淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


系統識別號 U0002-3007201823033300
中文論文名稱 情境模擬桌遊之設計與成效探究─以營養學為例
英文論文名稱 Design a Simulation Board Game 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 陳佳欣
研究生英文姓名 Jia-Sin Chen
學號 606730017
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2018-07-05
論文頁數 96頁
口試委員 指導教授-吳純萍
指導教授-李世忠
委員-林千立
委員-林怡君
中文關鍵字 問題決策  情境模擬  學習任務複雜度 
英文關鍵字 decision making  simulation  complexity of the learning tasks 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學教育學
中文摘要 情境模擬法提供機會讓學生觀察與反思在真實情境中學習內容的應用情形,若進一步將學習內容的應用轉以待解決的問題形式來呈現,引導學生深入了解問題的定義、分析解決方案,將有助於提昇其學習層次。然而,真實世界的資訊是繁多且複雜,若於情境模擬教材中刻意省略很多資訊,將可能導致學習者無法順利將所學遷移至真實世界中,反之,當學習者對於情境模擬教材的學習內容沒有足夠的學習背景或知識時,此時若未將細節資訊予以省略,學習者將沒有判斷資訊正確性之能力而影響學習成效。本研究以日常飲食決策為主題,並以情境模擬為設計核心開發一套紙本情境模擬桌遊以及數位飲食回饋系統,引導受測者在桌遊歷程中進行選餐決策,並不斷反思餐點優劣以作為決策依據。期望藉此探討出對受試者培養問題決策能力之最佳教材設計方式,以作為未來設計情境模擬教材之參考。本研究採用準實驗不等組前後測研究法探究不同學習資訊複雜度對於受試者之飲食攝取自我效能與營養學知識之精熟度影響。本研究共邀請選修同一門教育科技相關科目的大學生(共計86位)參與實驗,並隨機分派其中兩個班級為單一資訊組,另兩個班級為複合資訊組。實驗共進行兩周,每周受試者以四人為小組共同進行情境模擬桌遊,受試者的飲食攝取自我效能與營養學知識於實驗前及實驗後以測驗及問卷的方式進行評估,再者於實驗結束後,研究者藉由問卷來收集受試者對於桌遊的滿意度以及心流經驗。研究結果顯示:
一、 受試者對於本研究所設計之情境模擬桌遊之滿意度與心流經驗皆達尚可程度,表示本研究之桌遊設計仍有改進空間。
二、 本研究所設計之情境模擬桌遊有助於提升受試者飲食攝取自我效能,然而在學習任務執行過程中呈現不同資訊量對於自我效能的改變並無顯著差異。
三、 本研究所設計之情境模擬桌遊以及對於學習者之營養學知識的提昇效果並未得到支持,而在學習任務執行過程中呈現不同資訊量對於營養學知識之提升也無顯著差異。
英文摘要 The purposes of this study are: (1) to design a serious board game simulating the daily eating decision-making and an e-feedback system to engage students in the iterative process of making decisions and reflecting their decisions by observing the impact of the decisions (2) to explore the impact of the board game on students’ self-efficacy of balanced diet and nutrition knowledge. A pre-and-posttest quasi-experimental research was conducted. Four classes of university students matriculated in educational technology program were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions (simplified-information group vs. complex-information group). Specifically, 46 subjects participated in the simplified information condition while 40 subjects in the complex information conditions. The subjects’ self-efficacy and nutrition knowledge were assessed prior and after the intervention. During the two-week intervention, the subjects, working in a group of four, played the board game once per week. At the end of the study, the subjects’ satisfaction with the game and flow experience were collected via questionnaire. The results are as follow: (1) the subjects reported moderately satisfaction and flow experience, which indicates the board game design still has improved demand. (2) The pair t test result supports the positive impact of subjects’ self-efficacy on both experimental conditions; however, no statistically significant difference in the self-efficacy scores between the two conditions were supported in the ANCOVA results. (3) Neither the positive impact of subjects’ nutrition knowledge nor the differences of the nutrition knowledge between the two groups were supported.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 4
第三節 研究範圍 5
第四節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 決策型的問題 9
第二節 情境模擬 14
第三節 桌上遊戲 19
第四節 自我效能 22
第三章 研究方法 24
第一節 研究架構 24
第二節 研究設計 26
第三節 研究對象 27
第四節 情境模擬桌遊 27
第五節 我的飲食我做主桌遊介紹 37
第六節 實驗流程設計 42
第七節 研究流程 42
第八節 研究工具 44
第九節 資料處理 53
第四章 結果與討論 54
第一節 桌遊滿意度研究結果 54
第二節 飲食攝取自我效能研究結果 56
第三節 營養學知識測驗研究結果 62
第四節 綜合討論 68
第五章 結論與建議 72
第一節 研究結論 72
第二節 研究貢獻 75
第三節 研究限制 76
第四節 研究建議 77
參考文獻 79
附錄一、飲食攝取自我效能問卷信效度結果 88
附錄二、營養學知識前測卷各題難易度與鑑別度 89
附錄三、營養學知識後測卷各題難易度與鑑別度 92
附錄四、遊戲滿意度問卷各題信效度結果 95
附錄五、研究資料使用同意書 96
表目錄
表2-2-1 模擬的分類 15
表3-2-1 研究設計 26
表3-3-1 研究樣本組別與人數 27
表3-8-1 飲食攝取自我效能量表之信效度 46
表3-8-2 營養學知識前測卷之雙向細目表 48
表3-7-3 營養學知識後測卷之雙向細目表 48
表3-8-4 營養知識前測卷之各學習主題難易度與鑑別度 49
表3-8-5 營養知識後測卷之各題難易度與鑑別度 49
表3-8-6 桌遊滿意度問卷第一部分「遊戲滿意度」之信效度分析結果 52
表3-8-7 桌遊滿意度問卷第二部分「心流經驗」之信效度分析結果 52
表4-1-1 兩組實驗組對於桌遊滿意度第一部分「遊戲滿意度」之描述性統計
結果 55
表4-1-2 兩組實驗組在第一部分「遊戲滿意度」之四個面向描述性統計結果 55
表4-1-3 兩組實驗組對於心流經驗之描述性統計分析結果 56
表4-2-1 「單一資訊組」飲食攝取自我效能之各項度前後測統計摘要(N=46) 57
表4-2-2 「單一資訊組」飲食攝取自我效能之各向度前後測成對樣本T檢定
摘要表(N=46) 57
表4-2-3 「複合資訊組」飲食攝取自我效能之各項度前後測統計摘要(N=40) 58
表4-2-4 「複合資訊組」飲食攝取自我效能之各向度前後測成對樣本T檢定
  摘要表(N=40) 59
表4-2-5 自我效能量表總分共變數分析 60
表4-2-6 自我效能量表之三向度同質性考驗結果 60
表4-2-7 自我效能量表「向度一:均衡健康飲食行為」之共變數分析 61
表4-2-8 自我效能量表「向度二:健康飲食行為技巧」之共變數分析 61
表4-2-9 自我效能量表「向度三:減少脂肪與鹽分的堅持」之共變數分析 62
表4-3-1 「單一資訊組」營養學知識測驗之各項度前後測統計摘要(N=46) 63
表4-3-2 「複合資訊組」營養學知識測驗之各項度前後測統計摘要(N=40) 64
表4-3-3 營養知識測驗總分之共變數分析 65
表4-3-4 營養知識測驗之三概念同質性考驗結果 65
表4-3-5 營養學知識測驗「概念一:一般飲食原則」之共變數分析 66
表4-3-6 營養學知識測驗「概念二:食物營養素與健康關係」之共變數分析 67
表4-3-7 營養學知識測驗「概念三:具抗癌功效與易罹癌食物之認知」之共
  變數分析 67

圖目錄
圖2-1-1 自然主義模式之識別啟動決策模型_簡易版本 11
圖2-1-2 自然主義模式之識別啟動決策模型_複雜版本 12
圖3-1-1 研究架構圖 24
圖3-4-1 選擇餐廳與餐點畫面 29
圖3-4-2 觀看餐點食物 29
圖3-4-3 任務卡與答案 29
圖3-4-4 放置完食物牌與顏色磁鐵的六大類桌遊底圖示意圖 30
圖3-4-5 食物牌間之連接方式示意圖 30
圖3-4-6 於個人飲食量表圈選餐點示意圖 31
圖3-4-7 於個人飲食量表紀錄選到較不健康營養素的食物示意圖 31
圖3-4-8 於個人飲食量表紀錄餐點的花費示意圖 31
圖3-3-7 決策截點圖 32
圖3-4-8 六大類桌遊底圖上擺放各玩家之食物紙牌與顏色磁鐵示意圖 33
圖3-4-9 個人飲食量表中的「建議攝取量」欄位 33
圖3-4-10 營養素紀錄欄填答示意圖 34
圖3-4-11 在數位回饋系統中回答相關問題 35
圖3-4-12 觀看數位回饋系統呈現的飲食決策後果與建議 35
圖3-4-13 數位回饋系統呈現各大類攝取結果 36
圖3-4-14 長期進行飲食決策將會導致的後果 36
圖3-4-15 詳細的飲食建議 37
圖3-6-1 一次情境模擬的循環 42
圖3-7-1研究流程 43

參考文獻 中文文獻
毛梅娜、黄斌 (2008)。大學生英語學習中的自我效能感來源研究。高等函授學報 (哲
社版),21(2),72-73。
呂雀芬、吳淑美、徐瑩媺、葉美玉 (2018)。遊戲式學習於護理教育應用-同理心桌遊教
  學。護理雜誌,65(1),96-103。
李堅萍(2006)。工藝技能學習成效與自我效能之相關性研究。藝術教育研究,(12),
39-64。
林晏如、蘇文霓、葉玲岑、王秀媛、蔡育君、洪永瀚(2014) 。營養教育對過重成人自我效能和飲食行為改變。臺灣醫學,18(2),144-152。
周成蕙、黃慧芬、劉桂芬 (2014)。熟能生巧-情境模擬在護理教育的應用。榮總護理,31(3),226-233。
周啟葶、黃玟君、黃平宇 (2011)。英語自我效能、英語學習策略與英語學習成就之
相關研究。高雄師大學報:人文與藝術類,(31),35-60。
邱詩揚、陳富莉、劉潔心 (2012)。促進小學生健康飲食行為之研究:整合跨理論模式及問題導向學習模式。臺灣公共衛生雜誌,31(6),581-596。
邱啟潤、柯任桂(2000)。健康相關的飲食與運動行爲自我效能量表信度效度之評估。護理研究,8(3),301-312。
侯采伶 (2016)。用桌遊來翻轉學習-以國中數學質數為例。臺灣教育評論月刊,5(5),132-137。
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。
陳宏斌、蔡秀金 (2012)。以計劃行為理論探討大學生的健康飲食行為意圖-以國立澎湖
科技大學為例。運動休閒餐旅研究,7(3),78-103。
陳佩英、賴玉敏、陳柔亦、孫嘉玲 (2016)。大學生營養知識,飲食行為與健康
狀態相關研究。健康與建築雜誌,3(3),52-60。
許于仁、楊美娟(2016)。運用數位化桌遊探討理性情緒信念,同理心與情緒決策風格之
關係。教育傳播與科技研究,(115),59-72。
郭麗琴、楊星瑜 (2005)。運用自我效能於一位初次罹患第二型糖尿病門診病患護理經
驗。東港安泰醫護雜誌,11(1),49-59。
張淑紅、黃璉華、李源德 (1996)。個別衛生教育介入對高脂血個案知識、健康信念、
自我效能、行為的影響。中華公共衛生雜誌,15(3),188-196。
常雅珍 (2017)。桌上遊戲課程與教學之應用─以小學六年級學生為例。科學教育學
刊,25(2),119-142。
健康世界編輯部(2017)。食育有新招!新創桌遊幫你改掉飲食壞習慣!健康世界,
  (488),23-23。
彭田、郭憲文 (1994)。中部專科學生對一般營養與西式速食營養之知識和態度的相關
因素探討。臺灣營養學會雜誌,19(3),309-318。
黃淑貞、姚元青(1999)。大學生的健康信念、飲食相關自我效能與飲食行為研究。師大
學報:教育類,44(1&2),43-53。
黃庭鍾、黃雯菁、陳素玲 (2011)。在職進修護理人員之營養知識,營養態度及
飲食行為關聯性研究。若瑟醫護雜誌,5(1),6-20。
黃麟祺、洪健詠、張傑智 (2009)。情境模擬會話學習系統。電腦與通訊,(128),93-100。
傳安弘、簡嘉靜 (2007)。營養學課程教育對非營養系學生營養知識的影響。臺灣營養學會雜誌,32(2),54-65。
葉炳煙(2015)。國小學童游泳課自我效能與學習成效之研究。國立金門大學學報,
5(2),37-50。
潘詩婷 (2001)。國小學童英語學習態度之研究---以大台北地區為例。臺灣師範大學三
民主義研究所學位論文,1-122。
劉旨峰、葉慈瑜、蔡元隆、鍾濟謙、徐慧湘 (2015). Integration of Educational Board
Game and Creative Thinking Spiral Teaching Strategies to Developing Student. 臺灣教
  育評論月刊,4(9),101-109。
戴育芳、鄭永熏 (2017)。桌上遊戲融入國小閩南語教學對學生閩南語口語能力與學習
自信心的影響。國際數位媒體設計學刊,9(2),54-62。

英文文獻
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. Allyn & Bacon, Inc..
Amaro S, Viggiano A, Costanzo A, Madeo I, Viggiano A, Baccari ME, Marchitelli E, Raia M,
  Viggiano E, Deepak S, Monda M, Luca B (2006) Kalèdo, a new educational board-
  game, gives nutritional rudiments and encourages healthy eating in children: a pilot
  cluster randomized trial. Eur J Pediatr 165:630–635. doi: 10.1007/s00431-006-0153-9
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2),
122.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games. Simulation and Games, 12(3), 307-332.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Chen, S. Y., Sheu, S., Chang, C. S., Wang, T. H., & Huang, M. S. (2010). The effects of the
self-efficacy method on adult asthmatic patient self-care behavior. Journal of Nursing
Research, 18(4), 266-274.
Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69. (EJ 508 659)
Clark, R. E., & Voogel, A. (1985). Transfer of training principles for instructional design. Ectj, 33(2), 113.
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 371-500.
Corbeil, P., & Laveault, D. (2011). Validity of a simulation game as a method for history teaching. Simulation & Gaming, 42, 462-475.
Courtney, S., Speck, S., & Holtorf, P. "The Impact of Motivation, Volition, and Classroom Context on Adult Learning." In proceedings of the 15th annual Midwest research-to-practice conference adult, continuing and community education, pp. 35-39. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1996.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.(1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Faria, A. J. (1998). Business simulation games: Current usage levels—An update. Simulation & Gaming, 29(3), 295-308.
Feltovich, P. F. & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance(pp. 421–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fukuchi, S. G., Offutt, L. A., Sacks, J., & Mann, B. D. (2000). Teaching a multidisciplinary
approach to cancer treatment during surgical clerkship via an interactive board game.
The American journal of surgery, 179(4), 337-340.
Gaudart, H. (1999). Games as teaching tools for teaching English to speakers of other
languages. Simulation & Gaming, 30(3), 283-291.
Gerich, M., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Using simulated parent-teacher talks to assess and improve prospective teachers' counseling competence. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 285-301.
Gobet, F., Retschitzki, J., & de Voogt, A. (2004). Moves in mind: The psychology of board
  games. Psychology Press.
Hinebaugh, J. P. (2009). A board game education. R&L Education.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 48(4), 63-85.
Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational technology research and development, 60(2), 341-359.
Jones, J. S., Tincher, L., Odeng-Otu, E., & Herdman, M. (2015). An educational board game
  to assist PharmD students in learning autonomic nervous system pharmacology.
  American journal of pharmaceutical education, 79(8), 114.
Kalyuga, S. (2009). The expertise reversal effect. In Managing Cognitive Load in Adaptive
Multimedia Learning (pp. 58-80). IGI Global.
Keys, J. B. (1997). Strategic management games: A review. Simulation & Gaming, 28(4), 395-422.
Khan, A., & Pearce, G. (2015). A study into the effects of a board game on flow in
undergraduate business students. The International Journal of Management Education,
13(3), 193-201.
Klein, G. (1993). Naturalistic decision making: Implications for design. (No. CSERIAC93-01). KLEIN ASSOCIATES INC FAIRBORN OH.
Kobzeva, N. (2015). Scrabble as a tool for engineering students’ critical thinking skills
development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 369-374.
Krange, I., Moen, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Computer-based 3D simulation: a study of communication practices in a trauma team performing patient examination and diagnostic work. Instructional Science, 40(5), 829-847.
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 1335-1342.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York: Cambridge, 1988.
Lee, H., Boo, S., Yu, J., Suh, S. R., Chun, K. J., & Kim, J. H. (2017). Physical functioning,
physical activity, exercise self-efficacy, and quality of life among individuals with
chronic heart failure in Korea: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Journal of Nursing
Research, 25(2), 131-139.
Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 217-230.
Mayer, R.E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
Mayer, B., & Harris, C. (2010). Libraries got game: Aligned learning through modern board
games. American Library Association.
McCall, J. (2012). Navigating the problem space: The medium of simulation games in the teaching of history. The History Teacher, 46(1), 9-28.
Mohammadi, S., Karim, N. A., Talib, R. A., & Amani, R. (2018). The impact of self-efficacy
education based on the health belief model in Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes: a
randomised controlled intervention study. Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition,
27(3),546.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 239-263). Springer Netherlands.
Niv-Solomon, A., Janik, L. L., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Urlacher, B., Brown, S. W., & Maneggia, D. (2011). Evolving beyond self-interest? Some experimental findings from simulated international negotiations. Simulation & Gaming, 42(6), 711-732. doi:10.1177/1046878109341764
Paris, T. N. S. T., & Yussof, R. L. (2012). Enhancing grammar using board game. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 213-221.
Paris, T. N. S. T. D., & Yussof, R. L. (2013). Use of ‘time trap board game’to teach grammar.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 398-409.
Parker, W., Mosborg, S., Bransford, J., Vye, N., Wilkerson, J., & Abbott, R. (2011). Rethinking advanced high school coursework: Tackling the depth/breadth tension in the AP U.S. government and politics course. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(4), 533-559. doi:10.1080/00220272.2011.584561
Parlett, D. (1999). The Oxford history of board games. Oxford University Press.
Pate, G. S., & Meteja, J. A. (1979). Retention: The real power of simulation/gaming. Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, 1, 195-202. Retrieved from http://sbaweb.wayne.edu/~absel/bkl/.%5Cjels%5C1-3b.pdf
Pierfy, D. A. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and steppingstones. Simulation & Games, 8, 255-268.
Pozo-Barajas, R., del Pópulo Pablo-Romero, M., & Caballero, R. (2013). Evaluating a computer-based simulator program to teach the principles of macroeconomic equilibria. Computers & Education, 69, 71-84.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehall, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming,23(3), 261-276.
Salmina, N. G., & Tihanova, I. G. (2011). Psychological and pedagogical expertise of board
  games. Psychological Science and Education, 2011(2), 18-25.
Shor, I. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. University of Chicago Press.
Shor, I. (1987). Critical teaching and every day life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford
library of psychology.
Stein, D. (1998). Situated learning in adult education. ERIC Digest, 195.
Stephens, J. M., Feinberg, J., & Zack, J. (2013). Those who do: Social studies teachers’ use ofrole play and simulations and the making of 21st century citizens. In J. Passe & P. G. Fitchett (Eds.), The status of social studies: Views from the field, (pp. 259-279).Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Viggiano, A., Viggiano, E., Di Costanzo, A., Viggiano, A., Andreozzi, E., Romano, V., ... &
  Fevola, C. (2015). Kaledo, a board game for nutrition education of children and
  adolescents at school: cluster randomized controlled trial of healthy lifestyle promotion.
  European journal of pediatrics, 174(2), 217-228.
Williams, R. H., & Williams, A. J. (2007). In pursuit of peace: Attitudinal and behavioral change with simulations and multiple identification theory. Simulation & Gaming, 38(4), 453-471. doi:10.1177/1046878107300675
Yang, H. L., Kao, Y. H., & Huang, Y. C. (2006). The job self-efficacy and job involvement of
clinical nursing teachers. Journal of Nursing Research, 14(3), 237-249.
Yates, J. F. (2003). Decision management: How to assure better decisions in your company. San Francisco,
Yates, J. F., & Tschirhart, M. D. (2006). Decision-making expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness,
Yates, J. F., & Tschirhart, M. D. (2006). Decision-making expertise. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 421-438.
Yu, K. C., Fan, S. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2015). Enhancing students’ problem-solving skills through context-based learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1377-1401.
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2023-08-01公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2023-08-01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