第五章 結論與建議
5.2 建議
根據本研究的發現及所歸納的結論，以下針對教學及未來研究方面提出幾點建議：
一、對教學的建議
一個充滿支持、鼓勵的學習活動對自我效能的發展是有利的，學童不僅可以因此長 時間累積其自我效能的建立，亦能使學童在此學習活動願意展現其自我調節，進而使其 持續主動投入於學習活動當中。活動難易度的安排須要考量學童認知學習的測近發展 區，並且能提供學童有自我調節的機會，使其不僅能在做中學習，並且能從中獲得樂趣。
對於自我調節運用度不高的學童，可適時引導學童運用其自我調節專注從事學習任務，
使其能在目標明確與回饋清晰的學習任務中獲得樂趣與控制感，並因此得到建立自信的 回饋。
二、對未來研究的建議
（一）、本研究以學童自由選擇關卡的方式進行研究實驗，本欲藉此探討不同選擇模式 之群組間的自我效能、自我調節及心流經驗差異。但除由簡至難的選擇模式外，其他選
擇模式的樣本數不足，導致無法建立可信的分析比較。因此，將來相關研究可以由簡至 難與由難至簡之關卡難度排序，探討關卡難度排序對心流歷程差異的影響及歷程中自我 效能與自我調節的變動趨勢。
（二）、本研究在分析不同年級學童的自我調節差異時，發現遊戲歷程中五年級學童比 四年級學童的自我調節高，但未達顯著差異。因此，將來可考慮擴大年齡差距，以探討 不同年齡層其自我調節的差異對心流經驗差異的影響。
（三）、接續本研究自我調節及成就表現對心流經驗的影響，可藉由精熟學習目標導向 與成就目標導向之不同動機目標學童，探討其在活動歷程中對活動的回饋頻率偏向的差 異因素，對自我效能改變幅度及心流狀態表現是否會有差異影響。
（四）、本研究主要以量化分析探討實驗變項間的相關性為主，將來應蒐集更多質化資 料輔以說明，使研究更加完整有說服力。
（五）、本研究實驗各關卡遊玩時間皆僅有十分鐘，此可能為心流歷程狀態影響自我效 能未有大幅度改變的原因。將來可延長各階段關卡遊玩時間，以檢驗自我效能是否會因 心流歷程狀態改變而有大幅度的改變。
參考文獻
中文部份
王淑玲、蔡今中（2004）。社會認知理論中的自我調制學習在網路合作設計之應用與評 估：學習動機對合作設計之學習歷程與成果之影響(3/3)。（國科會專案報告，計畫 編號：NSC92-2520-S-011-001）
巫博瀚（2005）。以結構方程模式檢驗自我調整學習對國中生學習成就之影響。國立台 灣科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文。
吳幸宜（1994）。教學理論與教學應用。台北：心理出版社。
吳幸玲、郭靜晃（譯）（2003）。James E. Johnson, James F. Christie & Thomas D. Yam Key 著。兒童遊戲－遊戲發展的理論與實務（Play and Early Childhood Development）。
台北：揚智。
洪素蘋、林珊如（2004）。Whatever you say, I can do it ─「 學生創意自我效能量 表」之編製。論文發表於政治大學創新與創造力研究中心主辦之2004年第二屆「創 新與創造力」研討會，台北。
孫春在、林珊如（2007）。網路合作學習。台北：心理出版社。
曹文力（2006）。在遊戲情境中以沉浸經驗探討玩興對創造力的影響。交通大學理學院 網路學習學程碩士論文。
黃瓊慧（2000）。從沉浸(flow)理論探討台灣大專學生網路使用之行為。國立交通大學 傳播研究所碩士論文。
程炳林（2001）。動機、目標設定、行動控制、學習策略之關係：自我調整學習歷程模 式之建構及驗證。師大學報，46（1），67-92。
廖根龍（2005）。遊戲學習情境中思考風格對問題解決的影響。交通大學理學院網路學 習學程碩士論文。
蘇冠銘、陳瓊美（2001）。引發學習動機的最佳方案：電腦遊戲。Tanet 2001。嘉義：中 正大學。
英文部份
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In D. Cervone, & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization. New York : Guilford Press.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. S. (1999). Optimal experience of web activities.
Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 585–608.
Chen, H. (2000). Exploring web users’ on-line optimal flow experiences. Dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, Unpublished.
Clarke, S.G., & Haworth, J.T. (1994). Flow experience in daily lives of sixth-form college students. British Journal of Psychology, 85(4), 511–523.
Collins, J. L. (1982). Self-efficacy ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at the snnusl meeting of the American Education Research Association, NY.
Costikyan, G. (2002). I Have No Words & I Must Design. In Mäyrä, F. Conference
Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures, pp. 9-33, Tampere University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
& Row.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: The Macmillan Company
Doganis, G., Iosifidou, P., & Vlachopoulos, S. (2000). Factor structure and internal
consistency of the Greek version of the Flow State Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(3), 1231–1240.
Ellington, H., Adinall, E., & Percival, F. (1982). A Handbook of Game Design. London, UK:
Kogan.
Ghatala, E. S., Levin, J. R., Foorman, B. R., & Pressley, M. (1989). Improving children’s regulation of their reading PREP time. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(1), 49-66.
Huang, M. H. (2003). Designing Website Attributes To Induce Experiential Encounters.
Computers in Human Behavior, 19(4), 425-442.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 17-35.
Jackson, S. A. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in Sports. Champaign: Human Kinetic.
Lancy, D. F. (1985). Will video games alter relationship between play and cognitive
development. Paper presented at a Symposium on Play and Cognitive Development in Cross-cultural Perspective at the Eight Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development. Tours, France.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266-287). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64 (2), 275-310.
Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (1997). Measuring the Flow Experience Among Web Users.
Paper presented at the Interval Research Corporation.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (1998). Modeling the Structure of the Flow Experience. INFORMS Marketing Science and the Internet Mini-Conference, MIT.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, (2nd edn) McGraw Hill: New York.
Pearce, J. M., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The Ebb and Flow of Online Learning.
Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 745-771.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Raybourn, E. M., & Bos, N. (2005). Design and evaluation challenges of serious games.
Proceeding of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,
2049-2050.
Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58.
Russell, W. D. (2001). An examination of flow state occurrence in college athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 83-107.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Domain-specific measurement of students’self-regulated learning processes. Pater presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy During Self-Regulated Learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 75-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement:
Theoretical Perspectives. (pp. 1-39). Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associatedes.
Stone, A. A., Kessler, R. C., & Haythornwaite, J. A. (1991). Measuring daily events and experiences: Decisions for the researcher. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 575-607.
Trevino, L. K., Webster, J. (1992). Flow in computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 19(5), 539–573.
Vygotsky, L. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5(3), 6-18.
Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1993). The Dimensionality and Correlates of Flow in Human-Computer Interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(4), 411-426.
Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self-recording of everyday life events: Origins, types, and uses. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 339-354.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B.
J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulatedlearning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-25). New York: Springer.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173-201.
Zimmerman,, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 13-39).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. (2nd edn., pp.289-307). Mahwah NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An overview.Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29-36.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements of confidence on children’s self-efficacy and problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73(4), 485-493.
附錄
A.2 遊戲情境自我效能量表
學號： 姓名： 性別：□男 □女
題號
題目
1
非常不符合
2大部分不符合 3一
半 符 合 一 半 不 符 合
4
大部分符合
5
非常符合
1. 我確定我可以了解這個關卡的問題情境 1 2 3 4 5 2. 我確定我在（此）關卡中可以挑選到適當的工具 1 2 3 4 5 3. 我有信心可以解決關卡中所遭遇的困難或問題 1 2 3 4 5 4. 我相信我的技能可以克服這個關卡的挑戰 1 2 3 4 5
5. 我有信心可以通過這個遊戲關卡 1 2 3 4 5
A.3 遊戲情境自我調節量表
A.4 心流歷程及遊戲成就表現問卷
問卷3
附錄 B 個案研究分析結果
順序4,難度1
表B-3 樣本 4009 之各構面指標
順序1,難度1
表B-6 樣本 4027 之各構面指標 樣本
編號
自我 調節
（PR）
自我 調節 群組
自我 反應
（PR）
自我 反應 群組
心流 狀態
（PR）
心流 狀態 群組
自我 效能
（PR）
自我 效能 群組 4027 64.44 中 81.48 高 18.15 低 67.78 中 關卡選擇順序：難度1－難度 4－難度 3－難度 2