| 摘要: | 研究指出遊戲式學習可以引發學習者動機並提高興趣等優點，然而也有部分研究顯示遊戲式學習會造成學生認知負荷過重和注意力分散的問題，這樣的問題有許多方法可以解決，其中一種方法是透過人機介面與教學影片解決，因此，人機介面和教學影片扮演了一個重要的角色，故也需要一些機制來評量人機介面和教學影片，然而，在眾多機制中同儕互評是促進學生自我反思的機制之一，學生在同儕互評中會同時兼任製作者與評量者兩個角色，製作者需製作遊戲式學習系統和教學影片，評量者評量遊戲式學習系統的人機介面與教學影片，同儕互評乃個人或群體評估同儕學習成果或系統的過程，藉由在過程中收集評量者回饋，幫助製作者反思遊戲製作，兩個角色有不同的偏好，這些偏好會因為每一個人的背景、需求及學習偏好不同，這些不同稱為個別差異，在眾多個別差異之中認知風格會影響資訊處理及組織的方式，故需要從認知風格的角度來探討學生的認知風格對遊戲製作與評量的影響。
然而，現今缺少研究從認知風格匹配與不匹配的角度探討同儕互評如何影響遊戲式學習在人機介面與教學影片上的偏好差異，為了填補這一空白，本研究主要目的是「從匹配與不匹配的角度來全面性的瞭解在同儕互評過程中認知風格對製作與評量人機介面和教學影片的影響」，更確切的說，本研究包括兩個次要目的：
1)在同儕互評過程中，從匹配與不匹配的角度來比較三種不同認知風格製作組合的得分差異，包括人機介面與教學影片。
2)在同儕互評過程中，從匹配與不匹配的角度來比較兩種不同認知風格評量者對三種不同認知風格製作組合的評分差異，包括人機介面與教學影片。
為了達成上述之目的，執行了兩階段的實驗，第一階段著重在人機介面，小組成員需依照Nielsen人機介面可用性準則製作遊戲式學習系統，而第二階段著重在教學影片，小組成員需依照教學影片準則製作遊戲式學習系統的教學影片。不論是哪一個階段，受測者則被區分認知風格為場獨立(FI)和場依賴(FD)，受測者將同時扮演製作者與評量者兩種角色，關於製作者部分，依照認知風格將製作組合分為場獨立與場獨立（FI+FI）、場依賴與場依賴 (FD+FD)、場獨立與場依賴(FI+FD)等三組。關於評量者部分，將分為FI及FD評量者。
製作者與評量者之間有著認知風格的匹配與不匹配兩種情況，其中認知風格匹配的情況包括：1.兩位製作者為同一種認知風格，即是FI+FI、FD+FD，2. 製作組合與評量者皆為同一種認知風格，即是FD+FD搭配FD評量者、FI+FI搭配FI評量者。反之，其他的組合皆為不匹配的情況。
依照認知風格分組之後，發現兩階段的實驗有相同的結果，也就是匹配的認知風格組合能夠得到較好的分數，但在此兩階段能得到較好分數之匹配的認知風格組合不同，在人機介面階段是FI＋FI的得分顯著較高，而在教學影片階段是FD＋FD的得分較高。另外一個相同的結果是，在評分上，不匹配的FI＋FD組內呈現場獨立評量者顯著高於場依賴評量者的情況。
人機介面與教學影片階段部分有三個相異的結果，第一個相異的結果是認知風格製作組合的匹配與不匹配對人機介面優勢的得分沒有顯著差異，但對教學影片的優勢有顯著差異。第二個相異的結果是評量者的認知風格與製作者的認知風格組合之匹配與不匹配對人機介面劣勢的評分沒有顯著差異，但對異質組的教學影片劣勢的評分有顯著差異。第三個相異的結果是評量者的認知風格與各組合的認知風格的匹配與不匹配對人機介面得分有顯著差異，但對教學影片得分沒有差異。
上述此研究的發現可提供有價值的參考意義，包含兩個面向，即是學術面向以及應用面向，關於學術面向，本研究發現匹配的認知風格組合能夠得到較好的分數，進一步說，在人機介面階段是FI＋FI的得分較高，而在教學影片階段是FD＋FD的得分較高，換句話說，認知風格扮演一個重要的角色，此結果將可提供研究者對於不同認知風格製作組合在匹配與不匹配時，製作遊戲式學習系統的人機介面與教學影片上有更深的瞭解，而這些瞭解有助於進行之後的各領域研究，更明確的說，包括認知風格、遊戲式學習、同儕互評等。
關於應用面向，本研究發現在製作人機介面與教學影片的過程中，瞭解不同認知風格製作者有不同的製作偏好，因此說明認知風格扮演著重要的角色，所以本研究的發現可以應用在製作人機介面與教學影片的過程，製作團隊的組合可以依據任務的特性，找尋適合的認知風格製作者，例如：匹配的FI＋FI組合可應用分析的特質製作功能較優秀的人機介面，匹配的FD+FD善於口語表達，應用此特質錄製較優秀的教學影片，如此更能有效製作人機介面與教學影片，完成更加良好的遊戲式學習系統。
綜言之，本研究的發現將可提供研究者，於使用同儕互評的方式，對於不同認知風格製作組合的匹配與不匹配，或是不同認知風格製作組合與不同認知風格評量者的匹配與不匹配上參考之依據。
;Previous research indicates that game-based learning can increase learners’ motivation and interests. However, some studies indicate that game-based learning can cause learners′ cognitive overload and distraction. Such problems can be solved through user interface and instructional videos. Therefore, user interface and instructional videos play an important role, so some mechanisms are needed to evaluate user interfaces and instructional videos. However, peer assessment can help designers to improve the user interface and instructional videos presented in game-based learning. Peer assessment refers to the process whereby individuals or groups of students assess the work of their peers, through the collection of assessor’s perceptions, effectiveness, and feedback. It can help designers to reflect game design and develop game-based learning systems that are suitable to every learner. On the other hand, the learner will also play the role of both the designer and the assessor in the peer assessment. Different roles have different game preferences. These preferences are different because each individual has different background, needs, and learning preferences. Such differences are related to individual differences. Among many individual differences, cognitive styles pertain to the preferred ways of organizing and processing information. Hence, there is a need to investigate how learner′s cognitive style affect game design and evaluation.
However, this study aims to examine the impact of peer assessment on game development from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles. To fill this gap, this study examined the main purpose of this research is to " From the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, we have a comprehensive understanding of the impact of cognitive style on the production and evaluation of user interfaces and instructional videos in the process of peer review. More precisely, this research includes two secondary purposes:
1) In the process of peer assessment, compare the differences caused by three different cognitive style production combinations from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, including the stage of user interface and instructional videos.
2) In the process of peer assessment, compare the scoring differences of the three different cognitive styles production combination produced by two different cognitive style assessors from the perspective of matching and mismatching of cognitive styles, including the stage of user interface and instructional videos.
In order to achieve the above purposes, this study goes through two stages of the experiment. Stage one focus on the user interface, and that the team members need to evaluate the user interface of the game-based learning system with Nielsen usability principles. Stage two focus on instructional videos, and that the team members need to evaluate the instructional videos of the game-based learning system with the principles of the instructional video. Regarding the role of designers, all members were divided into three groups according to their cogitative styles, i.e., field-independent & field-dependent (FI&FD), field-independent & field- independent (FI&FI), field-dependent & field- dependent (FD&FD). Regarding the role of evaluators, there are field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) assessors. The assessors will be divided into field-independent assessors and field-dependent assessors.
There are two conditions of cognitive style matching and mismatch between the designer and the assessors. The matching conditions include: 1. The two designers have the same cognitive style, include FI+FI, FD+FD.2. The design combination and the assessors have all of the same cognitive style, include FD+FD with FD assessor, FI+FI with FI assessor. On the contrary, all other conditions are mismatching conditions.
The stage of user interface and the stage of instructional videos stage share some similar results but the cognitive style combinations that can get better scores in the two stages are different. In stage one, the score of FI+FI is significantly higher, while the score of FD+FD is higher in stage two. Another similar result is that the FI learners score significantly higher than the FD learners in the mismatching FI+FD group.
The stage of user interface and the stage of instructional videos stage have three different results. The first difference is that the matching and mismatching of the cognitive style design combination do not have significantly different scores for the advantages of user interface, but it has significantly different score of the advantage of the instructional videos. The second difference is that the matching between the assessors’ cognitive style and the designer′s cognitive style combination does not have significantly different score of the disadvantage of the user interface, but has a significant different score for the disadvantages of instructional videos of the heterogeneous group′s. The third difference is that the matching between the assessors’ cognitive style and the cognitive style of each combination has a significant different score in the stage of the user interface, but does not have significantly score differences in the stage of instructional videos.
The findings of the above-mentioned research can provide valuable reference significance. It contains two aspects, namely the academic aspect and the application aspect. Regarding the academic aspect, this research found that the matching cognitive style combination can get better scores. In the stage of user interface, FI+FI scores higher, while in the stage of instructional videos, FD+FD scores higher. In other words, cognitive style plays an important role. This result will provide researchers with the ability to matching and mismatching different cognitive styles. When there is a mismatching, there is a deeper understanding of the user interface and the instructional videos of the game-based learning system, and this understanding will help the subsequent research in various fields, more specifically, including cognitive style, game-based learning, peer assessment.
Regarding the application aspect, this research found that in the process of making user interfaces and instructional videos, it is understood that producers of different cognitive styles have different production preferences, thus indicating that cognitive styles play an important role, so the findings of this research can be applied to production In the process of user interface and instructional videos, the production team can find a suitable cognitive style producer according to the characteristics of the task, for example: Matching FI+FI combination can apply the characteristics of analysis to produce a user interface with better functions, matching FD +FD is good at oral expression, using this feature to record better instructional videos, so that it can more effectively produce user interfaces and instructional videos, and complete a better game-based learning system.
The above results provide the understandings of how the matching and mismatching of different cognitive style design combinations in the process of designing and evaluating game-based learning through peer assessment, in terms of user interface s and the instructional videos. On the other hand, the matching and mismatch between different cognitive style design combinations and different cognitive styles assessor could bring different outcomes for both the user interface and instructional videos. In other words, the matching and mismatching of cognitive styles play an important role. Such results could provide guidance for future researchers so that they can know how to undertake peer assessment from matching and mismatching of cognitive style perspective. |
