近年來臺灣教育界興起遊戲學習與科學教育結合潮流。相關研究多探討學生使用遊戲的學習效益，對教師運用遊戲教學研究尚不多見。但教師在實施遊戲教學中扮演重要角色。研究目的是了解現今教師運用遊戲於科學教學的意圖因素，開發與效化「教師遊戲融入科學教學意圖量表」且驗證量表的信度及效度。本研究先參考計畫行為分解理論 (Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior, DTPB) 相關的視角，初步建構量表的各向度及題項對應。邀請7位專家修正建議量表。以200位教師為樣本進行項目分析與探索式因素分析。最後取308位教師為研究樣本進行驗證性因素分析，完成建構效度。
研究結果顯示，遊戲融入科學教學意圖量表包含遊戲有用性、遊戲易用性、自我效能、同儕和長官的期待等四個構面，合計20題，信度與效度良好。20-30歲教師族群在自我效能表現較於其他年齡組別有顯著較高現象。教學年資0-5年的教師族群於遊戲有用性表現較於其他組別有顯著較高現象。國小教師在量表中的四個構面上表現最佳。另外，亦使用潛在剖面分析（LPA）來識別不同教師風格子群組。根據教師於遊戲有用性、遊戲易用性、自我效能、同儕和長官期待方面，識別出三種類型的風格教師，其分別為中接受度/高主觀規範、低接受度/低主觀規範、高接受度/高主觀規範。這些子群組教師在測量遊戲意圖的四個構面上表現存在顯著差異。
本研究對遊戲式教學有一定的啟示，可給予現今面臨多元化教學之 108 課綱的教師們，且益於之後其他非制式科學教育教學、教師科普遊戲活動使用，對後續研究有相當的助益。

In recent years, the trend of combining game-based learning with science education has gained momentum in Taiwan's education sector. Most related research focuses on the learning benefits for students using games, while studies on teachers implementing game-based teaching are still relatively scarce. However, teachers play a crucial role in the implementation of game-based teaching. The purpose of this study is to understand the factors influencing teachers' intentions to use games in science teaching and to develop and validate the "Teachers' Intentions to Integrate Games into Science Teaching Scale" while verifying its reliability and validity. This study initially constructs the dimensions and corresponding items of the scale by referencing the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (DTPB). Seven experts were invited to revise the proposed scale. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis were conducted with a sample of 200 teachers. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis was performed with a sample of 308 teachers to complete the construct validity.
The results indicate that the scale includes four dimensions: game usefulness, game ease of use, self-efficacy, and peer and supervisor expectations, with a total of 20 items. The reliability and validity of the scale were found to be good. Teachers aged 20-30 exhibited significantly higher self-efficacy than other age groups. Teachers with 0-5 years of teaching experience showed significantly higher performance in game usefulness compared to other groups. Elementary school teachers performed best across the four dimensions of the scale. Additionally, Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was used to identify different teacher style subgroups. Based on game usefulness, game ease of use, self-efficacy, and peer and supervisor expectations, three types of teacher styles were identified: moderate acceptance/high subjective norms, low acceptance/low subjective norms, and high acceptance/high subjective norms. These subgroups of teachers showed significant differences in the four dimensions of measuring game intentions.
This study provides insights into game-based teaching and offers guidance for teachers facing the diverse teaching demands of the new 108 curriculum guidelines. It also benefits subsequent non-formal science education teaching and the use of science popularization games by teachers, contributing significantly to future research.

中文部分
DeVellis, R. F. (1999)。量表的發展：理論與應用。台北：弘智文化事業有限公司。
方永泉(（2006）。J. Huizinga「遊戲人」的觀念在教育美學上的啓迪。中等教育，57(4) ，26-45。
王文中、鄭英耀（2000）。創造力發展量表之編製與試題反應分析。測驗學刊，47(1)，153-173。
吳明崇（2002）。教學創新的影響因素，中等教育，53(4)，32-35。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2014）。 SPSS 與統計應用分析。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
吳明隆、張毓仁（2014）。SPSS (PASW) 與統計應用分析 Ⅰ (Vol. 1)。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
吳清山、黃旭鈞（2006）。國民小學推動知識管理之研究-有利條件、困境、功能與策略，教育研究集刊， 52(2)，33-65。
呂佳玲、林耀榮（2015）。教育資源分配公平之探討：Rawls正義論觀點。臺灣教育，695，52 -54。
宋曜廷、潘佩妤（2010）。混合研究在教育研究的應用，教育科學研究期刊， 55(4)，97-130。
李坤崇（1991）。多元化教學評量。台北：心理出版社。
李柏鋒（2016）。葉丙成談借調創業：遊戲化在五年後將成教育難以或缺的趨勢。取自https://www.inside.com.tw/2016/08/09/benson-pagamo。
林世傑（2006）。影響國中數學教師應用資訊科技融入教學因素之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系在職進修碩士班學位論文，1-153。
林央侖（2010）。臺灣桌上遊戲研究與文獻之回顧分析。國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系碩士論文。
林偉文（2006）。學校創意守門人對創意教學與創造力培育態度與教師創意教學之關係。教育學刊，27，69-92。
林清山（1992）。心理與教育統計學。台北市：東華書局。
林照真（2010）。台灣科學社群40年風雲—―紀錄六、七○年代理工知識份子與《科學月刊》。新竹：國立交通大學出版社。
邱皓政、陳燕禎、林碧芳（2009）。組織創新氣氛量表的發展與信效度衡鑑。測驗學刊，56(1)，69-97。
侯惠澤（2016）。遊戲式學習。臺北市:親子天下。
國家教育研究院（2016）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。
陳文典（1997）。 STS 理念下之教學策略。物理教育，1(2)，85-95。
陳玉樹、郭銘茜（2013）。四向度成就目標對教師創意教學表現之影響：創意自我效能的中介效果與團隊學習行為的跨層級調節效果檢定。教育科學研究期刊，58(3)，85-120。
陳妙華（2009）。李克特量表量尺奇數刻度轉換研究。台北：輔仁大學應用統計學研究所碩士論文。
陳柏熹（2011）。心理與教育測驗: 測驗編製理論與實務。台北市：精策教育。
陳麗珠（2007）。論資源分配與教育機會均等之關係：以國民教育為例。教育研究與發展期刊，3(3)，33-54。
黃幸美（1995）。數理與科學教育的性別差異之探討。婦女與兩性學刊，(6)，95-135。
鄭秉漢、李文獻、張俊彥（2019）。模型化科學桌遊。科學教育月刊，(419)，20-38。
鄭英耀、王文中（2002）。影響科學競賽績優教師創意行為之因素。應用心理研究，15，163-190。
蕭佳純、董旭英（2007）。教師參與團隊學習行為之跨層次分析：層級線性模式之應用。師大學報，52(3)，65-89。
蕭建華、張俊彥（2012）。介入自我效能對不同性別學生 [自我學習評估] 與 [學習成效] 之影響-以高一地球科學為例。科學教育，352，28-34。
賴阿福（2014）。資訊科技融入創新教學之教學策略與模式，國教新知，61(4)，28-45。
賴阿福、林皎汝、江信瑩（2005）。影響台北市國小自然與生活科技領域教師資訊融入教學頻率暨相關因素之探討，科學教育研究與發展季刊，154-184。
謝祥宏、段曉林（2001）。教學與評量--一種互為鏡像 (mirror image) 關係。科學教育，241，2-13。
鍾聖校（2015）。情意溝通教學理論: 從建構到實踐。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
簡晉龍，任宗浩（2011）。邁向科學之路？臺灣中學生性別對科學生涯選擇意向之影響。 Chinese Journal of Science Education，19(5)，461-481。

 
英文部分
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
An, Y.-J. (2020). Games in science education: The influence of teachers’ beliefs on the adoption of game-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2551-2570.
Altbach, P. G. (2015). What counts for academic productivity in research universities? International Higher Education, (62), 2-4.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16, 74-94.
Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.003
Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1984). Bloom taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright (c) by Pearson Education.< http://www. coun. uvic. ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom. html.>
Brown, J., Hinze, S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2008). Technology and formative assessment. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st Century Education (Vol. 2, pp. 245-255). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton University Press.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press.
Chien, S. P., & Wu, H.-K. (2020). Examining influences of science teachers’ practices and beliefs about technology-based assessment on students’ performances: A hierarchical linear modeling approach. Computers & Education, 157, Article 10396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103986
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487. doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19-45.
Divjak, B., & Tomić, D. (2011). The impact of game-based learning on the achievement of learning goals and motivation for learning mathematics - Literature review. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 35(1), 15-30. [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.
Goodman, L. A. (2002). Latent class analysis: The empirical study of latent types, latent variables, and latent structures. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 3-55). Cambridge University Press.
Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66-78.
Gui, Y., Cai, Z., Yang, Y., Kong, L., Fan, X., & Tai, R. H. (2023). Effectiveness of digital educational game and game design in STEM learning: a meta-analytic review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 36.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20-20.
Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak, A. (2016). A Systematic Literature Review of Games-Based Learning Empirical Evidence in Primary Education. Computers & Education, 102, 202-223.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.001
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and teacher education, 16(8), 811-826.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and teaching, 6(2), 151-182.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
Kopcha, T. J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Self-presentation bias in surveys of teachers’ educational technology practices. Educational technology research and development, 55, 627-646.
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21-43.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning.
Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. ASCD.
Jenkins, H. (2004). Game design as narrative architecture. Computer, 44(3), 118-130.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.
Kiili K. (2006). Evaluations of an Experiential Gaming Model. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 2 (2): 187-201.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Kline, T. J. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage publications.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward. Cambridge, MA: The Education Arcade.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109-1121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2), 201-227
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The delphi method (pp. 3-12). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 130-140.
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 601-630.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill.
Salen, K. (2004). Gaming literacies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301-322.
Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556378
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction (Vol. 82).
Starks, K. (2014). Cognitive behavioral game design: A unified model for designing serious games. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 28.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in STEM education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581-593.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International journal of research in marketing, 12(2), 137-155.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers' intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432-2440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645-1653. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002
Timmermans, A. C., de Boer, H., & van der Werf, M. P. (2016). An investigation of the relationship between teachers’ expectations and teachers’ perceptions of student attributes. Social psychology of education, 19, 217-240.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Van der Schaaf, M. F. (2008). Teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs: Integrating theory and practice in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), 357-370.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41, 1-16.
Vander Schaaf, M. F., Stokking, K. M., & Verloop, N. (2008). Teacher beliefs and teacher behaviour in portfolio assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1691-1704. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.021
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106). Cambridge University Press.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.
Wang, X., Gao, Y., Sun, F., & Wang, Q. (2024). Unveiling the tapestry of teacher belief research: Tracing the present and forging the future through bibliometric analysis. Current Psychology, 43(17), 15659-15672.
Woodcock, S., Gibbs, K., Hitches, E., & Regan, C. (2023). Investigating teachers’ beliefs in inclusive education and their levels of teacher self-efficacy: Are teachers constrained in their capacity to implement inclusive teaching practices?. Education Sciences, 13(3), 280.
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of educational research, 82(1), 61-89.
Zhang, R. C., Wu, H. K., & Chien, S. P. (2024). Identifying secondary science teachers’ adoption styles of technology-based assessments and examining the patterns of teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and intention: A latent class analysis approach. Education and Information Technologies, 1-31.