1. Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact onlearning outcomes and motivationPresenter: Ni-Jyun Cathy LiuInstructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa HsuDate: March 19, 2013

2. CitationYu,T.L.,& Ling,Y.T. (2010). Using ubiquitousgames in an English listening and speakingcourse: Impact on learning outcomes andmotivation. Computer & Education, 55(2), 630-643. 3. Contents Introduction Purpose Literature Review MethodologyResult & ConclusionReflectionLimitation 4. Introduction 5. Background Mobile Learning (M-Learning) uses mobile computingUsing appropriate learning strategies and developing effective technologies to enhance learning.learning activities which support important topic in the field ofcomputer-assisted language learning. M-Learning has many advantages over e-learning, including flexibility, mobility, convenient, low cost, and user-friendliness. (Collins, 2005) (Jones & Jo, 2004) 6. Definition of term Players can use devices or equipment at any time andUbiquitous location to play interactive Games games. 7. PurposeTo investigate how ubiquitous gamesinfluence English learning achievementand motivation through a context-awareubiquitous learning environment 8. Research Questions5.4.3.2. What can the low-cost English learning1. How can effectiverelationship between is athe difference between theis learning activities be learning motivation behind environment enhance of and in proposed developed outcomescreated our outcomes to beoutcomes learning learningoura real motivation? learning method situation? method and those of and motivations? and that behind the traditional learning method in English learning? 9. Literature Review 10. Literature ReviewMobile-assisted language learning (MALL) hasan excellent potential to provide students withrich,real-time, convenient, collaborative, contextual andcontinuous learning experiences, both insideand outside the classroom. (Hulme, 2007) 11. Literature ReviewM-Learning has many advantages over e-learning, includingflexibility, mobility, convenience, low cost, anduser-freindliness. (Jones & Jo, 2004) 12. Methodology 13. Instruments64 of 7 grades studentsHELLO sever station isInstalled in PDA phones.3 high school teachers8 week experiment Pre-test was conducted.Post-testA 45 minute course was InterviewConducted each week.Survey 14. ProcedureExperimentalControl groupGroupConduct pre-testConduct pre-test LearningLearningConduct post-test Conduct post-test InterviewSurvey 15. Example of dialogueTutor: What do you want?Learner: How much is the sandwich?Tutor: Its thirty-eight NT dollars.Learner: How much is the bread?Tutor: Its twenty-three NT dollars.Learner: Okay. I want a sandwich and twobread. How much are they?Tutor: They are eighty-four NT dollars.Learner: Here you are.Tutor: Thank you very much. 16. Example of Listening questionQ: What did you have for lunch?(A)Its too early to take a break.(B)I ordered something in the store.(C)I ate a sandwich.(D)I didnt have dinner with him. 17. Example of a campus storyStudent1: One morning, I heard a meow when I bought a penin store. I found a black cat crouching in the corner.Student2: Next day, I saw the same black cat in my classroom.It looked very hungry, so I opened my lunch box and gave the cat a fish. I called it Siao-Hei.Student3: Several days away, my classmate said that he saw adead cat under a tree beside the playground. When Iwent there, I noticed that dead cat was not Siao-Hei. I was hoping that Siao-Hei still alive. 18. Example of survey Kellers ARCs modal The themes of the learning materials draw myA(attention) attention. The content of this course is linked to myR(Relevance) daily experiences. I am confident that I can accomplish all theC(confidence) activities.S(Satisfaction I am satisfied with my learning achievement ) in the Campus Life activity. 19. Example of interview questions1. Do you think the method of English learning employed in this course is interesting? Why or Why not?2. Do you think the method of English learning employed in this course is attractive? Why or Why not?3. Are you satisfied with your English learning achievement? Why or Why not? 20. Course DesignPreparation Experimental Conducted pre-testGroupWeek 1 ControlConducted pre-test Group 21. Course DesignTopic: Campus EnvironmentExperimental Played a ubiquitous learning Group game with HELLOWeek2 Week3ControlUsed printed materialsGroupand audio CDs 22. Course Design Topic: Campus LifeExperimental Performed a treasure hunt Group gameWeek4 Week5ControlUsed printed materials with a zone-related map and audioGroupCDs 23. Course DesignTopic: Campus StoryExperimental Perform a story relay race Group collaborativelyWeek6 Week7 Employed a digital voiceControlrecorder to collaborativelyGroupperform a story relay race 24. Course DesignEvaluation Experimental Conducted pre-testGroupWeek 8 ControlConducted pre-test Group 25. Result &Conclusion 26. Result of QuantitativeExperimental group Control groupItemMean SD SEMean SD SEFPre-test74.06 11.32 2.0075.47 10.03 1.7 Test 1 82.03 5.370.9576.66 6.351.12 13.07 Test 2 86.88 7.041.2478.44 7.771.37 20.17 Test 3 85.63 9.571.6977.53 9.761.72 11.68Post-test 89.44 7.451.3281.25 9.591.70 15.56 27. Result of Qualitative 28. Research HypothesesA(attention)HA1: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in the attractiveness of the content ofthelearning materials.HA2: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in the attractiveness of thepresentation of learning materials.HA3: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in the attractiveness of the activenature of the learning activities. 29. Research HypothesesA(attention)HA4: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in their curiosity toward the activenature of the learning activities.HA5: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in their interest in the Campus Environment activity.HA6: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in their interest in the Campus Life activity.HA7: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in their interest in the Campus Story activity. 30. Research Hypotheses R(Relevance)HR1: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in the link between the curriculum and their knowledge.HR2: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in the link between the curriculum and their daily experience.HR3: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in thinking that the course is worthy of learn. 31. Research Hypotheses R(Relevance)HR4: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in thinking that the Campus Environment activity is helpful to them.HR5: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in thinking that the Campus Lifeactivity is helpful to them.HR6: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in thinking that the Campus Story activity is helpful to them. 32. Research Hypotheses C(confidence)HC1: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in believing that the progressingmethod of learning activities meets their everyday life.HC2: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in controlling the progress of learning activity.HC3. The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in having the confidence to accomplishallactivities.HC4: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in having the confidence to apply what they learn from this course to their everyday life. 33. Research Hypotheses S(Satisfaction)HS1:The students who receive different intervention show nosignificant difference in their enjoyment of the CampusEnvironment activity.HS2:The students who receive different intervention show nosignificant difference in their enjoyment of the CampusLife activity.HS3: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in their enjoyment of the CampusStory activity. 34. Research HypothesesS(Satisfaction )HS4: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in being satisfied by their achievementin the Campus Environment activity.HS5: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in being satisfied by their achievementin the Campus Life activity.HS6: The students who receive different intervention show no significant difference in being satisfied by their achievementin the Campus Story activity. 35. ConclusionUbiquitous games in learning can produce betterlearning outcomes than the non-gaming method.Experimental group students gained betterlearning motivation for attention, relevance,confidence and satisfaction.Students had a positive learning motivation towardusing HELLO to aid language learning and weresatisfied with its effectiveness. 36. Reflection 37. Ubiquitous games are more convenient thatlearner can learn in any time and location.Ubiquitous game-based learning environmentcan make learners have more motivation andenjoyment in learning.M-Learning can not be afforded by anystudents. 38. Learning by teaching---(Cathy, 2013)Thanks for your