臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

學生經常採用死記硬背的學習方式，雖然可以在短期間內臨時抱佛腳，並達到一定的學習效率，但卻無法進行知識整合，學到的內容沒多久就遺忘了，將「教過的都還給老師」。
羊群效應是一種跟從大眾的行為，本研究開發一款遊戲式學習系統，該系統利用羊群效應影響因素，促使學生能夠達到長期記憶的學習策略。本研究將學生隨機分為羊群效應組及一般作答組，一般作答組學生以選擇題測驗進行學習；羊群效應組學生則增加一個熱門選項的標示，系統並適度控制該熱門選項並不一定是正確答案的情境，以觀察學生於羊群效應影響因素學習過程，其學習狀況有何變化，以及對學生學習成效的影響。
實驗結果發現，羊群效應組學生之學習成就及長期記憶顯著優於一般作答組學生，且羊群效應組學生的學習興趣前後測檢定結果有顯著提升，而一般作答組學生之認知負荷前後測有顯著加重。進一步透過問卷及訪談分析，發現學生在知識建構到一定程度時，大都發現熱門選項並不一定是正確答案，並逐漸脫離羊群效應的影響，促使學生思考、自主學習以釐清未精熟的知識，進而提升學習成就。本研究並發現羊群效應組內高知識程度學生之學習成就顯著優於一般作答組內高知識學生，而且利用羊群效應影響的學習方式適合學習風格為沉思型或序列型的學生。

Nowadays, students usually learn things by rote before exams; although they can cope with exams, they also have forgotten them, and cannot be united with future Knowledge.
Herd behavior is a kind of behavior that follows the masses, the study has developed a digital game-based learning system, “BSJ Entertainment” makes use of the influencing factors of the herd behavior, a learning strategy that promotes students to achieve long-term memory. The study has randomly divided the students into “Herd behavior” Group and “General answer” Group, General answer group learning with multiple choice questions test; herd behavior group has a “HOT” mark on hottest option of multiple choice questions, the system will be moderately controlled the hottest option, and not always the same as the correct answer, to investigate if there is any influence in learning process, learning status and learning achievement for the students of herd behavior group.
The experiment result has demonstrated that the students of herd behavior group is better than general answer group in learning achievement and learning retention, herd behavior group of students learning interest improved, and general answer group of students cognitive load increased. Further through interviews and questionnaires, found when students construct knowledge to a certain degree, they found the hottest not always the same as correct answer, and gradually break away the influence of herd behavior, cause student thinking and learning autonomy, and promote the learning achievement. The study also found the students with high prior knowledge of herd behavior group is better than the students with high prior knowledge of general answer group in learning achievement and learning retention, and the learning strategy makes use of the influencing factors suitable for the students which learning style is reflective type or sequential type.

目錄
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 2
第二章 文獻探討 3
第一節 羊群效應 3
第二節 選擇題 Multiple Choice Questions 4
第三節 信心指標 5
第四節 連續機率比檢定 Sequential Probability Ratio Test 6
第五節 遊戲式學習 8
第六節 學習風格 9
第七節 學習動機 10
第八節 學習興趣與態度 10
第九節 認知負荷 11
第三章 系統介紹 12
第一節 系統介面與功能 12
第二節 熱門選項之控制方式 17
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 實驗工實驗教材 21
第一項 學習動機問卷 22
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 學習風格測驗 26
第四節 實驗流程 26
第五章 實驗結果 28
第一節 學習成就之前、後測分析 28
第二節 學習成就保持力分析 30
第三節 不同先備知識學生之學習成就前、後測分析 31
第四節 學習動機之前、後測分析 34
第五節 學習興趣之前、後測分析 36
第六節 學習態度之前、後測分析 38
第七節 認知負荷之前、後測分析 40
第八節 學生之學習風格分析與比較 42
第九節 沉浸狀態及系統問卷分析 44
第六章 結論與未來方向 47
第一節 結論 47
第二節 未來方向 52
參考文獻 53

 
圖目錄
圖2 1 ASCH實驗圖卡 3
圖2 2 信心指標與正確率之關係圖 6
圖3 1 系統首頁 12
圖3 2 系統主畫面 13
圖3-3一般作答組練習畫面 13
圖3-4羊群效應組練習畫面 14
圖3-5作答回顧頁面 14
圖3-6明星挖掘作答畫面 15
圖3-7角色收集畫面 15
圖3-8 積分排行畫面 16
圖3-9鍾爸寶典畫面 16
圖3-10單概念題型範例1 17
圖3-11單概念題型範例2 17
圖3-12多概念題型範例1 18
圖3-13多概念題型範例2 18
圖3-14機器碼翻譯表 18
圖3-15熱門選項控制因素圖 19
圖4-1實驗流程圖 27

 
表目錄
表2 1本研究之信心指標配分表 5
表2-2信心指標三個等級之收斂條件[宋晟源,2012] 7
表2-3SPRT＋＋收斂條件[邱琪雯,2017] 8
表2-4所羅門學習風格各類型之定義 9
表3-1學習前後熱門選項與正確答案不同之比率 20
表5-1學習成就前測描述性統計資料 28
表5-2學習成就前測變異數同質性檢定 28
表5-3學習成就前測ANOVA檢定 29
表5-4羊群效應組學習成就前後測描述性統計資料 29
表5-5一般作答組學習成就前後測描述性統計資料 29
表5-6羊群效應組及一般作答組學習成就前後測成對樣本T檢定 29
表5-7學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 30
表5-8保持力測驗描述性統計資料 30
表5-9保持力測驗變異數同質性檢定 31
表5-10保持力測驗ANOVA檢定 31
表5-11前測小考K-MEANS分類結果 31
表5-12高/低先備知識學生之學習成就前後測成對樣本T檢定 32
表5-13羊群/一般高知識學生之學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 32
表5-14羊群/一般低知識之學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 33
表5-15高知識學生保持力測驗描述性統計資料 33
表5-16高知識學生保持力測驗變異數同質性檢定 34
表5-17高知識學生保持力測驗ANOVA檢定 34
表5-18學習動機前測描述性統計資料 34
表5-19學習動機前測變異數同質性檢定 34
表5-20學習動機前測ANOVA檢定 35
表5-21羊群效應組學習動機前、後測描述性統計資料 35
表5-22一般作答組學習動機前、後測描述性統計資料 35
表5-23羊群效應組及一般作答組學習動機前後測成對樣本T檢定 35
表5-24學習動機前後測ANCOVA比較 36
表5-25學習興趣前測描述性統計資料 36
表5-26學習興趣前測變異數同質性檢定 36
表5-27學習興趣前測ANOVA檢定 37
表5-28羊群效應組學習興趣前、後測描述性統計資料 37
表5-29一般作答組學習興趣前、後測描述性統計資料 37
表5-30羊群效應組及一般作答組學習興趣前後測成對樣本T檢定 38
表5-31學習態度前測描述性統計資料 38
表5-32學習態度前測變異數同質性檢定 38
表5-33學習態度前測ANOVA檢定 38
表5-34羊群效應組學習態度前、後測描述性統計資料 39
表5-35一般作答組學習態度前、後測描述性統計資料 39
表5-36羊群效應組及一般作答組學習態度前後測成對樣本T檢定 39
表5-37學習態度前後測ANCOVA比較 40
表5-38認知負荷前測描述性統計資料 40
表5-39認知負荷前測變異數同質性檢定 40
表5-40認知負荷前測ANOVA檢定 40
表5-41羊群效應組認知負荷前、後測描述性統計資料 41
表5-42一般作答組認知負荷前、後測描述性統計資料 41
表5-43羊群效應組及一般作答組認知負荷前後測成對樣本T檢定 41
表5-44學生學習風格分類結果 42
表5-45羊群活躍/沉思之學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 43
表5-46羊群感悟/直覺之學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 43
表5-47羊群序列/綜合之學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 43
表5-48羊群/一般沉思型之學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 44
表5-49羊群/一般序列型之學習成就前後測ANCOVA比較 44
表5-50沉浸狀態描述性統計資料 45
表5-51沉浸狀態變異數同質性檢定 45
表5-52沉浸狀態ANOVA檢定 45
表5-53兩組學生之系統問卷平均分數及獨立樣本T檢定之顯著性 45
表6-1學生作答習慣比率表 48
表6-2學生意見表 48

[1]Ahmed, W., & Bruinsma, M. (2006). A Structural Model of Self-concept, Autonomous Motivation and Academic Performance in Cross-cultural Perspective.
[2]Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Readings about the social animal, 193, 17-26.
[3]Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1.
[4]Asch, S. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 222-236.
[5]Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., & Richards, J. (2005). Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biological psychiatry, 58(3), 245-253.
[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, animations and simulations to teach research methods and statistics. Computers & Education, 74, 1-14.
[7]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.
[8]Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1).
[9]Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78(7), 674-681.
[10]Frick, T. W. (1989). Bayesian adaptation during computer-based tests and computer-guided practice exercises. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 89-114.
[11]Gardner-Medwin, A. R. (1995). Confidence assessment in the teaching of basic science. ALT-J, 3(1), 80-85.
[12]Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education, 50(4), 270-286.
[13]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.
[14]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.
[15]Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students'' learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121-130.
[16]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.
[17]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.
[18]Julian, J. W., & Perry, F. A. (1967). Cooperation contrasted with intra-group and inter-group competition. Sociometry, 79-90.
[19]Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 381-395.
[20]Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in human behavior, 19(3), 335-353.
[21]Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3, 255-286.
[22]Little, J. L. (2011). Optimizing multiple-choice tests as learning events. University of California, Los Angeles.
[23]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.
[24]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).
[25]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.
[26]Lussier, R. N. (1990). Human relations in organizations: A skill-building approach. Irwin Professional Publishing.
[27]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.
[28]Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Leaderboards within educational videogames: The impact of difficulty, effort and gameplay. Computers & Education.
[29]Nicol, D. (2007). E‐assessment by design: using multiple‐choice tests to good effect. Journal of Further and higher Education, 31(1), 53-64.
[30]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.
[31]Pintrich, P. R., & Maehr, M. L. (2004). Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivating students, improving schools (Vol. 13).
[32]Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning (Vol. 1). St. Paul, MN: Paragon house.
[33]Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (1990). Herd behavior and investment. The American Economic Review, 465-479.
[34]Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.
[35]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.
[36]Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory into practice (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
[37]Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (1999). Index of learning styles questionnaire. Retrieved March, 26, 2003.
[38]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.
[39]Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
[40]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.
[41]Wald, A. (1973). Sequential analysis. Courier Corporation.
[42]Walter, J. G., & Hart, J. (2009). Understanding the complexities of student motivations in mathematics learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2), 162-170.
[43]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.
[44]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.
[45]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.
[46]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.
[47]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.
[48]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, 1-64.
[49]謝明瑞. (2007).企業管理人的決策偏差行為之探討--以過度自信與羊群效應為例 - 國家政策研究基金會 http://www.npf.org.tw/2/3607