以想法為中心之合作科學探究學習系統之遊戲化：系統開發與初步評估

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：49

、訪客IP：18.227.190.231

姓名

戴筱琪(Hsiao-Chi Tai) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

以想法為中心之合作科學探究學習系統之遊戲化：系統開發與初步評估
(Gamification and Initial Evaluation of an Idea-centered Collaborative Inquiry Learning Platform)

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ 以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs	★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT
★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction	★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例
★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估	★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響
★ 具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估	★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估
★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估	★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估

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)

二十一世紀是知識經濟的時代，教育應以培養學生成為符合現代需求的知識人才為方向。在這個知識爆炸的時代，傳統的填鴨式教育已經無法滿足現代社會對創新和批判性思考的要求。因此，探究學習和知識翻新理論成為了現代教育的重要方向。
探究學習強調學生透過提出問題、進行調查、合作學習和反思來獲得和深化知識，這種方法不僅能夠提升學生的理解力和記憶力，更能夠培養他們的批判性思考和解決問題的能力。
知識翻新則是指學生在學習過程中不僅是接受知識，而是積極參與知識的創造過程，這些都是現代社會所迫切需要的核心競爭力。
遊戲化學習則是將遊戲元素引入到教育中，以提升學生的參與度和學習興趣。這些元素包括積分、排行榜、獎勵和挑戰等，可以有效激發學生的內在動機，促進他們主動參與學習活動。研究表明，遊戲化學習能夠顯著提升學生的學習效果和滿意度，尤其是在提高學習動機和參與度方面效果顯著。
本研究團隊曾開發一個以想法為中心的合作探究學習系統，配合教育部「生生用平板」之政策，提供給台灣國小學生在自然課能以平板進行合作探究學習，本次研究將此系統結合遊戲化元素，開發成為第二代遊戲化合作探究學習系統，系統設計包含匿名之虛擬人物與暱稱設計、成就系統、挑戰系統、抓寶活動、個人雷達圖做為即時回饋機制等，以進一步提升學生的使用意願以及學習動機。
研究方法採用問卷調查法，研究對象為已使用過第一代合作探究學習系統的台灣某國小五年級學生，共五十一位。問卷主要使用Likert 六點量表，內容包括系統的整體知覺有用性、知覺易用性、使用意願、遊戲化元素有效性等多個方面；研究進行方式首先為簡報展示第一代合作探究學習系統之介面及操作，接著填寫前測問卷，接下來簡報展示及實際使用第二代遊戲化合作探究學習系統進行探究學習，並填寫後測問卷，前後測問卷分析使用SPSS 進行成對樣本T 檢定。
初步評估結果顯示國小學生對於結合遊戲化元素的探究學習系統更有使用意願，對於新系統融入的遊戲化元素亦都為正向回饋，但希望在遊戲化機制的部分更深入設計，例如抓寶功能的寵物後續可以開發更多功能。未來的研究亦可以進一步探索不同年齡段和不同學科中的應用，以驗證其廣泛適用性和長期效果。

摘要(英)

The 21st century is an era of knowledge economy, and education should aim to cultivate students into knowledge talents that meet modern demands. In this age of information
explosion, traditional didactic education can no longer meet society′s requirements for innovation and critical thinking. Therefore, inquiry-based learning and knowledge building
theories have become essential directions in modern education.
Inquiry-based learning emphasizes students acquiring and deepening knowledge through posing questions, conducting investigations, engaging in collaborative learning, and reflecting on their experiences. This approach not only enhances students′ comprehension and memory but also fosters their critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. Knowledge building refers to the process where students are not just recipients of knowledge but active participants in creating new knowledge, which is crucial for today′s core competencies.
Gamification in learning incorporates game design elements into education to enhance student engagement and interest. These elements, including points, leaderboards, rewards, and
challenges, effectively stimulate students′ intrinsic motivation and encourage active participation in learning activities. Research shows that gamification in learning significantly improves students′ learning outcomes and satisfaction, particularly in enhancing learning
motivation and engagement.
Our team previously developed an inquiry-based collaborative learning system centered around ideas, in line with the Ministry of Education′s "One-Tablet-Per-Student" policy,
provided to elementary students in Taiwan for natural science classes. This study integrated gamified elements into the system, developing a second-generation gamification collaborative inquiry learning system. The system design includes anonymous virtual characters with nicknames, an achievement system such as badges and leaderboards, and pet-catching activities and personal radar charts as real-time feedback mechanisms to further enhance students′ willingness to use and motivation to learn.
The research method employed a questionnaire survey, targeting 51 fifth-grade students from an elementary school in Taiwan who had previously used the first-generation
collaborative inquiry learning system. The questionnaire used a six-point Likert scale, covering aspects such as the system′s overall perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and the effectiveness of gamification elements. The research process began with a presentation of the first-generation system′s interface and operations, followed by a pre-test questionnaire. Subsequently, the second-generation gamification system was presented and used for inquiry learning, after which a post-test questionnaire was filled out. Pre- and post-test questionnaires were analyzed using paired sample T-tests in SPSS.
Preliminary results indicate that elementary students have a higher intention to use the inquiry learning system integrated with gamification elements and gave positive feedback on the new system′s gamified components. However, they hope for a more in-depth design of the gamification mechanisms, such as further development of functionalities for the pets. Future research could also explore applications across different age groups and subjects to validate its broad applicability and long-term effects.

關鍵字(中)

★ 知識經濟
★ 探究學習
★ 知識翻新
★ 遊戲化學習
★ 遊戲化

關鍵字(英)

★ Knowledge Economy
★ Inquiry-Based Learning
★ Knowledge Building
★ Gamified Learning
★ Gamification

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract iii
目錄 vi
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 ix
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的 3
第三節研究問題 4
第四節名詞解釋 5
第二章文獻探討 7
第一節知識翻新 7
第二節遊戲化學習 13
第三節探究學習 18
第四節鷹架理論 20
第三章系統分析與實作 22
第一節系統開發概要 22
第二節系統設計與規劃 27
第三節介面與功能建置 30
第四章研究方法 48
第一節研究對象 48
第二節研究流程 50
第三節研究工具 51
第四節資料收集與分析 54
第五章結果與討論 56
第一節研究結果 56
第二節研究討論 68
第六章結論與建議 70
第一節研究結論 70
第二節研究建議 70
參考文獻 72
附錄 80
附錄一問卷 80

參考文獻

楊朝祥（民96 年3 月28 日）。知識社會中之教育發展。財團法人國家政策研究基金會
國政研究報告。取自：https://www.npf.org.tw/2/1717
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom′s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning
outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in
educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions.
Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 105-117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.783518
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing Results From
Empirical Research on Computer-Based Scaffolding in STEM Education: A Meta-
Analysis. Rev Educ Res, 87(2), 309-344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De
Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning
environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55-68). Oxford:
Elsevier Science.
Brophy, J. (2013). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Norton.
Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, Jarvella, R.
J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (Ed.), The child′s conception of language (pp. 241-256).
Springer-Verlag.
Callaghan, M. N., & Reich, S. M. (2020). Mobile app features that scaffold pre‐school
learning: Verbal feedback and leveling designs. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 52(2), 785-806. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13055
Chen, Y.-H., & Chen, P.-J. (2015). MOOC study group: Facilitation strategies, influential
factors, and student perceived gains. Computers & Education, 86, 55-70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.008
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. In. Harper &
Row.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference:
Envisioning Future Media Environments,
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., &
Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications
and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-
140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Foley, J. (1994). Key concepts in ELT. ELT Journal, 48(1), 1.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research
and Practice Model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (Revised
and Updated Edition). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gillies, R. M., & Nichols, K. (2014). How to Support Primary Teachers’ Implementation of
Inquiry: Teachers’ Reflections on Teaching Cooperative Inquiry-Based Science.
Research in Science Education, 45(2), 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-
9418-x
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? — A Literature
Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 3025-3034.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Hamari, J., & Sjöblom, M. (2017). What is gamification? A review of the literature. Homo
Oeconomicus, 34(3), 305–321.
Hassan, M. A., Habiba, U., Majeed, F., & Shoaib, M. (2019). Adaptive gamification in elearning
based on students’ learning styles. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4),
545-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1588745
Herman, W. E., & Pinard, M. R. (2015). Critically Examining Inquiry-Based Learning: John
Dewey in Theory, History, and Practice. In Inquiry-Based Learning for
Multidisciplinary Programs: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators (pp.
43-62). https://doi.org/10.1108/s2055-364120150000003016
Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design Principles for Distributed Knowledge Building Processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75-96.
Hsieh, C. E. (2013). The Developments, Types, and Models of Scaffolding Theories and the
Implication for Science Instruction. Science Education Monthly, 364, 2-16.
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.6216/SEM.201311_(364).0001
Huber, S. E., Cortez, R., Kiili, K., Lindstedt, A., & Ninaus, M. (2023). Game elements
enhance engagement and mitigate attrition in online learning tasks. Computers in
Human Behavior, 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107948
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Interaction Book Company.
Kapp, K. M. (2014). Goal-setting theory. In The Gamification of Learning and Instruction:
Game-based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education (pp. 45-49). Wiley.
Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of
multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898-921.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115
Kim, S. S., K.; , Lockee, B., & Burton, J. (2018). Gamification in Learning and Education:
Enjoy Learning Like Gaming. Springer International Publishing.
Lamon, M., Reeve, R., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2001). Mapping learning and the
growth of knowledge in a knowledge building community. Fourth International
Conference of the Learning Sciences(pp. 310-316), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landers, R. N. B., K. N.; Callan, R. C.; Armstrong, M. B. (2015). Psychological theory and
the gamification of learning. In J. M. M. Spector, M. D.; Elen, J.; Bishop, M. J. (Ed.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 479-492).
Springer.
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Lin, P.-Y., Hong, H.-Y., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Fostering college students’ design thinking in a
knowledge-building environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 68(3), 949-974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09712-0
Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 5(2), 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(96)80005-9
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125
Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B., & Alston, D. M. (2016). Inquiry-Based Instruction: A Possible
Solution to Improving Student Learning of Both Science Concepts and Scientific
Practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 777-
796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x
Molleman, E., Nauta, A., & Buunk, B. P. (2007). Social comparison processes among injured
athletes: Enhancing recovery by creating hope. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37(6), 1167-1186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00207.x
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In Oxford handbook
of positive psychology (pp. 195-206). 195-206.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related
Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 Popper, K. (1978). Three Worlds. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values.
Resendes, M., & Dobbie, K. (2023). Knowledge Building Gallery (D. Maika, E. Hine, E.
Heaver, L. Ma, & L. White, Eds.). Institute for Knowledge Innovation and
Technology.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An
experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological
need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371-380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building. Journal of Distance Education, 17(Suppl. 3,
Learning Technology Innovation in Canada), 10-14.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In. Education and technology: An
encyclopedia(pp. 183-192), Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building
communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2017). Two modes of thinking in knowledge building.
Revista Catalana de Pedagogia, 23. https://doi.org/10.2436/20.3007.01.95
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge Building: Advancing the State of
Community Knowledge. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (pp. 261-279). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_14
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.

Shute, V. J., & Ventura, M. (2013). Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in
video games. MIT Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1989). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. In B. F. Skinner
(Ed.), Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis (pp. 3-32). Merrill.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection
in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(4), 765-781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom?
Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6), 5.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with
what effect? In Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 159-182).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4237-7
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
Torresan, S., & Hinterhuber, A. (2023). Continuous learning at work: the power of
gamification. Management Decision, 61(13), 386-412. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-12-
2020-1669
Van de Pol, J. V., M.; Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A
decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
Veloo, A., Perumal, S., & Vikneswary, R. (2013). Inquiry-based Instruction, Students’
Attitudes and Teachers’ Support Towards Science Achievement in Rural Primary Schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 65-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.153
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/0.1111/j.1469-
7610.1976.tb00381.x
Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of
gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence.
Educational Research Review, 30, 100326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for Collective
Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676

指導教授

吳穎沺(Ying-Tien Wu)

審核日期

2024-7-23

推文