請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/97903完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 畢南怡 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Nanyi Bi | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 徐天祐 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Tien-Yu Hsu | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-07-22T16:08:36Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-07-23 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-07-22 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-07-16 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | [1] J. Andrade. What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 24(1):100–106, 2010.
[2] A. Aristovnik, K. Karampelas, L. Umek, and D. Ravšelj. Impact of the covid-19 pandemic on online learning in higher education: a bibliometric analysis. In Frontiers in Education, volume 8, page 1225834. Frontiers Media SA, 2023. [3] A. Basu, J. Duvall, and R. Kaplan. Attention restoration theory: Exploring the role of soft fascination and mental bandwidth. Environment and Behavior, 51(9-10):1055–1081, 2019. [4] M. G. Berman, J. Jonides, and S. Kaplan. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological science, 19(12):1207–1212, 2008. [5] R. Berto. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of environmental psychology, 25(3):249–259, 2005. [6] J. S. Carriere, P. Seli, and D. Smilek. Wandering in both mind and body: individual differences in mind wandering and inattention predict fidgeting. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 67(1):19, 2013. 6 [7] P. Chandler and J. Sweller. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8(4):293–332, 1991. [8] P. Chandler and J. Sweller. The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2):233–246, 1992. [9] M. T. Chi and R. Wylie. The icap framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist, 49(4):219–243, 2014. [10] K. Chung, D. Lee, and J. Y. Park. Involuntary attention restoration during exposure to mobile-based 360 virtual nature in healthy adults with different levels of restorative experience: Event-related potential study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(11):e11152, 2018. [11] R. C. Clark and R. E. Mayer. E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. john Wiley & sons, 2023. [12] C. K. Coursaris and W. Van Osch. A cognitive-affective model of perceived user satisfaction (campus): The complementary effects and interdependence of usability and aesthetics in is design. Information & Management, 53(2):252–264, 2016. [13] J. L. Degol and H. J. Bachman. Early self-control and sustained attention problems: Associations with youth achievement, motivation, and engagement. Cognitive Development, 65:101290, 2023. [14] D. Dillon and J. Cai. Virtual reality greenspaces: Does level of immersion affect directed attention restoration in vr environments? J, 5(3):334–357, 2022. [15] R. W. Engle. Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current directionsin psychological science, 11(1):19–23, 2002. [16] J. Farley, E. F. Risko, and A. Kingstone. Everyday attention and lecture retention:the effects of time, fidgeting, and mind wandering. Frontiers in psychology, 4:619,2013. [17] B. Fenesi, K. Lucibello, J. A. Kim, and J. J. Heisz. Sweat so you don't forget:exercise breaks during a university lecture increase on-task attention and learning.Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2):261–269, 2018. [18] N. D. Fleming. Vark visual, aural/auditory, read/write, kinesthetic. New Zealand:Bonwell Green Mountain Falls, 2006. [19] C. L. Gallen, S. Schaerlaeken, J. W. Younger, J. A. Anguera, and A. Gazzaley. Contribution of sustained attention abilities to real-world academic skills in children. Scientific reports, 13(1):2673, 2023. [20] Y. E. Haverkamp, I. Bråten, N. Latini, and H. I. Strømsø. Effects of media multitasking on the processing and comprehension of multiple documents: Does main idea summarization make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 77:102271, 2024. [21] A. W. Joyce, D. R. Friedman, C. D. Wolfe, and M. A. Bell. Executive attention at 8 years: Concurrent and longitudinal predictors and individual differences. Infant and child development, 27(2):e2066, 2018. [22] S. Kalyuga. The expertise reversal effect. In Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning, pages 58–80. IGI Global, 2009. [23] S. Kaplan. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3):169–182, 1995. [24] M. Karlesky and K. Isbister. Fidget widgets: secondary playful interactions in support of primary serious tasks. In CHI 13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’13, page 1149–1154, New York, NY, USA, 2013. Association for Computing Machinery. [25] M. Karlesky and K. Isbister. Understanding fidget widgets: Exploring the design space of embodied self-regulation. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 1–10, 2016. [26] J. O. Kostić and K. R. Ranđelović. Digital distractions: Learning in multitasking environment. Psychological Applications and Trends, pages 301–304, 2022. [27] K. Lee, M. Fanguy, B. Bligh, and X. S. Lu. Adoption of online teaching during the covid-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of changes in university teaching activity. Educational Review, 74(3):460–483, 2022. [28] W. L. Leite, M. Svinicki, and Y. Shi. Attempted validation of the scores of the vark: Learning styles inventory with multitrait–multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models. Educational and psychological measurement, 70(2):323–339, 2010. [29] A. Lepp, J. E. Barkley, A. C. Karpinski, and S. Singh. College students'multitasking behavior in online versus face-to-face courses. Sage Open, 9(1):2158244018824505, 2019. [30] Y.-C. Lin, P. Chung, R. C. Yeh, and Y.-C. Chen. An empirical study of college students’ learning satisfaction and continuance intention to stick with a blended elearning environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(2), 2016. [31] R. E. Mayer, J. Heiser, and S. Lonn. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of educational psychology, 93(1):187, 2001. [32] R. Moreno and R. Mayer. Interactive multimodal learning environments: Special issue on interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. Educational psychology review, 19:309–326, 2007. [33] F. Mostajeran, F. Steinicke, S. Reinhart, W. Stuerzlinger, B. E. Riecke, and S. Kühn. Adding virtual plants leads to higher cognitive performance and psychological wellbeing in virtual reality. Scientific Reports, 13(1):8053, 2023. [34] L. Nummenmaa, J. Hyönä, and M. G. Calvo. Eye movement assessment of selective attentional capture by emotional pictures. Emotion, 6(2):257, 2006. [35] E. Ophir, C. Nass, and A. D. Wagner. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37):15583–15587, 2009. [36] B. Park, R. Moreno, T. Seufert, and R. Brünken. Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? a multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1):5–10, 2011. [37] M. I. Posner, S. E. Petersen, et al. The attention system of the human brain. Annual review of neuroscience, 13(1):25–42, 1990. [38] D. L. Rabiner, J. Godwin, and K. A. Dodge. Predicting academic achievement and attainment: The contribution of early academic skills, attention difficulties, and social competence. School Psychology Review, 45(2):250–267, 2016. [39] K. Rayner. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124(3):372, 1998. [40] G. D. Rey. A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7(3):216–237, 2012. [41] S. H. Ross, N. Sullivan, and J. A. Yoon. Virtual fidgets: Opportunities and design principles for bringing fidgeting to online learning. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–6, 2023. [42] S. Stalvey and H. Brasell. Using stress balls to focus the attention of sixth-grade learners. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 12(2):7–16, 2006. [43] E. Sung and R. E. Mayer. When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in human behavior, 28(5):1618–1625, 2012. [44] N. K. A. Suwastini, K. I. R. Dewi, and G. R. Dantes. Benefits of online learning according to recent studies. Jurnal Inovasi dan Teknologi Pembelajaran, 10(1):32– 42, 2023. [45] J. Sweller, J. J. Van Merrienboer, and F. G. Paas. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10:251–296, 1998. [46] T. Van Gog and K. Scheiter. Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning, 2010. [47] J. T. Wong, A. Mesghina, E. Chen, N. A. Yeung, B. S. Lerner, and L. E. Richland. Zooming in or zoning out: examining undergraduate learning experiences with zoom and the role of mind-wandering. Computers and Education Open, 4:100118, 2023. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/97903 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 隨著線上學習的迅速普及,學生在遠距教學環境中經常面臨多工處理的挑戰,進而降低專注力並影響學習成效。為提升學習者的注意力維持,過去研究提出了「Fidget Widgets」概念,指出適度的動作行為可有助於減輕分心。然而,在虛擬學習情境下,如何設計虛擬工具(如虛擬寵物)以促進學習者的專注與學習表現,仍缺乏系統性的實證探討。
本研究旨在檢驗虛擬寵物的「互動性」與「課程相關性」兩項設計特徵,對於學生在線上學習過程中的專注程度、學習表現及使用者滿意度之影響。研究採用二因子混合實驗設計(interactivity 為組內變項,course relevance 為組間變項),結合自陳量表、眼動追蹤與半結構式訪談進行資料收集與分析。 研究結果顯示,虛擬寵物的高度互動性顯著提升使用者的滿意度、趣味性與視覺美感,但並未顯著促進學習成效(知識保留與知識遷移)。相較之下,僅具視覺課程相關性的設計並未對學習表現或專注力產生明顯影響,顯示僅靠外觀上的內容連結無法有效促進學習者的認知參與。此外,僅有視覺型學習者在課程相關設計條件下,其有意識的走神行為明顯減少,指出學習風格可能在特定設計情境中扮演調節角色。 綜上所述,本研究強調虛擬工具設計應超越表層的視覺連結,融入功能性與情境感知,才能有效支持學生專注與學習。研究成果可為未來虛擬學習平台與教學輔具設計提供實證參考,進一步提升線上教學的學習體驗與教育成效。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | With the rapid expansion of online learning, students frequently encounter multitasking challenges that compromise attention and hinder academic performance. To address this issue, prior studies have explored ``fidget widgets'' as tools to sustain learner focus through moderate physical engagement. However, little is known about how such tools—particularly virtual agents like digital pets—can be designed to support attention and engagement in asynchronous and self-paced educational environments.
This study investigates the effects of two design features of virtual pet-based fidget widgets—\textit{interactivity} and \textit{course relevance}—on learners' attention, academic performance, and user satisfaction. A mixed-method experimental design was employed, incorporating self-report surveys, eye-tracking metrics, and semi-structured interviews. Findings reveal that while high interactivity significantly enhances user satisfaction, playfulness, and visual appeal, it does not lead to measurable gains in knowledge retention or transfer. Visual course relevance, when implemented through static design elements, showed no significant effects on attention or learning, suggesting that surface-level contextual cues are insufficient for meaningful engagement. Notably, visual learners exhibited reduced deliberate mind-wandering when interacting with course-relevant pets, pointing to the nuanced role of individual learning styles in attention regulation. These results offer empirical insights into how non-instructional virtual agents can be designed to support focused engagement in online learning. We discuss design implications for incorporating adaptive, context-aware behaviors in virtual agents, with the goal of supporting sustained attention in digitally mediated educational settings. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-07-22T16:08:36Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-07-22T16:08:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Contents
Page 誌謝 i 摘要 iii Abstract v Contents vii List of Figures xiii List of Tables xv Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Objectives 3 1.3 Key Findings and Contributions 3 Chapter 2 Related Work 5 2.1 User Satisfaction 6 2.2 Attention and Learning Outcomes 6 2.3 Attention Restoration and Soft Fascination 8 2.4 Fidget Widgets in Class 10 2.5 The Role of Interactivity in Fidget Widgets 11 2.6 The Role of Course Relevance in Fidget Widgets 12 2.7 VARK Learning Styles as a Moderating Factor 14 2.8 Research Model 15 2.8.1 Research Questions 17 2.8.2 Hypotheses 19 Chapter 3 Method 21 3.1 Design 21 3.2 Materials 22 3.2.1 Web-Based Platform 22 3.2.2 Eye-Tracking Device 23 3.2.3 Interview 24 3.3 Participants 24 3.4 Procedure 25 3.4.1 Attention Check 25 3.4.2 Manipulation Check 26 3.5 Measures 26 3.5.1 Learning Outcome 26 3.5.2 Attention 27 3.5.3 User Satisfaction 28 3.5.4 Moderator 29 3.6 Data Analysis 29 3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics 29 3.6.2 Reliability and Validity Analysis 30 3.6.3 Quantitative Analysis 30 3.6.4 Qualitative Analysis 31 Chapter 4 Results 33 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 33 4.2 Reliability and Validity Analysis 33 4.3 Quantitative Results 35 4.3.1 Interactivity Effects on Learning Outcomes, Attention, and Satisfaction 35 4.3.2 Course Relevance Effects on Learning Outcomes, Attention, and Satisfaction 38 4.3.3 Moderating Effects of VARK Learning Styles 40 4.4 Qualitative Results 42 4.4.1 Perceptions of Interactivity in Virtual Pets 42 4.4.1.1 Engaging vsDistracting: Diverging Focus Experiences 42 4.4.1.2 Active Interaction and Motivation to Learn 43 4.4.1.3 Interactivity as Emotional or Cognitive Stimulus 43 4.4.1.4 Passive Pets and Background Presence 44 4.4.2 Perceived Relevance to Course Content 44 4.4.2.1 Perceived Meaningfulness of Relevant Pets 45 4.4.2.2 Disconnection and Confusion from Irrelevant Designs 45 4.4.2.3 Relevance as a Cue for Educational Engagement 46 4.4.3 User Interaction Patterns and Visual Attention 46 4.4.3.1 Gaze Behavior and Interaction Timing 47 4.4.3.2 Task Switching Between Pet and Content 47 4.4.3.3 Personal Strategies in Managing Pet Interaction 48 4.4.4 Reflections on Design and Improvement Suggestions 49 4.4.4.1 Desire for Customization and Personal Control 49 4.4.4.2 Visual and Aesthetic Preferences 50 4.4.4.3 Functional Utility vsPlayfulness 50 4.4.4.4 Suggestions for Adaptive or Context-Aware Features 52 Chapter 5 Discussion 55 5.1 How Interactivity Influences Both Learning Outcomes and Learner Attention 55 5.2 The Impact of Perceived Course Relevance on Student Engagement and Learning 57 5.3 How VARK Learning Styles Moderate the Effects of Interactivity and Relevance 58 5.4 Design Implications for Creating More Engaging and Personalized Learning Experiences 60 5.5 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research 61 Chapter 6 Conclusion 63 References 65 Appendix A — VARK 學習風格測驗 73 Appendix B — 課後測驗 79 B.1 課後測驗一 79 B.2 課後測驗二 82 Appendix C — 問卷 87 C.1 注意力量表 87 C.1.1 刻意的分心 (MW-D) 87 C.1.2 自發的分心 (MW-S) 87 C.2 使用者滿意度 88 C.2.1 效率 (Efficiency) 88 C.2.2 效能 (Effectiveness) 88 C.2.3 古典美學 (Classical Aesthetics) 88 C.2.4 表現美學 (Expressive Aesthetics) 89 C.2.5 趣味性 (Playfulness) 89 C.2.6 整體滿意度 (Overall Satisfaction) 89 C.3 操弄測試 90 C.3.1 寵物與課程的關聯性 (MC-relation) 90 C.3.2 是否能夠控制剛剛的寵物 (MC-control) 90 Appendix D — 訪問大綱 91 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 紓壓小物 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 線上學習 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 紓壓小物 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 線上學習 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Online Learning | en |
| dc.subject | Fidget Widget | en |
| dc.subject | Online Learning | en |
| dc.subject | Fidget Widget | en |
| dc.title | 虛擬寵物對線上學習注意力和表現的影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Exploring the Influence of Virtual Pets on Focus and Performance in Online Learning | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 彭志宏;袁千雯 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chih-Hung PENG;Chien Wen Yuan | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 線上學習,紓壓小物, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Fidget Widget,Online Learning, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 92 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202501849 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-07-18 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 資訊管理學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2025-07-23 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 資訊管理學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-113-2.pdf | 1.24 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
