體感手勢游標融入配對遊戲學習之使用者接受度評估研究

The Assessment Study of Users' Acceptance on Kinect Magic Cursor Integrated into Match Game Learning

10.6137/RECT.2015.110.04

呂俊宏(Chun-Hung Lu)；徐俊斌(Chun-Pin Hsu)；Suryawahyuni Latief；羅文伶(Wen-Ling Lo)；潘文福(Wen-Fu Pan)；劉從義(Tsung-Yi Liu)

體感 ； 互動學習 ； 接受度 ； Kinect Magic Cursor (KMC) ； Interactive learning ； Acceptance

教育傳播與科技研究

110期（2015 / 04 / 01）

63 - 78

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討偏鄉4－6年級學生，使用體感手勢游標（KMC）融入配對遊戲學習之使用接受度評估效果。研究對象為花蓮縣偏鄉某國小4－6年級之學童共25人，採取單一受試者實驗研究法，讓學童分別接受體感手勢游標與滑鼠兩種操作工具融入配對遊戲學習，而後進行接受度測驗之評估，本研究希望透過一種無須手持滑鼠的體感手勢游標（KMC），來檢視體感手勢游標是否具有應用於配對遊戲學習的可行性。經本研究評估結果發現：一、配對遊戲學習之使用接受度評估結果中，體感手勢游標接受度高於滑鼠。二、 不同性別與不同Xbox遊戲經驗受試者對使用接受度之八項評估效標有顯著高相關的認同度。三、 受試者對費用評估校標最重視（29.8%），顯示學生對操作工具選擇時，最大考量的因素是經濟因素。四、 當學生只考慮「費用評估」、「經驗習慣」、「績效預期」的評估因素時，滑鼠的接受度將高於KMC，顯示滑鼠具有這方面的優勢。結果發現，配對遊戲學習之使用接受度評估結果中，發現花蓮某偏鄉小學三至六年級學生使用體感手勢游標的接受度高於滑鼠，亦即建議學校單位在此類型遊戲學習軟體時，可以採用體感手勢游標進行教學活動，以利學生學習，獲致教學成效。以上為研究者提出建議，供未來KMC融入配對遊戲學習活動設計之參考。

The purpose of this study is to assess the elementary students' acceptance on Kinect Magic Cursor (KMC) integrated into match game learning. Participants were 25 students from 4th to 6th grade of Hualien remote area. In order to understand the assessment of users' acceptance, the researchers designed the experimental instruments, the experimental group used KMC tool and the control group used the mouse in match game. The findings revealed that: 1. the acceptance of KMC is higher than mouse. 2. there are significant high correlation acceptance between gender and Xbox games. 3. the most important factor of choosing tool is the expenses. 4. if the users only consider the expenses, the using custom, and the expectative performance, the acceptance of mouse is higher than KMC. According to the results, some recommendations are also proposed for future KMC integrated learning designing.

1. Ajzen, I.(1991).The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50,179-211.
2. Davis, F. D.,Bagozzi, R. P.,Warshaw, P. R.(1989).User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.Management Science,35,982-1003.
3. Hancock, P. A.(Ed.),Meshkati, N.(Ed.)(1988).Human mental workload.Amsterdam, The Netherlands:North-Holland.
4. Johnson, E. P.,Perry, J.,Shamir, H.(2010).Variability in reading ability gains as a function of computer-assisted instruction method of presentation.Computers & Education,55,209-217.
5. Kapur, M.(2011).Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problemsolving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,6(1),39-56.
6. Long, T.,Logan, J.,Waugh, M.,Cummins, J.(2013).The flipped classroom instructional model with a technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) classroom: How does it work?.Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013,Chesapeake, VA:
7. Sweller, J.,van Merrienboer, J.,Paas, F.(1998).Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational Psychology Review,10,251-296.
8. Taylor, S.,Todd, P. A.(1995).Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models.Information Systems Research,6(2),144-176.
9. Venkatesh, V.,Thong, J.,Xu, X.(2012).Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology.MIS Quarterly,36(1),157-178.
10. Williams, M. D.,Rana, N. P.,Dwivedi, Y. K.,Lal, B.(2011).,未出版
11. Zin, M. Z. M.,Sakat, A. A.,Ahmad, N. A.,Bhari, A.(2012).Relationship between the multimedia technology and education in improving learning quality.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,90,351-355.
12. 宋曜廷(2000)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
13. 林龍一(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所。
14. 潘文福(2013)。不同互動介面對小學生奈米學習動機差異之比較研究。GCCIL 2013 全球華人探究學習創新應用論文集，臺南:
15. 蘇煌仁(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學數位學習科技研究所。

1. 陳建雄,王建立(2021)。以手勢為互動基礎的介面設計學術研究發展：文獻回顧與綜論。設計學報，26(1)，59-82。