淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


  查詢圖書館館藏目錄
系統識別號 U0002-1807201816454800
中文論文名稱 以問題解決歷程為核心之策略桌遊設計與成效探討
英文論文名稱 Design a Strategic Board Game Based on Problem-Solving Process and Explore Its Effect
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 教育科技學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Educational Technology
學年度 106
學期 2
出版年 107
研究生中文姓名 何慧怡
研究生英文姓名 Huei-Yi He
學號 605730158
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2018-07-05
論文頁數 129頁
口試委員 指導教授-李世忠
指導教授-吳純萍
委員-林千立
委員-林怡君
中文關鍵字 問題解決  桌上遊戲  SWOT分析方法 
英文關鍵字 Problem solving  Board game  SWOT analysis 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學教育學
中文摘要 問題解決是人們日常生活中最普遍的一種思維過程,所有生活都在持續的解決各式各樣的問題,當個體面對複雜問題時,運用現有的知識、技能及經驗來成功的解決問題,並達成自身所預期的結果。而遊戲被最看好的目的就是培養問題解決能力,促使玩家積極的參與複雜的問題解決情境。越來越多的桌上遊戲被教學者接受並使用於課堂中,並有著諸多的優點利於研究及課堂中使用。因此,本研究希望藉由設計一款以問題解決歷程為核心的策略桌上遊戲,幫助學生提升問題解決能力。本研究旨在了解遊戲滿意度及實施成效,透過設計一款以問題解決歷程為核心且立基於SWOT分析方法所產出之策略桌上遊戲,探究此桌遊對受試者的問題解決態度是否有影響。問題解決歷程指的是決策制定問題解決歷程,也就是決策者在面對問題時,會列舉出許多解決方案,並從中分出每個方案的利弊、實行可能性等多樣的角度,最後決定出要使用哪一個解決方案的過程。策略桌上遊戲即是玩家要在遊戲的過程中根據遊戲所提供的資源與環境,經過大量的思考、策畫及決策後執行或調整其行動來達成遊戲目標。本研究採用單組前後測實驗研究法。本研究在設計與製作桌遊的階段邀請7位人資與教育相關背景及1位小四生為受試者進行形成性評鑑,藉由觀察及問卷的方式蒐集遊戲機制、文字內容、美術介面、整體滿意度等方面的資料來做為遊戲修正的依據,並根據評鑑結果修正遊戲。在實驗階段受試者為53位來自私立科技大學商業管理相關科系背景,實驗前,研究對象會填寫問題解決態度前測,進行遊戲的講解說明及試玩,之後會再進行一次的遊戲,因此遊戲總共實施兩次,最後再填寫遊戲滿意度問卷及問題解決態度後測。研究結果如下:
1. 進行以問題解決歷程為核心之策略桌上遊戲,學習者對此遊戲的滿意度持中立看法。
2. 以問題解決態度歷程為核心之策略桌上遊戲,對學習者的問題解決態度整體來看是顯著下降,但也發現當學習者更加的了解認識遊戲規則及流程,會越投入沉浸在遊戲當中,進而表現在問題解決態度後測的分數就會越佳。
英文摘要 Individual would face a lot of problems in their daily life. Individual needs to use their knowledge, skill and experience to solve complex problem and achieve the goal. Game is an effective method for training problem solving skill. Prior research studies supported the advantages of integrating board game into teaching and learning. The purpose of this study is to design a strategic board game based on problem-solving process and SWOT principles. Furthermore, players’ satisfaction with the game and its impact on problem-solving disposition are examined empirically. According to the problem-solving research, individuals usually need to make decisions, list a lot of solutions and analyse their strengths and weaknesses or feasibility. Therefore, the mechanism of strategic board game includes careful thinking, decision-making, execution of behavior, adjustment of the actions and goal achieving. This study adopted the one-group pretest-posttest experimental research method. Seven adults with human resource or education background and one 4th grader were recruited for the formative evaluation and the game was revised based on their suggestions. In order to explore the effect of the game, fifty-three students participated in the study. The experiment was conducted for three weeks. Problem-solving inventory (PSI) questionnaire was implemented as the pre-test followed by the introduction of the game. Then the participants were invited to play the game per week. At the end of the study, the PSI and the game-satisfaction questionnaire were administered. The results of the research are as follows: Participants were moderately satisfied with the game. Participants’ problem-solving disposition decreased statistically significantly after the game. However, the result shows participants’ understanding of game rules and operation may influence on their engagement in the game process. The participants who reported higher level of engagement performed higher scores in the post-PSI questionnaire while controlling the effect of pre-PSI scores.
論文目次 目次
中文摘要i
英文摘要ii
目次iv
表次vi
圖次viii
第一章 緒論1
第一節 研究背景與動機1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題6
第三節 研究範圍7
第四節 名詞界定8
第二章 文獻探討10
第一節 問題解決10
第二節 嚴肅的桌上遊戲35
第三章 研究方法51
第一節 研究對象51
第二節 研究架構53
第三節 研究設計與流程56
第四節 研究工具與資料收集62
第五節 資料處理與分析84
第四章 研究結果85
第一節 形成性評鑑結果85
第二節 遊戲滿意度93
第三節 問題解決態度97
第四節 綜合討論103
第五章 結論與建議106
第一節 研究結論106
第二節 研究貢獻109
第三節 研究限制與建議111
參考文獻 116
中文文獻116
英文文獻119
附錄一、問題解決態度量表125
附錄二、遊戲滿意度問卷128
附錄三、施測同意書129

表次
表2-1-1決策矩陣方法22
表2-1-2國內外問題解決能力相關之研究25
表2-1-3問題解決態度相關之研究29
表2-1-4 SWOT分析方法運用於教育相關之研究32
表2-2-1問題類型 VS 遊戲類型39
表2-2-2國內外運用市面上現有的桌上遊戲於教育領域之研究44
表2-2-3國內外自行開發的桌上遊戲運用於教育領域之研究45
表2-2-4經驗遊戲模型VS本研究之策略桌上遊戲中玩家的行為49
表3-1-1研究對象之科系與人數51
表3-3-1實驗設計56
表3-4-1 SWOT分析方法與遊戲中玩家行為之關聯63
表3-4-2遊戲道具64
表3-4-3策略桌上遊戲VS決策制定歷程72
表3-4-4問題態度各面向之對應題號74
表3-4-5 KMO與Bartlettru檢定75
表3-4-6趨避風格面向旋轉元件矩陣76
表3-4-7自我控制面向元件陣76
表3-4-8信心面向旋轉元件矩陣77
表3-4-9問題解決態度各面向信度77
表3-4-10遊戲滿意度問卷各面向之對應題號79
表3-4-11 KMO與Bartlettru檢定80
表3-4-12可玩性面向旋轉元件矩陣81
表3-4-13遊戲與SWOT分析方法的關聯面向元件矩陣.82
表3-4-14沉浸性面向旋轉元件矩陣82
表3-4-15遊戲滿意度問卷各面向信度83
表4-1-1遊戲滿意度問卷各面向之平均分數85
表4-1-2遊戲修正建議與修正狀況表90
表4-2-1遊戲滿意度的描述性統計分析93
表4-2-2可玩性與沉浸性的關聯性96
表4-3-1問題解決態度的描述性統計97
表4-3-2問題解決態度的成對樣本t檢定98
表4-3-3態度前後測與沉浸性的關聯性99
表4-3-4趨避風格面向前後測與沉浸性的關聯性100
表4-3-5自我控制面向前後測與沉浸性的關聯性101
表4-3-6信心面向前後測與沉浸性的關聯性102

圖次
圖2-1-1問題的類型13
圖2-1-2問題之間的分類(先決條件/核心)關係19
圖2-1-3力場分析方法23
圖2-1-4 SWOT分析方法24
圖2-2-1經驗遊戲模型48
圖3-2-1研究架構圖53
圖3-3-1實驗流程57
圖3-3-2形成性評鑑流程規劃圖59
圖3-3-3總結性評鑑流程規劃圖61
圖3-4-1地圖板塊及物件設置完成圖67
圖3-4-2玩家道具68

參考文獻 中文文獻
丁崇民 (2009)。行動遊戲之可用性與沉浸性對使用者滿意度的影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立暨南大學,南投縣。
吳承翰 (2011)。桌上遊戲參與型態對人際溝通改善之研究-以臺北地區桌上遊戲專賣店顧客為例(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
吳春燕、郭凡瑞、黃國禎、鍾鼎、林亦汝 (2012)。創造思考教學策略對科技大學學生網路問題解決能力之影響。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報,8(1),37-70。
李麗君 (2013)。數位原生的特徵及其學習動機。載於高熏芳(主編),數位原生的學習與教學 (69-89頁)。台北:高等教育。
李昆翰。(2014)。遊戲化的機制與設計。國教新知,61(4),13-21。
邱子容 (2015)。桌上遊戲 VS 英語教學。師友月刊,579,69-72。
何慧怡、李世忠、吳純萍 (2018)。以問題解決歷程為核心之策略桌遊設計與發展之滿意度研究。「2018學術研討會:創新數位教學」發表之論文,私立淡江大學守謙國際會議中心。
周祝瑛 (2012年3月30日)。論壇與專題:讓孩子有選擇題外的選擇。蘋果日 報。取自http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/forum/20120330/34125429/
周祝瑛 (2015)。臺灣未來人才的圖像。師友月刊,572,35-38。
林育沖 (2011)。樂高設計教學影響國小學生科技學習成效之實驗研究(未出版之 碩士論文)。臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
林淑惠、黃韞臻 (2011)。中部大學生學業挫折容忍力與問題解決態度之相關研究。全球心理衛生E學刊,2(2),25-44。
林展立、賴婉文(2017)。教育型桌遊的設計循環模式之探究。中等教育,68(2),29-42。
侯惠澤 (2014)。愈玩愈愛學,達人教你挑「桌遊」。親子天下,60,208-211。
侯采伶 (2016)。 用桌遊翻轉學習-以國中數學質數為例。臺灣教育評論月刊, 5(5),132-137。
范丙林 (2011)。桌上遊戲應用於環境教育之研究。國立臺北教育大學發展學校重點特色計畫案成果報告書。臺北市:國立臺北教育大學。
陳心瑜 (2011)。學習風格對於大學生遊戲式學習之問題解決歷程之影響研究(未出版之碩士論文)。私立淡江大學:新北市。
陳筱璘 (2015)。桌遊提升自閉症學生敘事能力之實務分享。桃竹區特殊教育,25,30-37。
陳介宇 (2010)。從現代桌上遊戲的特點探討其運用於兒童學習的可行性。國教新知,57(4),40-45。
陳介宇、王沐嵐 (2017年2月26日)。臺灣桌上遊戲研究與文獻之回顧分析。取自https://sites.google.com/site/taiwanbgstudy/home
教育部 (2003)。創造力教育白皮書:打造創造力國度。臺北市:教育部。
教育部 (2014)。十二年國民基本教育課綱概要總綱。臺北市:教育部。
張春興 (1997)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北:東華。
張甘青(2012)。線上遊戲設計因素與使用者滿意度關聯性研究。東海大學圖書館館訊,132,72-98。
張俊彥、翁玉華(2000)。我國高一學生的問題解決能力與其科學過程技能之相關性研究。科學教育學刊,8(1),35-55。
張雪芬、黃雅萍 (2015)。小組合作概念構圖提升學童問題解決能力之研究。雙溪教育論壇,3,87-100。
張德銳、林縵君 (2016)。PBL在教學實習上的應用成效與困境之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,9(2),1-25。
黃心玫 (2013)。桌上遊戲在國小資源班的教學應用。桃竹區特殊教育,22,28-41。
黃茂在、陳文典 (2004)。「問題解決」的能力。科學教育月刊,273,21-41。
辜詩婷、洪榮照 (2016)。桌上遊戲融入社會技巧課程在提升高職選擇性緘默症學生溝通能力之成效研究。障礙者理解半年刊,15(2),41-64。
趙晨帆 (2010)。遊戲玩家類型、可玩性與遊戲滿意度、及使用行為之研究-以免 費線上休閒類遊戲為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
鄭堃斌 (2010年6月5日)。SWOT與SMART的應用探討-以CMMI OPP(組織流程績效)為例(下)。凌群電子報。取自http://www.syscom.com.tw/ePaper.aspx?id=153#h1
鄭仁偉 (2011)。提升青年就業力計畫成效評估暨就業力調查研究。教育部青年發展署之研究報告。臺北市:教育部青年發展署(原行政院青年輔導委員會)。
潘培鈞、賴阿福 (2014)。應用多元學習策略於Scratch程式設計課程對於五年委託級學童問題解決能力之影響。國教新知,61(4),46-63。
鍾才元、柯景耀、陳明終、楊政穎 (2015)。以體驗學習課程提升問題解決能力之準實驗研究。體驗教育學報,9,53-81。
魏妤珊 (2014)。桌上遊戲融入視覺藝術課程。師友月刊,567,100-103。
蘇昱暘 (2013)。設計桌上遊戲做為國小自然科教學輔助工具之研究—以「昆蟲的一生」單元為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。

英文文獻
Adanali, R. & Alim, M. (2017). The views of preservice teachers for problem based learning model supported by geocaching in environmental education. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 7(3), 264-292.
Addams, L. & Allfred, A. T. (2013). The first step in proactively managing student'careers: teaching self-SWOT analysis. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(4), 43-51.
Akyuz, H. I. & Keser, H. (2015). Effect of educational agent and its form characteristics on problem solving ability perception of students in online task based learning media. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(3), 265-281.
Ancel, G. (2016). Problem-solving training: Effects on the problem-solving skills and self-efficacy of nursing students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(64), 231-246.
Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I's” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 105-112.
Anyanwu, E. G. (2014). Anatomy adventure: A board game for enhancing understanding of anatomy. Anatomical sciences education, 7(2), 153-160.
Baytiyeh, H. (2017). The flipped classroom model: when technology enhances professional skills. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(1), 51-62.
Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H. & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729-760.
Cheng, H. N., Wu, W. M., Liao, C. C. & Chan, T. W. (2009). Equal opportunity tactic: Redesigning and applying competition games in classrooms. Computers & Education, 53(3), 866-876.
Cowley, B., Fantato, M., Jennett, C., Ruskov, M., & Ravaja, N. (2014). Learning when serious: psychophysiological evaluation of a technology-enhanced learning game. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 3-16.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Elvan, Ý. N. C. E., Güven, E., & Aydoğdu, M. (2010). Effect of problem solving method on science process skills and academic achievement. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(4), 13-25.
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. Educational technology & society, 17(1), 42-53.
Gagne, R. M (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & gaming, 33(4), 441-467.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning, 3, 21-40.
Gorucu, A. (2016). The investigation of the effects of physical education lessons planned in accordance with cooperative learning approach on secondary school students' problem solving skills. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(10), 998-1007.
Hanney, R. (2012). Are we any good at it: Using risk as a tool for reflection and critical enquiry: report of research in progress. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 10(1), 103-109.
Heppner, P. P., & Baker, C. E. (1997). Applications of the problem solving inventory. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development, 29(4), 229-241.
Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of counseling psychology, 29(1), 66.
Huang, N. T. N., Chiu, L. J., & Hong, J. C. (2016). Relationship among students’ problem-solving attitude, perceived value, behavioral attitude, and intention to participate in a science and technology contest. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(8), 1419-1435.
Johnson, K. (2013). Creating experiential learning in the graduate classroom through community engagement. American Journal of Business Education, 6(1), 149-154.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 48(4), 63-85.
Jonassen, D. H. (2010, Sep-Oct). Research issues in problem solving. The 11th International Conference on Education Research: New Paradigm for Learning and Instruction. Retrieved from https://www.aect.org/publications/whitepapers/2010/JonassenICER.pdf
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. London, England: Routledge.
Kadir, Z. A., Abdullah, N. H., Anthony, E., Salleh, B. M., & Kamarulzaman, R. (2016). Does problem-based learning improve problem solving skills? - A study among business undergraduates at malaysian premier technical university. International Education Studies, 9(5), 166-172.
Kalafsky, R. V., & Sonnichsen, T. (2015). Employing SWOT analysis in coursework on the geographies of regional economic development and trade. Journal of Geography, 114(5), 177-187.
Kiili, K. (2005). On educational game design: Building blocks of flow experience. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of Technology Press.
Kiili, K., & Lainema, T. (2008). Foundation for measuring engagement in educational games. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 469-488.
Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 161-179.
Kirikkaya, E. B., Iseri, S., & Vurkaya, G. (2010). A board game about space and solar system for primary school students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 1-13.
Korkmaz, Ö. (2016). The effect of scratch and lego mindstorms Ev3 based programming activities on academic achievement, problem-solving skills and logical-mathematical thinking skills of students. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 73-88.
Lennon, J. L., & Coombs, D. W. (2007). The utility of a board game for dengue haemorrhagic fever health education. Health Education, 107(3), 290-306.
Lian, J., & He, F. (2013). Improved performance of students instructed in a hybrid PBL format. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(1), 5-10.
Mayer, B., & Harris, C. (2010). Libraries got game: Aligned learning through modern board games. New York, NY: American Library Association.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Otacioglu, S. (2008). Prospective teachers' problem solving skills and self-confidence levels. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 915-923.
Pippins, T., Anderson, C. M., Poindexter, E. F., Sultemeier, S. W., & Schultz, L. D. (2011). Element cycles: An environmental chemistry board game. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1112-1115.
Rajotte, T. (2016, Mar). Evaluation of the effect of mathematical routines on the development of skills in mathematical problem solving and school motivation of primary school students in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. 5th New Perspectives in Science Education. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the PIXEL, Florence, Italy.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). 21st-Century Skills. American Educator, 17, 17-20.
Sahin, N., Sahin, N. H., & Heppner, P. P. (1993). Psychometric properties of the problem solving inventory in a group of Turkish university students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17(4), 379-396.
Seyhan, H. G. (2015). The effects of problem solving applications on the development of science process skills, logical thinking skills and perception on problem solving ability in the science laboratory. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(2), 1-31.
Seyhan, H. G. (2016). The efficacy of problem-based learning in an instrumental analyse laboratory. Higher Education Studies, 6(4), 100-118.
Spiegel, C. N., Alves, G. G., Cardona, T. D. S., Melim, L. M., Luz, M. R., Araújo-Jorge, T. C., & Henriques-Pons, A. (2008). Discovering the cell: an educational game about cell and molecular biology. Journal of Biological Education, 43(1), 27-36.
Spires, H. A., Rowe, J. P., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2011). Problem solving and game-based learning: Effects of middle grade students' hypothesis testing strategies on learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(4), 453-472.
Stracey, C. (2008). Alien Invaders! A board game about the threats posed by introduced species. Science Scope, 31(6), 53-57.
Struwig, M. C., Beylefeld, A. A., & Joubert, G. (2014). Learning medical microbiology and infectious diseases by means of a board game: Can it work?. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 389-399.
Sun, C. T., Wang, D. Y., & Chan, H. L. (2011). How digital scaffolds in games direct problem-solving behaviors. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2118-2125.
Suprapto, E., Fahrizal, F., Priyono, P., & Basri, K. (2017). The application of problem-based learning strategy to increase high order thinking skills of senior vocational school students. International Education Studies, 10(6), 123-129.
Susi, T., Johannesson, M. and Backlund, P. (2007) Serious Games: An overview (Technical Report HS-IKI-TR-07-001). Retrieved from University of Skövde, http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:2416/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Temel, S. (2014). The effects of problem-based learning on pre-service teachers' critical thinking dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability. South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1-20.
Thompson, J. B. (2013). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12-33.
Uysal, M. P. (2014). Improving first computer programming experiences: the case of adapting a web-supported and well-structured problem-solving method to a traditional course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(3), 198-217.
Van Eck, R. (2010). Aligning problem solving and gameplay: A model for future research and design. In W. Hung & R. Van Eck (Eds.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions (pp. 227-263). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Wolfgang, K. (2000, Dec). What Is a Game? The Games Journal. Retrieved from http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatIsaGame.shtml
Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38(9), 25-32.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2018-07-24公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2023-07-24起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2486 或 來信