不同學習風格在展示互動學習之研究－以臺中客家故事館為例

Different learning styles study in interactive exhibit learning - Take Taichung Hakka Story House as an example

洪炎明；謝省民；賴淑玲

展示互動 ； 互動設計 ； 學習風格 ； 地方文化館 ； 鄉土教育 ； Interaction of Display ； Interactive Design ； Learning Cognition ； Local Cultural Center ； Indigenous Education

數位媒體設計國際研討會論文集

第十四屆（2021 / 06 / 11）

266 - 275

繁體中文

本研究建構一臺中客家故事館，藉由動畫及光雕、觸控互動螢幕、體感互動遊戲及AR互動等三種不同展示互動設計呈現客家鄉土文化，進一步探討不同「學習風格」使用者，在參觀體驗臺中客家故事館後，對於鄉土認知、情意、系統使用及互動滿意度之表現。研究對象為東勢鎮某國小五六年級163位學生，研究之前，先以團體嵌圖測驗量表評量學生認知學習風格的場域獨立性，分為依賴、中間及獨立三型。學生以班級為單位分批輪流體驗不同模式的展示互動，分為活化式、操作式、互動式三種，體驗結束後接受相關測驗。研究結果顯示，學習風格會影響學習成效、鄉土情意。場域獨立與場域依賴型的學生在不同展示互動模式學習上都有明顯進步，場域獨立型明顯高於依賴型及中間型；學習風格與認知學習成效呈現正相關，越獨立學習成效越好；與鄉土情意則呈現負相關，越獨立對鄉土的認同越低。研究呼應科技領域的發展，應重視文化科技的整體規劃，以目標群為本，促進文化與科技的深度融合，除了地方文化館，未來可應用在各種歷史建築、社區空間的再應用及展覽。

This research was based on the exhibition in Taichung Hakka Story House. We explored three different learning style users by offering different kinds of exhibition display technologies, such as animation, projection, touch-screen, motion-sensing games, and AR interaction applications to demonstrate the Hakka indigenous culture. We evaluated local awareness, local affection, system usability, and satisfaction evaluation for the visitors who went to Taichung Hakka Story House and learned local education courses. Our research subjects are 163 students who are the fifth and sixth grades of students in Dongshi Elementary School (Dongshi Township, Taichung City, Taiwan). Before the study, we used the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) to divide the students into three groups according to their learning cognition: the site dependence group, the middle group, and the site independence group. The students were brought to the Taichung Hakka Story House by class, and they explore and experience different display interaction types (activation, operation, interactive) in the story house. They took the learning effectiveness test on indigenous education, indigenous affection, after the experience tour. Our results showed learning style impacts learning effectiveness test on indigenous education, indigenous affection, learning style makes no impact . Within the learning style difference, the site independence group got the highest score . Field-independent and field-dependent students have made significant progress in learning with different interaction modes of display, Among different exhibition interaction modes, site independence and site dependence groups significantly improved learning performance; the site independence group's learning score is significantly higher than the site-dependent and middle group. We found a positive correlation between learning style and cognitive learning effectiveness; more independent students have better learning performance. However, we also found a negative correlation between learning style and local affection; more independent students have a less local identity. Our research showed that we should pay more effort to cultural technology design with the development of technology. To foster the integration of culture and technology, we should focus on the target group's needs. Not only the local cultural museum, but this theory also can apply to various historic buildings, community spaces, and exhibitions.

1. 王怡萱,余佳蓁(2020)。探討應用數位遊戲教材輔助音樂節奏學習之成效。教育傳播與科技研究，124，37-51。
   連結：
2. 吳美瑤(2020)。知與學習的新觀點：體現認知在課程與教學之應用。課程與教學，23(1)，193-215。
   連結：
3. 林秀芝,鄭永熏(2016)。多媒體教學與學生學習風格對教育目標達成度之影響：以國中烘培教學為例。餐旅暨觀光，13(1)，1-20。
   連結：
4. 林慧嫻(2006)。博物館與兒童觀眾。科技博物，10(1)，5-20。
   連結：
5. 張崇山(2009)。博物館互動式展示之思與辨。科技博物，13(4)，1-16。
   連結：
6. Allport, G. W. (1935), Attitudes. Inc. Murchison eds., A handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press.
7. Allport, G.W. (1937), Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winton.
8. Brooke, J.(2013).SUS: a retrospective.Journal of usability studies,8(2),29-40.
9. Brooke, J.(1996).Sus: a “quick and dirty’usability.Usability evaluation in industry
10. Chen, S. Y.,Macredie, R. D.(2002).Cognitive styles and hypermedia navigation: Development of a learning model.Journal of the American society for information science and technology,53(1),3-15.
11. Chin, J. P.,Diehl, V. A.,Norman, K. L.(1988).Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems
12. Hooper-Greenhill, E.(2013).Museums and their visitors.Routledge.
13. King, S.,Conley, M.,Latimer, B.,Ferrari, D.(1996).Co-design: A process of design participation.New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
14. Kotler, P.(2000).Marketing para o século XXI.São Paulo:Futura.
15. Oviatt, S.(1999).Ten myths of multimodal interaction.Communications of the ACM,42(11),74-81.
16. Pratt, A.,Nunes, J.(2012).Interactive design: An introduction to the theory and application of user-centered design.Rockport Pub.
17. Saffer, D.(2010).Designing for interaction: creating innovative applications and devices.New Riders.
18. Witkin, H. A.,Goodenough, D. R.(1981).Cognitive styles Essence and origins.International Universities.
19. Witkin, H. A.,Goodenough, D. R.(1977).Field dependence and interpersonal behavior.Psychological bulletin,84(4),661.
20. Witkin, H. A.,Goodenough, D. R.(1981).Cognitive styles: essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence.Psychological issues,51,1-141.
21. 王信智(2012)。嶺東科技大學數位媒體設計系研究所。
22. 王淑慧(2018)。沉浸式和互動式應用程序設計的創新教學研究。文化創意產業研究學報，8(4)，1-8。
23. 吳裕益(1987)。認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊，7，51-98。
24. 李文獻,林美君,張俊彥,賴信志,林慧敏(2020)。運用數位科技於戶外教育場域之科學繪本教學設計－從教學者觀點探討。科學教育月刊，428，11-31。
25. 洪子珺(2019)。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系。
26. 張白苓(2007)。淺談數位藝術創作之互動設計概念。美育雜誌，115，8。
27. 張舒盈(2018)。國立屏東大學科普傳播學系。
28. 張雅雯(2019)。國立臺中教育大學數位內容科技學系。
29. 莊智鈞(2008)。新竹縣，國立新竹教育大學。
30. 郭重吉(1987)。評介學習風格有關研究。資優教育季刊，23，7-16。
31. 陳玉婷,陳林芳(2016)。網路互動學習影像系統的研究。創思學刊，35，125-142。
32. 陳昱宏,陳奕璇,徐成坤(2015)。中華民國設計學會。
33. 陳嘉懿(2006)。教師專題研究計畫教師專題研究計畫,南亞技術學院建築系。
34. 黃詩婷(2017)。國立交通大學應用藝術研究所。
35. 黃寶園(2006).心理教育與研究法.台北:華立圖書股份有限公司.
36. 蕭玉媛,賴阿福(2019)。擴增實境教材輔助鄉土教育融入英語學習之學習成效。NCS 2019 全國計算機會議