-57。
徐雍智、蔡今中、陳明璋（2002）。數學創意類比與同儕評量及其網路案例設計之初探。師大學報：科學教育類，47(1)，1-13。
張家慧、蔡銘修（2018）。淺談同儕作業互評與實施建議。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(8)，212-218。

英文部分
Adams, V., Burger, S., Crawford, K., & Setter, R. (2018). Can You Escape? Creating an Escape Room to Facilitate Active Learning. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 34(2), E1-E5.
Ak, O., & Kutlu, B. (2017). Comparing 2D and 3D game‐based learning environments in terms of learning gains and student perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 129-144.
Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72-81.
An, Y. (2018). The effects of an online professional development course on teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions regarding digital game-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1505-1527.
Anastasiadis, T., Lampropoulos, G., & Siakas, K. (2018). Digital Game-based Learning and Serious Games in Education. International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering, 4(12), 139-144.
Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49-60.
Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Brox, E., Fernandez-Luque, L., & Tøllefsen, T. (2011). Healthy gaming–video game design to promote health. Applied Clinical Informatics, 2(2), 128-142.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students′ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
Chachil, K., Engkamat, A., Sarkawi, A., & Shuib, A. R. A. (2015). Interactive multimedia-based mobile application for learning Iban language (I-MMAPS for Learning Iban Language). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 167, 267-273.
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.
Chang, C. C., Liang, C., Chou, P. N., & Lin, G. Y. (2017). Is game-based learning better in flow experience and various types of cognitive load than non-game-based learning? Perspective from multimedia and media richness. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 218-227.
Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Weng, S. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2012). Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), 775-786.
Chen, S. Y., & Chang, L. P. (2016). The influences of cognitive styles on individual learning and collaborative learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 458-471.
Chen, S. Y., & Yeh, C. C. (2017). The effects of cognitive styles on the use of hints in academic English: A learning analytics approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 251-264.
Chen, Z. H., Lu, H. D., & Lu, C. H. (2019). The Effects of Human Factors on the Use of Avatars in Game-Based Learning: Customization Vs. Non-Customization. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4-5), 384-394.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1), 93-121.
Chua, A. Y. K., & Balkunje, R. S. (2012). An Exploratory Study of Game-based M-learning for Software Project Management. J. UCS, 18(14), 1933-1949.
Clewley, N., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2010). Cognitive styles and search engine preferences: Field dependence/independence vs holism/serialism. Journal of Documentation, 66(4), 585-603.
de Carvalho, C. V. (2012, April). Is game-based learning suitable for engineering education?. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463-477.
Dubois, B. J. (2015). Learning non-violent social collaboration: beyond entertainment-developing video games with a purpose (Doctoral dissertation, San José State University). Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/anthropology/docs/projectfolder/Dubois-Benjamin-Project.pdf.
Ford, N. (1995). Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: An individual differences approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(2), 241-259.
Ford, N. (2000). Cognitive styles and virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 543-557.
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.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia, (8), 15-23.
Gonzalez, C. (Ed.). (2012). Student Usability in Educational Software and Games: Improving Experiences: Improving Experiences. Pennsylvania, PA: IGI Global.
Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self-and peer-assessment: The students′ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 53-70.
Hou, H. T., & Li, M. C. (2014). Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational problem-solving-based adventure game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 29-38.
Howie, D. (1995). To the beat of a different drummer: The role of individual differences in ecological interface design. [Technical Report]. Ontario, Canada: Cognitive Engineering Laboratory, University of Toronto.
Hsu, C. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2012). Facilitating third graders’ acquisition of scientific concepts through digital game-based learning: The effects of self-explanation principles. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 71-82.
Hwang, G. J., Liang, Z. Y., & Wang, H. Y. (2016). An Online Peer Assessment-Based Programming Approach to Improving Students′ Programming Knowledge and Skills. In Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 81-85). IEEE.
Inal, Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Flow experiences of children in an interactive social game environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 455-464.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kang, B., & Tan, S. H. (2014). Interactive games: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, achievement, and satisfaction. Journal of Management and Strategy, 5(4), 110-116.
Kiili, K., Lainema, T., de Freitas, S., & Arnab, S. (2014). Flow framework for analyzing the quality of educational games. Entertainment Computing, 5(4), 367-377.
Ku, O., Hou, C. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Incorporating customization and personalization into game-based learning: A cognitive style perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 359-368.
Lee, C. I. (2017). Assigning the appropriate works for review on networked peer assessment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 3, 3283-3300.
Lester, J. C., Spires, H. A., Nietfeld, J. L., Minogue, J., Mott, B. W., & Lobene, E. V. (2014). Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science education: A narrative-centered learning perspective. Information Sciences, 264, 4-18.
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, S. S., Chiu, C. H., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246-251.
Luo, H., Robinson, A., & Park, J. Y. (2014). Peer grading in a MOOC: Reliability, validity, and perceived effects. Online Learning Journal, 18(2), 1-14.
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.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1991). Evaluating student papers: The case for peer review. Journal of Education for Business, 67(2), 80-83.
Maynes, N., Cantalini-Williams, M., & Guibert, J. (2016). “To Play or Not to Play?” That is NOT the Question!. The International Journal of Holistic Early Learning and Development, 3, 4-20.
Melero, J., Hernández-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2014). Teachers Can Be Involved in the Design of Location-based Learning Games. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education-Volume 3 (pp. 179-186). SCITEPRESS-Science and Technology Publications, Lda.
Nagle, A., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2018). Personality-based reward contingency selection: A player-centered approach to gameplay customization in a serious game for cognitive training. Entertainment Computing, 28, 70-77.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1), 22-42.
Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195-203.
Pasin, F., & Giroux, H. (2011). The impact of a simulation game on operations management education. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1240-1254.
Pask, G. (1979). Final report of SSRC Research programme HR 2708. Richmond (Surrey): System Research Ltd.
Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1972). Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4(3), 217-253.
Planas Lladó, A., Soley, L. F., Fraguell Sansbelló, R. M., Pujolras, G. A., Planella, J. P., Roura-Pascual, N., ... & Moreno, L. M. (2014). Student perceptions of peer assessment: an interdisciplinary study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 592-610.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Puegphrom, P., & Chiramanee, T. (2011). The effectiveness of implementing Peer Assessment on students’ writing proficiency, In Proceedings of the 3rd Internationl Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences (pp. 1-17).
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.
Quintana, C. (2006). Learner-Centered Design-Reflections on the Past and Directions for the Future. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 119-134.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.
Riley, S. M. (1995). Peer response in an ESL writing class: Student interaction and subsequent draft revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3031.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 33-38.
Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.
Sarmany-Schuller, I. (1999). Kognitívne štýly a štýly učenia - možnosti aplikácie v edukácii (Cognitive and learning styles – possible applications in education), In: SCHOLA 99. Vzdelávanie vysokoškolských učiteľov. Bratislava.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
Sin, N. M., Talib, O., & Norishah, T. P. (2013). Merging of Game Principles and Learning Strategy using Apps for Science Subjects to Enhance Student Interest and Understanding. Sains Humanika, 63(2), 7-12.
Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2003, August). 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 (pp. 152-157).
Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2004, June). Effective peer assessment for learning computer programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 122-126). ACM.
Suen, H. K. (2014). Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 312-327.
Sun, C. T., Chen, L. X., & Chu, H. M. (2018). Associations among scaffold presentation, reward mechanisms and problem-solving behaviors in game play. Computers & Education, 119, 95-111.
Tan, E., & Okamoto, Y. (2018). iPlay, iLearn, iConserve: Digital game-based learning for sustainable tourism education. Paper presented at the ASEAN Tourism Research Association Conference, Phuket, TH.
Tenório, T., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., Pedro, A., & Ospina, P. (2016). A gamified peer assessment model for on-line learning environments in a competitive context. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 247-263.
Tighe-Mooney, S., Bracken, M., & Dignam, B. (2016). Peer Assessment as a Teaching and Learning Process: The Observations and Reflections of Three Facilitators on a First-Year Undergraduate Critical Skills Module. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 28301-18.
Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., ... & Thurston, A. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 177-191.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Topping, K. J. (2010). Peers as a source of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 73-86). New York, NY: Routledge.
Topping, K. J. (2013). Peers as a Source of Formative and Summative Assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. 395-412). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Trisna, B. N., Budayasa, I. K., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2018). Students’ metacognitive activities in solving the combinatorics problem: the experience of students with holist-serialist cognitive style. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 947, No. 1, p. 012072). IOP Publishing.
Van Lehn, K. A., Chi, M. T. H., Baggett, W., & Murray, R. C. (1995). Progress report: Towards a theory of learning during tutoring. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.
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.
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 201-226.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68, 334-344.
Yinjaroen, P., & Chiramanee, T. (2011). Peer assessment of oral English proficiency. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand. Retrieved from http://fs.libarts.psu.ac.th/research/conference/proceedings-3/2pdf/001.pdf.
Yu, X., Zhang, M., Ren, J., Zhao, H., & Zhu, Z. (2010). Experimental development of competitive digital educational games on multi-touch screen for young children. In International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (pp. 367-375). Berlin, ‎Germany: Springer.

指導教授

楊接期陳攸華(Jie Chi Yang Sherry Y. Chen)

審核日期

2019-10-7

推文