| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 教育研究所 === 107 === This study aims to design an educational board Game about coastal wetland protection and to evaluate its influence on the upper-grade elementary school students’ learning including environmental knowledge, attitudes, skills and learning motivation. To develop the board game prototype, the author reviewed relevant literatures about wetlands, environmental education and board games and interviewed two elementary school teachers and a board-game expert.
The evaluation of the board game includes expert evaluation, small-group evaluation, and a field trial. In the expert-evaluation stage, two elementary school teachers evaluate the prototype according to the four aspects in the ETGD instrument including board-game content, learning guidance, instructional design, and learning materials. In the small-group-evaluation stage, six sixth-grade students played the board game, and they were requested to think aloud while playing the game. Then, the six students were interviewed to express their opinions on the game-play experience and on how to improve the game design. In the field-trail stage, to understand students’ knowledge change, a class of 25 six-grade students played the game and took the pre- and post- tests. Also, two groups of students were interviewed to express their attitudes toward the game.
The field-trail results reveal that the students significantly improved their environmental attitude and skills, and that there is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test on the environmental knowledge. Besides, the average scores of the students’ learning motivation is 4.06, and this result indicates the students have intermediate-high motivation about using the board game to learn wetland protection. Among the four aspects in the ARCS motivation model, the students have the highest score on relevance aspect, and it means the students think the board-game content relevant to their experiences. However, students have the lowest score on the confidence aspect, and it means the students are unsure whether they can play the game well. In addition, the results of interviewing the two groups shows that students enjoy the art style and interface design of the board game, and that they think the difficulty level of playing the game is moderate. Yet, they suggest the design of cheating prevention, explanation of game strategies within the App, App functions, and uncertainty and novelty be further improved. Based on the findings, the suggestions about application of board games in environmental education, board-game design, and future research are provided.
|
|---|
