View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Designing a Strategic Analysis and Planning Skills Training Board Game Using Mobile Technology and a Dual-Scaffolding Mechanism

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Designing a Strategic Analysis and Planning Skills Training Board Game Using Mobile Technology and a Dual-Scaffolding Mechanism
Language: English
Authors: Yu-Cheng Lin, Huei-Tse Hou (ORCID 0000-0003-1783-8830)
Source: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2024 33(2):431-445.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Educational Games, Design, Strategic Planning, Evaluation Methods, Scaffolding (Teaching Technique), Handheld Devices, Telecommunications, Technology Uses in Education, Game Based Learning, Student Behavior, Control Groups, Anxiety, Peer Influence, Teaching Methods, College Students, Higher Education
DOI: 10.1007/s40299-023-00740-2
ISSN: 0119-5646
2243-7908
Abstract: Strategic planning is a key competency for business management education. This study designed a dual scaffold-oriented strategy planning board game based on cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding and combined it with a real-time checking mechanism using mobile technology. The 68 university students were divided into an experimental group for scaffold game-based learning and a control group for case-based discussion learning to investigate the differences in learning effectiveness, flow and learning anxiety, and to explore the technology acceptance, scaffold usefulness, and activity anxiety of the game-based learning group. The results revealed that the learning effectiveness of the experimental group was significantly improved, while there was no significant difference in the control group; the overall flow and technology acceptance of the experimental group were both relatively high; learning anxiety was significantly reduced in both groups, and the experimental group did not have excessive activity anxiety. There were no significant differences in learning anxiety of the two groups. As for scaffolding usefulness evaluation, the proportion of using peer scaffolding was the highest, and the learners thought that using peer scaffolding was helpful for developing their strategic planning skills. It is suggested that the design of the game mechanism in the future can encourage learners to use the cognitive scaffolding and the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding more often, and the quality of peer discussions may be improved through the real-time evaluation of the metacognitive scaffolding.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1416098
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHV_NmJkiJdZtdAl_CavKMEAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCe4oeGUZKLSN-ujYgIBEICBm03aQIjqORyMgrzN0SeVsOhE5PNcpdxpF5Cp7C-d5arBOGRmJ1_nOGMpZWY0gXa6B6QxxntPUcuRoPFnzbdDN2mwKKu6QU_WPoa_EKTXFpB21dMtc_piQoWLwlZBBC0gjWHPrimbnVEVrG-NPZQBHyfHEs4HFvYmhbzgXVAkOxfleDky8I9pAaG1BjHEpZxwefEbP-AYNOt9ZqYY
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0175966616;[gchw]01apr.24;2024Mar13.06:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0175966616-1">Designing a Strategic Analysis and Planning Skills Training Board Game Using Mobile Technology and a Dual-Scaffolding Mechanism </title> <p>Strategic planning is a key competency for business management education. This study designed a dual scaffold-oriented strategy planning board game based on cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding and combined it with a real-time checking mechanism using mobile technology. The 68 university students were divided into an experimental group for scaffold game-based learning and a control group for case-based discussion learning to investigate the differences in learning effectiveness, flow and learning anxiety, and to explore the technology acceptance, scaffold usefulness, and activity anxiety of the game-based learning group. The results revealed that the learning effectiveness of the experimental group was significantly improved, while there was no significant difference in the control group; the overall flow and technology acceptance of the experimental group were both relatively high; learning anxiety was significantly reduced in both groups, and the experimental group did not have excessive activity anxiety. There were no significant differences in learning anxiety of the two groups. As for scaffolding usefulness evaluation, the proportion of using peer scaffolding was the highest, and the learners thought that using peer scaffolding was helpful for developing their strategic planning skills. It is suggested that the design of the game mechanism in the future can encourage learners to use the cognitive scaffolding and the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding more often, and the quality of peer discussions may be improved through the real-time evaluation of the metacognitive scaffolding.</p> <p>Keywords: Strategic planning; Board game; Scaffolding; Mobile technology; Anxiety</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The global trend in the field of education training and educational innovation is moving toward the teaching of core competencies (Halász & Michel, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]; Tiana et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref2">59</reflink>]; Valle & Manso, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref3">61</reflink>]). The focus of business management teaching models is gradually changing to foster critical and reflective learning patterns (Dirkx et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]), which are more suitable for teaching core competencies. Strategic planning is an important core competency that focuses on the process of strategy and business objectives, and is based on organizational policies, plans, and activities to achieve the organizational vision (Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref5">33</reflink>]). It is also an important tool for managers to analyze the internal and external environment. It has been used extensively in politics, business, and higher education, and is an integral part of business organizations' risk assessment and future vision planning. However, business management education also faces some challenges, including the inability of the traditional business management teaching approach to produce talented students who are able to respond to innovative challenges (Colby et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]; Shvardak, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref7">54</reflink>]; Thomas & Cornuel, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref8">58</reflink>]) and how to promote learners' learning and critical reflection skills (Longmore et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]). Therefore, how to effectively develop the ability to apply strategic planning is particularly important in business management education in universities.</p> <p>Most of the development of strategic planning skills is currently conducted through practical training in the workplace, and before entering the workplace, it is mostly taught through traditional lectures or case studies combined with entrepreneurship education (Kuratko & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>]). While this approach can develop students' analytical skills, it lacks real-world experience and feedback (Ganesh & Sun, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]). Strategic planning is an action-oriented planning process (Poister & Streib, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref12">51</reflink>]) that emphasizes the ability to integrate multiple dynamics and involves not only the analysis of the internal and external environment, but also the ability to manage and execute goals, requiring the learner's actual participation and immediate feedback and reflection (Hou, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]) after decision making in order to achieve good learning effectiveness. The learner's motivation and learning effectiveness may be enhanced if realistic contextual experiences (Tapingkae et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref15">57</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref16">64</reflink>]) and peer interaction (La Braca & Kalman, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref17">39</reflink>]) are provided to allow learners to discuss strategic planning to solve case problems in a realistic context.</p> <p>The board game is often used as a learning tool in game-based learning, which has the advantage of face-to-face interaction and can have a positive effect on learning (Hou & Keng, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]; Kuo et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref19">36</reflink>]); providing learners with appropriate scaffolding in game-based learning (Maryam et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]) can also enhance learning effectiveness and motivation (Bawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]). Therefore, this study aimed to enhance learners' motivation and learning interactions in realistic situations through game-based learning. A strategic planning educational board game was designed to allow learners to experience learning in a role-playing way and to learn strategic analysis and strategic planning skills from the game. In order to allow learners to receive real-time guidance and feedback during the game tasks, this study also added cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding in a dual-scaffolding framework (Hou & Keng, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref22">28</reflink>]) to achieve the effect of learning transfer, and the game added mobile technology to provide mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding in the board game mechanism (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]) to enhance learners' real-time feedback through the mobile scaffolding of the app.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175966616-4">Scaffolding for Learning</hd> <p>According to Wood et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref24">65</reflink>]), scaffolding is defined as giving learners assistance in the learning process by providing them with instructional support to enable them to engage in learning tasks in a productive manner beyond their independent abilities (Kim & Hannafin, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>]), with the goal of helping students reduce the gap in the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref26">62</reflink>]), and to move cognition from the potential level to the real level. Through scaffolding support, learners' confusion in the learning process can be reduced, their knowledge development can be facilitated (Doyle, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]), learners' knowledge can be internalized, and the effect of learning transfer can be achieved.</p> <p>Scaffolding is a key factor in promoting learner interaction and knowledge construction (Hsieh, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref28">31</reflink>]). Kusmaryono et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref29">38</reflink>]) stated that using scaffolding in learning can help to enhance learning effectiveness, and through peer discussion and interaction, it can guide learners to promote cognitive thinking and develop to a higher cognitive level, and the introduction of scaffolding in a collaborative learning environment can enhance learning motivation and effectiveness (Chen & Law, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]). In addition, in some related studies on scaffolding, the topic of flow and learning anxiety have been investigated. Flow means a positive mental state in which learners are completely immersed in the activity, and if they can enter a state of flow during learning, learners will be more engaged in the learning activity and more likely to achieve the goal of learning effectiveness (Csikszentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]). Some previous studies have found that game-based learning helps learners have a higher level of flow (Chou et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]; Lin & Hou, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref33">42</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]), and adding peer scaffolding and cognitive scaffolding to games can promote more reflective behaviors in learners with a high-level of flow (Hou & Keng, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]). In addition, the anxiety about the subject during learning may distract attention from learning and further affect their learning effectiveness (Hamari et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]), adding scaffolding to learning can reduce learning anxiety (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]; Sobhanzadeh et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]) and has positive effects on learning.</p> <p>Saye and Brush ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref39">53</reflink>]) classified scaffolds into hard and soft scaffolds, while Hannafin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>]) classified scaffolds into conceptual scaffolds, metacognitive scaffolds, procedural scaffolds, and strategic scaffolds. The cognitive scaffolding can lead students to think and fill in gaps in prior knowledge (Hou & Keng, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref41">28</reflink>]); the peer scaffolding can be used as a soft scaffolding to facilitate social interaction and enhance the ability of collaborative problem solving; and the metacognitive scaffolding can enhance learners' reflective and planning skills (Hannafin et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref42">22</reflink>]; Hou, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref43">26</reflink>]; Hou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]) proposed a mobile-based scaffolding game editor in which players use an app to scan the images on the cards to help them perform metacognitive thinking through multimedia (image or video) diagnostics and hints. Players can immediately check whether the card selection is correct or not, as a guiding scaffolding for reflection, self-assessment, and re-planning (Hou, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]). This type of scaffolding, with automatic checking of mobile devices and providing opportunities for reflection, is a form of mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding, a real-time checking mechanism that provides learners with explicit instruction (Tsai et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref46">60</reflink>]), and enhances learning motivation (Hanus & Fox, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref47">23</reflink>]), also helps learners enter a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref48">15</reflink>]). Meanwhile, some studies have found that adding mobile-based scaffolding to games can improve learning effectiveness and reduce learning anxiety (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref49">30</reflink>]; Lin & Hou, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref50">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, for more complex knowledge, using a single form of scaffolding may not fully guide learners; adding different types of scaffolds to learning can promote the effectiveness of simulation-based learning at different stages of knowledge and skill development (Chernikova et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>]). In recent years, some studies have begun to incorporate multiple types of scaffolds in learning for analysis. Liang and She ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]) found that the use of multiple representational scaffolds can be more effective than single representational scaffolds in terms of promoting students' conceptual understanding and problem solving abilities in mathematics. Hou and Keng ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]) designed a dual scaffolding AR game based on cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding to explore the behavioral patterns of learners using dual scaffolding, and found that peer scaffolding and cognitive scaffolding can facilitate the problem solving process of learners. Also, Chang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]) added multisensory scaffolding to a board game to enhance blind students' understanding of abstract science concepts. Hou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref55">27</reflink>]) also used more than two multi-dimensional scaffolds, including cognitive scaffolds, metacognitive scaffolds, and peer scaffolds, to help players learn spatial and logical concepts.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-5">Mobile Technology and Educational Board Games</hd> <p>Strategic planning involves complex cross-domain knowledge. Chernikova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>]) indicated that simulation can promote the learning of complex cross-domain skills, and board games are suitable for learners to engage in role simulation because of their face-to-face interactive feature that facilitates learner interaction and provides peer scaffolding. Moreover, educational games can bring positive experiences to learning (Connolly et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]), and the contextual tasks in the game can bring learners contextualization and simulation effects. Adding mobile technology in the board game can further provide cognitive scaffolding and real-time checking through multimedia presentation, bringing immersive effects to learners and enhancing their social interactions (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]; Liu & Tsai, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref59">43</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref60">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>The effectiveness of adding technology to educational games to facilitate learning depends on whether learners perceive that the technology can help them learn and whether the technology in the game is easy to use and operate. Davis ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref61">16</reflink>]) proposed the technology acceptance model, which elaborated the concepts of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Technology acceptance is often used to analyze learners' behavior in using new technology in education, such as mobile technology (Briz-Ponce et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>]) or learning management systems (Radif et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref63">52</reflink>]). Some studies have suggested that learners' perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and game experience affect their game acceptance (Bourgonjon et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]) and their intention to use mobile games (Liu & Li, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref65">44</reflink>]); and learners' acceptance of the game also affects their interest in learning (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref66">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, Hou ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]) proposed an educational game framework with a multidimensional scaffolding mechanism to develop strategic planning skills, in which he mentioned that it is not enough to learn strategic planning skills only by situational simulation, but also by reflection and evaluation after the learning experience. The proposed framework contains four modules: realistic situations, strategy monitoring, real-time diagnosis, and collaborative interaction, in which the metacognitive scaffolding plays an important role in strategy planning because it can provide learners with the assistance of self-planning, monitoring, and evaluation.</p> <p>According to past studies, most focused on the effects of scaffolding on learners' learning effectiveness and motivation, but less on the evaluation of learners' experience and usefulness of scaffolding. The impact of scaffolding on strategic planning skills has also rarely been explored in applied disciplines. To evaluate the impact of scaffolding on learners, this study uses the multidimensional scaffolding educational game framework for strategic planning proposed by Hou ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref68">26</reflink>]) as the theoretical basis. Since learning strategic planning involves complex internal and external information analysis, the learning process requires not only the context and collaborative interaction provided by the board game, but also the scaffolding type of real-time feedback and evaluation in the game to help students reflection and planning, so we designed a dual scaffolding-oriented strategy planning game based on cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding, and combined it with metacognitive scaffolding provided by mobile technology as mobile-based scaffolding (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref69">30</reflink>]). It allowed learners to scan the cards for prompts and receive real-time checking feedback through an app during the game. Empirical analysis was used to conduct the evaluation with the aim of enhancing learners' situational analysis and strategy planning abilities.</p> <p>In this study, the subjects were divided into a mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding game-based learning group and a traditional case-discussion learning group. The research questions were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there any improvement in the learning effectiveness of the two groups of learners? Is there any significant difference in the learning effectiveness of the two groups?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the performance of the game-based learning group in terms of flow and technology acceptance?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there any significant difference in the learning anxiety of the different groups of learners?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the level of activity anxiety in the game-based learning group?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the learners' evaluations of the usefulness of scaffolding in the game-based learning group?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0175966616-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175966616-7">Participants and Procedure</hd> <p>The research participants were 68 students from the leisure and recreation management department of one university of technology in northern Taiwan. There were 16 males and 52 females, and their average age was 23.56. There were 37 valid samples in the experimental group and 31 valid samples in the control group. None of the participants had attended related courses adopting this strategic planning board game before the test. All subjects were asked to sign an IRB consent form (Case No. NCCU-REC-202011-E099) prior to the experiment, and the consent form was reviewed and approved to ensure the rights of the subjects and their voluntary participation in the event.</p> <p>The study adopted a quasi-experiment design. In this study, we conducted convenience sampling and grouping in the actual classes of the school, with one class in the experimental group and one class in the control group, to better fit the general curriculum implementation situation. In addition, in order to understand the difference between scaffolding and non-scaffolding in collaborative learning, both the experimental and control groups were set up in a collaborative manner with 4–5 students. The experimental group learned with the strategic planning game and group collaboration, working in small groups of four to five. The control group learned with the lecture instruction, in which the teacher explained the concept of strategic planning, followed by case studies and group discussions. The research process was as follows: In the beginning, the participants were informed of the experiment procedure (10 min). Next, the participants completed the pretest questionnaires of learning effectiveness and learning anxiety (20 min). After the pretest, the participants were informed of the activity rules (20 min) and then the teaching activities (the board game for the experimental group and the paper and pencil case study for the control group) were conducted (30 min). After the game, they completed the posttest questionnaires of learning effectiveness, learning anxiety, activity anxiety, flow, acceptance, scaffolding perception, and usefulness (25 min).</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-8">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>The learning effectiveness scale</emph>: to evaluate students' ability of strategic analysis and planning, the learning effectiveness scale is divided into two major questions. The first question is a SWOT strategic analysis in which students read a case context on the hospitality business management and conduct a SWOT analysis to identify the key phenomena matching the SWOT factors (i.e., Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) from the case study, with 1 point for each factor, for a total of 20 points. The second question is a TOWS strategic planning in which students needed to observe the SWOT factors in the case of the question to plan and write a business strategy that fits the case situation, using a question-and-answer type of open-ended question. The questions in the pretest and posttest were identical, and we arranged the posttest about 60 min after the pretest, so that learners were less likely to be affected by the memory effect of the questions due to the close time distance between the pretest and posttest. All questions were designed by professional instructors with experience in the field of hospitality management. These questions were also reviewed and revised by experts in education to ensure the expert validity of the scale.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>The flow scale</emph>: to explore learners' degree of involvement in this game, we adopted the Chinese version of Kiili's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref70">34</reflink>]) flow scale. This 22-item Chinese version was translated by Hou and Li ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref71">29</reflink>]) and includes two dimensions: flow antecedents and flow experience. The questions were divided into 10 questions on the flow antecedent dimension (e.g., I could use the user interface of the game spontaneously and automatically without having to think) and 12 questions on the flow experience dimension (e.g., my attention was focused entirely on playing the game). We used a 5-point Likert scale in the questionnaire. The internal consistency of the experimental group (Cronbach's α = 0.914) showed the high reliability of this scale.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>The technology acceptance scale</emph>: we adopted Davis's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref72">16</reflink>]) technology acceptance scale. It comprised a total of 13 questions, including 4 questions of perceived usefulness (e.g., I think this game can help me understand more about the elements of strategic planning), 3 questions of perceived ease of use (e.g., I think the rules of this game are easy to understand) and 5 questions of game factor (e.g., I think this game is played with freedom and a sense of control). We used a 5-point Likert scale in the questionnaire. The internal consistency of the experimental group (Cronbach's α = 0.893) showed the high reliability of this scale.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>The learning anxiety scale</emph>: the scale was developed by Hopko et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref73">24</reflink>]) to explore learners' learning subject anxiety levels, and included nine questions (e.g., working alone on a strategic planning problem makes me feel anxious). We used a 5-point Likert scale in the questionnaire. The pretest and posttest comprised the same questions. As for the reliability of the scale, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.856 and 0.893) was generated from the posttest data of the experimental and control group. This learning anxiety scale has also been used in some previous studies to evaluate other learning subjects (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>The activity anxiety scale</emph>: this scale was developed by Martens et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref75">46</reflink>]) based on the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2). In this study, this scale was designed to measure the level of psychological anxiety of the game-based learning group students regarding learning activities. The scale had eight questions (e.g. learning through this board game makes me feel so much pressure), and used a 5-point Likert scale in the questionnaire. Based on the data from the experimental group, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.910) showed the high reliability of this scale. Previous studies on game-based learning have also used this adapted activity anxiety scale to measure anxiety in game-based learning activities (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]; Lin & Hou, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref77">42</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>The questionnaire of scaffolding perception and usefulness</emph>: this questionnaire was modified from the scaffolding usefulness questionnaire of Hou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]) to understand if learners noticed the scaffolding hints in the game and their attitude tendency towards each dimension of the scaffolding. In this study, cognitive scaffolding, mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding, and peer scaffolding were added to the game, which were presented in the form of textual hints, image hints, and collaborative discussions. Each form of scaffolding was divided into six sub-dimensions of usefulness for measurement, including: (the scaffold) helps with strategic planning, helps with understanding goals, helps with situational integration, helps with problem solving, helps to enhance motivation, and helps to reduce anxiety. The scale used a 5-point Likert scale in the questionnaire. The Cronbach's α for the three types of scaffolding were 0.914, 0.876, and 0.807, with high internal consistency.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0175966616-9">The Strategic Analysis and Planning Skills Training Board Game Using Mobile Technology and a...</hd> <p>This strategy planning game is based on the theme of coffee shop management, with scaffolding and a mobile app in the game. Players explored the game board and analyzed the simulated contextual text on the information cards to find the key phenomena matching the SWOT factors, and scanned the cards to get hints and to check the answers through their mobile devices in real-time. In addition to analyzing card situations during the game, learners could also scan through different card combinations for TOWS strategy planning. The learning goal, game procedure, and scaffolding design of this game are described as follows.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-10">Learning Goal</hd> <p>The game is divided into two stages of cognitive design. The first stage is SWOT strategy analysis, and students observe the context of the information cards to help them reason out the key phenomena matching the SWOT factors through the hints given by the scaffolding. The second stage is TOWS strategy planning, in which students use different SWOT factor cards to assemble appropriate management strategies, and develop students' strategy planning ability through the two stages of the game.</p> <p>The game combines card text hints, image hints and real-time checking, and collaborative discussion game mechanisms to help learners develop strategic planning skills and achieve learning goals. In particular, the card text hints mechanism is to add the definition of SWOT elements on the reference cards to help students develop SWOT strategy analysis ability, while the image hints and real-time checking mechanism, on the information cards in the first stage and the SWOT elements cards in the second stage, both can be scanned by the app for hints, and the image situation hints will appear after scanning, and the app will check whether the player has achieved the task after card combination and matching, and give real-time checking to promote the player's reflection, which can develop learners' strategy planning and analysis ability. The collaborative discussion mechanism helps learners deduce and complete tasks through face-to-face interactive discussions. Arnab et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>]) proposed the Learning Mechanics-Game Mechanics model, which emphasizes that learning mechanics and game mechanics should support each other. The learning mechanic in this study includes simulation, reflect/discuss and feedback mentioned in their model, while game mechanics includes collaboration, strategy/planning mechanisms. In general, the game mechanics and scaffolding are provided to correspond to the learning goals.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-11">Game Procedure</hd> <p>The players play the operator of the coffee shop and each group of four to five players collaborates to play the game. At the beginning of the game, each group will have the starting game points, which symbolize the operating funds and are also the player's game score. During the game, if the group uses a hint or answers a question incorrectly, it will consume a game point. At the end of each stage, each group will receive the corresponding amount of funds according to the number of tasks they have completed correctly, and the group with the highest amount of funds will win the game.</p> <p>The game is divided into two stages:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> SWOT analysis:</item> <p></p> <item> The players must move and explore different areas on the game board, including the information card area, the hint area, and the SWOT analysis area (Fig 1). After moving and drawing the information card, players may deduce according to the text description of the situation on the information card (Fig. 2), determine if the key phenomena match the SWOT factors, and use the mobile app to scan and check in real-time. Players can also use hints to help them with the task; the types of hints are as follows:</item> <p></p> <item> Card text hints: at the beginning of the game, each player will get one text reference card with some important principles of strategic analysis, which can be checked at any time during the game.</item> <p></p> <item> Image hints: the players can spend the funds to scan the cards to gain the extra image hints.</item> <p></p> <item> TOWS Planning:</item> <p></p> <item> Players will be assigned various strategy cards. According to the description of the management strategy on the strategy cards, they will use the SWOT factor cards obtained in the first stage (Fig. 3) to assemble the correct management strategy and scan the card combinations through the mobile app to check the answers.</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Fig. 1The strategic planning educational board game</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2The information card</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3The strategy card (left) and the SWOT factor card (right)</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-12">Scaffolding Design</hd> <p>This study was based on various types of scaffold theory for scaffolding design (Wood, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref80">65</reflink>]; Hannafin et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref81">22</reflink>]), dual-scaffolding mechanism of cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding (Hou & Keng, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]), and added mobile technology as cognitive and mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding (Hou, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref83">26</reflink>]; Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref84">30</reflink>]) in the game. Using these scaffolds for learning can help learners achieve their learning goal. The three scaffolding-oriented cognitive mechanisms are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Cognitive scaffolding: the text reference cards illustrate the definition of SWOT factors and internal and external information, helping learners to understand the connection between real situations and internal and external information, in addition to facilitating cognitive learning for strategy analysis (Fig. 4).</item> <p></p> <item> Mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding: by scanning the cards through the mobile app, an image hint will be shown on the mobile device as metacognitive scaffolding. The information card can be scanned with the icon of SWOT factors to check whether the mission is achieved. In the TOWS stage, players can also combine strategy cards with SWOT factor cards, providing mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding to promote players' reflection and understanding of how to solve problems through strategies (Fig. 5).</item> <p></p> <item> Peer Scaffolding: the rules of this game are designed to encourage collaboration among peers to complete tasks. Learners can discuss freely during the process of solving problems and collaborate to complete tasks.</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Fig. 4The reference card as cognitive scaffolding</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5Learners use the mobile app to obtain the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding</p> <p>The hint types, content, and scaffolding types and learning goals in the game are categorized in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Multi-dimensional scaffolding in the game</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Different types of hints</p></th><th align="left"><p>Content</p></th><th align="left"><p>Different types of scaffolding</p></th><th align="left"><p>Learning goals</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Reference Card Text Hints</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students may check the text reference cards anytime during the game. The reference cards will illustrate the relationship and definition of SWOT factors and internal and external information</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cognitive Scaffolding</p></td><td align="left"><p>SWOT strategic analysis capability</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Image Hints and Real-Time Checking</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. After scanning the cards by the mobile app, the graphic situation hints will be displayed on the mobile device in real-time</p><p>2. In the SWOT stage, the player scans the information card with the icon combination of SWOT factors, and in the TOWS stage, players can scan the strategy cards with the SWOT factors cards, providing real-time evaluation and feedback through scanning, displaying detailed knowledge descriptions, and helping learners reflect on the situation</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mobile-based Metacognitive Scaffolding</p></td><td align="left"><p>SWOT Strategic analysis capability and TOWS strategic planning capability</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collaborative Discussion</p></td><td align="left"><p>The game mechanism allows students to share their ideas about the situation before each answer check, and group members can freely discuss and collaborate to complete the task</p></td><td align="left"><p>Peer Scaffolding</p></td><td align="left"><p>SWOT strategic analysis capability and TOWS strategic planning capability</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175966616-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175966616-14">Evaluation of Learning Effectiveness</hd> <p>To investigate whether students' learning effectiveness improved after using the mobile scaffolding-oriented strategy planning educational board game, students were given a learning effectiveness test before and after the learning activity. The pretest and posttest scores of the two groups were examined by paired sample <emph>t</emph> test (Table 2), which showed that the posttest scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than the pretest scores (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01); there was no significant difference in the control group.</p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the paired sample <emph>t</emph> test and least squares means of learning effectiveness</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pretest</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Posttest</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Least squares means (LS Means)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Experimental group (<italic>n</italic> = 37)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 2.87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.007**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group (<italic>n</italic> = 31)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 2.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.053</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.84</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>Further, ANCOVA was used to compare the difference between the two groups. After the homogeneity test of the regression coefficients within the groups, the interaction effect between the independent and covariates was significant, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref86">67</reflink>) = 4.212, <emph>p</emph> = 0.044. It was not suitable for ANCOVA because it violated the homogeneity test. Instead, the two groups were examined separately by independent sample <emph>t</emph> test. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups either in the pretest or the posttest (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics and independent sample <emph>t</emph> test results of learning effectiveness</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Experimental group (<italic>n</italic> = 37)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Control group (<italic>n</italic> = 31)</p></th><th align="left" /></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Pretest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.309</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.758</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Posttest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.254</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.800</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175966616-15">Evaluation of Flow and Technology Acceptance</hd> <p>To understand the flow and technology acceptance of the game for learners, the one sample <emph>t</emph> test was conducted on the experimental group (Table 4), and all sub-dimensions were significantly higher than the median of the scale (i.e., 3), except for the sub-dimension "Loss of Self-Consciousness."</p> <p>Table 4 Descriptive statistics and one sample <emph>t</emph> test results of flow dimensions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Effect Size (ES)</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Flow antecedent</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Challenge-skills balance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.09</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Clear goals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.55</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Unambiguous feedback</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Sense of control</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.95</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Action-awareness merging</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.36</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Flow experience</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.97</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Concentration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Time distortion</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.78</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Autotelic experience</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.36</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Loss of self-consciousness</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.97</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.99</p></td><td char="−." align="char"><p>−.167</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.868</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.03</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.34</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> <.01, test value = 3</p> <p>The highest score among all sub-dimensions was "Autotelic Experience" (<emph>M</emph> = 4.05). This indicates that students who used the mobile scaffolding-oriented strategy planning educational board game were more spontaneously engaged in the game objectives and then engaged more cognitive resources in the strategic planning tasks in the game. The mean score for the overall flow is 3.75, and both flow antecedents (<emph>M</emph> = 3.72) and flow experience (<emph>M</emph> = 3.66) dimensions are significantly higher than the median of the scale, which indicates that students' learning with this game has a high-level of engagement in general. "Loss of Self-Consciousness" refers to individual behavior that lacks self-monitoring attention because of engagement in learning. The mean score of this sub-dimension is 2.97, which is not significantly higher than the median of the scale. This was probably because learners had to monitor strategies and interact with peers during the game and did not have deep engagement.</p> <p>For technology acceptance, the study analyzed the experimental group with a one sample <emph>t</emph> test (Table 5), and the results showed that all dimensions and overall acceptance were significantly higher than the median of the scale (i.e., 3) (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01), with the highest score on "Perceived Usefulness" (<emph>M</emph> = 3.91), indicating that students' awareness of "using mobile apps in strategy planning games can help learning" was highly accepted. Furthermore, perceived ease of use (<emph>M</emph> = 3.68) indicated that learners found the game rules easy to understand and fluent when using this mobile app. The game factor (<emph>M</emph> = 3.82) indicated that the players thought the game is entertaining and challenging, and the game mechanism is well designed.</p> <p>Table 5 Descriptive statistics and one sample <emph>t</emph> test results of technology acceptance</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perceived usefulness</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.55</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perceived ease of use</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.68</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Game factor</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.55</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> <.01, test value = 3</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-16">Evaluation of Learning Anxiety and Activity Anxiety</hd> <p>In order to investigate if there was any significant difference between the pretest and posttest of learning anxiety, this study was conducted by paired sample <emph>t</emph> test (Table 6), and the results showed that both groups had a significant reduction in learning anxiety after the game (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01). Furthermore, ANCOVA was used to compare the differences between the two groups, and there was no significant difference between them (Table 7).</p> <p>Table 6 Descriptive statistics and paired sample <emph>t</emph> test results of Learning Anxiety</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Pretest</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Posttest</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>LS Means</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Experimental group (<italic>n</italic> = 37)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.010<sup>**</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group (<italic>n</italic> = 31)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.004<sup>**</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.89</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>** <emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>Table 7 The ANCOVA Result of Learning Anxiety</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>SV</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SS</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>df</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>MS</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>F</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>η<sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Pretest score</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.28</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Group</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.44</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.44</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.296</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Error</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.39</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>67</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>In terms of activity anxiety, a one sample <emph>t</emph> test was used to analyze whether the activity anxiety scores of the experimental group were different than the median of the scale (i.e., 3) (Table 8). The results showed that the activity anxiety scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than the median of the scale (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01), indicating that the mechanism, rules, and tasks of the strategy planning game did not cause the students to have excessive activity anxiety.</p> <p>Table 8 Descriptive statistics and one sample <emph>t</emph> test results of activity anxiety</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Cronbach's α</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Experimental group (<italic>n</italic> = 37)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>.910</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 6.86</p></td><td align="left"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>**<emph>p</emph> <.01, test value = 3</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-17">Evaluation of the Usefulness of Scaffolding</hd> <p>In this study, cognitive scaffolding, mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding, and peer scaffolding were added to the game in the experimental group to assist students' learning, in which cognitive scaffolding was conducted with textual hints, mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding was presented with image hints with mobile apps, and peer scaffolding was presented in the form of collaborative discussion. Students could decide whether or not to use the scaffold for learning during the game. Statistics showed that a total of 15 students used the cognitive scaffolding and the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding in the game, with a usage rate of 41% (<emph>n</emph> = 15, 41%); a total of 36 students used the peer scaffolding (<emph>n</emph> = 36, 97%).</p> <p>Furthermore, the scores of each dimension of the usefulness of the scaffolding were examined with a one sample <emph>t</emph> test (Table 9). In the cognitive scaffolding, there were three sub-dimensions that were significantly higher than the median of the scale (i.e., 3), indicating that the cognitive scaffolding helps learners with understanding goals, situational integration, and problem solving. In the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding, there were five sub-dimensions that were significantly higher than the median of the scale, indicating that adding mobile apps as scaffolding to the game helped students with strategic planning, understanding goals, and problem solving, while also enhancing their motivation and reducing their anxiety. In the peer scaffolding, all sub-dimensions were significantly higher than the median of the scale, indicating that collaborative discussions can help learners in all dimensions, as well as enhancing their learning motivation and reducing their anxiety. It is important to note that of the three types of scaffolds, peer scaffolding scored higher than 4 in all dimensions, indicating that peer scaffolding may be more helpful to students than other forms of scaffolding.</p> <p>Table 9 Descriptive statistics and one sample <emph>t</emph> test results of the usefulness of scaffolding (<emph>n</emph> = 37)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p>Cognitive scaffolding-text hints (<italic>n</italic> = 15, 41%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with strategic planning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.47</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.99</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.089</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with understanding goals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.045*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with situational integration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.045*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with problem solving</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.014*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps to enhance motivation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.53</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.135</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps to reduce anxiety</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.53</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.99</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.056</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p>Mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding-image hints (<italic>n</italic> = 15, 41%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with strategic planning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.006**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with understanding goals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.007**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with situational integration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.057</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with problem solving</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.006**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps to enhance motivation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.007**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps to reduce anxiety</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.045*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p>Peer Scaffolding-Collaborative Discussion (<italic>n</italic> = 36, 97%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with strategic planning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.68</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.97</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with understanding goals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with situational integration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps with problem solving</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.68</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps to enhance motivation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.53</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Helps to reduce anxiety</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.80</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001**</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, test value = 3</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-18">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175966616-19">Learning Effectiveness</hd> <p>The experimental group used the board game with mobile-based scaffolds for learning, and the posttest scores of learning effectiveness improved significantly compared with the pretest. The learning effectiveness test uses realistic business management cases designed by experts for students to analyze. Students must observe and identify appropriate SWOT elements in the cases and conduct TOWS strategy planning, so that the test can measure students' strategy planning skills. Comparing the group's pretest and posttest, it was found that students were able to improve their strategic planning skills by learning through the scaffolding-based strategic planning board game. However, there was no significant difference between the pretest and posttest of the control group.</p> <p>The analysis was further conducted using an independent sample <emph>t</emph> test, which showed no significant difference between the groups for the pretest and posttest. According to the feedback on the students' scaffolding use, most of the students used peer scaffolding, but probably due to the low proportion of the use of cognitive scaffolding and mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding (with a usage rate of 41%), the real-time evaluation of the discussion results by the learners was insufficient, which might not be helpful to the learning effectiveness of the experimental group; hence there was no significant difference between the learning effectiveness of the two groups. This result is consistent with the finding of Hou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref87">27</reflink>]) that adding multidimensional scaffolding to the game resulted in significant improvement in learning effectiveness for the game-based learning group, but no significant difference for the control group using general instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-20">Flow and Technology Acceptance</hd> <p>This study found that students learning with the strategic planning educational board game were highly engaged in learning overall, with the highest score (<emph>M</emph> = 4.05) in the sub-dimension of flow, "Autotelic Experience," and the main sub-dimensions "Flow Antecedents" and "Flow Experience", as well as the overall flow are significantly higher than the median of the scale, indicating that the game made students more likely to spontaneously engage in the game goal and further invest more cognitive resources in strategic planning tasks in the game. Previous studies have found that adding the dual scaffolding design (Hou & Keng, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref88">28</reflink>]) or mobile technology (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref89">40</reflink>]; Lin & Hou, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref90">42</reflink>]) to the game resulted in higher flow of learners, which is consistent with the findings of this study. However, the sub-dimension of "Loss of Self-Consciousness" (<emph>M</emph> = 2.97) was not significantly higher than the median of the scale. Since strategic planning is a high cognitive level skill development that requires self-monitoring and reflection on the part of the learners, it is possible that there was no significant difference in this flow sub-dimension.</p> <p>In terms of technology acceptance, the scores of all dimensions and overall acceptance are significantly higher than the median of the scale, indicating that students have high acceptance of learning through the combination of the game with the mobile app. The score of "Perceived Usefulness" was the highest, which also indicates that students considered that the inclusion of the mobile app in the game could help them in learning. Some previous studies have suggested that the use of technology for learning may cause excessive cognitive load due to additional technical problems or too much information (Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref91">66</reflink>]), which may lead to learners' perceptions that the game does not help them in learning. This study provides a multi-dimensional scaffold that may help to solve this problem to a certain extent, allowing learners to have higher perceived usefulness. Furthermore, perceived ease of use (<emph>M</emph> = 3.68) indicated that learners found the game rules easy to understand and fluent when using this mobile app. The game factor (<emph>M</emph> = 3.82) indicated that the players thought the game is entertaining and challenging, and the game mechanism is well designed. The study by Hou and Keng ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>]) indicated that the dual-scaffolding model combined with technological games for learning, which allowed learners to feel that the games were easy to operate, helped to increase flow and acceptance, and supported the findings of this study in terms of flow and acceptance. Previous studies have found that the use of technology to assist game-based learning increases technology acceptance (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref93">5</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref94">40</reflink>]), which is consistent with the findings of this study. In addition, the scaffolding learning group showed good performance in both flow and acceptance, as well as significant improvement in learning effectiveness. Hou and Li ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref95">29</reflink>]) found that if learners have sufficient acceptance of the game and maintain a certain level of flow, they are more likely to gain knowledge from the game, which is similar to the finding of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-21">Learning Anxiety and Activity Anxiety</hd> <p>This study found that learning anxiety in both groups decreased significantly, but there was no significant difference between the groups. Although there was no difference in the effect on anxiety reduction with or without scaffolding support for learning in this study, the game with scaffolding guidance did help learners reduce anxiety in the scaffolding learning group. Some previous studies have found that game-based learning can help learners reduce their learning anxiety (Meluso et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref96">48</reflink>]; Young & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref97">67</reflink>]), and through scaffolding guidance, can also help relieve anxiety (Kusmaryono et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref98">38</reflink>]; Mitchell et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref99">49</reflink>]). Hou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref100">30</reflink>]) found that a cognitive scaffolding design with real-time diagnosis and feedback enabled learners to solve difficult problems by exploring key hints in the scaffolding, allowing learners to reduce learning anxiety when they encounter frustration in problem solving, which is consistent with the findings on learning anxiety in this study.</p> <p>In addition, the activity anxiety of the experimental group was significantly lower than the median of the scale, after the game activity, indicating that the mechanism and rules of this game did not make students feel too anxious about the game activity itself. Some related studies have also found that students' activity anxiety is lower when technology is added to game-based learning (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref101">5</reflink>]; Lin & Hou, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref102">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-22">Scaffolding Usefulness</hd> <p>This study attempted to examine the extent to which scaffolding helped students. It was found that about 41% of students used the cognitive scaffolding, and about 41% used mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding during the game, while about 97% used peer scaffolding.</p> <p>As the game was designed to be conducted with group collaboration, each group worked together to complete the tasks to win, and students more frequently conducted discussion under this mechanism, which led to a high usage rate of peer scaffolding. The usage rate of cognitive scaffolding and mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding is lower, probably due to the following reasons:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Cognitive scaffolding: since some students had prior knowledge of strategic analysis, and the hints on the text reference cards were mainly about the definition of strategic analysis and internal and external information, students who had prior knowledge might not have used this type of scaffolding.</item> <p></p> <item> Mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding: the mechanism of this game requires players to consume the score when they scan the cards with the mobile app to obtain hints. Most students used peer discussion to obtain information before checking their answers, probably because the design of the mechanism that requires consuming scores to use hints would affect the final winning score of the team, which caused students' low usage of this form of scaffolding.</item> </ulist> <p>Since the development of strategic planning skills emphasizes situational experience and real-time feedback, only using textual hints cannot give learners real-time evaluation and is limited in improving strategic planning skills. In contrast, the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding not only help learners understand their goals and solve problems, but also provide situational and real-time feedback to help learners develop strategic planning skills, as well as enhance their motivation and reduce their anxiety. The mean scores for each sub-dimension of the peer scaffolding were significantly higher than the median of the scale, and all scores were above 4, indicating that the face-to-face collaborative mechanism of the board game itself provided learners with higher levels of help in all sub-dimensions.</p> <p>Several previous studies have found that effective scaffolding instruction can help learners improve their learning effectiveness and motivation (Maryam et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref103">47</reflink>]; Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref104">50</reflink>]), as well as help learners reduce anxiety (Kusmaryono et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref105">38</reflink>]; Mitchell et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref106">49</reflink>]). According to the teachers' observation in the classroom, some students responded that "they had different opinions during the discussion" or "the answers they got from the discussion with group members were wrong." From the learners' responses, it could be found that the usage rate of peer scaffolding was high, but the quality of discussion was uneven. Although peer scaffolding could help students, it might still need the support of cognitive scaffolding and mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding to improve the quality of peer discussion, and the lower usage rate of the other two types of scaffolding in this study might also affect the quality of peer discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-23">Conclusion and Recommendations</hd> <p>This study was based on dual-scaffolding (cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding), combined with the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding provided by mobile technology to develop a strategy planning educational board game to investigate the differences in learning effectiveness and flow between scaffolding learning and non-scaffolding learning groups. It further explored the proportion of learners using scaffolding in the learning process and the effect of scaffolding on learners.</p> <p>This study found that adopting a multidimensional scaffolding framework design can be effective in facilitating the learning of more complex knowledge such as strategy planning, and it also helped to enhance learners' flow, which also contributed to learners' spontaneous engagement with the learning objectives and learning resources in the game. Most learners agreed that using the scaffold could help them to be more involved in the situation and solve the problems. Due to the real-time feedback mechanism incorporated into the scaffold design, learners could receive real-time hints when they answered the questions incorrectly, and the scaffolds of these hints helped learners perceive the game as easy to operate and helpful. In the game of this study, students did not search for answers blindly, and the game mechanism helped to relieve their learning anxiety. This multi-dimensional scaffolding and real-time feedback mechanism of the game design can provide a reference for future researchers in conducting research related to game-based learning or technology-assisted teaching.</p> <p>Based on these results, the following limitations were identified, and recommendations are made.</p> <p>Regarding the design of the cognitive mechanism, probably due to the design of the game rules, the proportion of learners using the cognitive scaffold and the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding was low, and the quality of the peer scaffolding discussions was unstable. It is suggested that the design of the game mechanism in the future can encourage learners to use the cognitive scaffolding and the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding more often, and the quality of peer discussions may be improved through the real-time evaluation of the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding.</p> <p>Regarding the analysis method, this study investigated the learning effectiveness and anxiety of the learners, while the scaffolding questionnaire focused on what benefits the different scaffolds provided to the students in the game. However, the study did not further investigate the changes in the learning motivation, flow, and anxiety of the learners before and after using the scaffolds. It is suggested that future research can compare the effectiveness of scaffolding at different learning stages (before, during, after) to explore in-depth the impact of scaffolding on learners. In addition, other technologies (e.g., VR) can be added to the game to compare whether there is a difference in students' propensity to use scaffolding or flow in different technological devices.</p> <p>Finally, regarding the high-level cognitive thinking, this study investigated the effects of different scaffolds on students' strategic planning abilities, but it lacked more in-depth investigation of the learning process. It is suggested that future research could explore the discussion content and pattern of learning behaviors during the game (e.g., Cheng & Hou, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref107">9</reflink>]; Hou, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref108">25</reflink>]; Hou & Keng, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref109">28</reflink>]; Hsieh et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref110">32</reflink>]), using research methods such as lag sequential analysis to further analyze the behavioral processes of learners when using scaffolding in learning.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-24">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This research was supported by the projects from the Ministry of Science and Technology, under contract number MOST- 110-2511-H-011 -004 -MY3 and MOST-111-2410-H-011 -004 -MY3.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-25">Data availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175966616-27">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have not disclosed any Conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0175966616-28">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0175966616-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref79" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Arnab S, Lim T, Carvalho MB, Bellotti F, de Freitas S, Louchart S, Suttie N, Berta R, De Gloria A. Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. British Jounal of Educational Technology. 2015; 46; 2: 391-411. 10.1111/bjet.12113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref64" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bourgonjon J, Valcke M, Soetaert R, Schellens T. Students' perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education. 2010; 54; 4: 1145-1156. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bawa P, Watson SL, Watson W. Motivation is a game: Massively multiplayer online games as agents of motivation in higher education. Computers Education. 2018; 123: 174-194. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref62" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Briz-Ponce L, Pereira A, Carvalho L, Juanes-Méndez JA, García-Peñalvo FJ. Learning with mobile technologies—students' behavior. Computers & Education. 2016; 72: 612-620. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref76" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chan, H. Y, Liu, S. W, & Hou, H. T. (2022, November 28 – December 1) An Analysis of the Acceptance and Anxiety of a Historical Strategic Planning Game by Combining Real Person Non-player Character Mechanism. [Paper presentation]. The 14th Asian Conference on Education (ACE2022), Japan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref54" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chang CHS, Kuo CC, Hou HT, Koe JJY. Design and evaluation of a multi-sensory scaffolding gamification science course with mobile technology for learners with total blindness. Computers in Human Behavior. 2022; 128: 107085. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref66" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chang YC, Peng HY, Chao HC. Examining the effects of learning motivation and of course design in an instructional simulation game. Interactive Learning Environments. 2010; 18; 4: 319-339. 10.1080/10494820802574270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen CH, Law V. Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 55: 1201-1212. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref107" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cheng KH, Hou HT. Exploring students' behavioral patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: A progressive sequential analysis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2015; 24; 2: 171-188. 2061657. 10.1080/1475939X.2013.822416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chernikova O, Heitzmann N, Stadler M, Holzberger D, Seidel T, Fischer F. Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2020; 90; 4: 499-541. 10.3102/0034654320933544</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chou YS, Hou HT, Chang KE, Su CL. Designing a cognitive-based game mechanism for mobile educational games to promote cognitive thinking: an analysis of flow state and game-based learning behavioral patterns. Interactive Learning Environment. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021. 10.1080/10494820.2021.1926287</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colby A, Ehrlich T, Sullivan WM, Dolle JR. Rethinking undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession. 2011; Jossey-Bass</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM. A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education. 2012; 59: 661-686. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. 1991; Harper & Row</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csikszentmihalyi M. Beyond boredom and anxiety. 2000; Jossey-Bass</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and end user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13: 319-340. 10.2307/249008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dirkx J, Mezirow J, Cranton P. Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning a dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education. 2006; 4: 123-139. 10.1177/1541344606287503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doyle WWittrock MC. Classroom organization and management. Handbook of research on teaching. 19863; Macmillan: 392-431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganesh G, Sun Q. Using simulations in the undergraduate marketing capstone case course. Marketing Education Review. 2015; 19; 1: 7-16. 10.1080/10528008.2009.11489054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halász G, Michel A. Key Competences in Europe: Interpretation, policy formulation and implementation. European Journal of Education. 2011; 46: 289-306. 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01491.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamari J, Hassan L, Dias A. Gamification, quantified-self or social networking? Matching users' goals with motivational technology. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 2018; 28; 1: 35-74. 10.1007/s11257-018-9200-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannafin M, Land S, Oliver KReigeluth CM. Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. Instructional-design theories and models. 1999; Erlbaum</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanus MD, Fox J. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers and Education. 2015; 80: 152-161. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopko D, Mahadevan R, Bare R, Hunt M. The abbreviated math anxiety scale (AMAS): Construction, validity, and reliability. Assessment. 2003; 10: 178-182. 10.1177/1073191103010002008. 12801189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou HT. Integrating cluster and sequential analysis to explore learners' flow and behavioral patterns in a simulation game with situated-learning context for science courses: A video-based process exploration. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 48: 424-435. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou HT. Augmented reality board game with multidimensional scaffolding mechanism: A potential new trend for effective organizational strategic planning training. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13: 932328. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.932328. 36172244. 9512269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou HT, Fang YS, Tang JT. Designing an alternate reality board game with augmented reality and multi-dimensional scaffolding for promoting spatial and logical ability. Interactive Learning Environment. 2021. 10.1080/10494820.2021.1961810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou HT, Keng SH. A dual-scaffolding framework integrating peer-scaffolding and cognitive-scaffolding for an augmented reality-based educational board game: An analysis of learners' collective flow state and collaborative learning behavioral patterns. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2021; 59; 3: 547-573. 10.1177/0735633120969409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou HT, Li MC. Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational problem-solving-based adventure game. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014; 30: 29-38. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou HT, Wu CS, Wu CH. Evaluation of a mobile-based scaffolding board game developed by scaffolding-based game editor: analysis of learners' performance, Anxiety and Behavior Patterns. Journal of Computers in Education. 2022. 10.1007/s40692-022-00231-1. 9005909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh YC. A case study of the dynamics of scaffolding among ESL learners and online resources in collaborative learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2017; 30; 1–2: 115-132. 10.1080/09588221.2016.1273245</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh YH, Lin YC, Hou HT. Exploring elementary school students' engagement patterns in a game-based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society. 2015; 18; 2: 336-348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes O. Public Management and Administration: An Introduction. 20033; MacMillan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiili K. Evaluations of an experiential gaming model. Human Technology: an Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments. 2006; 2; 2: 187-201. 10.17011/ht/urn.2006518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim MC, Hannafin MJ. Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education. 2011; 56; 2: 403-417. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuo, C. C, Fang, Y. S, Wang, S. M, Li, Y. Y, & Hou, H. T. (2020, September 24–25). A preliminary study of a business-management/strategic-planning board game with situated learning mechanisms. [Paper presentation]. The 14th European Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL20), Brighton, UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuratko DF, Morris MH. Examining the future trajectory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management. 2018; 56; 1: 11-23. 10.1111/jsbm.12364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kusmaryono I, Gufron AM, Rusdiantoro A. Effectiveness of scaffolding strategies in learning against decrease in mathematics anxiety level. Numerical Jurnal Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika. 2020. 10.25217/numerical.v4i1.770</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> La Braca F, Kalman CS. Comparison of labatorials and traditional labs: The impacts of instructional scaffolding on the student experience and conceptual understanding. Physical Review Physics Education Research. 2021. 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li CT, Wang CP, Hou HT. Applying an escape room game in synchronous online learning activity: A preliminary analysis of learners' learning achievement, flow and technology acceptance. The 12th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), Kanazawa, Japan. 2022. 10.1109/IIAIAAI55812.2022.00132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liang CP, She HC. Investigate the effectiveness of single and multiple representational scaffolds on mathematics problem solving: evidence from eye movements. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021. 10.1080/10494820.2021.1943692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin YC, Hou HT. The evaluation of a scaffolding-based augmented reality educational board game with competition- and collaboration-oriented mechanisms: Differences analysis of learning effectiveness, motivation, flow, and anxiety. Interactive Learning Environment. 2022. 10.1080/10494820.2022.2091606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu PE, Tsai M. Using augmented-reality-based mobile learning material in EFL English composition: An exploratory case study. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013; 44; 1: E1-E4. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01302.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu Y, Li H. Exploring the impact of use context on mobile hedonic services adoption: An empirical study on mobile gaming in China. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011; 27; 2: 890-898. 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XnsVGqs7s%3D. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longmore A-L, Grant G, Golnaraghi G. Closing the 21st-century knowledge gap: Reconceptualizing teaching and learning to transform business education. Journal of Transformative Education. 2018; 16; 3: 197-219. 10.1177/1541344617738514</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martens R, Vealey RS, Burton D, Bump L, Smith DEVealey RS, Burton D, Martens R. Development and validation of the competitive sports anxiety inventory 2. Competitive anxiety in sport. 1990; Human Kinetics: 117-178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maryam B, Sören H, Gunilla L. Putting scaffolding into action: Preschool teachers' actions using interactive whiteboard. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2020; 48; 1: 79-92. 10.1007/s10643-019-00971-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meluso A, Zheng M, Spires HA, Lester J. Enhancing 5th graders' science content knowledge and self-efficacy through game-based learning. Computers & Education. 2012; 59; 2: 497-504. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell KM, Harrigan T, Stefansson T, Setlack H. Exploring self-efficacy and anxiety in first-year nursing students enrolled in a discipline-specific scholarly writing course. Quality Advancement in Nursing Education-Avancées En Formation Infirmière. 2017; 3; 1: 4. 10.17483/2368-6669.1084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore TJ, Brophy SP, Tank KM, Lopez RD, Johnston AC, Hynes MM, Gajdzik E. Multiple representations in computational thinking tasks: A clinical study of second-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2020; 29; 1: 19-34. 10.1007/s10956-020-09812-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poister TH, Streib G. Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review. 2005; 65; 1: 45-56. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00429.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radif, M, Fan, I, & McLaughlin, P. (2016, March 7–9). Employment of technology acceptance model (TAM) to adopt learning management system (LMS) in IRAQI universities. [Paper presentation]. Inted2016: 10th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, 7120–7130, Valencia, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2016.0693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saye JW, Brush T. Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2002; 50; 3: 77-96. 10.1007/BF02505026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shvardak M. SWOT-analysis as a strategic management tool of the quality training of the future educational institution head. İlköğretim Online. 2021; 20: 958-967. 10.17051/ilkonline.2021.01.96</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobhanzadeh M, Kalman CS, Thompson R. Labatorials in introductory physics courses. European Journal of Physics. 2017; 38; 6: 065702. 10.1088/1361-6404/aa8757</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun JC-Y, Kuo CY, Hou HT, Lin YY. Exploring learners' sequential behavioral patterns, flow experience, and learning performance in an anti-phishing educational game. Educational Technology and Society. 2017; 20; 1: 45-60</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tapingkae P, Panjaburee P, Hwang GJ, Srisawasdi N. Effects of a formative assessment-based contextual gaming approach on students' digital citizenship behaviours, learning motivations, and perceptions. Computers & Education. 2020. 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas H, Cornuel E. Business schools in transition? Issues of impact, legitimacy, capabilities and re-invention. Journal of Management Development. 2012; 31: 329-335. 10.1108/02621711211219095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiana A, Moya J, Luengo F. Implementing key competences in basic education: reflections on curriculum design and development in Spain. European Journal of Education. 2011; 46; 3: 307-322. 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01482.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsai FH, Tsai CC, Lin KY. The evaluation of different gaming modes and feedback types on game-based formative assessment in an online learning environment. Computers and Education. 2015; 81: 259-269. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valle J, Manso J. Key competences as a trend in the supranational educational policies of the European Union. Revista De Educación (madrid). 2013. 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2013-EXT-255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 1978; Harvard University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, S. M, Chen, K. T, Hou, H. T, & Li, C. T. (2017, December 4–8). A science history educational board game with augmented reality integrating collaborative problem solving and scaffolding strategies. [Paper presentation]. The 25th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2017), Christchurch, New Zealand.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang SY, Chang SC, Hwang GJ, Chen PY. A microworld-based role-playing game development approach to engaging students in interactive, enjoyable, and effective mathematics learning. Interactive Learning Environments. 2018; 26; 3: 411-423. 10.1080/10494820.2017.1337038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1976; 17; 2: 89-100. 1:STN:280:DyaE283htlGhug%3D%3D. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x. 932126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu HK, Lee SWY, Chang HY, Liang JC. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education. 2013; 62: 41-49. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young SS, Wang YH. The game embedded CALL System to facilitate english vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2014; 17; 3: 239-251</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yu-Cheng Lin and Huei-Tse Hou</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref110"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1416098
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Designing a Strategic Analysis and Planning Skills Training Board Game Using Mobile Technology and a Dual-Scaffolding Mechanism
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yu-Cheng+Lin%22">Yu-Cheng Lin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Huei-Tse+Hou%22">Huei-Tse Hou</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1783-8830">0000-0003-1783-8830</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Asia-Pacific+Education+Researcher%22"><i>Asia-Pacific Education Researcher</i></searchLink>. 2024 33(2):431-445.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Games%22">Educational Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Strategic+Planning%22">Strategic Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scaffolding+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Telecommunications%22">Telecommunications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Game+Based+Learning%22">Game Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Control+Groups%22">Control Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Influence%22">Peer Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s40299-023-00740-2
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0119-5646<br />2243-7908
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Strategic planning is a key competency for business management education. This study designed a dual scaffold-oriented strategy planning board game based on cognitive scaffolding and peer scaffolding and combined it with a real-time checking mechanism using mobile technology. The 68 university students were divided into an experimental group for scaffold game-based learning and a control group for case-based discussion learning to investigate the differences in learning effectiveness, flow and learning anxiety, and to explore the technology acceptance, scaffold usefulness, and activity anxiety of the game-based learning group. The results revealed that the learning effectiveness of the experimental group was significantly improved, while there was no significant difference in the control group; the overall flow and technology acceptance of the experimental group were both relatively high; learning anxiety was significantly reduced in both groups, and the experimental group did not have excessive activity anxiety. There were no significant differences in learning anxiety of the two groups. As for scaffolding usefulness evaluation, the proportion of using peer scaffolding was the highest, and the learners thought that using peer scaffolding was helpful for developing their strategic planning skills. It is suggested that the design of the game mechanism in the future can encourage learners to use the cognitive scaffolding and the mobile-based metacognitive scaffolding more often, and the quality of peer discussions may be improved through the real-time evaluation of the metacognitive scaffolding.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1416098
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1416098
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s40299-023-00740-2
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 431
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Strategic Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scaffolding (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Telecommunications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Game Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Control Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Influence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Designing a Strategic Analysis and Planning Skills Training Board Game Using Mobile Technology and a Dual-Scaffolding Mechanism
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yu-Cheng Lin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Huei-Tse Hou
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0119-5646
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2243-7908
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
              Type: main
ResultId 1