由於數位科技的發展，學習工具變得多元。本研究旨在探討不同線上即時回饋系統對高職學生複習英文單字的影響。研究分為前導研究與正式研究。前導研究為高職學生使用Kahoot!線上即時回饋系統複習單字對學習成效的影響，採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某公立高職三年級某兩班學生為實驗研究對象。實驗結果兩組有顯著差異，證明使用Kahoot!複習單字比使用傳統紙筆測驗複習單字更能提升學習成效。接續前導研究，正式研究進一步探討高職學生使用Kahoot!和Quizlet兩種不同線上即時回饋系統複習英文單字對學習成效、學習動機與學習投入的影響，並且分析學生使用兩種線上即時回饋系統後的心流狀態。正式研究採用準實驗研究法，以新北市某公立高職一年級某兩班學生為實驗研究對象。研究結果發現使用Kahoot!複習單字和使用Quizlet複習單字對學生在學習成效、學習動機和學習投入上皆有明顯提升，但兩組無顯著差異。分析使用線上即時回饋系統後的心流狀態，兩組在心流前提的「知行合一」上有顯著差異，顯示在遊戲操作介面方面，實驗組的Kahoot!介面操作較Quizlet更簡單且具直覺性，學習者能更快地熟悉操作；在心流經驗的「失去自我意識」上也有顯著差異，顯示實驗組的學習者因為Kahoot!即時競賽的刺激感而更投入，進而降低自我監督，對照組則因為Quizlet的單字書寫測驗無競爭性，學習者不會過度投入而失去自我監控意識。根據以上研究結果提出建議，以供未來英語單字教學、使用線上即時回饋系統學習及後續相關研究參考。

With the development of digital technology, learning tools have become diverse. This study aimed to examine the effects on learning achievement, learning motivation and learning engagement on vocational high school students by using different online interactive response systems to review vocabulary. This study contained a pilot study and a formal study. The pilot study’s purpose was to investigate the effects on learning achievement by using Kahoot! and written tests. Adopted the quasi-experimental design, the pilot study’s target subjects were third-grade students in a public vocational high school in New Taipei City. The ANCOVA result of the pilot study showed a significant difference, proving that using Kahoot! as a vocabulary review tool is better than using the written tests in improving students’ learning achievement. Followed by the pilot study and adopted the quasi-experimental design, the formal study further explored the effects on learning achievement, learning motivation and learning engagement on first-grade students in the same school by using Kahoot! and Quizlet to review vocabulary and analyzed the flow states of two groups. The formal study showed that using Kahoot! and Quizlet to review vocabulary both improved students’ learning achievement, learning motivation and learning engagement greatly, but no significant differences were found between these two groups. However, there were significant differences on “action–awareness merging” of flow antecedents and “loss of self-consciousness” of flow experience, indicating that the operating interface of Kahoot! is simpler and more intuitive than that of Quizlet, and learners of Kahoot! were more involved than those of Quizlet because Kahoot! games are more exciting than Quizlet’s non-competitive vocabulary tests.

中文部分：
王子華（2008）。應用網路形成性評量求助策略於數位學習環境之效益評估。課程與教學，11（1），21-46。
王怡萱（2016）。探究Kahoot雲端即時反饋系統輔助高中國文學習之效益。教育傳播與科技研究，115，37-57。
林志哲（2007）。以結構方程模式驗證期望、價值與數學成就的關係。教育學刊，29，103-127。
林邦傑（1971）。國民中學學生學業成就測驗與人格特質關係之研究。政治大學學報，23，215-242。
吳怡蓁（2007）。國小高年級教師教學態度與學生學習動機之關係。南華大學 社會學研究所，網路社會學通訊期刊，65，2007/10/15發刊，取自http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/65/65-34.htm
吳靜吉、程炳林（1992）。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，39，59-78。
梁麗珍、林恆瑜（2008）。期待─價值學習動機理論模式實證研究─以技職校院統計課程為例。教育理論與實踐學刊，18，75-98。
教育部（2006）。「國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文學習領域（英語）」，2003　　　年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民教育基本課程總綱。2015年3月，取自http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-7944,c1179-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
教育部（2016）。十二年國教語文領域課綱草案-技術型高級中等學校語文領域（英語文）課程綱要草案。2016年10月，取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-10472,c1174-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
教育部（2016）。2020 資訊教育總藍圖。臺北市:教育部。
郭生玉（1983）。成功導向與失敗導向學童的學業成就及成就歸因比較研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理學報，16，47-60。
陳彥瑋（2006)。談心流理論對資優教育的啟示。資優教育季刊，101，1-9。
陳惠惠、賴宏昇（2010）。對課程之期望價值與學習平台的使用情形之相關性探討。自由軟體與教育科技研討會論文集，47-55。
陳錦芬、曾泓璋（2006）。小組電腦擬題活動對英語字彙學習成究與學習情意之影響。國立臺北教育大學學報，19（1），89-119。
張玉茹、張景媛（2003）。多元智慧教學與歷程檔案評量對國中生英語學業表現、學習動機、學習策略與班級氣氛的影響。教育心理學報，034（002），0199-0220。
張武昌（2006）。台灣的英語教育：現況與省思。教育資料與研究雙月刊。
張春興、林清山（1989）。教育心理學。臺北市：東華。
張春興（1994，1998）。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐 。臺北市：東華。
張春興、簡茂發（1969）。自我能力與性格的了解對大學成績的影響—Atkinson 氏成就動機理論的實驗研究。心理與教育，3，89-99。
張春興（2002）。現代心理學。臺北市：東華。
張基成、林冠佑（2016）。從傳統數位學習到遊戲式數位學習-學習成效，心流體驗與認知負荷。科學教育學刊，24（3），221-248。
張國恩（1999）。資訊科技融入各科教學之內涵與實施。資訊與教育，72，2-9。
張鈿富、林松柏、周文菁（2012）。臺灣高中學生學習投入影響因素之研究。教育資料集刊，54，23-57。
國立臺灣師範大學（2015）。即時反饋系統，讓教室動起來！。教發電子報， 70。取自https://www.ctld.ntnu.edu.tw/教發電子報 /1516
翁楊絲茜、廖怡茹、張晶貽、王渝蓉（2016）。大學生以英語字彙學習策略在 Facebook上之應用研究。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，12 (1)，45-70。
黃國禎、陳德懷（2014）。未來教室、行動與無所不在學習。台北市:高等教育。
黃建翔（2017）。淺談IRS即時反饋系統運用至大學課程教學之策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（10），81-87。
黃毅志（2000）。教育研究中的學童自陳問卷信、效度分析。國科會人文及社會科學研究彙刊，13（3），403-145。
蔡文榮、陳雅屏（2016）。互動式電子白板的使用差異對國小生英語學習動機與學習成就之影響。彰化師大教育學報，30，31-58。
劉靖國（2005）。成就動機理論及其在教學上的應用。中等教育，56（4），96-109。
黎瓊麗、莊筱玉、傅敏芳（2006）。國小學童英語學習動機量表之編制。高應科大人文社會科學學報，3，141-167。
蕭顯勝、鄭楹霖（2009）。以無所不在學習系統降低英語字彙學習焦慮因素之研究。TWELF 2009 第 5 屆台灣數位學習發展研討會。台南市：國立台南大學。

英文部分：
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200–215.
Busato, V. V., et al. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual differences, 29(6), 1057-1068.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, E. (2003). Assessing student engagement rates. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482269)
Chien, C. W. (2015). Analysis the effectiveness of three online vocabulary flashcard websites on L2 learners’ level of lexical knowledge. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 111-121.
Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: a motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), The self in transition: infancy to childhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Connell, J. P., and Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: a motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M.R. Gunnar and L.A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self-processes and development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of Optimal Experience. New　York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Dickhäuser, O. and J. Stiensmeier-Pelster (2003). Gender differences in the choice of computer courses: Applying an expectancy-value model. Social Psychology of Education, 6(3), 173-189.
Dizon, G. (2016). Quizlet in the EFL Classroom: Enhancing Academic Vocabulary Acquisition of Japanese University Students. Teaching English with Technology, 16(2), 40-56.
E. Van de Gaer, G. Van Landeghem, H. Pustjens, J. Van Damme, and A. De Munter. (2007). Impact of students’ and their schoolmates’ achievement motivation on the status and growth in math and language achievement of boys and girls across grades 7 through 8. Psychologica Belgica, 47, 1-2, 5–29.
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives, 75-146. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. (1991). Gender difference in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7-35.
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research,74, 59-109.
Fredericks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
Goldin, G.A., Epstein, Y.M., Schorr, R.Y. et al. (2011). Beliefs and engagement structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(4), 547.
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
Hood, M., Creed, P. A., & Neumann, D. L. (2012). Using the expectancy value model of motivation to understand the relationship between student attitudes and achievement in statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2), 72–85.
Horowitz, H. M. (1988). Student Response System. Interactivity in a Classroom Environment. IBM Corporate Education Center.
Hou, H. T., & Chou, Y. S. (2012). Exploring the technology acceptance and flow state of a chamber escape game-Escape The Lab© for learning electromagnet concept. The 20th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2012), Singapore, November 26-30, 2012.
Ibáñez, M. B., et al. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71, 1-13.
Inal, Y. and K. Cagiltay (2007). Flow experiences of children in an interactive social game environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 455-464.
Kiili, K. (2005c). On educational game design: Building blocks of flow experience. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of Technology Press.
Kiili, K. (2006). Evaluations of an experiential gaming model. Human Technology, 2(2), 187-201.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24-32.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5-20.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lander, B. (2015). Lesson study at the foreign language university level in Japan: blended learning, raising awareness of technology in the classroom. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 4(4), 362-382.
Lawson, M. J. & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary learning strategies of foreign language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101-135.
Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of Vocabulary Learning via Mobile Phone. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 515-525.
Lynch, D. J. (2006). Motivational Factors, Learning Strategies and Resource Management as Predictors of Course Grades. College Student Journal, 40, 423-428.
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling：Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. Education Psychology Review, 9, 371-409.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). Century psychology series. The achievement motive. East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., and Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: the role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement for secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14–24.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., & McKeachie, W. J. (1989). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Mich: National center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), School of Education, The University Michigan.
Pintrich, P. R., and DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, NCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001
Reed, P. and E. Reay (2015). Relationship between levels of problematic Internet usage and motivation to study in university students. Higher Education, 70(4), 711-723.
Shernoff, David & Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly & Shneider, Barbara & Shernoff, Elisa. (2003). Student Engagement in High School Classrooms from the Perspective of Flow Theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-176.
Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal Learning Environments to Promote Student　Engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
Shernoff, D. J., et al. (2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52-60.
Shernoff, D. J., Ruzek, E. A., Sannella, A. J., Schorr, R. Y., Sanchez-Wall, L., & Bressler, D. M. (2017). Student engagement as a general factor of classroom experience: Associations with student practices and educational outcomes in a university gateway course. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 994.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of Reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century　 Crafts.
Stipek, D. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66 (1), 209-223.
Susilowati, E. (2017). The Effectiveness of Kahoot in Supporting Grammar Class on Class A Year I Students Academic Year 2016/2017 of Diploma III of Nursing Ngudi Waluyo University. UNNES-TEFLIN National Seminar.
Thornton, P. and C. Houser (2005). Using Mobile Phones in English Education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 217-228.
Vargas, J. M. (2011). Modern learning: Quizlet in the social studies classroom, Wichita State University.
Wang, A. I., M. Zhu and R. Sætre (2016). The Effect of Digitizing and Gamifying Quizzing in Classrooms. European Conference on Games Based Learning, 729-730.
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success: An achievement values from childhood thought adolescence. In A. Wigfield & Eccles (Eds), The development of achievement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspective in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology, 79-112. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yang, Y.C., & Wu, W. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education, 59, 339-352.