性別差異與認知風格對合作化遊戲式學習的影響

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：38

、訪客IP：3.12.34.209

姓名

鄭雅維(Ya-wei Jheng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

性別差異與認知風格對合作化遊戲式學習的影響
(An Investigation of Collaborative Game-based Learning: Gender Differences and Cognitive Styles)

相關論文

★ 將可用性整合融入遊戲式學習	★ 探討認知風格對於行動學習與合作學習的影響
★ 學習型網站的可用性評估：從問題到解決方案	★ 從人因的觀點評估遊戲式學習
★ 探討認知風格在遊戲式學習中對於客製化與個人化系統的影響	★ 探討認知風格在行動學習中對於客製化與個人化系統的影響
★ 探討認知風格如何影響使用者在行動載具下使用電子期刊	★ 探討專家和新手對遊戲式學習進行可用性評估的觀感差異
★ 毒品經驗與遊戲先備知識對客製化與個人化遊戲式反毒宣導系統的影響	★ 探討背景音樂和認知風格對遊戲式學習的影響
★ 以多媒體科技和數位遊戲為小小人兒及患者家屬發展線上生活百科	★ 先備知識對註記式多媒體電子書的影響研究：從個別環境到分享環境
★ 從認知風格的角度探討提示對學習英文片語與文法的影響	★ 探討先備知識對學習者在使用鷹架英文學習系統的影響: 限制與扣分機制
★ 發展動畫電子書之研究：從性別差異到性別均等之歷程	★ 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

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，遊戲式學習被廣泛地應用在教育環境中，由於其相較於傳統教學更可以增加學生在各方面學習的表現；例如：提升學生的學習觀感、學習成效等。另一方面，學生的學習方式也開始從個人學習環境轉移到合作學習環境；為此，將遊戲式學習結合至合作學習環境中，是目前的一個趨勢。同時，在合作學習中，小組的分組方式是一個值得探討的議題；然而，每一個學生都各自具有不同的特質。有鑑於此，本研究之目的在於以人因（Human factors）的角度來探討，學生對於合作化遊戲式學習環境會產生何種不同的反應。而在眾多的人因探討面向中，過去的文獻顯示「性別差異」與「認知風格」對於學生學習方面具有潛在的影響。因此，本研究進行了兩個實證研究，以「性別差異」（實驗一）與「認知風格」（實驗二）為分組方式，來探討其會如何影響學生對於合作化遊戲式學習的學習成效、學習行為與學習觀感。
從兩個實證研究的結果顯示，兩種以「性別差異」與「認知風格」的分組方式對於學生的學習是有影響的；其中相較於同質性小組，異質性小組表現出較好的學習成效以及較有效率的學習行為。另一方面而言，相較於男性（實驗一）與Serialists（實驗二）的學生，女性（實驗一）與Holists（實驗二）的學生展現出比較正向的學習觀感。在本研究的最後，依據兩個實證研究所得的結果，提出一個圖形化模型用來促進未來個人化遊戲式學習系統的開發與研究。

摘要(英)

In recent years, game-based learning has been widely employed in learning settings because it could enhance student learning in many aspects. For example, students’ learning perception and learning performance could be improved. On the other hand, students’ learning approaches have also being shifted from individual to collaborative learning. Hence, there is a trend of incorporating game-based learning into collaborative learning scenarios. In addition, the group composition in collaborative learning is another issue that needs to be focused on. However, various characteristics exist among every individual. To address this issue, this research aims to investigate students’ different reactions toward collaborative game-based learning from the aspects of human factors. Among various human factors, gender differences and cognitive styles are reported to have potential influences on student learning. Thus, two empirical studies were conducted to examine how grouping ways affect students’ learning performance, behavior and perception from the aspects of gender differences (Study 1) and cognitive styles (Study 2).
The findings from these two studies indicate that both grouping ways have great influences on students’ learning outcomes. More specifically, the heterogeneous groups in both studies demonstrated better learning performance and more effective learning behavior than the homogeneous groups. On the other hand, the results reveal that females (from Study 1) and Holists (from Study 2) demonstrate more positive learning perception than males and Serialists, respectively. Finally, a framework based on the results of two studies is proposed, which are not only to support collaborative learning but also to improve developments of personalized game-based learning systems.

關鍵字(中)

★ 遊戲式學習
★ 合作學習
★ 人因
★ 性別差異
★ 認知風格

關鍵字(英)

★ game-based learning
★ collaborative learning
★ human factors
★ gender differences
★ cognitive styles

論文目次

中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
Table of Contents v
List of Figures viii
List of Tables x
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research Objectives 3
1.3 Chapter outline 5
1.4 Summary 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7
2.1 Collaborative game-based learning 7
2.2 Gender differences 12
2.3 Cognitive styles 14
2.4 Summary 18
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 19
3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 Methodological Approaches 19
3.3 Conceptual Framework 20
3.4 Research Instruments 21
3.4.1 Game-based Learning System 22
3.4.2 Study Preferences Questionnaire (SPQ) 26
3.4.3 Pre-test and Post-test 27
3.4.4 Questionnaire 29
3.5 Summary 30
Chapter 4 Study One: Collaborative Game-based Learning—A Gender Difference Perspective 31
4.1 Study Overview 31
4.1.1 Participants 31
4.1.2 Research Instruments 31
4.1.3 Experimental Procedures 31
4.1.4 Data Analyses 33
4.2 Results 38
4.2.1 Learning performance 38
4.2.2 Learning behavior 44
4.2.3 Learning perception 49
4.3 Summary 55
Chapter 5 Study Two: Collaborative Game-based Learning—A Cognitive Style Perspective 56
5.1 Study Overview 56
5.1.1 Participants 56
5.1.2 Research Instruments 56
5.1.3 Experimental Procedures 56
5.1.4 Data Analyses 58
5.2 Results 60
5.2.1. Learning performance 60
5.2.2 Learning behavior 66
5.2.3 Learning perception 71
5.3 Summary 75
Chapter 6 Conclusions 76
6.1 Summary of Findings 76
6.2 Development of Framework 79
6.3 Limitations and Future Work 81
References 82
Appendix: Pre-test 91
Appendix: Post-test 94

參考文獻

[1] Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G.t. (2011). The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185-1194.
[2] Aghlara, L., & Tamjid, N.H. (2011). The effect of digital games on iranian children’s vocabulary retention in foreign language acquisition. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 552-560.
[3] Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., & Huizenga, J. (2009). Storification in history education: A mobile game in and about medieval amsterdam. Computers & Education, 52(2), 449-459.
[4] Angeli, C. (2013). Examining the effects of field dependence-independence on learners’ problem-solving performance and interaction with a computer modeling tool:¿ implications for the design of joint cognitive systems. Computers & Education, 62, 221-230.
[5] Annetta, L.A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S.Y., & Cheng, M.-T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74-85.
[6] Chang, L.-P., Huang, P.-R., & Chen, S.Y. (2012). Mobile collaborative learning and cognitive style grouping. Paper presented at the The 6th International Conference on Collaboration Technologies.
[7] Chen, S.Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining students’ learning patterns and performance in web-based instruction: A cognitive style approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), 179-192.
[8] Chen, S.Y., & Macredie, R. (2010). Web-based interaction: A review of three important human factors. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 379-387.
[9] 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.
[10] Cheng, M.T., Annetta, L., Folta, E., & Holmes, S.Y. (2011). Drugs and the brain: Learning the impact of methamphetamine abuse on the brain through a virtual brain exhibit in the museum. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 299-319.
[11] Chou, H.-W. (2001). Influences of cognitive style and training method on training effectiveness. Computers & Education, 37(1), 11-25.
[12] Clarke, J.A. (1993). Cognitive style and computer-assisted learning: Problems and a possible solution. Research in Learning Technology, 1(1).
[13] 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.
[14] Connolly, T.M., Boyle, E.A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J.M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661-686.
[15] Curtis, D.D., & Lawson, M.J. (2002). Computer adventure games as problem-solving environments.
[16] Dooly, M. (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural communication online: Peter Lang.
[17] Ellis, D., Ford, N., & Wood, F. (1993). Hypertext and learning styles. Electronic Library, The, 11(1), 13-18.
[18] Faris, A.O. (2009). The impact of homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous collaborative learning groups in multicultural classes on the achievement and attitudes of nine graders towards learning science. Online Submission.
[19] Ford, N. (1985). Learning styles and strategies of postgraduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 65-77.
[20] 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.
[21] 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.
[22] Ford, N., Miller, D., & Moss, N. (2001). The role of individual differences in internet searching: An empirical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(12), 1049-1066.
[23] 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.
[24] 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.
[25] Gillies, R.M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 197-213.
[26] González-Gómez, F., Guardiola, J., Martín Rodríguez, Ó., & Montero Alonso, M.Á. (2012). Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283-290.
[27] Hatch, E.M., Lazaraton, A., & Jolliffe, D.A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics: Newbury House Publishers New York.
[28] 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.
[29] Howie, D. (1995). To the beat of a different drummer: The role of individual differences in ecological interface design.
[30] Hwang, G.-J., Wu, P.-H., & Chen, C.-C. (2012). An online game approach for improving students’ learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1246-1256.
[31] Jørgensen, K. (2003). Problem solving: The essence of player action in computer games. Paper presented at the DiGRA, Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, Netherlands, Nov 4-6.
[32] Johnson, D.W. (2003). Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934.
[33] Johnson, T.E., Archibald, T.N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Computers in human behavior, 26(6), 1496-1507.
[34] Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 44(4), 395-408.
[35] Kickmeier‐Rust, M.D., & Albert, D. (2010). Micro‐adaptivity: Protecting immersion in didactically adaptive digital educational games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 95-105.
[36] Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P.A. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306-314.
[37] Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in human behavior, 19(3), 335-353.
[38] Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: What is it? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 491-495.
[39] Leidner, D.E., & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: Gss supported collaborative learning vs. Individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 149-163.
[40] Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and instruction, 13(5), 487-509.
[41] Lu, H.P., & Chiou, M.J. (2010). The impact of individual differences on e‐learning system satisfaction: A contingency approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 307-323.
[42] 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.
[43] Mazzoni, E., Gaffuri, P., & Gasperi, M. (2010). Individual versus collaborative learning in digital environments: The effects on the comprehension of scientific texts in first year university students.
[44] Meluso, A., Zheng, M., Spires, H.A., & Lester, J. (2012). Enhancing 5th graders’ science content knowledge and self-efficacy through game-based learning. Computers & Education, 59(2), 497-504.
[45] Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
[46] Miller, L.M., Chang, C.-I., Wang, S., Beier, M.E., & Klisch, Y. (2011). Learning and motivational impacts of a multimedia science game. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1425-1433.
[47] Monahan, T., McArdle, G., & Bertolotto, M. (2008). Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1339-1353.
[48] Nelson, B.C., & Erlandson, B.E. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 619-641.
[49] Nielsen, J., & Tahir, M. (2002). Homepage usability: 50 websites deconstructed.
[50] Ong, C.-S., & Lai, J.-Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 816-829.
[51] 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.
[52] Pargman, T.C., & Wærn, Y. (2003). Appropriating the use of a moo for collaborative learning. Interacting with Computers, 15(6), 759-781.
[53] Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British journal of educational psychology, 46(2), 128-148.
[54] Peterson, E.R., & Deary, I.J. (2006). Examining wholistic–analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1), 3-14.
[55] Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21.
[56] Rae, J., Roberts, C., & Taylor, G. (2006). Collaborative learning: A connected community approach. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3(3), 519-528.
[57] Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour.
[58] Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: Benefits and gender concerns. Computers & Education, 59(2), 385-398.
[59] Robertson, J.E. (1994). Information skills in further education: A hypertext approach to learning in business studies. Robert Gordon University.
[60] Rodríguez-Covili, J., Ochoa, S.F., & Pino, J.A. (2012). High level manet protocol: Enhancing the communication support for mobile collaborative work. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(1), 145-155.
[61] Rose, M. (1988). Narrowing the mind and page: Remedial writers and cognitive reductionism. College Composition and Communication, 39(3), 267-302.
[62] Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2012). Risky business or sharing the load?–social flow in collaborative mobile learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), 707-720.
[63] Sale, J.E., Lohfeld, L.H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
[64] Sawyer, B., & Smith, P. (2008). Serious games taxonomy. Paper presented at the Slides from the Serious Games Summit at the Game Developers Conference.
[65] Scanlon, E. (2000). How gender influences learners working collaboratively with science simulations. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 463-481.
[66] Shih, J.-L., Shih, B.-J., Shih, C.-C., Su, H.-Y., & Chuang, C.-W. (2010). The influence of collaboration styles to children’s cognitive performance in digital problem-solving game “william adventure”: A comparative case study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 982-993.
[67] Shute, V.J., & Regian, J. (1993). Principles for evaluating intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
[68] Stephen, P., & Hornby, S. (1997). Simple statistics for library and information professionals: Library Association Pub.
[69] Sutherland, L. (2002). Developing problem solving expertise: The impact of instruction in a question analysis strategy. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 155-187.
[70] Thayalan, X., Shanthi, A., & Paridi, T. (2012). Gender difference in social presence experienced in e-learning activities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 580-589.
[71] Vos, N., van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 56(1), 127-137.
[72] Wang, S.-L., & Lin, S.S. (2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2256-2268.
[73] 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.
[74] Yang, J.C., & Chen, S.Y. (2010). Effects of gender differences and spatial abilities within a digital pentominoes game. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1220-1233.
[75] 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.
[76] Young, B.J. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204-216.

指導教授

陳攸華(Sherry Y. Chen)

審核日期

2013-7-23

推文