本研究旨在設計並開發一款以 Unity 為基礎的 3D RPG 教育遊戲，藉由遊戲化學習的方式，提升國中學生對 Scratch 程式設計的學習興趣與成效。透過故事劇情與互動任務，引導學生逐步掌握事件驅動、變數、條件判斷等程式設計核心概念，並在遊戲情境中實作與應用。研究過程涵蓋遊戲設計、開發、測試與學習成效分析，採用問卷與前後測檢驗學生在學習後的成長。研究結果顯示，本遊戲具有良好的教育潛力與學習輔助效果，能有效提升學生對程式設計的動機與理解能力。本研究亦提供未來教育遊戲設計的參考架構，期能促進中學生在數位學習環境中的主動探索與邏輯思維培養。

This study aims to design and develop a 3D RPG educational game using Unity to enhance middle school students’ interest and effectiveness in learning Scratch programming through game-based learning. Through narrative-driven missions and interactive gameplay, students gradually master core programming concepts such as event-driven logic, variables, conditionals, and loops, applying them within practical game scenarios. The research involves game design, development, user testing, and learning effectiveness analysis using questionnaires and pre/post-tests to measure learning outcomes. The results indicate that the game offers strong educational potential, effectively boosting student motivation and understanding of programming. This study also proposes a reference framework for future educational game development, promoting active exploration and logical thinking in digital learning environments.

LIST OF CONTENTS	
ACKNOWLEDGMENT	I
LIST OF CONTENTS	V
TABLE OF CONTENTS	VIII
FIGURE OF CONTENTS	X
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION	1
1.1RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION	1
1.1.1 CHALLENGES IN PROGRAMMING EDUCATION	1
1.1.2 THE RISE OF BLOCK-BASED PROGRAMMING TOOLS	2
1.1.3 ADVANTAGES OF GAME-BASED LEARNING	3
1.1.4 ALIGNMENT WITH TAIWAN'S 108 CURRICULUM GUIDELINES	4
1.1.5 ADVANTAGES OF THE ROLE-PLAYING GAME	4
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES	5
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS	6
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS	6
1.4.1 RESEARCH FOCUS	6
1.4.2 DEVELOPMENT TOOLS	7
1.4.3 RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS	7
1.4.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS	7
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS	8
CHAPTER 2	11
LITERATURE REVIEW	11
2.1 GAME-BASED LEARNING AND EDUCATIONAL GAME DESIGN	12
2.1.1 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF GAME-BASED LEARNING	12
2.1.2 PRINCIPLES OF EDUCATIONAL GAME DESIGN	15
2.1.3 GAME-BASED LEARNING IN PROGRAMMING EDUCATION	19
2.2 EDUCATIONAL THEORIES AND PROGRAMMING EDUCATION	20
2.2.1 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND PROGRAMMING EDUCATION	20
2.2.2 COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY （CLT）	22
2.2.3 CHALLENGES IN PROGRAMMING EDUCATION AND LEARNING STRATEGIES	24
2.2.4 VYGOTSKY’S SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY AND PROGRAMMING EDUCATION	27
2.3 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS	30
2.3.1 SURVEY METHOD	30
2.3.2 APPLICATION OF ONE-GROUP PRETEST-POSTTEST DESIGN AND PAIRED SAMPLE ANALYSIS	31
2.3.3 DATA PROCESSING AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS USING THE FIVE-POINT LIKERT SCALE	32
2.3.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METHODOLOGY AND GAME DESIGN	33
2.4 APPLICATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS	34
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY	37
3.1 RESEARCH PROCEDURE	37
3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY	40
3.2.1 QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN	40
3.2.2 PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH SETTING	41
3.2.3 INSTRUCTIONAL INTERVENTION DESIGN	42
3.2.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEY METHOD	43
3.2.5 SUPPLEMENTARY RESEARCH METHOD: OBSERVATION AND RECORDING	45
3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS	45
3.3.1 GAME DEVELOPMENT TOOLS	46
3.3.2 GAME DESIGN PRINCIPLES	52
3.3.3 GAME INTRODUCTION: ADVENTURE ACADEMY AND THE TRIAL OF MAGIC CODING	56
3.4 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN	68
3.4.1 LEARNING MOTIVATION DIMENSION （ARCS）	70
3.4.2 SCRATCH CONCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT DIMENSION	72
3.4.3 TEACHING SATISFACTION DIMENSION	73
3.4.4 OPEN-ENDED FEEDBACK DIMENSION	76
3.5 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE	78
3.6 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS	83
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS	87
4.1 PRE- AND POST-TEST ANALYSIS OF THE LEARNING MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE	87
4.2 PRETEST AND POSTTEST ANALYSIS OF SCRATCH CONCEPT COMPREHENSION	92
4.3 ANALYSIS OF TEACHING SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE	95
4.4 ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED FEEDBACK	97
4.5 RESEARCH RESULTS	99
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	103
5.1 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS	103
5.2 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS	106
REFERENCES	110
APPENDIX	114
SCRATCH CONCEPT PRE-TEST / POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE	114
LEARNING MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE （USED FOR BOTH PRE- AND POST-TEST）	117
INSTRUCTIONAL SATISFACTION AND LEARNING FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE （POST-TEST）	119




TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE 1- 1 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS	9
TABLE 2- 1 GAME FLOW ELEMENTS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS	14
TABLE 3- 1 GAME FLOW AND TASK ARRANGEMENT	54
TABLE 3- 2 QUESTIONNAIRE STRUCTURE: TYPES, PURPOSES, AND IMPLEMENTATION STAGES	69
TABLE 3- 3 DESIGN OF LEARNING MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS （USED FOR BOTH PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST）	71
TABLE 3- 4 TEACHING SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS （POST-TEST ONLY）	75
TABLE 3- 5 EXPERIMENTAL STAGES, ESTIMATED TIME, AND ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS	80
TABLE 4- 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PAIRED SAMPLES OF LEARNING MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE （PRETEST AND POSTTEST）	88
TABLE 4- 2 PAIRED SAMPLE T-TEST OF LEARNING MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE （PRETEST AND POSTTEST）	89
TABLE 4- 3 CORRELATION OF PAIRED SAMPLES IN LEARNING MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE （PRETEST AND POSTTEST）	89
TABLE 4- 4 EFFECT SIZE OF LEARNING MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE （PRETEST AND POSTTEST）	90
TABLE 4- 5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PAIRED SAMPLES BY ARCS DIMENSIONS	91
TABLE 4- 6 PAIRED SAMPLE T-TEST BY ARCS DIMENSIONS	91
TABLE 4- 7 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF PAIRED SAMPLES FOR SCRATCH CONCEPT TEST （PRETEST AND POSTTEST）	92
TABLE 4- 8 PAIRED SAMPLES T-TEST FOR SCRATCH CONCEPT ASSESSMENT （PRETEST VS.
POSTTEST）	93
TABLE 4- 9 PAIRED SAMPLES CORRELATION FOR SCRATCH CONCEPT ASSESSMENT （PRETEST
VS. POSTTEST）	93
TABLE 4- 10 EFFECT SIZE FOR SCRATCH CONCEPT ASSESSMENT （PRETEST VS. POSTTEST）	94
TABLE 4- 11 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF TEACHING SATISFACTION	96



 

FIGURE OF CONTENTS
FIGURE 2- 1 FLOW THEORY MODEL.	13
FIGURE 2- 2 NINE ELEMENTS OF FLOW.	13
FIGURE 2- 3  THE MDA FRAMEWORK: THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF GAME DESIGN AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PLAYER AESTHETICS.	17
FIGURE 2- 4  THE ARCS MODEL: FOUR CORE ELEMENTS AND THEIR SUBCOMPONENTS FOR	18
FIGURE 2- 5 COMPONENTS OF THE ARCS MODEL AND THEIR CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL	19
FIGURE 2- 6 GOLD STANDARD PBL: SEVEN ESSENTIAL PROJECT DESIGN ELEMENTS AND SEVEN	22
FIGURE 2- 7 CLASSIFICATION OF COGNITIVE LOAD AND ITS EFFECTS ON LEARNING OUTCOMES	24
FIGURE 2- 8 KEY GAMIFICATION STRATEGIES AND THEIR ADVANTAGES IN LEARNING	27
FIGURE 3- 1  RESEARCH PROCESS FLOWCHART	39
FIGURE 3- 2 SCREENSHOT OF THE UNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERFACE.	47
FIGURE 3- 3 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PLAYER CHARACTER MODEL.	49
FIGURE 3- 4 POLYART ILLUSTRATION OF THE PLAYER CHARACTER MODEL.	49
FIGURE 3- 5 PUZZLE BLOCKS UI ICONS AND IN-GAME INTERFACE.	50
FIGURE 3- 6 MAGIC STONE EXPLOSION EFFECT.	52
FIGURE 3- 7 MAIN GAME CONTROL SETTINGS INTERFACE.	58
FIGURE 3- 8 DIALOGUE AND MISSION POPUP INTERFACE （NPC-GUIDED TASK VIEW）.	58
FIGURE 3- 9　SECRET CHAMBER SCENE AND MAGIC STONE INTERFACE.	60
FIGURE 3- 10　 PUZZLE MISSION INTERFACE FEATURING EVENT-TYPE BLOCKS.	60
FIGURE 3- 11　SCENE SHOWING FRAGMENT DROP AND PORTAL ACTIVATION.	61
FIGURE 3- 12 SCENE VIEW OF THE THREE MAGICAL ENERGY PLATFORMS.	62
FIGURE 3- 13 QUESTION POPUP INTERFACE DISPLAYED ON THE ENERGY PLATFORMS	63
FIGURE 3- 14　 PUZZLE TASK INTERFACE IN LEVEL 2 USING VARIABLE AND ARITHMETIC BLOCKS.	63
FIGURE 3- 15  SCENE AFTER ENERGY BAR IS FILLED AND PUZZLE IS COMPLETED, LEADING TO THE NEXT LEVEL.	63
FIGURE 3- 16　 INTERFACE OF THE TRIAL MAP WITH RED （TRAP） AND GREEN （SAFE） TILES.	66
FIGURE 3- 17　INTERFACE SHOWING THE PLAYER WALKING ON GREEN TILES WITH A	66
FIGURE 3- 18　PUZZLE INTERFACE IN STAGE 3 FEATURING CONDITIONAL LOGIC BLOCKS （E.G.,	67
FIGURE 3- 19　 NPC REMINDER DIALOG PREVENTING PLAYERS FROM SKIPPING THE TRIAL.	67
FIGURE 3- 20  RESEARCH FLOWCHART	82

REFERENCES
[1]	張煜. （2025）. 運算思維視覺化對國中生程式學習的影響. 臺灣師範大學資訊工程學系學位論文, 1-64.
[2]	邱仁一, & 崔夢萍. （2021）. 積木式程式設計之學習成效後設分析. 教育學報, 49（2）, 71-95.
[3]	Gee, J. P. （2003）. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in entertainment （CIE）, 1（1）, 20-20.
[4]	Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. （1990）. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience （Vol. 1990, p. 1）. New York: Harper & Row.
[5]	Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. （2014, January）. Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences （pp. 3025-3034）. Ieee.
[6]	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. （2024）. Self-determination theory. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research （pp. 6229-6235）. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[7]	Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. （1990）. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience （Vol. 1990, p. 1）. New York: Harper & Row.
[8]	Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. （2005）. GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment （CIE）, 3（3）, 3-3.
[9]	Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. （2000）. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55（1）, 68.
[10]	Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. （2015）. Foundations of game-based learning. Educational psychologist, 50（4）, 258-283.
[11]	Gee, J. P. （2007）. Good video games+ good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. Peter Lang.
[12]	Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. （2004, July）. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI （Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 1722）.
[13]	Keller, J. M. （1987）. Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10（3）, 2-10.
[14]	Ke, F. （2014）. An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & education, 73, 26-39.
[15]	Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. （2015）. Foundations of game-based learning. Educational psychologist, 50（4）, 258-283.
[16]	Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., ... & Kafai, Y. （2009）. Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52（11）, 60-67.
[17]	Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. （2000）. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78（4）, 772.
[18]	Piaget, J. （1970）. Science of education and the psychology of the child. Trans. D. Coltman.
[19]	Papert, S. （1980）. Children, computers, and powerful ideas （Vol. 10, pp. 978-3）. Eugene, OR, USA: Harvester.
[20]	Thomas, J. W. （2000）. A review of research on project-based learning.
[21]	Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. （2006）. 19. Project-Based Learning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 317-333.
[22]	Dewey, J. （1986, September）. Experience and education. In The educational forum （Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 241-252）. Taylor & Francis Group.
[23]	Sweller, J. （1988）. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12（2）, 257-285.
[24]	Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S., Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. （2011）. Altering element interactivity and intrinsic cognitive load. Cognitive load theory, 203-218.
[25]	Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. （1994）. Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and instruction, 12（3）, 185-233.
[26]	Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. （2005）. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM computing surveys （CSUR）, 37（2）, 83-137.
[27]	Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. （2007）. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77（1）, 81-112.
[28]	Guzdial, M. J., & Ericson, B. （2017）. Introduction to Computing and Programming in Python with MyProgrammingLab, Global Edition. Pearson Education.
[29]	Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. （2006）. Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31（2）, 199-218.
[30]	Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. （2011, September）. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining” gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments （pp. 9-15）.
[31]	Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. （1987）. Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[32]	Vygotsky, L. S. （1978）. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes （Vol. 86）. Harvard university press.1978
[33]	Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. （1976）. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17（2）, 89-100.
[34]	Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. （1999）. Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Allyn & Bacon.199
[35]	Fowler Jr, F. J. （2013）. Survey research methods. Sage publications.
[36]	Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. （2015）. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio books.
[37]	Field, A. （2024）. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited.
[38]	Likert, R. （1932）. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
[39]	Cronbach, L. J. （1951）. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16（3）, 297-334.
[40]	Prensky, M. （2003）. Digital game-based learning. Computers in entertainment （CIE）, 1（1）, 21-21.
[41]	Merrıam, S. B. （2009）. Qualitative research a guide to design and ımplementation.
[42]	Stake, R. E. （1995）. The art of case study research.20052
[43]	Piaget, J. （2005）. The psychology of intelligence. Routledge.
[44]	Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. （2016）. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.