在學校教育的過程中，個人之間的能力差異是無法避免的。在教室裡，當低能力的學生常常表現得比其他學生還不好時，他們就會在學習中覺得沮喪與受到挫折。雖然高能力的學生一直都表現得很好，但是他們所遇到的學習挑戰卻常常是太過容易的。久而久之，他們也不會覺得學習很有趣。教育就像是個機器一樣，總是只要求學生達到一致的課程標準，而沒有考量到每個人的能力和情感狀態。這樣一成不變的學習過程忽略了學生追求快樂學習的權力。而且學生從每次學習活動的結果（在本論文中稱為感知表現）很輕易地就能夠察覺到自己的表現。當低能力的學生不斷展現比同學差的感知表現，他們就沒辦法跟高能力的學生一樣擁有成就感。這種教室內的不平等應該要被改正。我們研究者的責任就是去提供一個平等的學習環境，讓所有的學生可以發展能力並且建立信心，好面對未來生活上的真實且不公平的狀況。本論文的目標是藉由發展一個稱為公平機會策略的電腦化機制，來建立一個公平機會教室，讓（１）減輕高、低能力學生間的感知表現差異，並且（２）減輕高、低能力學生間的能力感知差異。當這個策略被應用到學習活動中時，不論什麼能力的學生便都可以擁有成功經驗和適當的失敗經驗。而且因為有了成功的希望，他們也會更投入到所有的學習活動之中。因此，公平機會策略被整合到一個競爭學習遊戲AnswerMatching，在競爭時每個學生都被指派一個能力相近的對手。為了初步了解這個策略的效能和效果，本論文也實施了一個實驗。結果顯示公平機會策略能夠減少個別能力在感知表現和能力感知上的效果。換言之，即使在一個競爭活動當中，低能力的學生也能夠跟高能力的學生一樣，擁有相近的成功機會，也能夠建立自信心。

In schooling, ability difference among individuals is inevitable. When less-able students usually perform worse than the other students in a classroom, they may feel discouraged and frustrated in learning. Although more-able students always perform well, the challenge that they face in learning is usually too easy for them. Eventually, they will not find learning is interesting as well. The education machine always asks students to meet the curricular requirements without taking care of individual ability and their affective status. Such identical learning process ignores students’ rights to pursue joyful learning. Furthermore, students easily perceive how well they perform through the result of learning activity, which is termed as perceived performance in this thesis. Consistently demonstrating lower perceived performance than their peers, less-able students hardly have the same opportunity for owning the sense of achievement as more-able students. The inequality in classrooms should be rectified. It is our responsibility to provide an equal learning environment where all students can develop the abilities and build the confidence to face real and unfair situations in their future life. This thesis aims to build an even opportunity classroom, by developing a computerized mechanism, called even opportunity tactic, in order to (1) lessen the difference in perceived performance between more-able and less-able students, and (2) moderate the difference of ability perception between more-able and less-able students. In the learning activity that the tactic is applied to, all students may have success experience and acceptable failure experience regardless of their abilities. They may also be fully engaged in all learning activities because they can have the hope of success. Even opportunity tactic is thus incorporated into a competitive learning game AnswerMatching, in which every student is assigned an opponent with similar ability. An experiment was also conducted to preliminarily investigate the effectiveness and effects of the tactic. Results showed that even opportunity tactic could reduce the effect of individual ability difference on the perceived performance as well as the belief about how well students could achieve. In other words, less-able students could have similar opportunity of success and build confidence similar to more-able students even in a competition.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, pp. 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187-206.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goals effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Brusilovsky, P. (1999). Adaptive and Intelligent Technologies for Web-based Education. Kunstliche Intelligenz, 4, 19-25.
Brusilovsky, P. & Peylo, C. (2003) Adaptive and Intelligent Web-based Educational Systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 159-172.
Chan, T., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., Patton, C., Cherniavsky, J., Pea, R., Norris, C., Soloway, E., Balacheff, N., Scardamalia, M., Dillenbourg, P., Looi, C., Milrad, M., & Hoppe, U. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3-29.
Chang, S. B. (2008). Content-First Design Approach to Developing EduBingo for the One-to-One Classroom. Ph.D. Thesis, National Central University.
Chang, S. B., Lin, C. J., Ching, E., Cheng, H. N. H., Chang, B., Chen, F. C., Wu, D., & Chan, T. W. (2009). EduBingo: Developing a Content Sample for the One-to-One Classroom by the Content-First Design Approach. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 343-353.
Cheng, H. N. H., Deng, Y., Chang, S. B., & Chan, T. (2007). EduBingo: design of multi-level challenges of a digital classroom game. The First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp. 11-18). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
Cheng, H. N. H., Wu, W. M. C., & Chan, T. W. (2008). Equal opportunity tactic: an approach to moderating the differences in ability perception. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 136-143). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Cheng, H. N. H., Wu, W. M. C., Liao, C. C. Y., & Chan, T. W. (2009a). Equal opportunity tactic: Balancing winning probabilities in a competitive classroom game. In S. C. Kong, & H. Ogata (Eds.), The 17th International Conference on Computers in Education. Conference held at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong.
Cheng, H. N. H., Wu, W. M. C., Liao, C. C. Y., & Chan, T. W. (2009b). Equal opportunity tactic: Redesigning and applying competition games in classrooms. Computers & Education, 53(3), 866-876.
Chiang, M. C. (2006). AnswerMatching: A Small Group Competitive Digital Game for Practicing Arithmetic with Asymmetrical Competition Strategy. Master Thesis, National Central University.
Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W., & Lin, C. J. (2002). Redefining the learning companion: the past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education, 40(3), 255-269.
Collins, J. (1982). Self-efficacy and belief in achievement behavior. American Educational Research Association. New York.
Crawford, C. (2003). Chris Crawford on Game Design. New Riders.
Crockenberg, S., & Bryant, B. (1978). Socialization: the “implicit curriculum” of learning environments. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 69-78.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1978). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526-536.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). Ecology of adolescent activity and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6(3), 281-291.
Deci, E. L., Beley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L. & Porac, J. (1981). When trying to win: Competition and intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 79-83.
Delind, L. B. (1984). Bingo: Some whys and wherefores of a popular pastime. Journal of Popular Culture, 18(2), 149-156.
DeVries, D. L., & Slavin, R. E. (1978). Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 28-38.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-172.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behavior. In J. T. Spence (Ed.) Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: a test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26-43.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the achiever: The structure of adolescents’ academic achievement related-beliefs and self-perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-32.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227-236.
Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: goals perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181-192.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 263-271.
Hechinger, G., & Hechinger, F. M. (1974, May 5). Remember when they gave A’s and D’s? New York Times Magazine, pp. 84, 86, 92.
Julian, J. & Perry, F. (1967). Cooperation contrasted with intra-group and inter-group competition. Sociometry, 30, 79-90.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Klawe, M. M. (1998). When does the use of computer games and other interactive multimedia software help students learn mathematics? Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://mathforum.org/technology/papers/papers/klawe.html
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: the case against competition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Levine, J. M. (1983). Social comparison and education. In J. M. Levine &M. C.Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning (pp. 29-55). New York: Erlbaum.
Liao, H. C. (2005). EduBingo: A Bingo-like Game for Skill Building. Master Thesis, National Central University.
Lowe, J. (1998). Jack Welch speaks: wisdom from the world’s greatest business leader. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow, and M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, III: Conative and Affective Process Analysis (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, adjustment, and achievement (pp. 131-198). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.) Optimal experience: psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266-287). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its consequences for young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performances in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp. 60-70.
Melis, E., Andres, E., Budenbender, J., Frishauf, A., Goguadse, G., Libbrecht, P., Pollet, M., & Ullrich, C. (2001). ActiveMath: A web-based learning environment. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(4), 385-407.
Mitrovic, A. (2003). An Intelligent SQL Tutor on the Web. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13(2-4), 171-195.
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472-489.
Nakabayashi, K., Maruyama, M., Koike, Y., Fukuhara, Y., & Nakamura, Y. (1996). An intelligent tutoring system on the WWW supporting interactive simulation environments with a multimedia viewer control mechanism. In H. Maurer (Ed.), Proceedings of WebNet''96, World Conference of the Web Society, (pp. 366-371). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: a structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1), 22-42.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pajaras, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426-443.
Pearce, J., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The ebb and flow of online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), pp. 745-771.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of the research, Simulation and Gaming, 25, 261-276.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rohrkemper, M. & Corno, L. (1988). Success and Failure on Classroom Tasks: Adaptive Learning and Classroom Teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 269-312.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional feedback effects on children’s achievement: a self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 93-105.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386-398.
Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2005). Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 1029-1038.
Yu, F. Y. (2001). Reflections upon cooperation-competition instructional strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical evidence. The National Chi Nan University Journal, 5(1), 181-196.
Yu, F. Y., Chang, L. J., Liu, Y. H. & Chan, T. W. (2002). Learning preferences towards computerised competitive modes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 2002, 341-350.
Whittemore, I. C. (1924). The influence of competition on performance: an experimental study. Journal of Abnormal and social Psychology, 19, 236-253.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, K., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451-469.
Wu, W. (2007). Design and Experiment on a Rush-in-Answer Learning Game with Uneven Chance Tactic. Master thesis, National Central University.
Wu, W., Cheng, H. N.H., Chiang, M. C., Deng, Y. C., Chou, C. Y., Tsai, C. C., & Chan, T. W. (2007). AnswerMatching: A Competitive Learning Game with Uneven Chance Tactic. The First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp.89-96). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
Yu, F. Y. (2001). Reflections upon cooperation-competition instructional strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical evidence. The National Chi Nan University Journal, 5(1), 181-196.
Yu, F. Y. (2003). The mediating effects of anonymity and proximity in an online synchronized competitive learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(2), 153-167.
Yu, F. Y., Chang, L. J., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W. (2002). Learning preferences towards computerised competitive modes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 341-350.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.