近年來，體感科技的發展受到相當大的重視，更是未來的趨勢。透過自然人機介面，使用者無須接觸任何輸入設備，即能以手勢、語音等操作方式與系統進行互動及溝通；另外，從文獻得知，體感式的學習方式對於學習成效有著正面的幫助。因此，本研究以Kinect體感裝置作為基礎硬體設備，進而發展出兩套不同學習策略之學習系統，並建構出體感式學習環境，以落實肢體動作有意義地參與至學習活動中。就適性化學習的觀點而言，對於特定學習風格之學習者給予適配之學習策略將有助於學習成效之提升，但目前之體感式學習系統仍欠缺適性化之設計。基於以上研究動機，本研究著手進行系統設計與實作，並根據Felder & Silverman (1988)學習風格理論，以國小消化器官單元做為學習內容，在體感式學習環境下發展適性化學習策略以適配於視覺型及口語型之學習者，並透過準實驗法進行研究數據的蒐集與策略效果的探討，以了解當「學習風格」與「學習策略」適配與否時，對於學習者之學習成效、認知負荷以及學習滿意度之影響。正式實驗之有效樣本共有64名國小五年級學童，受測者被指派至Fit組與Non-fit組中。研究結果顯示，在體感式學習環境中，無論「學習風格」與「學習策略」適配與否，學習者之學習成效皆有顯著提升，並且有良好的學習滿意度。當「學習風格」與「學習策略」未達適配時，學習者之認知負荷顯著高於適配者，其延宕後測成績亦顯著退步，顯示在體感式學習環境中，依據學習風格給予適當的學習策略，有助於提高知識保存程度。

In recent years, the development of gestural device receives huge attention from educators, information technologists and researchers. Through natural user interface, instead of using any physical input device, users can use body gesture and voice to interact with systems naturally. In addition, many studies have shown that embodiment-based learning can promote better learning performance. Therefore, two learning systems have been developed using Kinect in this study to engage gestures in the meaningful learning activities. In adaptive learning principle, learners can learn better if a learning system provides the way matching their individual’s specific learning style. By adopting the Felder & Silverman (1988) learning style theory, an adaptive learning system has been developed which can provide suitable learning materials to fit with visual style or verbal style learners. The system was then evaluated by an empirical study to see the differences of the fit group and the non-fit group with respect to the learning outcomes, cognitive load, and learning Satisfaction. An experiment was conducted with 64 primary school students assigned into two different designs of embodiment-based learning systems (visual-based vs. verbal-based). The result showed that, regardless the fit or non-fit groups, learning outcome were significantly improved and learners were all very satisfied with the learning systems. However, learners in the non-fit group revealed a significantly degradation, and the cognitive loads of the non-fit group were found to be significantly higher than the fit group. The findings suggest that in the embodiment-based learning environment, the knowledge retention can be promoted with an appropriate learning approach based on each learner's learning style.

論文審定書 i
論文摘要 ii
致謝 iii
摘要 iv
Abstract v
目錄 vi
圖目錄 viii
表目錄 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 5
第三節、 待答問題 6
第二章、 文獻探討 7
第一節、 扎根認知 8
第二節、 認知發展理論 10
第三節、 適性化 12
第四節、 認知負荷 16
第五節、 體感科技 20
第三章、 系統設計 22
第一節、 內容模組 24
第二節、 介面模組 26
第三節、 學習者模組 33
第四章、 研究方法 35
第一節、 研究架構 35
第二節、 研究工具 36
第三節、 研究對象 42
第四節、 實驗設計 43
第五章、 結果與討論 46
第一節、 資料蒐集 46
第二節、 學習成效分析 47
第三節、 認知負荷分析 52
第四節、 學習滿意度分析 55
第五節、 相關性分析 56
第六節、 訪談內容 58
第七節、 綜合討論 60
第六章、 結論與建議 67
第一節、 研究發現 67
第二節、 研究貢獻 70
第三節、 研究限制 72
第四節、 未來研究 73
參考文獻 74
附錄 80
附錄一、前測問卷 80
附錄二、後測問卷 81
附錄三、延宕後測問卷 84
附錄四、學習風格量表 86
附錄五、認知負荷量表 87
附錄六、學習滿意度量表 88

Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., & Baber, C. (2011). An evaluation of multimodal interactions with technology while learning science concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 266-290. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01017.x
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into princes: Neuro linguistic programming: Moab, Utah: Real People Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(04), 577-660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 617-645.
Barsalou, L. W., Kyle Simmons, W., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(2), 84-91.
Brusilovsky, P. (1996). Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 6(2-3), 87-129.
Brusilovsky, P., Eklund, J., & Schwarz, E. (1998). Web-based education for all: a tool for development adaptive courseware. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1), 291-300.
Carver, C. A., Howard, R., & Lane, W. (1999). Addressing different learning styles through course hypermedia. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(1), 33-38.
Chang, C. Y., Chien, Y. T., Chiang, C. Y., Lin, M. C., & Lai, H. C. (2013). Embodying gesture‐based multimedia to improve learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), E5-E9.
Chao, K.-J., Huang, H.-W., Fang, W.-C., & Chen, N.-S. (in press). Embodied play to learn: exploring Kinect-facilitated memory performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12018
Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). A knowledge engineering approach to developing mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54(1), 289-297.
Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science: MIT press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: an embodied perspective. Educational psychology review, 23(4), 501-521.
Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation: imagining one's own and other's behavior. Brain research, 1079(1), 4-14.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach: Allyn and Bacon Boston.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78(7), 674-681.
Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (2000). Learning styles and strategies. At URL: http://www. engr. ncsu. edu/learningstyles/ilsweb. html.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science: Cambridge University Press.
Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading: Oxford University Press.
Graf, S., Viola, S. R., & Leo, T. (2007). In-depth analysis of the Felder-Silverman learning style dimensions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 79.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles: Alliance Publishers.
Hao, Y., Hong, J.-C., Jong, J.-T., Hwang, M.-Y., Su, C.-Y., & Yang, J.-S. (2010). Non-native Chinese language learners' attitudes towards online vision-based motion games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 1043-1053. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01050.x
Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). The Mathematical Imagery Trainer-from embodied interaction to conceptual learning. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems.
Inhelder, B., Piaget, J., Parsons, A. T., & Milgram, S. T. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC horizon report: 2012 higher education edition.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Witchey, H. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 Museum Edition: Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L. F., & Witchey, H. (2011). The 2010 horizon report: Museum edition. Curator: The Museum Journal, 54(1), 37-40.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1): Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kuljis, J., & Liu, F. (2005). A Comparison of Learning Style Theories on the Suitability for elearning. Web Technologies, Applications, and Services, 2005, 191-197.
Laight, D. W. (2006). Attitudes to concept maps as a teaching/learning activity in undergraduate health professional education: influence of preferred approach to learning. Medical Teacher, 28(2), e64-e67.
Lakoff, G. &M. Johnson.(1980). Metaphors We Live By: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Litzinger, T. A., Lee, S. H., Wise, J. C., & Felder, R. M. (2007). A psychometric study of the index of learning styles©. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309-319.
Mann, S. Intelligent image processing.
Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16(4), 321-335.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction: Wiley. com.
Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media: London.
Norman, D. A. (1980). Twelve issues for cognitive science. Cognitive science, 4(1), 1-32.
Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 35(4), 737-743.
Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86(1), 122.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Trans. D. Coltman.
Piaget, J. (1974). La prise de conscience.
Rambusch, J., & Ziemke, T. (2005). The role of embodiment in situated learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Schar, S. G., & Zimmermann, P. G. (2007). Investigating Means to Reduce Cognitive Load from Animations: Applying Differentiated Measures of Knowledge Representation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 64-78.
Seters, J. v., Ossevoort, M., Goedhart, M., & Tramper, J. (2011). Accommodating the difference in students' prior knowledge of cell growth kinetics. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 14(2), 1-1.
Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive e-learning. Educational psychologist, 38(2), 105-114.
Smith, D. M., & Kolb, D. A. (1996). User's guide for the Learning-Style Inventory: a manual for teachers and trainers: Hay/McBer Resources Training Group.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tuckman, B. W. (1994). Conducting Educational Research Fifth Edition.
Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13.
Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147-177.
Wei, C.-W., & Chen, Y.-R. (2008). Classroom climate and learning effectiveness in holistic blended learning environments.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9(4), 625-636.