探討成人玩家於議題式遊戲之行為與人格特質的關係

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：65

、訪客IP：3.147.66.250

姓名

郭宛婷(Wan-Ting Kuo) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

探討成人玩家於議題式遊戲之行為與人格特質的關係
(Exploring the Relationship between Gaming Behaviors and Personality Traits of Adult Players in Issue-based Games)

相關論文

★ 遊戲式學習增進印尼國小兒童運算思維之成效研究	★ 科技輔助版圖遊戲增進印尼兒童英語詞彙學習之成效研究
★ 運用均一教育平台於國中資源班學生數學學習之研究	★ <亞米大陷阱>數位學習營養教育遊戲對臺灣飲食營養價值學習成效之探討
★ 台灣地形遊戲教育中的沙盒擴增實境系統設計與評估	★ 線上議題探究系統之探究能力分析
★ 線上議題遊戲系統之遊戲行為與互動歷程探討	★ 複合式領地桌遊之學習者人格特質與歷史思維分析
★ 大航海高峰會遊戲中的玩家衝突策略與人格分析	★ 探討成人玩家於大航海高峰會遊戲中情緒與人格的關係
★ 線上社群溝通課程對學員互動關係與團隊發展歷程研究	★ 機械戰馬：連桿仿生機器人之開發及教學設計與運算思維表現評估
★ 情境議題式策略遊戲平台的開發與評估	★ 科技融入幼兒生命教育繪本之學習、興趣、歷程與成效
★ 線上歷史探究系統對中學生歷史思維與探究學習成效分析	★ 文化美感教育桌遊＜金色絲路＞對小學生美感鑑賞素養與文化認知之學習分析影響

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 (2026-6-30以後開放)

摘要(中)

身為一名現職教師，發現傳統的教育方式難以激發學生的學習動機，為
使學生可以提升學習興趣及意願，所以希望透過遊戲式學習，提供更加有趣的學習體驗。透過<何往泰雅>這款議題式遊戲，讓學習者進行角色扮演，並藉由議題的討論，以及衝突解決的過程，讓學習者可以身歷其境感受，培養歷史同理心。<何往泰雅>結合了臺灣泰雅族的歷史事件，製作事件動畫，讓玩家可以透過視覺化更加瞭解事件過程。由主持人進行引導與講解，使學習者可以更快進入到遊戲情境。
為瞭解這種教學模式的成效，更正確捕捉玩家在遊戲中的心理狀態，所以
邀請後設認知強一點的成人玩家。以 25 歲到 50 歲不等的 20 名現職教師，每組五人，分成四組，分別扮演遊戲中五種不同的角色，解決遊戲中的衝突事件。本次研究於遊戲前先對玩家進行大五人格的測驗，並將人格測驗結果與玩家在遊戲事件前預期自己可能會進行的行為比對後，瞭解人格對玩家的預期行為的影響。接著，再進一步將玩家於遊戲中的實際行為，透過影片進行逐字稿編碼，並和人格進行比對，探討玩家行為與人格的關係。最後，透過預期行為、實際行為及人格間的比對圖，確認影響玩家遊戲進程的主要因素。
藉由上述三個研究結果顯示，在<何往泰雅>這款版圖遊戲中，遊戲機制對
於玩家的行為影響最為顯著，接序為人格和玩家互動。在於歷史同理心方面，玩家表示在遊戲中皆是利用角色角度思考，但滿意度調查評分卻較其他類別低。對於歷史同理心的提升，有提出相關看法與建議。

摘要(英)

As a teacher, I have found that traditional educational methods are often ineffective in enhancing students′motivation to learn. To increase students′ interest and willingness to learn, I hope to use game-based learning to provide an engaging learning experience. Through the issue-based game "Mosa Atayal," learners can engage in roleplaying and, through discussions of the issues and conflict resolution processes, immerse themselves in the experience to develop historical empathy. "Mosa Atayal" incorporates historical events of the Atayal tribe in Taiwan, transforming them into animations that allow players to understand the events visually. The facilitator provides guidance and explanations, enabling learners to quickly immerse themselves in the game scenario.
To evaluate this teaching model and accurately capture players′ psychological states, twenty current teachers (aged 25-50) with strong metacognitive abilities were invited. Divided into four groups, they played different roles and resolved conflict events within the game. Before the game, players took a Big Five personality test, and the results were compared with their anticipated behaviors to understand personality′s impact on expected behavior. Players′ actual behaviors during the game were transcribed and analyzed against their personalities to explore this relationship. A comparison chart of expected behavior, actual behavior, and personality was then used to identify key factors influencing game progression.
Through the above three studies results indicate that in the board game "Mosa Atayal," the game mechanics have the most significant impact on player behavior, followed by personality and player interactions. Regarding historical empathy, players reported thinking from the perspective of their roles during the game, but the satisfaction survey ratings were lower compared to other categories. Related opinions and suggestions were provided for improving historical empathy.

關鍵字(中)

★ 歷史同理心
★ 議題式遊戲
★ 人格特質

關鍵字(英)

★ historical empathy
★ issue-based game
★ personality traits

論文目次

中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 i
一、緒論 1
1-1研究背景與動機 1
1-2研究目的 3
1-3研究問題 4
1-4名詞釋義 5
二、文獻探討 7
2-1議題式遊戲 7
2-2歷史思維 9
2-3人格特質 12
三、遊戲設計 18
3-1遊戲內容 18
3-2遊戲設置 22
3-2-1大地圖 23
3-2-2物件 24
3-2-3部落紀錄板 27
3-3遊戲歷程 29
3-4科技輔助 30
3-4-1事件動畫設計 31
3-4-2線上填答表單 35
3-4-3系統設計 38
四、研究方法 43
4-1研究對象 43
4-2研究架構 43
4-3研究工具 47
4-3-1大五人格量表 47
4-3-2預期行為問卷 47
4-3-3互動行為分析 48
4-3-4遊戲滿意度問卷 49
4-4資料收集 50
4-5資料處理 51
4-5-1 玩家之大五人格測驗結果 51
4-5-2 玩家之預期遊戲行為 52
4-5-3 玩家之實際遊戲行為 53
4-5-4 玩家之遊戲回饋 54
五、研究結果 55
5-1玩家的預期行為與人格的關聯性 55
5-1-1清日預期行為與人格的關聯 60
5-1-2泰雅一預期行為與人格的關聯 62
5-1-3泰雅二預期行為與人格的關聯 63
5-1-4泰雅三預期行為與人格的關聯 65
5-1-5漢人預期行為與人格的關聯 67
5-2玩家遊戲中的實際行為與人格的關聯 69
5-2-1清日實際行為與人格的關聯 74
5-2-2泰雅一實際行為與人格的關聯 76
5-2-3泰雅二實際行為與人格的關聯 77
5-2-4泰雅三實際行為與人格的關聯 79
5-2-5漢人實際行為與人格的關聯 81
5-2-6 第四組玩家實際行為分析 83
5-2-7玩家實際行為分析結論 85
5-3影響玩家遊戲進程主要因素 87
5-3-1影響清日玩家遊戲進程的因素 88
5-3-2影響泰雅一玩家遊戲進程的因素 89
5-3-3影響泰雅二玩家遊戲進程的因素 91
5-3-4影響泰雅三玩家遊戲進程的因素 93
5-3-5影響漢人玩家遊戲進程的因素 94
5-4研究結果綜合討論 96
5-5玩家經歷議題式遊戲後的回饋與感受 97
5-5-1遊戲熟悉度 99
5-5-2遊戲介面 101
5-5-3遊戲感受 101
六、結論 105
6-1研究限制 105
6-2結論 107
參考文獻 110
英文文獻 110
中文文獻 114
附件一　大五人格量表題目修正比較 117
附件二　遊戲滿意度調查表 120
附件三　玩家預期行為表單 122

參考文獻

Agell, L., Soria, V., & Carrió, M. (2014). Using role play to debate animal testing. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.943788
Antoñanzas, J. L. (2020). The relationship of personality, emotional intelligence, and aggressiveness in students: A study using the Big Five personality questionnaire for children and adults (BFQ-NA). European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11010001
Ashby, R., & Lee, P. (1987). Children’s concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 62-88). London: Falmer Press.
Barreteau, O., Le Page, C., & Perez, P. (2007). Contribution of simulation and gaming to natural resource management issues: An introduction. Simulation & Gaming, 38(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878107300660
Boghian, I., Venera-Mihaela Cojocariu, Popescu, C. V., & Mâţӑ, L. (2019). Game-based learning. Using board games in adult education. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 9(1) https://ezproxy.lib.ncu.edu.tw/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/game-based-learning-using-board-games-adult/docview/2302388679/se-2
Carr, E. H. (2003). What is history?. In Reading Architectural History (pp. 14-23). Routledge.
Cerkez, N., Vrdoljak, B., & Skansi, S. (2021). A method for MBTI classification based on impact of class components. IEEE Access, 9, 146550-146567. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3121137
Cheng, P., Yeh, T., Chao, Y., Lin, J., & Chang, C. (2020). Design ideas for an issue-situation-Based board game involving Multirole scenarios. Sustainability, 12(5), 2139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052139
Cheung, S. Y., & Ng, K. Y. (2021). Application of the educational game to enhance student learning. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.623793
Cohen, Y., Ornoy, H., & Keren, B. (2013). MBTI personality types of project managers and their success: A Field survey. Project Management Journal, 44(3), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21338
Coleman, T. E., & Money, A. G. (2019). Student-centred digital game–based learning: A conceptual framework and survey of the state of the art. Higher Education, 79(3), 415-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00417-0
Columbus, S., Münich, J., & Gerpott, F. H. (2020). Playing a different game: Situation perception mediates framing effects on cooperative behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 104006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104006
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01032.x
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2019). Personality traits. General psychology: Required reading, 278.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490959
Endacott, J., & Brooks, S. (2013). An updated theoretical and practical model for promoting historical empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/ssrp-01-2013-b0003
Ewen, T., & Seibert, J. (2016). Learning about water resource sharing through game play. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(10), 4079-4091. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4079-2016
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097-1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016786
Gingerich, J. (2018). Freedom and the value of games. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 48(6), 831-849. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1423224
Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ big-five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 317-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011
Hook, J. N., Hall, T. W., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Conner, M. (2020). The Enneagram: A systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 865-883. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23097
Järvinen, A. (2009). Games without frontiers: Methods for game studies and design.
Shih, J. L. (2022). Ludonotation: A Visualization System of Recording and Analyzing Interactive Strategic Gaming Behaviors[Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Computers in Education. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2010). Ethical leader behavior and Big Five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0685-9
Liu, Z., Shaikh, Z. A., & Gazizova, F. (2020). Using the concept of game-based learning in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(14), 53. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i14.14675
Lin, C. H., & Shih, J. L. (2017). Analysis of students′ personalities and gaming strategies in a technology-enhanced board game-the fragrance channel [Conference presentation]. ICCE 2017 - 25th International Conference on Computers in Education: Technology and Innovation: Computer-Based Educational Systems for the 21st Century, Workshop Proceedings (536-545). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill Companies.
Matise, M. (2007). The enneagram: An innovative approach. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 35(1), 38-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2007.12033832
McCullagh, C. B. (2002). The truth of history. Routledge.
Monahan, W. G. (2002). Acting out Nazi Germany. Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, 27(2), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.33043/th.27.2.74-85
Müller, J., & Schwieren, C. (2019). Big Five personality factors in the trust game. Journal of Business Economics, 90(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00928-3
Pho, A., & Dinscore, A. (2015). Game-based learning. Tips and trends, 2.
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI… and coming up short. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 54(1), 48-52.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of Game-Based Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 789-801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. CRC press.
Schrier, K., Diamond, J., & Langendoen, D. (2010). Using mission US. Advances in Game-Based Learning, 255-273. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-845-6.ch016
Schrier, K. (2006). Using augmented reality games to teach 21st century skills. ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators program on - SIGGRAPH ′06. https://doi.org/10.1145/1179295.1179311
Seixas, P. (2015). A Model of Historical Thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6), 593–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1101363
Shih, J., Chiu, M. M., & Lin, C. (2022). Personalities, sequences of strategies and actions, and game attacks: A statistical discourse analysis of strategic board game play. Computers in Human Behavior, 133, 107271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107271
Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2002). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(1), 2-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00101
Stenros, J. (2016). The game definition game. Games and Culture, 12(6), 499-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016655679
Taub, M., Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., & Lester, J. (2020). The agency effect: The impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 147, 103781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103781
Thorp, R., & Persson, A. (2020). On historical thinking and the history educational challenge. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(8), 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1712550
Wang, Z., Sapienza, A., Culotta, A., & Ferrara, E. (2019). Personality and behavior in role-based online games. 2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). https://doi.org/10.1109/cig.2019.8848027
Wiggins J. S. (1968). Personality structure. Annual review of psychology, 19, 93–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.19.020168.001453
Wineburg, S. (2010). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(4), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200420
Wolff, H., & Kim, S. (2012). The relationship between networking behaviors and the Big Five personality dimensions. Career Development International, 17(1), 43-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211201328
Worth, N. C., & Book, A. S. (2014). Personality and behavior in a massively multiplayer online role-playing game. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 322-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.009
Zammitto, V. L. (2010). Gamers′ personality and their gaming preferences. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Simon Fraser University.
黃俊傑(1996)。歷史思維的特質。通識教育季刊，3(1)，31-41。
朱思齊(2016)。Goldberg′s大五因素特質量表國際人格題庫50題範本之繁體中文版發展〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立東華大學諮商與臨床心理學系。
傅琪貽主持(2010)。大嵙崁流域北泰雅族抗日事件始末研究成果報告(精簡版)(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC：98-2410-H-004-020-)。臺北，國家實驗研究院。
楊淑晴& 黃麗蓉(2011)。中學生歷史思維能力之探究: 歷史觀點取替模式的應用。教育科學研究期刊，56(4)，129-153。
蕭憶梅(2009)。理解學生歷史思維的重要性。歷史教育，(14)，87-102.
建構主義(2021年6月25日)。載於維基百科。
宋佩芬(2021)。什麼是歷史教學中的Historical Empathy？教育研究集刊，67(2)，31。
五大性格特質(2022年6月10日)。載於維基百科。
張存真、游錦雲(2020)。「兒童大五人格特質量表」之信效度及測量不變性:探索性結構方程模式取向。測驗學刊，第六十七輯(3)，193。
羅家駿、郭宛如(2020)。玩家人格特質與答題時間壓力對遊戲體驗、態度與表現之影響。教育傳播與科技研究，(124)，53-68。
林保良、張國雄(2011)。五大人格特質與內在動機對消費者創新性使用意圖之影響─以臉書之開心農場為例。創造學刊，2(2)，5-24。
李仁豪、陳怡君(2016)。IPIP 大五人格量表簡版的發展及其跨年齡層的測量不變性檢定。教育研究與發展期刊，第十二卷(4)，91-93。DOI 10.3966/181665042016121204004
高鵬家、陳渝苓(2011)。遊戲與兒童發展之關係論述─理論與實際。大專體育，(113)，15-21。
林仁川(2002)。明清时期臺湾的稻米生产 (Doctoral dissertation)。中國農史，2002年第21卷第3期，6-9。
劉翠溶(1995)。漢人拓墾與聚落之形成: 臺灣環境變遷之起始. In 積漸所至: 中國環境史論文集， (臺北: 中央研究院經濟研究所)。中央研究院經濟研究所，295-347。
魯友柏(2013)。繽紛生活-臺灣糖業史話(上)。臺糖通訊，1月號。
中村孝志(1997)。十七世紀臺灣鹿皮之出產及其對日貿易(吳密察、翁佳音、許賢瑤編)。臺北市：稻鄉出版社。(原著出版於1997年)
楊騏駿(2012)。日治前期臺灣樟腦業的發展-以產銷為中心的觀察(1895-1918) ［未出版之博士論文］。國立臺北大學。
童春春(1999)。開墾園地．根植原住民文化。福音與文化第六期，78。
周樑楷(2006)。歷史意識是種思維的方法。思想，(2)，125-162。
廖守臣(1984)。泰雅族的文化－部落遷移與拓展。臺北市：世新出版社。
李瑋裕(2011)。論臺灣民主國北路抗日。北市教大社教學報，(10)，45-71。
張耀宗(2014)。國民意識與族群意識：以日治時期原住民地區的學校教育經驗為焦點。教育學誌，(31)，133-156。
陳霈瑜 (2020)。情境式議題遊戲之學習互動與策略探討-以香料航海爭霸戰為例［未出版之博士論文］。國立臺南大學數位學習科技學系。
林長信(2018)。複合式桌遊之設計與開發及人格特質於遊戲歷程之分析與探討［未出版之博士論文］。國立臺南大學數位學習科技學系。
林秋綿(2001)。臺灣各時期原住民土地政策演變及其影響之探討。Journal of Taiwan Land Research，2，23-40。
廖朝明.(2007)。臺灣原住民族政治主體建構之研究［未出版之博士論文］。臺灣師範大學政治學研究所。
浦忠成(2005)。日治時期對於原住民的教化及其影響。Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly，13(4)，1-32。
紀駿傑(2005)。原住民研究與原漢關係-後殖民觀點之回顧。國家政策季刊，4(3)，5-28。
藤井志津枝(2019)。大豹社事件: 1900-1907: Watan Syat: 抗日事件。臺北市：行政院原住民委員會。
林宜臻(2023)。複合式領地桌遊之學習者人格特質與歷史思維分析［未出版之博士論文］。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。

指導教授

施如齡(Ju-Ling Shih)

審核日期

2024-6-19

推文