以非相同機會策略設計與實驗搶答式學習遊戲

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：36

、訪客IP：3.144.172.115

姓名

吳睦傑(Mu-Chieh Wu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

以非相同機會策略設計與實驗搶答式學習遊戲
(Design and Experiment on a Rush-in-Answer Learning Game with Uneven Chance Tactic)

相關論文

★ 探索電玩遊戲頻率對於視覺注意力表現能力的效應	★ 代理表現學習模式—以動物同伴為例
★ 常用邏輯句型重組之學習	★ 電腦支援國小數學文字題擬題活動初探
★ 解釋數學：透過科技支援創作與討論以增強小學生的數學溝通能力	★ 提問式鷹架教學結合數位閱讀寫作系統對國小低年級學生語文能力的影響
★ 數學島：興趣驅動之國小數學線上平台設計與初步評估	★ 以「猜擬題」活動增進學生數學文字題解題能力
★ 基於學生練習使用回饋之學習成效預測模型與動態題數練習機制	★ 透過主題地圖與寵物同伴促進閱讀更深更廣的書籍
★ 具推薦書籍功能之閱讀島系統架構設計	★ 透過學生影片創作進行國小數學學習:趣創者理論之應用
★ 英文單字樂園：學生自創字卡搭配複習機制強化英文字彙學習之系統設計及學習成效初探	★ 設計與實作明日寫作系統增進國小學生寫作表現
★ 設計與實踐「提升式寫作」活動以提升國小學生寫作品質與寫作興趣	★ TTPR：設計科技強化型全肢體反應為了小學生和國中生在印尼學習英語詞彙

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]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

在教室中，個別能力差異是個永久存在的問題。當學習遊戲是透過競爭的方式以吸引、激發學習者的方式進行時，能力較低的學習者將會無可避免地遭受打擊與傷害。本研究提出「非相同機會策略」以用於試圖解決在競爭學習遊戲下因個別能力差異造成的問題。
除此之外，本研究亦重新設計過一個在手持式裝置上運作的數學乘法練習競爭型遊戲—AnswerMatching，且將「非相同機會策略」應用於其中；AnswerMatching被用來對桃園縣一所小學的一班三年級學生施作實驗，用以了解「非相同機會策略」在競爭型的學習遊戲中所會對學生造成的影響。
在實驗過後「非相同機會策略」被證明確實能夠減少不同能力的學習者在一個相同的競爭環境下所造成的外在表現(即：分數)差異，並且也會對學習者的自我效能、競爭下所產生的能力表現認知造成不同的影響。

摘要(英)

Individual ability differences are an everlasting phenomenon in a classroom. Competitive learning games that aim at drawing students’ attention and excitement will inevitably hurt the self-esteem of those students with lower capabilities. This work proposes Uneven Chance Tactic to be applied in competitive learning games, as an approach to resolving the individual ability difference problem.
Along with UCT, AnswerMatching, a digital competitive learning game run on handheld devices for practicing Math multiplication/factor extraction, was also re-designed to evaluate the effects of UCT. AnswerMatching was used to experiment on subjects of a 3rd grade class of an elementary school in Taoyuan County, Taiwan.
UCT was proven being able to minimize the extrinsic performance indicator (i.e. score) of participants with different capabilities in a competitive learning game, and found to have several effects on the students’ self-efficacy beliefs, and performance perceptions under competitive situations.

關鍵字(中)

★ 非相同機會策略
★ 動機
★ 競爭
★ 自我效能
★ 個別能力差異
★ 遊戲式學習

關鍵字(英)

★ individual ability difference
★ self-efficacy beliefs
★ Uneven Chance Tactic
★ competition
★ motivation
★ game-based learning

論文目次

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1
A. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN A CLASSROOM ............................... 1
B. COMPETITION ......................................................... 1
C. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND QUESTIONS .................................... 2
II. RELATED RESEARCH ..................................................... 4
A. LITERATURES ......................................................... 4
Adaptive Challenge Levels .......................................... 4
Flow ............................................................... 4
Self-efficacy ...................................................... 5
B. RELATED WORKS ....................................................... 6
Speed Grid Challenge ............................................... 6
EduBingo ........................................................... 7
Arcadermic Skill Builders - Meteor Multiplication .................. 8
Mystery Picture Multiplication/Multiplication Hidden Picture ....... 9
III. UNEVEN CHANCE TACTIC ............................................... 11
A. PRINCIPLE OF UCT ................................................... 11
B. APPROACH OF UCT .................................................... 13
IV. SYSTEM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................... 15
A. GAME DESIGN OF ANSWERMATCHING ...................................... 15
B. RULES OF ANSWERMATCHING ............................................ 16
C. ACTIVITY FLOW....................................................... 17
D. UCT FOR ANSWERMATCHING ............................................. 18
Definitions ....................................................... 19
Defining the number of competitors in a unit competitive group .... 20
Assigning competitors for each unit competitive group ............. 21
Compared with Old UCT (Asymmetric Competition Strategy) ........... 23
E. SYSTEM SETTING AND ARCHITECTURE .................................... 26
System Setting .................................................... 26
System Architecture ............................................... 27
F. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 28
Software development .............................................. 28
Computational power ............................................... 28
Interface design .................................................. 29
Input capability of user devices .................................. 33
Preserved domain independence ..................................... 34
V. SYSTEM EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION ..................................... 36
A. SUBJECTS ........................................................... 36
B. SETTING............................................................. 36
Pretest............................................................ 36
Experiment ........................................................ 38
C. RESULTS ............................................................ 39
Questionnaire results ............................................. 40
Score ............................................................. 43
Score prediction for next rounds .................................. 44
Accuracy .......................................................... 45
Efficiency ........................................................ 46
D. DISCUSSIONS ........................................................ 47
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS ........................................ 49
A. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 49
B. FUTURE WORKS ....................................................... 49
Reducing the negative effects ..................................... 50
More factors on evaluating students capability .................... 50
Experiment designs with more variations............................ 50
More flexible design .............................................. 51
REFERENCES .............................................................. 52
APPENDIX I. THE QUIZ AND QUESTIONNAIRE TAKEN AT THE PRETEST ............. 54
APPENDIX II. THE QUIZ TAKEN BEFORE THE EXPERIMENT ....................... 56
APPENDIX III. QUIZ AND QUESTIONNAIRE AFTER THE EXPERIMENT ............... 57
APPENDIX IV. INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE .................................... 60

參考文獻

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bell, R. G. (1979). Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations (Revised Edition). New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York : Harper & Row.
Jabber website. Retrieved on October 15th, 2006. http://www.jabber.org/
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: the case against competition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Liang, J. K., Liu, T. C., Wang, H. Y., Chang, B., Deng, Y. C., Yang, J. C., Chou, C. Y., Ko, H. W., Yang, S. & Chan, T. W. (2005). A few design perspectives on one-on-one digital classroom environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 181-189.
Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333-369.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Conative and affective process analysis (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
Prensky, M. (2000). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Peter S. A. (2004). RFC 3920: XML streams, SASL, TLS, stringprep profiles, stanza semantics.
Peter S. A. (2004). RFC 3921: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence.
Rawls J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Wu, W., Cheng, H. , Chiang, M. C., Deng, Y. C., Chou, C. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Chan, T. W. (2007). AnswerMatching: A Competitive Learning Game with Uneven Chance Tactic. The First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp.89-96). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat extension for XMPP. Retrieved on October 15th, 2006. http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html
Zimmerman B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 82-91.
江孟真 (民95)。設計與實作一個使用不對等策略之小組數學練習競爭式數位遊戲。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園縣。
韓佳玲 (民91)。網路匿名競爭對學習經驗之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。

指導教授

陳德懷(Tak-Wai Chan)

審核日期

2007-7-9

推文