科技的發展越來越迅速，各式各樣的學習方式越趨多元，如何讓學習者能夠更有興趣的學習新知識值得來探討，遊戲式學習的方式更能夠讓學習者融入在情境之中，藉由使用或理解情境中的道具或知識來加深他們對於學習內容的認知，有別於以前閱讀的電子繪本，遊戲式電子繪本多了許多互動方式，能夠讓學習者不只是單純的閱讀，還能使用故事中的道具來破解一些謎題，讓不喜歡閱讀的學習者能夠提高其學習動機，本實驗設計一套遊戲式線索電子繪本，故事是一位探險家飛機失事後要在荒島上求生的故事，在逃生過程中需要使用多項工具來製作出逃生的物品，並給予學習者相關知識來加深他們的學習印象，而線索則能夠讓他們朝一些需要注意的物品以及知識來解決問題，而在解題的過程中，不同自我效能的學習者會有不同的問題解決方式，為了能夠了解不同自我效能學習者閱讀與問題解決的差異，本實驗輔以眼球追蹤系統，來觀察不同自我效能學習者在解謎上面的表現，以探討不同自我效能學習者在問體解決能力上的差異性，本研究以彰化縣國中之67名學生作為研究對象，藉由自我效能問卷來區分為「高自我效能組」、「低自我效能組」兩組來進行閱讀，在閱讀後會給予學習單來測驗對故事中的內容理解程度以及問題解決能力表現，研究結果發現，兩組在閱讀動機上皆有提升，此外，高自我效能組的閱讀者雖然在繪本內容中的物件點及互動次數多於低自我效能組，然而通關時間卻優於低自我效能組，兩組在眼動儀紀錄的資訊中可以發現線索的提供讓他們有效的專注在需要注意的地方，然而低效能組卻會看了卻沒有去使用相關的道具，因此在學習單的解題中顯示高自我效能組在問題解決上相對優於地自我效能組，研究結果顯示，高自我效能學習者在學習上較常多做嘗試，也比較願意使用新的閱讀方式來進行閱讀，低自我效能因為突然給予不一樣的學習以及閱讀模式，所以在閱讀遊戲式線索電子繪本中有較多地方不清楚該怎麼使用，顯示這兩組在新事物上有不一樣的學習表現，但事後訪談兩組對於遊戲式電子繪本都有濃厚的興趣，雖然第一次使用並不太熟悉但是有別於以前的閱讀模式使他們更願意花時間在閱讀上。

As technology advances in a quicker way, there is a wide diversity of learning methods. Motivating people to learn new knowledge becomes worth exploring. Gamification learning allows learners to immerse into scenarios by using, understanding artefacts or knowledge in the scenarios to increase the cognitive of the content. Compared to a conventional digital storybook, gamification digital storybook integrated with interaction, providing learner basic reading with additional mystery quiz using props from the story in order to increase learning motives of learners whose dislike reading. This study proposed a set of gamification digital storybooks which is about an explorer who needs to survive after his plane crashes on a desert island. He will need to salvage different tools and transform them into escaping equipment. During the reading process, related knowledge will be deepened through observation of key items inside the story. Different learners will have their own problem-solving skills. In order to understand the correlation between problem-solving and self-learning efficacy, eye-tracking device is implemented to observed different learner performance on solving riddles.76 students of Changhua Junior high-school were recruited and were categorized into “high self-efficacy” and “low self-efficacy” groups through the data collected from self-efficacy questionnaire. The participants will be given a study list to examine their understanding level and problem-solving performance on the story content after reading. Research showed there is a significant improvement in learning motive in both groups. Although high self-efficacy groups learner interacting frequency in story context was lower than low self-efficacy groups，they do have faster clearance time. Eye Tracking results indicating that providing clues can guide both groups participants to focus on vital information. However, Low self-efficacy participants will not use the relevant props even they notice, resulting in lower problem-solving performance compared to high self-efficacy participants. Based on the result, high efficacy learners tend to try and accept using new methods on reading while low-self efficacy learners will be at a loss as a sudden change in learning and reading method. These findings indicate both groups have different learning performance on new things. However, a post-event interview on gamification digital storybook showed positive feedback as both groups were interested in this new reading methods even though they are not familiar with it for the first time.

黃茂在、陳文典（2004）。[問題解決] 的能力。科學教育月刊。
曾愛玲（2004）。碩士論文（碩士論文）。新竹市，國立新竹師範學院臺灣語言
與語文教育研究所。
盧秀琴、石佩真、蔡春微（2006）。融入國小自然與生活科技領域的繪本電子
書之製作與應用。國立台北教育大學學報-數理科技教育類，19（2），1-
30。
徐素霞（2001）。臺灣兒童圖畫書導賞。台北：國立臺灣藝術教育館。
劉宣伶 （2016）。賽考利克原住民族語遊戲式數位教材之設計及其使用成效評
估。暨南大學課程教學與科技研究所學位論文, 1-166.
賴孟龍、陳彥樺（2012）。以眼動方法探究幼兒閱讀繪本時的注意力偏好。幼
兒教保研究期刊，8，81-96。[Lai, MengLung, & Chen, Yan-Hua （2012）.
Examining preschoolers´ attention during storybook reading: Evidence from eye
movements. Journal of Early Childhood Education & Care, 8, 81-96.
劉嘉茹、侯依玲（2011）。以眼動追蹤技術探 討先備知識對科學圖形理解的影
響。教 育心理學報，43，227-250。[Liu, Chia-Ju, & Hou, I-Lin （2011）. Explore
the influence of prior knowledge on understanding in scientific diagrams through
eye tracking. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 43, 227- 250.
楊雅婷、陳奕樺（2013）。紙筆與數位繪本教學對學生創造力之影響。全球華
人計算機教育應用學報，9（1），99-125
郭蕙琪（2013）。紙本繪本與電子童書對幼兒閱讀理解成效之探討。國立臺北護
理健康大學碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳奕璇, 陳昱宏, & 林吟霞（2015）。從 R. Mayer 多媒體學習認知理論探討教
師使用 [兒童文化館] 電子繪本之經驗. 課程與教學, 18（1）, 31-58.

陳奕璇（2017）。檢視悅趣化學習的實踐: 以遊戲式電子繪本為例. 臺灣教育評
論月刊, 6（9）, 311-313。
陳明蕾, & 柯華葳（2013）。學習障礙兒童線上閱讀歷程: 來自眼球移動的證
據. 特殊教育研究學刊, 38（3）, 81-103。
陳學志, 賴惠德, &邱發忠（2010）。眼球追蹤技術在學習與教育上的應用. 教
育科學研究期刊, 55（4）, 39-68。
鄭曉芳（2015）。 遊戲式學習融入學習共同體方案對國小數學學習之個案研究.
淡江大學教育科技學系碩士在職專班學位論文, 1-271。
林涵諭（2011）。電子繪本設計及其在教學運用之研究（未出版之碩士 論文）。
國立暨南國際大學，南投縣。
陳俊宏（2014）。 使用形成性評量於數位遊戲式學習融入國小四年級 分數概念
教學成效之研究。 國立臺北教育大學數學暨資訊教育學系學位論文, 1-67.
李登隆、王美芬（2004）。資訊融入專題導向學習對國小學生自然科學習態度與
問題解決能力之影響. 科學教育研究與發展季刊, 2004.
張春興（2000）。教育心理學。台北市：東華書局
吳佳玲、張俊彥（2002）。高一學生地球科學問題解決能力與其先備知識及推理
能力關係的初探研究。科學教育學刊，10（2），135-156
陸麗（2017）。繪本集體教學活動遊戲化思考。教育（周刊）, （17）, 60-60.
陳涵睿（2017）。 互動式電子繪本易用性之研究-以《 The Fantastic Flying Books
of Mr. Morris Lessmore》 為例. 中華印刷科技年報, 246-258.
陳姸潔 （2016）。 情境式數位學習遊戲及類電子書對國小四年級學生科學概念
及論證能力學習成效之影響. 國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系學位論文,
1-168.
 
Armstrong, S. J. （1999）. Cognitive style and dyadic interaction: a study of supervisors
and subordinates engaged in working relationships （Doctoral dissertation,
University of Leeds）.
Arslan‐Ari, I. （2018）. Learning from instructional animations: H ow does prior
knowledge mediate the effect of visual cues?. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 34（2）, 140-149.
Arnold, C., & Colburn, N. （2007）. Read With Me. School Library Journal, 53（7）,
25-25.
Annetta, L. A. （2010）. The “I's” have it: A framework for serious educational game
design. Review of General Psychology, 14（2）, 105.
Banker, S., Ainsworth, S. E., Baumeister, R. F., Ariely, D., & Vohs, K. D. （2017）. The sticky anchor hypothesis: Ego depletion increases susceptibility to situational cues. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30（5）, 1027-1040.
Bergey, B. W., Ketelhut, D. J., Liang, S., Natarajan, U., & Karakus, M. （2015）.
Scientific inquiry self-efficacy and computer game self-efficacy as predictors and
outcomes of middle school boys’ and girls’ performance in a science assessment in
a virtual environment. Journal of Science education and Technology, 24（5）, 696-
708.
Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J. （2016）. An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178-192.
Brewer, R., Biotti, F., Bird, G., & Cook, R. （2017）. Typical integration of emotion cues from bodies and faces in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Cognition, 165, 82-87.
Crooks, S. M., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. （2012）. Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 28（3）, 1063-1071.
Costa, V. D., & Rudebeck, P. H. （2016）. More than meets the eye: the relationship between pupil size and locus coeruleus activity. Neuron, 89（1）, 8-10.
Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. （1983）. What your eyes do while your mind is
reading. Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes, 275-307.
Crawford, C. （2002）. The art of interactive design: A euphonious and illuminating guide
to building successful software. No Starch Press.
Dawley, L., & Dede, C. （2014）. Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive
simulations. In Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology （pp. 723-734）. Springer New York.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. （2007）. Attention cueing
as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
21, 731-746
Duchowski, A. T. (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications.Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 455-470.
Eimer, M. (1993). Spatial cueing, sensory gating and selective response preparation: an
ERP study on visuo-spatial orienting. Clinical Neurophysiology, 88（5）, 408-420.
Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. （2014）. An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem
solving in game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
17（1）.
Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. （2013）. Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 67,
156-167.

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. （2001）. Critical elements of classroom and small‐
group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 16（4）, 203-212.
Fournier, M., d'Arripe‐Longueville, F., & Radel, R. （2017）. Testing the effect of text
messaging cues to promote physical activity habits: a worksite‐based exploratory
intervention. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 27（10）, 1157-
1165.
Gick, M. L. （1986）. Problem-solving strategies. Educational psychologist, 21（1-2）, 99-120.
Guillén-Nieto, V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. （2012）. Serious games and learning
effectiveness: The case of It’sa Deal!. Computers & Education, 58（1）, 435-448.
Hatch, L. （1988）. Problem solving approach. Instructional strategies for technology
education, 37, 89.
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. （2016）. Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170-179.
Higham, S., Tonsing, K. M., & Alant, E. （2010）. Teachers' interactions during storybook reading: A rural african perspective. Early Education and Development, 21, 392-411.
Hsueh, C. J. （2015）. Effect of a Contextual Problem-based Educational Computer
Game on Students’ English Listening Comprehension.
Hung, C. M., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. （2014）. Effects of digital game-based
learning on students’ self-efficacy, motivation, anxiety, and achievements in
learning mathematics. Journal of Computers in Education, 1（2-3）, 151-166.
Hwang, G. J., & Wu, P. H. （2012）. Advancements and trends in digital game‐based
learning research: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 43（1）.
Jabri, M. M. （1991）. The development of conceptually independent subscales in the
measurement of modes of problem solving. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 51（4）, 975-983.
Joseph, H. S., Wonnacott, E., Forbes, P., & Nation, K. （2014）. Becoming a written word: Eye movements reveal order of acquisition effects following incidental exposure to new words during silent reading. Cognition, 133（1）, 238-248.
Kamalimoghaddam, H., Tarmizi, R. A., Ayub, A. F. M., & Jaafar, W. M. W. (2016). Confirmatory Model of Mathematics Self-Efficacy, Problem Solving Skills and Prior Knowledge on Mathematics Achievement: A Structural Equation Model. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, 10, 187-200.
Khenissi, M. A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Graf, S., & Chen, N. S. （2016）. Relationship between learning styles and genres of games. Computers & Education, 101, 1-14.
Lai, M. L., Tsai, M. J., Yang, F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W. Y., ... & Tsai, C. C.(2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90-115.
Law, B. (2016, October). Puzzle Games: A Metaphor for Computational Thinking. In European Conference on Games Based Learning （p. 344）. Academic Conferences International Limited.
Lay, A., Patton, E., & Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2017）. A case for the use of the ability-in language user-in context orientation in game-based assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 7（1）, 16.
Lee, W. H. (2014). Development and Evaluation of an Educational Game Integrating Cognitive Scaffolding and Role-Playing Strategy for High School Mathematics Instruction: An Analysis of Flow, Metacognition and Learning Performance.
Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Savenye, W. C., & Nelson, B. C. （2016）. Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24（4）, 799-813.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. （2001）. Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93（2）, 377.
Matsuda, T., & Ito, Y. （2014, June）. Generalizing the Design Framework of Gaming Materials for “Problem-based Learning” in Mathematics through Developing a New Game. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology （pp. 2235-2243）. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education （AACE）.
Marinak, B. A., Malloy, J. B., Gambrell, L. B., & Mazzoni, S. A. （2015）. Me and my reading profile. The Reading Teacher, 69（1）, 51-62.
Mayer, R. E. （1985）. Implications of cognitive psychology for instruction in mathematical problem solving. Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives, 123-138.
Maynard, S., Mcknight, C., & Keady, M. （1999）. Children’s classics in the electronic medium. The Lion and The Unicorn, 23, 184-201.
Mayer, R. E. （2005）. Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia
learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal
contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer （Ed.）, TheCambridge handbook of multimedia learning （pp. 183-200）. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McGee, L. M., & Morrow, L. M. （2005）. Teaching literacy in kindergarten. Guilford
Press.
McLean, K., & Kulo, C. （2013）. Understanding the children’s book consumer in the
digital age. Bowker Market Research.
Messick, S. （1984）. The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in
educational practice. Educational psychologist, 19（2）, 59-74.
Nothdurft, H. C. （1993）. The role of features in preattentive vision: Comparison of
orientation, motion and color cues. Vision research, 33（14）, 1937-1958.
Kaghazchi, N., Yoshii, A., Kodama, S., & Kaneko, M. （2017, July）. Development and
Evaluation of an E-picture Book System Using Multi-directional Scrolling and
Illustrations with Visual Guidance. In International Conference on Human-
Computer Interaction （pp. 561-568）. Springer, Cham.
Khenissi, M. A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Graf, S., & Chen, N. S. （2016）. Relationship
between learning styles and genres of games. Computers & Education, 101, 1-14.
Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. （2009）. Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta- cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52（4）, 800- 810.
Korat, O., & Shamir, A. （2008）. The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting children’s emergent literacy in low versus middle SES groups. Computers & Education, 50（1）, 110-124.
Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. （2014）. Cognitive style as
environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis
and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 15（1）, 3-33.
Koivisto, J. M. （2017）. Learning clinical reasoning through game-based simulation:
Design principles for simulation games.
Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. （2015）. Designing effective video-based
modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 18（4）, 78.

Pho, A., & Dinscore, A. （2015）. Game-based learning. Tips and Trends.
Prensky, M. （2001）. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9（5）, 1-6.
Posner, M. I. （1980）. Orienting of attention. Quarterly journal of experimental
psychology, 32（1）, 3-25.Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. （1990）. The attention system of the human brain. Annual review of neuroscience, 13（1）, 25-42.
Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. （2016）. Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A
review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50-58.
Rayner, K., Rotello, C. M., Stewart, A. J., Keir, J., & Duffy, S. A. （2001）. Integrating
Text and Pictorial Information: Eye Movements When Looking at Print
Advertisements.
Robertson, S. I. （2016）. Problem Solving: Perspectives from Cognition and
Neuroscience. Psychology Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. （2014）. Mathematical problem solving. Elsevier.
Savery, J. R. （2015）. Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and
distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and
extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9, 5-15.
Sargeant, B. （2013）. Interactive storytelling: How picture book conventions inform
multimedia book app narratives. Australian Journal of Intelligent Information
Processing Systems, 13（3）, 29-35.
Sargeant, B. （2015）. What is an ebook? What is a book app? And why should we care? An analysis of contemporary digital picture books. Children's Literature in Education, 46（4）, 454-466.Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. （1996）. Investing in creativity. American psychologist, 51（7）, 677.

Sheldon, S., & Donahue, J. （2017）. More than a feeling: Emotional cues impact the
access and experience of autobiographical memories. Memory & cognition, 45（5）, 731-744.
Smeets, D., & Bus, A. G. （2013）. Picture storybooks go digital: Pros and cons. Reading instruction in the age of common core standards, 176-189.
Smeets, D. J., Van Dijken, M. J., & Bus, A. G. （2014）. Using electronic storybooks to support word learning in children with severe language impairments. Journal of
learning disabilities, 47（5）, 435-449.
Smeets, D. J., & Bus, A. G. （2015）. The interactive animated e-book as a word learning device for kindergartners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36（4）, 899-920.
Strickland, B., Fisher, M., Keil, F., & Knobe, J. （2014）. Syntax and intentionality: An automatic link between language and theory-of-mind. Cognition, 133（1）, 249-261.
Stirling, A., & Birt, J. （2014）. An enriched multimedia eBook application to facilitate
learning of anatomy. Anatomical sciences education, 7（1）, 19-27.
Stirrat, M., & Perrett, D. I. （2010）. Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological science, 21（3）, 349-354.
Spina, F., Fiorin, L., Piana, R., & Becciu, V. （2016）. Reviewed Edition 2016 Editorial
reviewers: Francesca Testa Riva and Alessandro Riva Ebook by Attilio Baghino
Cover: Francesco Antonio Boi, watercolor by Gigi Camedda, Cagliari, 1978
courtesy of the picture-gallery, Olzai （Nuoro）.
Schnotz, W. （2005）. An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer （Ed.）, The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning （pp. 49-69）. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. （2003）. Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.

Tennyson, R. D., & Park, 0. （1987）. Artifical intelligence and computerbased learning. In R. M. Gagne （Ed.）, Instructional technology: Foundations （pp. 319-342）. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merriënboer, J., J., G. （2004）. Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cuing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81.
van Dijken, M. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. （2011）. Open access to living books on the internet: a new chance to bridge the linguistic gap for at-risk preschoolers?. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26（3）, 299-310.
Willoughby, D., Evans, M. A., & Nowak, S. （2015）. Do ABC ebooks boost engagement and learning in preschoolers? An experimental study comparing ebooks with paper ABC and storybook controls. Computers & Education, 82, 107-117.
Xia, C., & Bailey, J. H. （2001）. U.S. Patent No. 6,252,594. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Yokata, Junko and Teale, William H. （2014）. Picture Books and the Digital World: Educators Making Informed Choices. The Reading Teacher, 67（8）, 577–585.
Yeh, T. L., & Chen, C. C. （2016）. A Study of e-Picture Books and Traditional Picture Books on Children’s Reading Attention. In Advances in Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors （pp. 635-642）. Springer International Publishing.
Yusoff, Z., & Kamsin, A. （2015）. Game rhetoric: interaction design model of persuasive learning for serious games. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies （pp. 644-654）. Springer, Cham.
Williams, S. L., & French, D. P. （2011）. What are the most effective intervention techniques for changing physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity behaviour—and are they the same?. Health education research, 26（2）, 308-322.