第五章 結論與建議
第二節 建議
依據本研究之待答問題及研究結果，提出以目標導向發展培訓課程內容、及 與科學中等教育學程班級之教師合作進行培訓課程等建議，分述如下。
一、 以目標導向發展培訓課程內容
本研究受時間限制，為了確保參與者在一定時間內完成預定之遊戲，根據研 究人員之經驗訂定遊戲之體驗時間，並經由預試後修改體驗時間，但顯然的每個 人玩遊戲的方式與遊戲經驗不同皆會影響遊戲體驗之速度。未來建議以遊戲進度 作為體驗內容，而非以時間當標準，讓參與者在體驗到遊戲之某個橋段後，即可 停止，像是玩到該遊戲之第幾關或玩到某個人物出現即可停止遊戲，如此可確保 參與者能體驗到培訓課程想讓其體驗到之遊戲經驗與特色。
二、 與科學中等教育學程班級之教師合作進行培訓課程
可於學期初先找科學中等教育學程班級之教師商談合作事宜，徵求教師之同 意，將其班級作為培訓之對象，利用幾堂課的時間進行數位遊戲知能之培訓，如 此能擴大樣本數進而觀看量化之結果，且可使培訓過程之時間掌控更加完善。
參考資料
中文部分：
王金國(民 89 年)。簡介小組討論教學法，教育研究，8，137-147.
李峻德(民 94 年)。從可玩性觀點探討多人線上遊戲之人機互動設計原則研究。行 政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號：NSC
93-2520-S-009-007)，未出版。
詹志禹(民 92 年)。討論教學法之行動研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告(報告編號：NSC92-2413-H-004-005-)，未出版。
英文部分：
Adams, P. C. (1998). Teaching and Learning with SimCity 2000. Journal of Geography, 97(2), 47-55.
Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 311-321.
Clark, D., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D’Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. Learning science: Computer games, simulations, and education workshop, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1-71.
de Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers &
Education, 46(3), 249-264.
Desurvire, H., Caplan, M., & Toth, J.A. (2004). Using heuristics to evaluate the playability of games. CHI2004, April 24–29, Vienna, Austria.
<http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?DisplayLang=en&FamilyI D=3b882eb1-5f06-41d9-baba-d39ad13bc3ff>.
Dondi, C., & Moretti, M.(2007). A methodological proposal for learning games selection and quality assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 502-512.
Feldon, D. F., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Mixed methods for mixed reality: Understanding users’ avatar activities in virtual worlds. Education Technology Research &
Development, 56(5-6), 575-593.
Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch, K., & VanTyle, W. K. (2009).
Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technology use.
Computers & Education, 53(2), 300-307.
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R.(2009).
Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: the design of games based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40(1), 23–38.
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45.
Hight, J., & Novak, J. (2007). Game development essentials : Game project management (1nd ed.). NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
Hong, J. C., Cheng, C. L., Hwang, M. Y., Lee, C. K., & Chang, H. Y. (2009).
Assessing the educational values of digital games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 423-437.
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Cheng, C. L., Lu, C. H., & Lee, Y. C. (2009).
Playfulness-based design in educational games: A perspective on an evolutionary contest game. Interactive Learning Environments, 13, 55–63.
Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a
transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553-564.
Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of educational computer games: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256-270.
Ketelhut, J., Nelson B., Clarke J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68.
Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211-231.
Liu, E. Z. F., & Lin, C. H. (2009). Developing evaluative indicators for educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 174-178.
Malone, T.W. (1982). Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from computer games. In John C. Thomas and Michael L. Schneider (Eds.),
Human Factors in Computing Systems, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
Novak, J. (2004). Game development essentials: an introduction. NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
Ray, B., & Coulter, G. A. (2010). Perceptions of the value of digital mini-games:
Implications for middle school classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3), 92-100.
Rapeepisarn, K., Wong, K. W., Fung, C. C., & Khine, M. S. (2008). The Relationship between Game Genres, Learning Techniques and Learning Styles in
Educational Computer Games. Technologies for e-Learning and Digital Entertainment 2008, Nanjing, China, 497-508.
Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2010). Teacher candidate responses to digital games: 21st-century skills development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 409-425.
Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experiences.
Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29.
Tuzun, H., Yılmaz-Soylu, M., Karakuş, T., İnal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The e ffects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education, 52(1), 68-77.
Welty, W. M. (1989). Disscussion method teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 21(4), 40-49.
Zapalska, A. M., & Brozik, D. (2008). A model for developing and evaluating games and simulations in business and economic education. Journal of Economics and Business, 26(2), 345-368.
附錄
附錄一 Heuristics for Evaluating Playability (HEP)
Heuristic and Description Game Play
1 Player’s fatigue is minimized by varying activities and pacing during game play.
2 Provide consistency between the game elements and the overarching setting and story to suspend disbelief.
3 Provide clear goals, present overriding goal early as well as short-term goals throughout play.
4 There is an interesting and absorbing tutorial that mimics game play.
5 The game is enjoyable to replay.
6 Game play should be balanced with multiple ways to win.
7 Player is taught skills early that you expect the players to use later, or right before the new skill is needed.
8 Players discover the story as part of game play.
9 Even if the game cannot be modeless, it should be perceived as modeless.
10 The game is fun for the Player first, the designer second and the computer third.
That is, if the non-expert player’s experience isn’t put first, excellent game mechanics and graphics programming triumphs are meaningless.
11 Player should not experience being penalized repetitively for the same failure.
12 Player’s should perceive a sense of control and impact onto the game world.
The game world reacts to the player and remembers their passage through it.
Changes the player makes in the game world are persistent and noticeable if they back-track to where they’ve been before.
13 The first player action is painfully obvious and should result in immediate positive feedback.
14 The game should give rewards that immerse the player more deeply in the game by increasing their capabilities (power-up), and expanding their ability to
customize.
15 Pace the game to apply pressure but not frustrate the player. Vary the difficulty level so that the player has greater challenge as they develop mastery. Easy to learn, hard to master.
16 Challenges are positive game experiences, rather than a negative experience (results in their wanting to play more, rather than quitting).
Game Story
1 Player understands the story line as a single consistent vision.
2 Player is interested in the story line. The story experience relates to their real life and grabs their interest.
3 The Player spends time thinking about possible story outcomes.
4 The Player feels as though the world is going on whether their character is there or not.
5 The Player has a sense of control over their character and is able to use tactics and strategies.
6 Player experiences fairness of outcomes.
7 The game transports the player into a level of personal involvement emotionally (e.g., scare, threat, thrill, reward, punishment) and viscerally (e.g., sounds of environment).
8 Player is interested in the characters because (1) they are like me; (2) they are interesting to me, (3) the characters develop as action occurs.
Mechanics
1 Game should react in a consistent, challenging, and exciting way to the player’s actions (e.g., appropriate music with the action).
2 Make effects of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) clearly visible to the player by ensuring they are consistent with the player’s reasonable expectations of the AI actor.
3 A player should always be able to identify their score/status and goal in the game.
4 Mechanics/controller actions have consistently mapped and learnable responses.
5 Shorten the learning curve by following the trends set by the gaming industry to meet user’s expectations.
6 Controls should be intuitive, and mapped in a natural way; they should be customizable and default to industry stan dard settings.
7 Player should be given controls that are basic enough to learn quickly yet expandable for advanced options.
Usability
1 Provide immediate feedback for user actions.
2 The Player can easily turn the game off and on, and be able to save games in different states.
3 The Player experiences the user interface as consistent (in control, color, typography, and dialog design) but the game play is varied.
4 The Player should experience the menu as a part of the game.
5 Upon initially turning the game on the Player has enough information to get started to play.
6 Players should be given context sensitive help while playing so that they do not get stuck or have to rely on a manual.
7 Sounds from the game provide meaningful feedback or stir a particular emotion.
8 Players do not need to use a manual to play game.
9 The interface should be as non-intrusive to the Player as possible.
10 Make the menu layers well-organized and minimalist to the extent the menu options are intuitive.
11 Get the player involved quickly and easily with tutorials and/or progressive or adjustable difficulty levels.
12 Art should be recognizable to player, and speak to its function.
附錄二 一般遊戲篩選表
(初稿)動作遊戲篩選表
線上角色扮演遊戲篩選表
即時策略遊戲篩選表
社交遊戲篩選表
附錄三 一般遊戲知能量表
(初稿)附錄四 一般遊戲篩選表
(正式篩選表)動作遊戲(ACT)篩選表
線上角色扮演遊戲(MMORPG)篩選表
即時策略遊戲(RTS)篩選表
附錄五 一般遊戲知能量表
(正式量表)附錄六 角色扮演科學學習遊戲篩選表
(初稿)◎整體而言，您認為此遊戲適合何時使用？
□課前預習 □課堂教學 □課後複習 項目 學習動機
1-1 此遊戲中的玩家角色可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-2 此遊戲中的角色能力屬性可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-3 此遊戲中的故事可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-4 此遊戲中的任務可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-5 此遊戲中的獎勵可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
學習內容
2-1 此遊戲中的非玩家角色可協助學生了解學習內容。
2-2 此遊戲中的對話內容可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
2-3 此遊戲中的任務可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
2-4 此遊戲中的故事可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
2-5 此遊戲中的道具可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
學習情境
3-1 此遊戲中的場景可提供學生合適的學習情境。 □是 □否
3-1 此遊戲中的故事可提供學生合適的學習情境。 □是 □否
3-3 此遊戲中的任務可提供學生合適的學習情境。 □是 □否
學習活動
4-1 此遊戲中的任務難度可提供學生適度的挑戰。 □是 □否
4-2 此遊戲中的完成任務之歷程可提供學生探索的機會。 □是 □否 實驗工具
5-1 此遊戲中的道具可協助學生了解實驗工具。 □是 □否
回饋
6-1 此遊戲中的回饋可協助學生學習。 □是 □否
總計 是 否
附錄七 科學學習遊戲問卷
(初稿)附錄八 角色扮演科學學習遊戲篩選表
(正式篩選表)◎整體而言，您認為此遊戲適合何時使用？
□課前預習 □課堂教學 □課後複習 項目 學習動機
1-1 此遊戲中的玩家角色可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-2 此遊戲中的角色能力屬性(例：力量、敏捷、智慧)可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-3 此遊戲中的故事可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-4 此遊戲中的任務可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
1-5 此遊戲中的獎勵可引起學生學習動機。 □是 □否
學習內容
2-1 此遊戲中的對話內容可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
2-2 此遊戲中的任務可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
2-3 此遊戲中的故事可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
2-4 此遊戲中的道具可協助學生了解學習內容。 □是 □否
學習情境
3-1 此遊戲中的場景可提供學生合適的學習情境。 □是 □否
3-1 此遊戲中的故事可提供學生合適的學習情境。 □是 □否
3-3 此遊戲中的任務可提供學生合適的學習情境。 □是 □否
學習活動
4-1 此遊戲中的任務難度可提供學生適度的挑戰。 □是 □否
4-2 此遊戲中的完成任務之歷程可提供學生探索的機會。 □是 □否 實驗工具
5-1 此遊戲中的道具可協助學生了解實驗工具。 □是 □否
回饋
6-1 此遊戲中的回饋可協助學生學習(例：促進理解、加深印象)。 □是 □否 總計 是 否