成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	高建斌 Kao, Chien-Pin
論文名稱：	數位遊戲式學習對國中生學習動機、問題解決能力與學科成就之影響 The Effectiveness of Digital Game-Based Learning on Junior High School Students' Learning Motivation, Problem Solving, and Academic Achievement
指導教授：	楊雅婷 Yang, Ya-Ting
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	社會科學院 - 教育研究所 Institute of Education
論文出版年：	2009
畢業學年度：	97
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	210
中文關鍵詞：	學科成就、問題解決能力、學習動機、數位遊戲式學習
外文關鍵詞：	academic achievement, learning motivation, digital game-based learning, problem-solving
相關次數：	點閱：154 下載：19
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討傳統教學與數位遊戲式學習兩種不同的教學策略對學生的學習動機、問題解決能力以及學科成就的影響。本研究採用前後測準實驗設計，以國中三年級兩個班級共44位學生為研究對象，進行為期二十四週的實驗教學。自變項為教學策略，分成兩種－傳統教學（對照組）與數位遊戲式學習（實驗組）。依變項為學生的學習動機、問題解決能力以及學科成就。本研究使用ANCOVA、MANCOVA與MANOVA來分析兩組學生在接受不同的教學方法後，在依變項上是否有所差異。此外，實驗結束後分別針對實驗組學生與授課老師進行訪談以探討其對數位遊戲式學習的想法。
主要研究結果發現如下：
一、在學習動機方面，傳統教學組與數位遊戲式學習組兩組間達到顯著差異，其中數位遊戲式學習組高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的學習動機產生影響。
二、在問題解決能力方面，傳統教學組與數位遊戲式學習組兩組間達到顯著差異，其中數位遊戲式學習組高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的問題解決能力產生影響：
（一）傳統教學組與數位遊戲式學習組兩組間在界定原因上沒有達到顯著差異，顯示實驗操弄對學生的界定原因沒有影響。
（二）傳統教學組與數位遊戲式學習組兩組間在解決方法、預防問題、變通性與有效性上達到顯著差異，其中數位遊戲式學習組高於傳統教學組，顯示實驗操弄對學生的解決方法、預防問題、變通性與有效性產生影響。
三、在學科成就方面，傳統教學組與數位遊戲式學習組兩組間在學科成就上沒有達到顯著差異，顯示實驗操弄對學生的學科成就沒有影響。
四、訪談結果：實驗組學生與授課老師認為數位遊戲式學習的優點包括專注學習、給予機會討論與比較遊戲任務的策略、學習知識以及體驗真實世界的問題。
本研究依據研究結果提出建議，以提供未來研究之參考。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of different methods of instructional strategy (traditional instruction and digital game-based learning) on students’ learning motivation, problem solving, and academic achievement. A pretest and posttest quasi-experimental design was used for this study. The participants were 44 ninth-grade students in two classes. This experiment was conducted for 24 weeks. ANCOVA, MANCOVA, and MANOVA were employed to examine whether there is a difference between the two research groups on the dependent variables after receiving different methods of instructional strategy. In addition, interviews were conducted to know students’ and the instructor’s perspectives on DGBL after the study.
The results of this study were as follow:
1. Students who received DGBL had higher learning motivation than students who received traditional instruction.
2. Students who received DGBL had higher level of problem solving than students who received traditional instruction.
(1)Students who received DGBL did not have higher level of finding causes than students who received traditional instruction.
(2)Students who received DGBL had higher level of finding solutions, avoiding problems, flexibility, and effectiveness than students who received traditional instruction.
3. Students who received DGBL did not have higher academic achievement than students who received traditional instruction.
4. Students and the instructor felt that the benefits of DGBL include engaged learning, opportunities for discussing and comparing strategies for gaming tasks, learning knowledge, and experiencing real-world problems.
Finally, suggestions for further research were provided based on the study findings of the study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS	VI
LIST OF TABLES	IX
LIST OF FIGURES	XI
CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION	1
Statement of Problem	1
Mismatch Between Teaching and Learning	1
Digital Game-Based Learning (DGBL)	3
Learning Motivation	5
Problem Solving	6
Academic Achievement	7
Purpose of the Study	8
Definition of Key Terms	10
Instructional Strategy	10
Learning Motivation	11
Problem Solving	11
Academic Achievement	12
Organization of the study	13
CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW	14
Overview	14
Digital Game-Based Learning (DGBL)	14
Advantages of Digital Game-Based Learning	15
Principles for Implementing Digital Game-Based Learning	16
Empirical Researches on Digital Game-Based Learning	18
Constructivism	22
Social Constructivism	23
Situated Learning Theory	25
Learning Motivation	28
Social Cognitive Model of Motivation	28
Task Value	29
Self-Efficacy for Learning	30
Problem Solving	32
CHAPTER THREE  METHOD	36
Overview	36
Research Design	38
Independent Variable	41
Dependent Variables	42
Participants	43
Training Sessions for the Instructor	43
Research Procedure	44
Comparison Group	44
Experimental Group	46
Data Collection Instruments	59
Demographics Survey	59
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: Motivation Scales (MSLQ-MS)	59
New Test of Problem Solving (NTPS)	60
Civics and Society Test (CST)	62
Interviews	62
Data Analysis	63
Quantitative Analysis	63
Qualitative Analysis	64
CHAPTER FOUR  DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS	65
Overview	65
Descriptive Statistics of Participants	65
Demographics of Participants	65
Computer Using and Gaming Experience	66
Background of Computer and Civics and Society Learning	67
Results of Students’ Learning Motivation	68
Results of Students’ Problem Solving	71
Overall Performance of Problem Solving	71
Three Subscales of Problem Solving	73
Two Categories of Problem Solving	75
Results of Students’ Academic Achievement	78
Overall Performance of Academic Achievement	78
Two Topics of Academic Achievement	80
Results of Interviews	82
Interviews with Experimental Group Students	82
Interviews with the Instructor	87
CHAPTER FIVE  DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS	94
Overview	94
Summary and Discussion of Research Results	94
Learning Motivation	95
Problem Solving	99
Academic Achievement	104
Benefits of DGBL	106
Limitation of the Study and Recommendations for the Future Research	108
Generalization of Research Results	108
Design of Data Collection Instruments	108
Combined Teaching	108
Learning Styles	109
Other Higher Order Thinking	109
Conclusion	110
REFERENCES	113
English Part	113
Chinese Part	120
APPENDICES	121
Appendix A  Instructional Plans	121
Appendix B  Handouts	161
Appendix C  Criteria of Theme Report	179
Appendix D  Demographics Survey	181
Appendix E  Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire Motivation Scales	184
Appendix F  Agreement for New Test of Problem Solving	186
Appendix G  Civics and Society Test	187
Appendix H  Interview Questions	190
Appendix I  Transcription of Interviews with Experimental Group Students	192
Appendix J  Transcription of Interviews with the instructor	204

LIST OF TABLES
Table	Page
Table 2.1   Learning Objective and Appropriate Games	17
Table 2.2   Empirical Researches on DGBL since 2000	20
Table 3.1   Quasi-Experimental Design with Two Research Groups	39
Table 3.2   Comparison of Two Research Groups	42
Table 3.3   Training Sessions for the Instructor	44
Table 3.4   Comparison Group Procedure	45
Table 3.5   Experimental Group Procedure	46
Table 3.6   Questions of Two Subscales for MSLQ-MS	59
Table 3.7   Definition of Subscales and Categories for NTPS	61
Table 4.1   Demography of Participants for Each Experimental Setting	66
Table 4.2   Students’ Computer Using Hours Each Day	66
Table 4.3   Students’ Gaming Experience	67
Table 4.4   Students’ Additional Computer Learning	67
Table 4.5   Students’ Additional Civics and Society Learning	68
Table 4.6   Descriptive Statistics of Mean, Standard Deviations, and Adjusted Mean in Learning Motivation Between Two Research Groups	69
Table 4.7   Analysis of Covariance for Instructional Strategies	70
Table 4.8   Results of the 95% Confidence Intervals of Differences of Learning Motivation Between Two Research Groups	70
Table 4.9   Descriptive Statistics of Mean, Standard Deviations, and Adjusted Mean in Problem Solving Between Two Research Groups	71
Table 4.10  Analysis of Covariance for Instructional Strategies	72
Table 4.11  Results of the 95% Confidence Intervals of Differences of Problem Solving Between Two Research Groups	72
Table 4.12  Descriptive Statistics of Mean, and Standard Deviations in Three Problem Solving Subscales Gain Scores	73
Table 4.13  Multiple Analysis of Variance for Instructional Strategies	74
Table 4.14  Results of the 95% Confidence Intervals of Differences of Three Subscales of Problem Solving Between Two Research Groups	75
Table 4.15  Descriptive Statistics of Mean, Standard Deviations, and Adjusted Mean in Two Problem Solving Categories Posttest	75
Table 4.16  Multiple Analysis of Covariance for Instructional Strategies	76
Table 4.17  Results of the 95% Confidence Intervals of Differences of Two Categories of Problem Solving Between Two Research Groups	77
Table 4.18  Means and Standard Deviation of Pretest and Posttest scores in Academic Achievement Between Two Research Groups	78
Table 4.19  Analysis of Covariance for Instructional Strategies	79
Table 4.20  Results of the 95% Confidence Intervals of Differences of Academic Achievement Between Two Research Groups	80
Table 4.21  Descriptive Statistics of Mean, Standard Deviations, and Adjusted Mean in Two Academic Achievement Topics Posttest	80
Table 4.22  Multiple Analysis of Covariance for Instructional Strategies	81
Table 4.23  Preferable Topics and Corresponding Game in DGBL Course	83
Table 4.24  Benefits of Using DGBL to Learn Civics and Society	84
Table 4.25  Difficulties in Using DGBL to Learn Civics and Society	85
Table 4.26  Differences Between Traditional Learning and DGBL	86
Table 5.1   DGBL Course and Students’ Task Value	97
Table 5.2   DGBL Course and Students’ Self-Efficacy for Learning	99
Table 5.3   Comparison of Scores in Problem Solving Between Two Research Groups	99
Table 5.4   Comparison of Scores in Academic Achievement Between Two Research Groups	104

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure	Page
Figure 2.1   History of instructional design	22
Figure 2.2   Constitutive elements of situated learning in interactive multimedia	27
Figure 2.3   A general framework for self-efficacy, engagement, and learning	31
Figure 3.1   Research design	38
Figure 3.2   Gaming Task Two of Topic I	48
Figure 3.3   Students’ problem solving in Gaming Task Two of Topic I: phase one	50
Figure 3.4   Students’ problem solving in Gaming Task Two of Topic I: phase two	51
Figure 3.5   Students’ theme report of Topic I	52
Figure 3.6   Gaming Task Two of Topic II	53
Figure 3.7   Students’ problem solving in Gaming Task Two of Topic II: phase one	55
Figure 3.8   Students’ problem solving in Gaming Task Two of Topic II: phase two	56
Figure 3.9   Students’ problem solving in Gaming Task Two of Topic II: phase three	57
Figure 3.10  Students’ theme report of Topic II	58
Figure 5.1   In-class observation: learning motivation	96
Figure 5.2   In-class observation: problem solving	100
Figure 5.3   An analysis of CST based on Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains	105
                                    

English Part
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Annetta, L. A. (2008). Video games in education: Why they should be used and how they are being used. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 229-239.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools: Why It Isn't Happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519.
Betoret, F. D. n. (2007). The influence of students' and teachers' thinking styles on student course satisfaction and on their learning process. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 219-234.
Bixler, B. (2006, June). Motivation and its relationship to the design of educational games. Paper presented at the 2006 NMC Summer Conference, Cleveland, Ohio.
Bonwell, C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing the traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 31-44.
Bouras, C., Igglesis, V., Kapoulas, V., Misedakis, I., Dziabenko, O., Koubek, A., et al. (2004). Game-based learning using web technologies. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 3(2), 70-87.
Bransford, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078-1089.
Brewer, E., DeJonge, J., & Stout, V. (2001). Moving to online: Making the transition from traditional instruction and communication strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Chall, J. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom? New York: Guilford Press.
Chumbley, J., & Griffiths, M. (2006). Affect and the computer game player: The effect of gender, personality, and game reinforcement structure on affective responses to computer game-play. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(3), 308-316.
De Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2003). Serious play. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 649-666.
Dempsey, J. (1996, October). Instructional gaming: Implications for instructional technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.
Dickey, M. D. (2006). Game design narrative for learning: Appropriating adventure game design narrative devices and techniques for the design of interactive learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 245-263.
Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253-273.
Dondi, C., &Moretti, M. (2007). A methodological proposal for learning games selection and quality assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 502-512.
Drnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.
Ebner, M., &Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873-890.
Forgas, J. (2000). Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gagn, R. (1959). Problem solving and thinking. Annual Review of Psychology, 10(1), 147-172.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20-20.
Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In T. S. P. Ann K. Boggiano (Ed.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 77-114) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia. Learning with Technology, 235-262.
Hogle, J. (1996). Considering games as cognitive tools: In search of effective "Edutainment". Retrieved July 14, 2009 from, http://twinpinefarm.com/pdfs/games.pdf
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 7-26.
Jones, Steve. (2003). Let the games begin: Gaming technology and entertainment among college students. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from, http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2003/PIP_College_Gaming_Reporta.pdf.pdf
Kapp, K. M. (2007). Gadgets, games, and gizmos for learning: Tools and techniques for transferring know-how from boomers to gamers. Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer
Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5), 539-556.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 13-24.
Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394-404.
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.
Lim, C. (2008). Global citizenship education, school curriculum and games: Learning Mathematics, English and Science as a global citizen. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1073-1093.
Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.
Lord, T. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197-216.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, 3, 223-253.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., &Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of computer games. Teachers Evaluating Educational Multimedia Report.
McLellan, H. (1985). Situated Learning Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature. London: Learning and Skills Development.
Mordecai, B. (1998). Constructivism in computer science education. SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(1), 257-261.
Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004(8), 1-18.
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.
Pintrich, P. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Randel, J., Morris, B., Wetzel, C., & Whitehill, B. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261.
Robertson, J., & Good, J. (2004). Children's narrative development through computer game authoring. Paper presented at the Interaction Design And Children.
Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559-578.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., et al. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40(1), 71-94.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344-360.
Schwabe, G., & Gth, C. (2005). Mobile learning with a mobile game: design and motivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 204–216.
Squire, K. (2003a).Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gaming, 2(1), 49-62.
Squire, K. (2005). Game-based learning: Present and future state of the field Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://cecs5580.pbwiki.com/f/10%20Game-Based_Learning.pdf
Squire, K. D. (2003b). Gameplay in context: Learning through participation in communities of civilization III players. Unpublished PhD thesis. Instructional Systems Technology Department, Indiana University.
Squire, K. D., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., & Durga, S. (2005). From Users to Designers: Building a Self-Organizing Game-Based Learning Environment. TechTrends, 49(5), 34-43.
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Lee, M. D. (2008). Designing multimedia games for young children’s taxonomic concept development. Computers & Education, 50(3), 1037-1051.
Sykes, J. (2006). Affective gaming: Advancing the argument for game-based learning. In M. Pivec (Ed.), Affective and Emotional Aspects of Human-computer Interaction: Game-based And Innovative Learning Approaches (pp. 3-7). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 442-468.
Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation on student's academic achievement and learning outcomes in Mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(2), 149-156.
Tzn, H., Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Karakuş, T., İnal, Y., & Kizilkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students' achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education, 52(1), 68-77.
Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23-41.
Vogel, J. J., Greenwood-Ericksen, A., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Bowers, C. A. (2006). Using virtual reality with and without gaming attributes for academic achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 105-11814.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Why constructivism must be radical. In N. M. Larochelle & J. G. Bednarz (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 23-28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Winn, W. (2002). Research into practice: Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331-351.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Chinese Part
MIC：台灣網友線上娛樂消費支出增加，線上遊戲為最常使用之娛樂項目（民94年10月20日）。資策會資訊市場情報中心。民98年7月14日，取自：http://mic.iii.org.tw/intelligence/
吳靜吉、程炳林（1992）。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，39，59-78。
黃茂在、陳文典（2005）。「問題解決」的能力。民98年7月14日，取自：http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/nstsc/pdf/book5/02.pdf
詹秀美、吳武典（2007）。新編問題解決測驗。台北市：心理出版社。

校內：2010-07-23公開
校外：2010-07-23公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文