博碩士論文 105554021 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:16 、訪客IP:3.229.142.91
姓名 陳鉑捷(Po-Chieh Chen)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱 製作者與評量者之認知風格匹配與不匹配對遊戲人機介面與教學影片製作與評量的影響
(The Impacts of User Interface and Instructional Video on Production and Evaluation of Games: Matching/Mismatching of Makers’and Evaluators’ Cognitive Style Approach)
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) 研究指出遊戲式學習可以引發學習者動機並提高興趣等優點,然而也有部分研究顯示遊戲式學習會造成學生認知負荷過重和注意力分散的問題,這樣的問題有許多方法可以解決,其中一種方法是透過人機介面與教學影片解決,因此,人機介面和教學影片扮演了一個重要的角色,故也需要一些機制來評量人機介面和教學影片,然而,在眾多機制中同儕互評是促進學生自我反思的機制之一,學生在同儕互評中會同時兼任製作者與評量者兩個角色,製作者需製作遊戲式學習系統和教學影片,評量者評量遊戲式學習系統的人機介面與教學影片,同儕互評乃個人或群體評估同儕學習成果或系統的過程,藉由在過程中收集評量者回饋,幫助製作者反思遊戲製作,兩個角色有不同的偏好,這些偏好會因為每一個人的背景、需求及學習偏好不同,這些不同稱為個別差異,在眾多個別差異之中認知風格會影響資訊處理及組織的方式,故需要從認知風格的角度來探討學生的認知風格對遊戲製作與評量的影響。
然而,現今缺少研究從認知風格匹配與不匹配的角度探討同儕互評如何影響遊戲式學習在人機介面與教學影片上的偏好差異,為了填補這一空白,本研究主要目的是「從匹配與不匹配的角度來全面性的瞭解在同儕互評過程中認知風格對製作與評量人機介面和教學影片的影響」,更確切的說,本研究包括兩個次要目的:
1)在同儕互評過程中,從匹配與不匹配的角度來比較三種不同認知風格製作組合的得分差異,包括人機介面與教學影片。
2)在同儕互評過程中,從匹配與不匹配的角度來比較兩種不同認知風格評量者對三種不同認知風格製作組合的評分差異,包括人機介面與教學影片。
為了達成上述之目的,執行了兩階段的實驗,第一階段著重在人機介面,小組成員需依照Nielsen人機介面可用性準則製作遊戲式學習系統,而第二階段著重在教學影片,小組成員需依照教學影片準則製作遊戲式學習系統的教學影片。不論是哪一個階段,受測者則被區分認知風格為場獨立(FI)和場依賴(FD),受測者將同時扮演製作者與評量者兩種角色,關於製作者部分,依照認知風格將製作組合分為場獨立與場獨立(FI+FI)、場依賴與場依賴 (FD+FD)、場獨立與場依賴(FI+FD)等三組。關於評量者部分,將分為FI及FD評量者。
製作者與評量者之間有著認知風格的匹配與不匹配兩種情況,其中認知風格匹配的情況包括:1.兩位製作者為同一種認知風格,即是FI+FI、FD+FD,2. 製作組合與評量者皆為同一種認知風格,即是FD+FD搭配FD評量者、FI+FI搭配FI評量者。反之,其他的組合皆為不匹配的情況。
依照認知風格分組之後,發現兩階段的實驗有相同的結果,也就是匹配的認知風格組合能夠得到較好的分數,但在此兩階段能得到較好分數之匹配的認知風格組合不同,在人機介面階段是FI+FI的得分顯著較高,而在教學影片階段是FD+FD的得分較高。另外一個相同的結果是,在評分上,不匹配的FI+FD組內呈現場獨立評量者顯著高於場依賴評量者的情況。
人機介面與教學影片階段部分有三個相異的結果,第一個相異的結果是認知風格製作組合的匹配與不匹配對人機介面優勢的得分沒有顯著差異,但對教學影片的優勢有顯著差異。第二個相異的結果是評量者的認知風格與製作者的認知風格組合之匹配與不匹配對人機介面劣勢的評分沒有顯著差異,但對異質組的教學影片劣勢的評分有顯著差異。第三個相異的結果是評量者的認知風格與各組合的認知風格的匹配與不匹配對人機介面得分有顯著差異,但對教學影片得分沒有差異。
上述此研究的發現可提供有價值的參考意義,包含兩個面向,即是學術面向以及應用面向,關於學術面向,本研究發現匹配的認知風格組合能夠得到較好的分數,進一步說,在人機介面階段是FI+FI的得分較高,而在教學影片階段是FD+FD的得分較高,換句話說,認知風格扮演一個重要的角色,此結果將可提供研究者對於不同認知風格製作組合在匹配與不匹配時,製作遊戲式學習系統的人機介面與教學影片上有更深的瞭解,而這些瞭解有助於進行之後的各領域研究,更明確的說,包括認知風格、遊戲式學習、同儕互評等。
關於應用面向,本研究發現在製作人機介面與教學影片的過程中,瞭解不同認知風格製作者有不同的製作偏好,因此說明認知風格扮演著重要的角色,所以本研究的發現可以應用在製作人機介面與教學影片的過程,製作團隊的組合可以依據任務的特性,找尋適合的認知風格製作者,例如:匹配的FI+FI組合可應用分析的特質製作功能較優秀的人機介面,匹配的FD+FD善於口語表達,應用此特質錄製較優秀的教學影片,如此更能有效製作人機介面與教學影片,完成更加良好的遊戲式學習系統。
綜言之,本研究的發現將可提供研究者,於使用同儕互評的方式,對於不同認知風格製作組合的匹配與不匹配,或是不同認知風格製作組合與不同認知風格評量者的匹配與不匹配上參考之依據。
摘要(英) Previous research indicates that game-based learning can increase learners’ motivation and interests. However, some studies indicate that game-based learning can cause learners′ cognitive overload and distraction. Such problems can be solved through user interface and instructional videos. Therefore, user interface and instructional videos play an important role, so some mechanisms are needed to evaluate user interfaces and instructional videos. However, peer assessment can help designers to improve the user interface and instructional videos presented in game-based learning. Peer assessment refers to the process whereby individuals or groups of students assess the work of their peers, through the collection of assessor’s perceptions, effectiveness, and feedback. It can help designers to reflect game design and develop game-based learning systems that are suitable to every learner. On the other hand, the learner will also play the role of both the designer and the assessor in the peer assessment. Different roles have different game preferences. These preferences are different because each individual has different background, needs, and learning preferences. Such differences are related to individual differences. Among many individual differences, cognitive styles pertain to the preferred ways of organizing and processing information. Hence, there is a need to investigate how learner′s cognitive style affect game design and evaluation.
However, this study aims to examine the impact of peer assessment on game development from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles. To fill this gap, this study examined the main purpose of this research is to " From the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, we have a comprehensive understanding of the impact of cognitive style on the production and evaluation of user interfaces and instructional videos in the process of peer review. More precisely, this research includes two secondary purposes:
1) In the process of peer assessment, compare the differences caused by three different cognitive style production combinations from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, including the stage of user interface and instructional videos.
2) In the process of peer assessment, compare the scoring differences of the three different cognitive styles production combination produced by two different cognitive style assessors from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, including the stage of user interface and instructional videos.
In order to achieve the above purposes, this study goes through two stages of the experiment. Stage one focus on the user interface, and that the team members need to evaluate the user interface of the game-based learning system with Nielsen usability principles. Stage two focus on instructional videos, and that the team members need to evaluate the instructional videos of the game-based learning system with the principles of the instructional video. Regarding the role of designers, all members were divided into three groups according to their cogitative styles, i.e., field-independent & field-dependent (FI&FD), field-independent & field- independent (FI&FI), field-dependent & field- dependent (FD&FD). Regarding the role of evaluators, there are field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) assessors. The assessors will be divided into field-independent assessors and field-dependent assessors.
There are two conditions of cognitive style matching and mismatch between the designer and the assessors. The matching conditions include: 1. The two designers have the same cognitive style, include FI+FI, FD+FD.2. The design combination and the assessors have all of the same cognitive style, include FD+FD with FD assessor, FI+FI with FI assessor. On the contrary, all other conditions are mismatching conditions.
The stage of user interface and the stage of instructional videos stage share some similar results but the cognitive style combinations that can get better scores in the two stages are different. In stage one, the score of FI+FI is significantly higher, while the score of FD+FD is higher in stage two. Another similar result is that the FI learners score significantly higher than the FD learners in the mismatching FI+FD group.
The stage of user interface and the stage of instructional videos stage have three different results. The first difference is that the matching and mismatching of the cognitive style design combination do not have significantly different scores for the advantages of user interface, but it has significantly different score of the advantage of the instructional videos. The second difference is that the matching between the assessors’ cognitive style and the designer′s cognitive style combination does not have significantly different score of the disadvantage of the user interface, but has a significant different score for the disadvantages of instructional videos of the heterogeneous group′s. The third difference is that the matching between the assessors’ cognitive style and the cognitive style of each combination has a significant different score in the stage of the user interface, but does not have significantly score differences in the stage of instructional videos.
The findings of the above-mentioned research can provide valuable reference significance. It contains two aspects, namely the academic aspect and the application aspect. Regarding the academic aspect, this research found that the matching cognitive style combination can get better scores. In the stage of user interface, FI+FI scores higher, while in the stage of instructional videos, FD+FD scores higher. In other words, cognitive style plays an important role. This result will provide researchers with the ability to matching and mismatching different cognitive styles. When there is a mismatching, there is a deeper understanding of the user interface and the instructional videos of the game-based learning system, and this understanding will help the subsequent research in various fields, more specifically, including cognitive style, game-based learning, peer assessment.
Regarding the application aspect, this research found that in the process of making user interfaces and instructional videos, it is understood that producers of different cognitive styles have different production preferences, thus indicating that cognitive styles play an important role, so the findings of this research can be applied to production In the process of user interface and instructional videos, the production team can find a suitable cognitive style producer according to the characteristics of the task, for example: Matching FI+FI combination can apply the characteristics of analysis to produce a user interface with better functions, matching FD +FD is good at oral expression, using this feature to record better instructional videos, so that it can more effectively produce user interfaces and instructional videos, and complete a better game-based learning system.
The above results provide the understandings of how the matching and mismatching of different cognitive style design combinations in the process of designing and evaluating game-based learning through peer assessment, in terms of user interface s and the instructional videos. On the other hand, the matching and mismatch between different cognitive style design combinations and different cognitive styles assessor could bring different outcomes for both the user interface and instructional videos. In other words, the matching and mismatching of cognitive styles play an important role. Such results could provide guidance for future researchers so that they can know how to undertake peer assessment from matching and mismatching of cognitive style perspective.
關鍵字(中) ★ 匹配與不匹配
★ 認知風格
★ 遊戲式學習
★ 同儕互評
★ 人機介面
★ 教學影片
關鍵字(英) ★ Matching/mismatching
★ cognitive styles
★ game-based learning
★ peer assessment
★ user interface
★ instructional videos
論文目次 摘要 I
ABSTRACT VI
目錄 IX
圖目錄 XII
表目錄 XIII
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 4
1.3 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
2.1 遊戲式學習 9
2.1.1 遊戲式學習的優點 9
2.1.2 遊戲式學習的缺點 11
2.1.3 人機介面 12
2.1.4 教學影片 14
2.2 同儕互評 16
2.2.1 同儕互評的應用 16
2.2.2 同儕互評的優點 17
2.2.3 同儕互評的缺點 19
2.3 認知風格的匹配與不匹配 20
第三章 研究方法 26
3.1 研究對象 26
3.2 研究工具 28
3.2.1 團體藏圖測驗 28
3.2.2 評量表 29
3.2.2.1 Nielsen 人機介面可用性準則 29
3.2.2.2 教學影片準則 30
3.3 研究流程 31
3.3.1 遊戲之人機介面製作階段 33
3.3.2 遊戲之教學影片製作階段 34
3.4 資料分析 36
3.4.1 遊戲之人機介面製作階段 38
3.4.2 遊戲之教學影片製作階段 39
第四章 結果與討論:人機介面分析 41
4.1 認知風格的匹配與不匹配對優勢與劣勢評量的影響 41
4.1.1 各認知風格組合製作者的得分差異 41
4.1.2 各認知風格評量者的評分差異 42
4.1.3小結 44
4.2 認知風格的匹配與不匹配對評量分數的影響 45
4.2.1 各認知風格組合製作者的得分差異 45
4.2.2 各認知風格製作組合從不同認知風格評量者的得分差異 46
4.2.3 各組合內認知風格評量者的評分差異 47
4.2.4 小結 48
4.3 討論 49
第五章 結果與討論:教學影片分析 53
5.1 認知風格的匹配與不匹配對優勢與劣勢評量的影響 53
5.1.1 各認知風格組合製作者的得分差異 53
5.1.2 各認知風格評量者的評分差異 55
5.1.3 小結 57
5.2 認知風格的匹配與不匹配對評量分數的影響 59
5.2.1 各認知風格組合製作者的得分差異 59
5.2.2 各認知風格製作組合從不同認知風格評量者的得分差異 60
5.2.3 各組合內認知風格評量者的評分差異 60
5.2.4 小結 61
5.3 討論 62
第六章 結論 68
6.1 研究結果彙整 68
6.2 研究貢獻 75
6.2.1 學術面向 75
6.2.2 應用面向 75
6.3 未來研究方向 76
6.3.1 製作更適性化的遊戲式學習系統 76
6.3.2 更多不同認知風格的探討 76
6.3.3 不同遊戲式教學科目 77
6.3.4 不同的分組人數 77
參考文獻 78
參考文獻 中文部分
巫家瑜 (2016) 。使用者對於動畫圖示的認知與偏好滿意度之研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。
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。
李坤崇 (1999)。多元化教學評量。台北市:心理出版社。
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),613-624。
林曉雯 (2008)。科學教師教學評量專業成長與實務。屏東市:國立屏東教育大學 (秀威代理) 。
柳永青 (2012)。友善的人機介面。科學發展,472(76),6-13。
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。
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.
陳建興 (2011)。數位遊戲對於學生科學批判思考與環境教育成效之研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。
湯凱迪 (2014)。匹配與不匹配效果於電子商務網頁式學習系統之學習成效分析: 基於認知風格與生理因素(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。
楊雅雯 (2017)。玩中學-數位遊戲式學習。臺灣教育評論月刊,6(9),300-302。
廖羽晨 (2009)。批判思考教學法的歷史課程設計。歷史教育,15,97-118。
蔡福興、游光昭、蕭顯勝。(2008)。從新學習遷移觀點發掘數位遊戲式學習之價值。課程與教學季刊,11(4),237-278。
鄧雅瑛 (2007) 。國小高年級科學與科技批判思考能力量表發展研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。
顏晴榮 (2006) 。 從學習論談數位教材設計的考量。生活科技教育月刊,39(4), 10-18。


英文部分
Ang, C. S., Zaphiris, P., & Mahmood, S. (2007). A model of cognitive loads in massively multiplayer online role playing games. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 167-179.
Armstrong, R., Freitag, D., Joachims, T., & Mitchell, T. (1995). Webwatcher: A learning apprentice for the world wide web. In C. Knoblock & A. Levy (Eds.), AAAI Spring symposium on Information gathering from Heterogeneous, distributed environments (pp. 6-12). California, CA: The AAAI Press.
Babaie, A., & Farrokh, P. (2019). The Impact of Peer-Assessment and Self-Assessment on Paragraph Writing Ability of EFL Learners. St. Theresa Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(1), 1-21.
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.
Belk, M., Fidas, C., Germanakos, P., & Samaras, G. (2017). The interplay between humans, technology and user authentication: A cognitive processing perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 184-200.
Blake, M., Majewicz, K., Tickner, A., & Lam, J. (2017). Usability analysis of the Big Ten Academic Alliance Geoportal: Findings and recommendations for improvement of the user experience. Code4Lib Journal(38). Retrieved from https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/12932
Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment In Higher Education: A Practical Guide: A Practical Guide. Berkshire, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Booth, J. L., Oyer, M. H., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., Elliot, A. J., Barbieri, C., Augustine, A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2015). Learning algebra by example in real-world classrooms. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(4), 530-551.
Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), es6.
Brown, E., Brailsford, T., Fisher, T., Moore, A., & Ashman, H. (2006). Reappraising cognitive styles in adaptive web applications. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Brown, E., Fisher, T., & Brailsford, T. (2007). Real users, real results: examining the limitations of learning styles within AEH. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Brown, E., Fisher, T., & Brailsford, T. (2007). Real users, real results: examining the limitations of learning styles within AEH. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Brusilovsky, P. (1998). Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia. Adaptive hypertext and hypermedia, 6(2-3), 87-129.
Carbonaro, A. (2019). Good practices to influence engagement and learning outcomes on a traditional introductory programming course. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(7), 919-926.
Ceran, S. A., & Ates, S. (2020). Measuring Scientific Process Skills with Different Test Formats: A Research from the Perspective of Cognitive Styles. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 6(3), 220-230.
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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.006
Chang, S.-C., Hsu, T.-C., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2020). Integration of the peer assessment approach with a virtual reality design system for learning earth science. Computers & Education, 146, 103758.
Chiang, H.-P., Lai, C.-F., Lai, Y.-H., & Huang, Y.-M. (2016). A sensor-based feet motion recognition of graphical user interface controls. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(22), 14125-14141.
Chien, S.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2020). Effects of peer assessment within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-Speaking performance and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 146, 103751.
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., Huang, P.-R., Shih, Y.-C., & Chang, L.-P. (2016). Investigation of multiple human factors in personalized learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 119-141.
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. doi:10.1002/asi.10023
Cheng, M.-T., Lin, Y.-W., & She, H.-C. (2015). Learning through playing Virtual Age: Exploring the interactions among student concept learning, gaming performance, in-game behaviors, and the use of in-game characters. Computers & Education, 86, 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.007
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233-239.
Cheon, J., & Grant, M. M. (2012). The effects of metaphorical interface on germane cognitive load in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 399-420.
Chew, E., Snee, H., & Price, T. (2016). Enhancing international postgraduates’ learning experience with online peer assessment and feedback innovation. Innovations in education and teaching international, 53(3), 247-259.
Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., . . . Tilson, J. L. (2015). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dekkers, J., & Donatti, S. (1981). The integration of research studies on the use of simulation as an instructional strategy. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(6), 424-432.
Dias, C. R., Pereira, M. R., & Freire, A. P. (2017). Qualitative review of usability problems in health information systems for radiology. Journal of biomedical informatics, 76, 19-33.
Dickey, M. D. (2011). Murder on Grimm Isle: The impact of game narrative design in an educational game‐based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 456-469.
Engin, A., & Vetschera, R. (2017). Information representation in decision making: The impact of cognitive style and depletion effects. Decision Support Systems, 103, 94-103.
Falchikov, N. (1993). Group-Process Analysis - Self and Peer Assessment of Working Together in a Group. Educational & Training Technology International, 30(3), 275-284.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.
Fallows, S., & Chandramohan, B. (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment. Teaching in higher education, 6(2), 229-246.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn′t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465-470. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015
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. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00173
Frias-Martinez, E., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2008). Investigation of behavior and perception of digital library users: A cognitive style perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28(5), 355-365.
Galitz, W. O. (2007). The essential guide to user interface design: an introduction to GUI design principles and techniques. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & gaming, 33(4), 441-467.
Hao, K.-C., & Lee, L.-C. (in press). The development and evaluation of an educational game integrating augmented reality, ARCS model, and types of games for English experiment learning: an analysis of learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14.
Hartt, M., Hosseini, H., & Mostafapour, M. (2020). Game On: Exploring the Effectiveness of Game-based Learning. Planning Practice & Research, 1-16. doi:org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1778859
Hatami, S. (2018). Does Perceptual Learning Style Matching Affect L2 Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 21(2), 102-125.
Hewett, T. T. (2005). Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity. International journal of human-computer studies, 63(4-5), 383-409. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.004
Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, M.-J., Wang, C.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Prior knowledge and online inquiry-based science reading: Evidence from eye tracking. International journal of science and mathematics education, 12(3), 525-554.
Hogle, J. G. (1996). Considering games as cognitive tools: In search of effective" edutainment.". Princeton, NJ: Citeseer.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles. Berkshire, United Kingdom: Peter Honey.
Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R. B., Yousefi, M., Fathi, M., Horng, S.-J., & Lim, H. (2016). Applying an online game-based formative assessment in a flowchart-based intelligent tutoring system for improving problem-solving skills. Computers & Education, 94, 18-36.
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.
Hsia, L. H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A web‐based peer‐assessment approach to improving junior high school students′ performance, self‐efficacy and motivation in performing arts courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 618-632.
Huang , W.-H., Huang , W.-Y., & Tschopp , J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Computers & Education, 55(2), 789-797.
Huang, Y.-M., Hwang, J.-P., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Matching/mismatching in web-based learning: a perspective based on cognitive styles and physiological factors. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1198-1214.
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.
Karaçam, S., & Baran, A. D. (2015). The effects of field dependent/field independent cognitive styles and motivational styles on students′ conceptual understanding about direct current circuits. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Hong Kong, China.
Katsini, C., Fidas, C., Raptis, G. E., Belk, M., Samaras, G., & Avouris, N. (2018). Influences of human cognition and visual behavior on password strength during picture password composition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Quebec, Canada.
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.
Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800-810.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1-10.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Liao, C. C., Chang, W. C., & Chan, T. W. (2018). The effects of participation, performance, and interest in a game‐based writing environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 211-222.
Lin, G.-Y. (2018). Anonymous versus identified peer assessment via a Facebook-based learning application: Effects on quality of peer feedback, perceived learning, perceived fairness, and attitude toward the system. Computers & Education, 116, 81-92. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.010
Lin, Y. T., Tseng, Y. M., Lee, Y. S., Wang, T. C., Tsai, S. I., & Yi, Y. J. (2018). Development of a SoLoMo Game-Based Application for Supporting Local Cultural Learning in Taiwan. Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 115-128.
Mampadi, F. (2012). Assessing acceptance of adaptive educational hypermedia systems: prior knowledge vs. cognitive styles. IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 9(4), 62-70.
Marty, M. C., Henning, J. M., & Willse, J. T. (2010). Accuracy and reliability of peer assessment of athletic training psychomotor laboratory skills. J Athl Train, 45(6), 609-614. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-45.6.609
Mayer, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge‎, England: Cambridge university press.
Mefoh, P. C., Nwoke, M. B., Chukwuorji, J. C., & Chijioke, A. O. (2017). Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 47-52.
Miao, H., Sun, W., Zhang, R., & Yan, Z. (2019). The Design and Research of Human-computer Interactive interface on the Medical Infusion Pump. Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai, China.
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature. London, United Kingdom: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Moffat, D. C., & Shabalina, O. (2016). Assessing creativity of game design students. Paper presented at the 2016 7th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA), Chalkidiki, Greece.
Muller, M. J., Matheson, L., Page, C., & Gallup, R. (1998). Methods & tools: participatory heuristic evaluation. interactions, 5(5), 13-18.
Nielsen, J. (1999). User interface directions for the Web. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 65-66.
Naimie, Z., Siraj, S., Piaw, C. Y., Shagholi, R., & Abuzaid, R. A. (2010). Do you think your match is made in heaven? Teaching styles/learning styles match and mismatch revisited. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 349-353.
Nelson , B. C., & Erlandson , B. E. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: reflection on design practice. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 619-641. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9082-1
Nelson, B. C., Kim, Y., Foshee, C., & Slack, K. (2014). Visual signaling in virtual world-based assessments: The SAVE Science project. Information Sciences, 264, 32-40. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2013.09.011
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Mountain view, CA: Elsevier.
Nielsen, J. (1999). User interface directions for the Web. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 65-66.
Nielsen, J. (Producer). (2003). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html.
Onyekuru, B. U. (2015). Field Dependence-Field Independence Cognitive Style, Gender, Career Choice and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students in Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers State. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(10), 76-85.
Papastergiou, 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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004
Pask, G., & Scott, B. (1972). Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4(3), 217-253.
Pierfy, D. A. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and steppingstones. Simulation & Games, 8(2), 255-268.
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.
Preece, J., Benyon, D., & University, O. (1993). A guide to usability: Human factors in computing: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21.
Puegphrom, P., & Chiramanee, T. (2011). The effectiveness of implementing Peer Assessment on students’ writing proficiency.
Qian, M. H., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50-58. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023
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? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Austin, TX.
Ratminingsih, N. M., Artini, L. P., & Padmadewi, N. N. (2017). Incorporating Self and Peer Assessment in Reflective Teaching Practices. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 165-184.
Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(3), 649.
Rush, G. M., & Moore, D. M. (1991). Effects of restructuring training and cognitive style. Educational psychology, 11(3-4), 309-321.
Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2020). 6 Motivational Foundations of Game-Based Learning. Handbook of Game-Based Learning, 153.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional science, 27(5), 355-371. doi:10.1007/bf00892031
Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational assessment, 11(1), 1-31.
Saracho, O. (2003). Matching teachers′ and students′ cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care, 173(2-3), 161-173.
Schar, S. G., & Krueger, H. (2000). Using new learning technologies with multimedia. IEEE multimedia, 7(3), 40-51.
Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2012). The influence of virtual presence: Effects on experienced cognitive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 648-658. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.011
Shen, W.-C. M., Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Evans, D. A. (2016). Gamified Technology-Mediated Learning: the Role of Individual differences. Paper presented at the PACIS, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Shneiderman, B. (1997). Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable user interfaces. Paper presented at the IUI.
Su, C.-H. (2016). The effects of students′ motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 10013-10036.
Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer-and co-assessment. Learning environments research, 1(3), 293-319.
Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., & Minocha, S. (2005). User interface design and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Elsevier.
Stoyanov, S., Jablokow, K., Rosas, S. R., Wopereis, I. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Concept mapping—An effective method for identifying diversity and congruity in cognitive style. Evaluation and program planning, 60, 238-244.
Su, C.-H. (2016). The effects of students′ motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 10013-10036.
Swarts, J. (2012). New modes of help: Best practices for instructional video. Technical Communication, 59(3), 195-206.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Sydoruk, P. D. (2018). An Analysis of the Higher Order Thinking Requirements of a Grade 8 Online-Based English Language Arts Skills Program. Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 2495.
Tüzün, H., Yılmaz-Soylu, M., Karakuş, T., İnal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education, 52(1), 68-77. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.008
Teich, S., Demko, C., & Lang, L. (2015). Students′ perception of peer‐assessment in the context of a treatment planning course. European Journal of Dental Education, 19(1), 8-15.
Theising, K., Wu, K., & Sheehan, A. H. (2014). Impact of peer assessment on student pharmacists’ behaviors and self-confidence. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 10-14.
Theodoropoulos, A., Antoniou, A., & Lepouras, G. (2016). How Do Different Cognitive Styles Affect Learning Programming? Insights from a Game-Based Approach in Greek Schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(1), 1-25. doi:10.1145/2940330
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning: Routledge.
Treu, S. (1992). Interface structures: Conceptual, logical, and physical patterns applicable to human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 37(5), 565-593.
Tsai, F.-H., Kinzer, C., Hung, K.-H., Chen, C.-L. A., & Hsu, I.-Y. (2013). The importance and use of targeted content knowledge with scaffolding aid in educational simulation games. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 116-128.
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design studies, 19(3), 249-271.
Valle, J. D., Dunn, K., Dunn, R., Geisert, G., Sinatra, R., & Zenhausern, R. (2015). The Effects of Matching and Mismatching Students′ Mobility Preferences on Recognition and Memory Tasks. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(5), 267-272. doi:10.1080/00220671.1986.10885690
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 154-164.
Vaughn, L., & Baker, R. (2001). Teaching in the medical setting: balancing teaching styles, learning styles and teaching methods. Med Teach, 23(6), 610-612. doi:10.1080/01421590120091000
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., & Goodenough, D. R. (1976). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. ETS Research Report Series, 1976(1), i-78. doi: org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1976.tb01098.x
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, C. H., Tzeng, Y. L., & Huang, Y. M. (2020). Measuring performance in leaning process of digital game‑based learning and static E‑learning. Educational Technology Research and Development (2020). doi:org/10.1007/s11423-020-09765-6
Wu, T.-T. (2018). Improving the effectiveness of English vocabulary review by integrating ARCS with mobile game-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 315-323. doi:10.1111/jcal.12244
Yang, Y.-T. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computers & Education, 59(2), 365-377. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.012
Yeh, Y.-c., Chang, H.-L., & Chen, S.-Y. (2019). Mindful learning: A mediator of mastery experience during digital creativity game-based learning among elementary school students. Computers & Education, 132, 63-75.
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. Paper presented at the 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Hamamatsu, Japan.
Yen, J.-C., & Liao, W.-C. (2019). Effects of Cognitive Styles on Learning Performance and Gaming Behavior in a Programming Board Game. Paper presented at the 2018 7th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Tottori, Japan.
Yerizon, Y., Farhani, F., & Syarifuddin, H. (2020). The Effect of Think Pair Check Model on Students Understanding of Mathematical Concepts in Terms of Cognitive Style. Jurnal Didaktik Matematika, 7(1), 1-12.
Yinjaroen, P., & Chiramanee, T. (2014). Peer assessment of oral English proficiency. Paper presented at the Factors Affecting English Language Teaching and Learning, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Yu, F.-Y., & Wu, C.-P. (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2167-2177. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.012
Zeng, H., Zhou, S.-N., Hong, G.-R., Li, Q.-y., & Xu, S.-Q. (2020). Evaluation of Interactive Game-based Learning in Pyhsics Domain. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(3), 484-498.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & management, 43(1), 15-27. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004
Zhao, Q., Shu, Y., & Huang, W. (2009). The research on the human oriented design of digital guiding system in public space. Paper presented at the 2009 IEEE 10th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design, Wenzhou, China.
Zhou, M. (2011). Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in College English Teaching. International Education Studies, 4(1), 73-77.
指導教授 楊接期 陳攸華(Jie-Chi Yang Sherry Y. Chen) 審核日期 2020-8-24
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