跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.97.0) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/19 13:41
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:吳文安
研究生(外文):Wen-An Wu
論文名稱:以概念關係作為聯想題之提示的研究
論文名稱(外文):A study of Using Relations Among Concepts as Hints for Answering Association Questions
指導教授:夏延德夏延德引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yen-Teh Hsia
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:中原大學
系所名稱:資訊工程研究所
學門:工程學門
學類:電資工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2020
畢業學年度:108
語文別:中文
論文頁數:86
中文關鍵詞:聯想式推理作答概念圖式選擇題長期記憶學習保持力
外文關鍵詞:Associative Reasoning AnsweringMultiple choice Concept MapLong-term MemoryLearning Interest
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:115
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
死記硬背並不是個好的學習方式。多年來,教學研究者試著提供一個較好的學習策略,讓學生在學習知識概念時,除了記憶之外,也能整合相關的先備知識並理解內容,同時也分析統整相關概念之間的關係,進而做到創新。
本研究的目的是幫助學生整合對於課程概念的理解、了解概念與概念之間的關係。在做法上參考了前人的研究與成果、並統整與改善系統所提供的學習幫助。在做法上,本研究開發了遊戲式學習系統「SP Story」,經由使用此系統,學生或是以「概念圖式選擇題」作答(學習策略一)、或是以「聯想式推理題」作答(學習策略二)。
為了比較哪種學習策略對於學生學習的幫助較大 ─ 哪種學習策略較能幫助學生真正的吸收完整的課程概念、而非零碎的記憶片段知識,本研究使用隨機分組方式將學生分為「聯想式推理作答組」與「概念圖式選擇題作答組」,然後讓兩組學生在課後使用「SP Story」進行複習,以了解兩組學生在透過此二種不一樣的作答方式進行課後複習之後,其學習成就、學習狀態以及學習保持力的差異。
實驗結果顯示,兩組學生在使用不同學習策略進行遊戲式學習之後,在學習成就上都有顯著進步,而ANCOVA的檢定結果也顯示「聯想式推理作答組」在學習成就上顯著勝過「概念圖式選擇題作答組」。不過學習策略二在學習成就上的優勢並未維持很久,一個月後的學習保持力測驗顯示、「聯想式推理作答組」雖然在學習成就上依舊勝過「概念圖式選擇題作答組」、但信心水準已由原先的(立即後測的)99.2%降為(延遲後測的)91.8%。進一步分析不同知識程度的學生,發現如果低先備知識的學生沒參與讀書會、其使用學習策略二進行課後複習會(在學習成就方面)顯著優於以學習策略一進行課後複習。
由學生的反應回饋內容可知,「聯想式推理作答組」的學生覺得這種學習方式能夠有效的幫助他們了解各個主題重點間概念與概念的關係,並且讓他們能夠更清楚的統整出所有課程概念上的連結。
Rote learning is not a good way to learn. For many years, teaching researchers have tried to provide a better learning strategy, so that when students learn knowledge concepts, in addition to memory, they can also integrate relevant prior knowledge and understand the content, and also analyze the relationships between related concepts and concepts, unify them to achieve innovation.
The purpose of this research is to help students integrate their understanding of course concepts and understand the relationship between concepts and concepts. In practice, it refers to previous research and achievements, and integrates and improves the learning assistance provided by the system. In practice, this research has developed a game-based learning system "SP Story". By using this system, students can answer with either "multiple choice concept map questions" (learning strategy one) or "associative reasoning questions" (Learning Strategy Two).
In order to compare which learning strategy is more helpful for students'' learning-which learning strategy can help students truly absorb the complete curriculum concepts rather than piecemeal memory fragment knowledge, this study uses random grouping to classify students into "Associative Reasoning Answering group" and "Multiple choice Concept Map answering group", and then let the two groups of students use "SP Story" to review after class to understand the differences in learning achievement, learning status, and learning retention between two groups of students after reviewing in these two different ways of answering.
Experimental results show that after two groups of students use different learning strategies for game-based learning, they have made significant progress in their learning achievements. The ANCOVA test results also show that the "associative reasoning answering group" is significantly better than the " multiple choice concept map answering group" in learning achievement. However, the advantage of learning strategy 2 in learning achievement has not been maintained for a long time. A month later, the learning retention test showed that the "associative reasoning answering group" still outperforms the "multiple choice concept map answering group" in learning achievement, However, the level of confidence has dropped from 99.2% (post-test immediately) to 91.8% (post-test delayed). Further analysis of students with different levels of knowledge revealed that if students with low prior knowledge did not participate in the reading club, their use of learning strategy two for after-school review sessions (in terms of learning achievement) was significantly better than learning strategy one for after-school reviews.
According to the content of the students ’feedback, the students of the“ associative reasoning group ”feel that this learning method can effectively help them understand the relationship between concepts and concepts in each topic and allow them to unify all courses conceptual link.
目錄

摘要 I
Abstract III
致謝 V
目錄 VI
圖目錄 VIII
表目錄 IX
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目標 5
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 概念圖 7
第二節 長期記憶 8
第三節 推理作答 9
第四節 學習興趣與態度 10
第五節 學習動機 11
第六節 認知負荷 11
第三章 系統介紹 13
第一節 系統功能與介面 13
第二節 使用概念圖式選擇題作答及聯想式推理作答之答題差別 20
第四章 實驗方法 24
第一節 實驗對象 24
第二節 實驗教材及教學策略 24
第三節 實驗工具 25
第一項 學習動機問卷 25
第二項 學習興趣與態度問卷 26
第三項 認知負荷問卷 27
第四項 沉浸狀態問卷 27
第五項 系統使用問卷 28
第四節 實驗流程 29
第五章 實驗結果 31
第一節 學習成就前測分析 31
第二節 學習成就後測分析 32
第三節 學習成就記憶保持力分析 34
第四節 學習動機前、後測分析 36
第五節 學習興趣前、後測分析 38
第六節 學習態度前、後測分析 41
第七節 認知負荷前、後測分析 42
第八節 沉浸狀態分析 44
第九節 不同先備知識學生之學習成就後測、保持力分析 45
第六章 結論與未來工作 64
第一節 結論 64
第二節 未來工作 67
參考文獻 70

圖目錄

圖3-1系統首頁 13
圖3-2使用者登入畫面 14
圖3-3系統主頁面 14
圖3-4個人資訊畫面 15
圖3-5聯想式推理作答組練習畫面 16
圖3-6概念圖式選擇題作答組練習畫面 16
圖3-7聯想式推理作答組回顧頁面 17
圖3-8概念圖式選擇題作答組作答回顧畫面 18
圖3-9角色收集畫面 18
圖3-10積分排行畫面 19
圖3-11講義複習畫面 19
圖3-12概念圖式選擇題作答範例題目 20
圖3-13聯想式推理作答範例題目 21
圖3-14聯想式推理作答題目轉換示意圖 22
圖3-15聯想式推理作答題目轉換實際範例(一) 22
圖3-16聯想式推理作答題目轉換實際範例(二) 23
圖4-1實驗流程圖 30

表目錄

表1-1前人所做之研究及結果 4
表4-1 兩組各章節之練習題題數 25
表5-1學習成就前測描述性統計資料 31
表5-2學習成就前測變異數同質性檢定 32
表5-3學習成就前測變異數分析 32
表5-4聯想式推理作答組學習成就前後測描述性統計資料 32
表5-5概念圖式選擇題作答組學習成就前後測描述性統計資料 32
表5-6聯想式推理作答組及概念圖式選擇題作答組學習成就前後測成對樣本t檢定 32
表5-7學習成就後測描述性統計資料 33
表5-8學習成就後測變異數同質性檢定 33
表5-9學習成就後測變異數分析 33
表5-10學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 34
表5-11學習成就記憶保持力描述性統計資料 35
表5-12學習成就記憶保持力變異數同質性檢定 35
表5-13學習成就記憶保持力變異數分析 35
表5-14學習成就記憶保持力ANCOVA比較 35
表5-15聯想式推理作答組及概念圖式選擇題作答組學習成就前測與保持力成對樣本t檢定 36
表5-16學習動機前後測描述性統計資料 36
表5-17學習動機前後測變異數同質性檢定 37
表5-18學習動機前後測變異數分析 37
表5-19學習動機前後測ANCOVA比較 37
表5-20聯想式推理作答組及概念圖式選擇題作答組學習動機前後測成對樣本t檢定 38
表5-21學習興趣前後測描述性統計資料 38
表5-22學習興趣前後測變異數同質性檢定 39
表5-23學習興趣前後測變異數分析 39
表5-24學習興趣成對樣本t檢定 40
表5-25學習興趣前後測ANCOVA比較 40
表5-26學習態度前後測描述性統計資料 40
表5-27學習態度前後測變異數同質性檢定 41
表5-28學習態度前後測變異數分析 41
表5-29學習態度前後測ANCOVA比較 41
表5-30認知負荷前後測描述性統計資料 42
表5-31認知負荷前後測變異數同質性檢定 42
表5-32認知負荷前後測變異數分析 42
表5-33認知負荷前後測ANCOVA比較 43
表5-34沉浸狀態描述性統計資料 44
表5-35沉浸狀態變異數同質性檢定 44
表5-36沉浸狀態變異數分析 44
表5-37前測小考K-Means分類結果 45
表5-38有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組低知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力描述性統計資料 46
表5-39有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組低知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數同質性檢定 47
表5-40有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組低知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數分析 47
表5-41有參與讀書會之低知識學生之學習成就ANCOVA比較 48
表5-42有參與讀書會之低知識學生之保持力ANCOVA比較 48
表5-43有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組中知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力描述性統計資料 48
表5-44有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組中知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數同質性檢定 49
表5-45有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組中知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數分析 49
表5-46有參與讀書會之中知識學生之學習成就ANCOVA比較 50
表5-47有參與讀書會之中知識學生之保持力ANCOVA比較 50
表5-48有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組高知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力描述性統計資料 51
表5-49有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組高知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數同質性檢定 51
表5-50有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組高知識學生之學習成就保持力平均值等式穩健測試 51
表5-51有參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組高知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數分析 52
表5-52有參與讀書會之高知識學生之學習成就ANCOVA比較 52
表5-53有參與讀書會之高知識學生之保持力ANCOVA比較 53
表5-54沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組低知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力描述性統計資料 53
表5-55沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組低知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數同質性檢定 54
表5-56沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組低知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數分析 54
表5-57沒參與讀書會之低知識學生之學習成就ANCOVA比較 55
表5-58沒參與讀書會之低知識學生之保持力ANCOVA比較 55
表5-59沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組中知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力描述性統計資料 56
表5-60沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組中知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數同質性檢定 56
表5-61沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組中知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數分析 57
表5-62沒參與讀書會之中知識學生之學習成就ANCOVA比較 57
表5-63沒參與讀書會之中知識學生之保持力ANCOVA比較 57
表5-64沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組高知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力描述性統計資料 58
表5-65沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組高知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數同質性檢定 58
表5-66沒參與讀書會之聯想式推理作答組/概念圖式選擇題作答組高知識學生之學習成就後測與保持力變異數分析 59
表5-67沒參與讀書會之高知識學生之學習成就ANCOVA比較 59
表5-68沒參與讀書會之高知識學生之保持力ANCOVA比較 60
表5-69系統回饋問卷調查資料 60
表5-70學生問卷回饋內容(正面) 61
表5-71學生問卷回饋內容(負面) 62
1.Ariel, A. (1992). Education of children and adolescents with learning disabilities.
New York: Merrill.
2.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.
3.Ausubel, D.P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and
retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66, 213-244.
4.Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
5.Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A
Cognitive View (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
6.Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E. W., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., Manea, M., Kärki, A.,
& Van Rosmalen, P. (2014). A narrative literature review of games,
7.Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 240-247.
8.DeLauder, H., & Muilenburg, L. (2012). Improving reading comprehension
through the use of graphic organizing websites. In proceedings of the Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2012(1), 3589-3593.
9.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.
10.Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11.Erhel, S., Jamet, E. (2013). Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and
feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness, 67, 156-167.
12.Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.
Review of Educational research, 60(4), 549-571.
13.Hong J., Hwang M., Wu N., Huang Y., Lin P., & Chen Y. (2016). Integrating a
moral reasoning game in a blended learning setting: Effects on students’ interest
and performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 572-589.
14.Huang, H. S., Chiou, C. C., Chiang, H. K., Lai, S. H., Huang, C. Y., & Chou, Y. Y.
(2012). Effects of multidimensional concept maps on fourth graders’ learning in
web-based computer course. Computers & Education, 58(3), 863-873.
15.Huang, W. H., Huang, W. Y., & Tschopp, J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game
playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and
outcome processing. Computers & Education, 55(2), 789-797.
16.Hubbard, C., Mengshoel, O. J., Moon, C., & Kim, Y. S. (1997). Visual reasoning
instructional software system. Computers & Education, 28(4), 237-250.
17.Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W. Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. t. (2009). Mobile game-based
learning in secondary education: engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile
city game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 332-344.
18.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.
19.Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile
learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of
students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1031.
20.Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2012). A context-aware ubiquitous
learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a science park.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 931~947.
21.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.
22.Jenkins, J. G., & Dallenbach, K. M. (1924). Obliviscence during Sleep and Waking.
The American Journal of Psychology, 35, 605-612.
23.Jong, B. S., Lin, T. W., Wu, Y. L., & Chan, T. Y. (2004). Diagnostic and Remedial
Learning Strategy Based on Conceptual Graphs. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 20(5), 738-747.
24.Jong, B. S., Wu, Y. L., & Chan, T. Y. (2006). Dynamic Grouping Strategies Based
on a Conceptual Graph for Cooperative Learning. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge
and Data Engineering, 18(6), 738~747.
25.Jong, B. S., Chen, C. M., Chan, T. Y., Hsia, Y. T., & Lin, T. W. (2014). Effect of
knowledge complementation grouping strategy for cooperative learning on online
performance and learning achievement. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education, 22(3), 541-550.
26.Kiilia, K., de Freitasb, S., Arnabb, S., Lainema, T. (2012). The Design Principles
for Flow Experience in Educational Games. Procedia Computer Science, Volume
15, 78-91
27.Koivisto, J. M. (2017). Learning clinical reasoning through game-based
simulation : Design principles for simulation games. Helsinki Studies in
Education, number 6.
28.Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic
motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.
29.Lin, J. H., Tseng, W. T., Jong B. S. and Lai, C. H. (2015). Adding Attracting
Elements to Enhance Students'' Interest, Learning Attitude and Learning
Achievement, The 19th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education
(GCCCE 2015), Taipei, Taiwan, page: 332-335, 2015/05/25~2015/5/29.
30.Lu, H., Hu, Y. P., & Gao, J. J. (2016). The effects of computer self-efficacy, training
satisfaction and test anxiety on attitude and performance in computerized adaptive
testing. Computers & Education, 100, 45-55.
31.Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling:
Where we''ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology
Review, 9(4), 371-409.
32.Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions
of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum
development.
33.Mavers, D., Somekh, B., & Restorick, J. (2002). Interpreting the externalised
images of pupils’ conceptions of ICT: methods for the analysis of concept maps.
Computers & Education, 38(1-3), 187-207.
34.Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext:
Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
265-276.
35.Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
36.Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual
change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to
empowerment of learners. Science education, 86(4), 548-571.
37.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.
38.Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional
implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive
architecture. Instructional science, 32(1), 1-8.
39.Pilli, O., & Aksu, M. (2013). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the
achievement, attitudes and retention of fourth grade mathematics students in North
Cyprus. Computers & Education, 62, 62-71.
40.Psycharis, S. (2013). Examining the effect of the computational models on
learning performance, scientific reasoning, epistemic beliefs and argumentation:
An implication for the STEM agenda. Computers & Education, 68, 253-265.
41.Rajan, P. (2013). Using graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension skills
for the middle school ESL students. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 155.
42.Ruddell, R. B., & Boyle, O. F. (1989). A study of cognitive mapping as a means to
improve comprehension of expository text. Reading Research and Instruction,
29(1), 12–22.
43.Sas, I. C. (2010). The Multiple-choice concept map (MCCM): An interactive
computer-based assessment method. UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional
Papers, and Capstones. 769.
44.Scanlon, D. J., Duran, G. Z., Reyes, E. I., & Gallego, M. A. (1992). Interactive
semantic mapping: An interactive approach to enhancing LD students’ content area
comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 142–146.
45.Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist,
26,299–323
46.Shaw, G., & Marlow, N. (1999). The role of student learning styles, gender, attitudes
and perceptions on information and communication technology assisted learning.
Computers & education, 33(4), 223-234.
47.She, Y. X., Lin, M. H., Jong, B. S., & Hsia, Y. T. (2013). “Using Growing Pet Game
in Facebook to enhance students’ learning motivation: in Operating System course”,
2013 Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE 2013), Macau,
page: 224-228, 2013/3/22~2013/3/24. (EI)
48.Smith, A. N. (1971). The importance of attitude in foreign language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 55(2), 82-88.
49.Sun, J. C. Y., & Chen, A. Y. Z. (2016). Effects of integrating dynamic concept maps
with Interactive Response System on elementary school students'' motivation and
learning outcome: The case of anti-phishing education. Computers & Education,
102, 117-127.
50.Sung, H. Y., Hwang, G. J., Lin, C. J., & Hong, T. W. (2017). Experiencing the
Analects of Confucius: An experiential game-based learning approach to promoting
students'' motivation and conception of learning. Computers & Education, 110, 143-
153.
51.Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
52.Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
53.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.
54.Tulving, E. (1987). Multiple memory systems and consciousness. Human
Neurobiol, 6(2), 67-80.
55.Walter, J. G., & Hart, J. (2009). Understanding the complexities of student
motivations in mathematics learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
28(2), 162-170.
56.Wang, B. J., Liang, J. H., Chang, C. W., & Jong, B. S. (2016). “Effects of
Associative Reasoning on Students’ Learning Performance”, The 9th information
Education and Technological Applications Conference (IETAC 2016), Taichung,
Taiwan, page: 12-17, 2016/03/25.
57.張佳瑋.(2015). 利用聯想式推理作答對學生主動學習的影響. 中原大學資訊
工程研究所學位論文, 1-61.
58.王柏竣.(2017). 在遊戲式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, 1-59.
59.梁嘉航.(2016). 聯想式推理作答對學生長期記憶的影響. 中原大學資訊工
程研究所學位論文, 1-66.
60.邱琪雯.(2017). 比較提示/詳解策略於遊戲式學習對於學習幫助之研究. 中
原大學資訊工程研究所學位論文, 1-74.
61.林俊宏.(2016). 對戰與排行榜競爭模式之遊戲式學習的比較. 中原大學資訊
工程研究所學位論文, 1-61.
62.游晉瑜.(2018). 在遊戲式學習環境使用聯想式概念圖作答與選擇題式概念圖
作答之比較. 中原大學資訊工程研究所學位論文, 1-85.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top