臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

長久以來，傳統選擇題經常被用來作為練習或考試使用，學生已經完全習慣這種題目的閱讀以及作答模式，此模式容易造成一些不良的作答習慣，像是閱讀題目選項時容易只挑關鍵字作閱讀思考，這種快速的作答模式容易造成「對題意的理解不完全」、「容易錯看字，與先前做過的題目混淆」之類的問題。練習時就不注意細節，到了「正式考試」要用到時，也容易不記得或是記錯而答錯題目，因此如何讓學生正視練習題，誘導學生於作答選擇題時能夠完全閱讀，藉以增加學生對題目的思考進而理解，以建構完整的知識概念結構，是一個值得研究的課題。
本研究開發了一款遊戲式學習系統，並且將學生分為三組:「一般組」、「信心組」、「完全閱讀組」。「一般組」學生以傳統四選一選擇題測驗進行學習，「信心組」學生則是在傳統選擇題模式上再加上回答對該題的信心指標，「完全閱讀組」學生則需要對四個選項都標記上每一個選項的信心程度。本研究探討哪一種作答策略對學生學習有較佳的幫助。
從實驗結果發現，本遊戲式學習系統對三組學生的學習均有明顯幫助，但三組在後測時沒有明顯差異；經過五周後之保持力測驗，完全閱讀組顯著優於信心組及一般組，顯示完全閱讀組的作答策略可以讓學生保留知識結構。在誘導完全閱讀及使得學生認知更清楚的面向，完全閱讀組亦明顯優於一般組及信心組。本研究進一步發現誘導學生完全閱讀，將使得學生花較長的時間作答，但能讓學生有更清楚的知識認知。

For a long time, traditional multiple-choice questions have often been used as exercises or exams. Students have been completely accustomed to reading and answering questions. This mode is easy to cause bad habits, such as reading keywords. For reading and thinking, this quick mode of answering is easy to follow the question of "incomplete understanding of the meaning of the question", "easy to read the wrong word, confused with the concept that was previously done". When you practice, you don''t pay attention to the details. When the "official exam" is used, it is easy to forget or remember the wrong concept. Therefore, how to let the students face the practice questions and induce the students to fully read the answer questions. It is a subject worthy of study to increase students'' thinking and understanding of the topic to construct a complete knowledge concept structure.
This study developed a game-based learning system and divided the students into three groups: “General Group”, “Confidence Group”, and “Induction Group”. The induction group is the experimental Group of this experiment, and the “general group” students are traditional. The four-choice multiple-choice question is used for learning. The "confidence group" students add the confidence index to the question in the traditional multiple-choice question mode. The "induction group" students need to mark each option for each of the four options. The degree of confidence. This study explores which kind of answering strategy is better for student learning.
From the experimental results, it was found that the game-based learning system was helpful for the learning of the three groups of students, but the three groups did not have significant differences in the post-test; after five weeks of retention test, the induction group was significantly better than the confidence group and the general Groups, showing the inducing group''s answering strategy allows students to retain the knowledge structure. In the induction of complete reading and the clearer understanding of students, the induction group was also significantly better than the general group and the confidence group. This study further found that inducing students to fully read will make students spend more time answering, but it will make students have a clearer understanding of cognition.

摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VI
表目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目標 3
第二章 文獻探討 4
第一節 長期記憶 4
第二節 選擇題 Multiple Choice Questions 5
第三節 信心指標 6
第四節 連續機率比檢定 Sequential Probability Ratio Test 7
第五節 遊戲式學習 8
第六節 學習興趣與態度 9
第七節 認知負荷 9
第三章 系統介紹 10
第一節 系統介面與功能 10
第二節 ㄧ般組、信心組及完全閱讀組作答差異 18
第四章 實驗方法 21
第一節 實驗對象 21
第二節 實驗教材 21
第三節 實驗工具 21
第一項 學習動機問卷 21
第二項 學習興趣與態度問卷 22
第三項 認知負荷問卷 23
第四項 沉浸狀態問卷 24
第五項 系統使用問卷 25
第六項 作答策略調查問卷 25
第七項 主觀感受問卷 28
第四節 實驗流程 29
第五章 實驗結果 30
第一節 學習成就之前、後測分析 30
第二節 學習成就保持力分析 32
第三節 作答時間及主觀策略學習問卷分析 34
第四節 作答策略分析 36
第五節 不同先備知識學生之學習成就前、後、保持力分析 39
第六節 學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷之前、後測分析 44
第七節 沉浸狀態及系統問卷分析 47
第七節 學生反饋 49
第六章 結論與未來方向 51
第一節 結論 51
第二節 未來方向 53
參考文獻 54


圖3 1 系統登入介面 10
圖3 2 系統目錄介面 11
圖3-3練習章節選擇介面 11
圖3-4一般組練習介面 12
圖3-5一般組練習題總結界面 12
圖3-6信心組練習介面 13
圖3-7完全閱讀組練習界面 13
圖3-8 一般組作答回顧界面 14
圖3-9信心組作答回顧界面 14
圖3-10完全閱讀組作答回顧界面 15
圖3-11寵物升級作答介面 16
圖3-12寵物收集介面 16
圖3-13積分排行介面 17
圖3-14鍾爸寶典介面 17
圖3-15信心組練習題範例 18
圖3-16 信心組得分表 19
圖3-17 完全閱讀組練習題範例 20
圖3-18 完全閱讀組得分表 20
圖 4-1 實驗流程圖 29


表2-3SPRT＋＋收斂條件[邱琪雯,2017] 7
表5-1學習成就前、後測描述性統計資料 30
表5-2學習成就前測變異數同質性檢定 31
表5-3學習成就前測ANOVA檢定 31
表5-4任兩組學習成就前測ANOVA檢定 31
表5-5三組學習成就前後測成對樣本T檢定 31
表5-6學習成就前後測ANCOVA檢定 32
表5-7前測、保持力ANCOVA測驗描述性統計資料 33
表5-8前測、保持力ANCOVA檢定 33
表5-9後測、保持力成對樣本T檢定 33
表5-10作答時間描述性統計資料(單位:秒) 34
表5-11作答時間ANOVA檢定 34
表5-12主觀策略及學習問卷描述性統計資料 35
表5-13主觀策略及學習問卷ANOVA檢定 35
表5-14 PEARSON相關檢定 36
表5-15前測作答策略調查問卷ANOVA檢定 37
表5-16「檢查非答案選項率」描述性統計資料 38
表5-17「檢查非答案選項率」三組間ANOVA檢定 38
表5-18前測小考K-MEANS分類結果 39
表5-19高先備知識群學生的描述性統計資料 40
表5-20高先備知識群學生ANCOVA檢測 40
表5-21高先備知識群三組的T檢定描述性統計資料 40
表5-22高先備知識群三組織T檢定結果 40
表5-23高先備知識三組作答時間之描述性統計資料 41
表5-24高先備知識三組ANOVA之結果 41
表5-25「確認非答案選項不是正確答案」之描述性統計資料 42
表5-26三組「確認非答案選項不是正確答案」ANOVA結果 42
表5-27低先備知識學生的描述性統計資料 42
表5-28低先備知識學生之ANCOVA結果 43
表5-29一般組學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷描述性統計資料 44
表5-30一般組學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷T檢定 44
表5-31信心組學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷描述性統計資料 45
表5-32信心組學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷T檢定 45
表5-33完全閱讀組學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷描述性統計資料 46
表5-34完全閱讀組學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷T檢定 46
表5-35三組學習動機、興趣、態度和認知負荷ANCOVA結果 46
表5-36沉浸狀態描述性統計資料 48
表5-37沉浸狀態變異數同質性檢定 48
表5-38沉浸狀態ANOVA檢定 48
表5-39三組學生之系統問卷平均分數及獨立樣本T檢定之顯著性 48
表5-40三組學生之意見反饋 49

[1]Tamir, P. (1990). Justifying the selection of answers in multiple choice items. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 563-573.
[2]Dufresne, R. J., Leonard, W. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2002). Marking sense of students'' answers to multiple-choice questions. The Physics Teacher, 40(3), 174-180.
[3]Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 53-64.
[4]Ge, Z. G. (2018). The impact of a forfeit-or-prize gamified teaching on e-learners’ learning performance. Computers & Education, 126, 143-152.
[5]Julian, J. W., & Perry, F. A. (1967). Cooperation contrasted with intra-group and inter-group competition. Sociometry, 79-90.
[6]Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. The psychology of learning and motivation, 2, 89-195.
[7]Han, J., Ngan, K. N., Li, M., & Zhang, H. J. (2005). A memory learning framework for effective image retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 14(4), 511-524.
[8]Lisman, J. E., & Grace, A. A. (2005). The hippocampal-VTA loop: controlling the entry of information into long-term memory. Neuron, 46(5), 703-713.
[9]Tulving, E. (1987). Multiple memory systems and consciousness. Human Neurobiol, 6(2), 67-80.
[10]Jenkins, J. G.,& Dallenbach, K. M. (1924). Obliviscence during Sleep and Waking. The American Journal of Psychology, 35, 605-612.
[11]Han, J., Ngan, K. N., Li, M., & Zhang, H. J. (2005). A memory learning framework for effective image retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 14(4), 511-524.
[12]Tulving, E.,& Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability Versus Accessibility of Information in Memory for Words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 381-391.
[13]Little, J. L. (2011). Optimizing multiple-choice tests as learning events. University of California, Los Angeles.
[14]Little, J. L., Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A., & Angello, G. (2012). Multiple-choice tests exonerated, at least of some charges: Fostering test-induced learning and avoiding test-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1337-1344.
[15]Little, J., & Bjork, E. L. (2010, January). Multiple-choice testing can improve the retention of nontested related information. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 32, No. 32).
[16]Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Leaderboards within educational videogames: The impact of difficulty, effort and gameplay. Computers & Education, 113, 28-41.
[17]Gardner-Medwin, A. R. (1995). Confidence assessment in the teaching of basic science. ALT-J, 3(1), 80-85.
[18]Frick, T. W. (1989). Bayesian adaptation during computer-based tests and computer-guided practice exercises. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 89-114.
[19]Jong, B., Lin, T., Wu, Y., & Chan, T. (2004). Diagnostic and remedial learning strategy based on conceptual graphs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 377-386.
[20]Jong, B., Wu, Y., & Chan, T. (2006). Dynamic grouping strategies based on a conceptual graph for cooperative learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(6), 738-747.
[21]Huizenga, J. C., ten Dam, G. T. M., Voogt, J. M., & Admiraal, W. F. (2017). Teacher perceptions of the value of game-based learning in secondary education. Computers & Education, 110, 105-115.
[22]Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26,299–323.
[23]Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.
[24]Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational research, 60(4), 549-571.
[25]Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 84(4), 429.
[26]Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
[27]Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of educational computing research, 34(4), 441-466.
[28]Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (1999). Index of learning styles questionnaire. Retrieved March, 26, 2003.
[29]Sung, H. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students'' learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43-51.
[30]Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
[31]Van Velsor, E., & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Introduction:Our view of leadership development. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[32]Wald, A. (1973). Sequential analysis. Courier Corporation.
[33]Pintrich, P. R., & Maehr, M. L. (2004). Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivating students, improving schools (Vol. 13).
[34]Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning (Vol. 1). St. Paul, MN: Paragon house.
[35]Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (1990). Herd behavior and investment. The American Economic Review, 465-479.
[36]Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.
[37]Shih, J. L., Chu, H. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). An investigation of attitudes of students and teachers about participating in a context‐aware ubiquitous learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 373-394.
[38]Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory into practice (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
[39]Walter, J. G., & Hart, J. (2009). Understanding the complexities of student motivations in mathematics learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2), 162-170.
[40]王柏竣. (2017). 在遊戲學習環境使用聯想式推理作答與聯想式概念圖作答之比較. 中原大學資訊工程研究所學位論文, 1-67.
[41]何瑞瑜. (2015). 不同網路協作學習策略對於學生學習的影響. 中原大學資訊工程研究所學位論文, 1-72.
[42]宋晟源. (2012). 結合信心指標與概念檢定之研究. 中原大學資訊工程研究所學位論文, 1-133.
[43]林佑昌. (2014). 探討不同遊戲學習模式與知識程度的組合對遊戲式學習的影響. 中原大學資訊工程研究所學位論文, 1-109.
[44]Hsia, Y. T., Jong, B. S., Lin, T. W., & Liao, J. Y. (2018). Designating “hot” items in multiple‐choice questions—A strategy for reviewing course materials. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
[45]Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 232-249.
[46]張新仁. (1990). 從資訊處理談有效的學習策略.
[47]Chye, C., & Nakajima, T. (2012, August). Game based approach to learn martial arts for beginners. In Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA), 2012 IEEE 18th International Conference on (pp. 482-485). IEEE.
[48]Luo, X., Wei, X., & Zhang, J. (2009, October). Game-based learning model using fuzzy cognitive map. In Proceedings of the first ACM international workshop on Multimedia technologies for distance learning (pp. 67-76). ACM.