臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在教室中，個別能力差異是個永久存在的問題。當學習遊戲是透過競爭的方式以吸引、激發學習者的方式進行時，能力較低的學習者將會無可避免地遭受打擊與傷害。本研究提出「非相同機會策略」以用於試圖解決在競爭學習遊戲下因個別能力差異造成的問題。
除此之外，本研究亦重新設計過一個在手持式裝置上運作的數學乘法練習競爭型遊戲—AnswerMatching，且將「非相同機會策略」應用於其中；AnswerMatching被用來對桃園縣一所小學的一班三年級學生施作實驗，用以了解「非相同機會策略」在競爭型的學習遊戲中所會對學生造成的影響。
在實驗過後「非相同機會策略」被證明確實能夠減少不同能力的學習者在一個相同的競爭環境下所造成的外在表現(即：分數)差異，並且也會對學習者的自我效能、競爭下所產生的能力表現認知造成不同的影響。

Individual ability differences are an everlasting phenomenon in a classroom. Competitive learning games that aim at drawing students’ attention and excitement will inevitably hurt the self-esteem of those students with lower capabilities. This work proposes Uneven Chance Tactic to be applied in competitive learning games, as an approach to resolving the individual ability difference problem.
Along with UCT, AnswerMatching, a digital competitive learning game run on handheld devices for practicing Math multiplication/factor extraction, was also re-designed to evaluate the effects of UCT. AnswerMatching was used to experiment on subjects of a 3rd grade class of an elementary school in Taoyuan County, Taiwan.
UCT was proven being able to minimize the extrinsic performance indicator (i.e. score) of participants with different capabilities in a competitive learning game, and found to have several effects on the students’ self-efficacy beliefs, and performance perceptions under competitive situations.

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1
A. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN A CLASSROOM ............................... 1
B. COMPETITION ......................................................... 1
C. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND QUESTIONS .................................... 2

II. RELATED RESEARCH ..................................................... 4
A. LITERATURES ......................................................... 4
Adaptive Challenge Levels .......................................... 4
Flow ............................................................... 4
Self-efficacy ...................................................... 5
B. RELATED WORKS ....................................................... 6
Speed Grid Challenge ............................................... 6
EduBingo ........................................................... 7
Arcadermic Skill Builders - Meteor Multiplication .................. 8
Mystery Picture Multiplication/Multiplication Hidden Picture ....... 9

III. UNEVEN CHANCE TACTIC ............................................... 11
A. PRINCIPLE OF UCT ................................................... 11
B. APPROACH OF UCT .................................................... 13

IV. SYSTEM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................... 15
A. GAME DESIGN OF ANSWERMATCHING ...................................... 15
B. RULES OF ANSWERMATCHING ............................................ 16
C. ACTIVITY FLOW....................................................... 17
D. UCT FOR ANSWERMATCHING ............................................. 18
Definitions ....................................................... 19
Defining the number of competitors in a unit competitive group .... 20
Assigning competitors for each unit competitive group ............. 21
Compared with Old UCT (Asymmetric Competition Strategy) ........... 23
E. SYSTEM SETTING AND ARCHITECTURE .................................... 26
System Setting .................................................... 26
System Architecture ............................................... 27
F. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 28
Software development .............................................. 28
Computational power ............................................... 28
Interface design .................................................. 29
Input capability of user devices .................................. 33
Preserved domain independence ..................................... 34

V. SYSTEM EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION ..................................... 36
A. SUBJECTS ........................................................... 36
B. SETTING............................................................. 36
Pretest............................................................ 36
Experiment ........................................................ 38
C. RESULTS ............................................................ 39
Questionnaire results ............................................. 40
Score ............................................................. 43
Score prediction for next rounds .................................. 44
Accuracy .......................................................... 45
Efficiency ........................................................ 46
D. DISCUSSIONS ........................................................ 47

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS ........................................ 49
A. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 49
B. FUTURE WORKS ....................................................... 49
Reducing the negative effects ..................................... 50
More factors on evaluating students capability .................... 50
Experiment designs with more variations............................ 50
More flexible design .............................................. 51

REFERENCES .............................................................. 52
APPENDIX I. THE QUIZ AND QUESTIONNAIRE TAKEN AT THE PRETEST ............. 54
APPENDIX II. THE QUIZ TAKEN BEFORE THE EXPERIMENT ....................... 56
APPENDIX III. QUIZ AND QUESTIONNAIRE AFTER THE EXPERIMENT ............... 57
APPENDIX IV. INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE .................................... 60

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bell, R. G. (1979). Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations (Revised Edition). New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York : Harper & Row.
Jabber website. Retrieved on October 15th, 2006. http://www.jabber.org/
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: the case against competition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Liang, J. K., Liu, T. C., Wang, H. Y., Chang, B., Deng, Y. C., Yang, J. C., Chou, C. Y., Ko, H. W., Yang, S. & Chan, T. W. (2005). A few design perspectives on one-on-one digital classroom environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 181-189.
Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333-369.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Conative and affective process analysis (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
Prensky, M. (2000). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Peter S. A. (2004). RFC 3920: XML streams, SASL, TLS, stringprep profiles, stanza semantics.
Peter S. A. (2004). RFC 3921: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence.
Rawls J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Wu, W., Cheng, H. , Chiang, M. C., Deng, Y. C., Chou, C. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Chan, T. W. (2007). AnswerMatching: A Competitive Learning Game with Uneven Chance Tactic. The First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp.89-96). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat extension for XMPP. Retrieved on October 15th, 2006. http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html
Zimmerman B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 82-91.
江孟真 (民95)。設計與實作一個使用不對等策略之小組數學練習競爭式數位遊戲。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園縣。
韓佳玲 (民91)。網路匿名競爭對學習經驗之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。