本論文旨在發展一3D虛擬野外考察學習環境系統（段落一），利用統計分析方法，嘗試瞭解學生在虛擬學習環境中影響其學習的因子（段落二）並進一步探究在虛擬學習環境中的性別差異（段落三）。

段落一中，透過整合歷年來的研討會論文，經3D虛擬野外考察系統的發展做一個完整的介紹。透過一連串的研究設計、施測、修改、重測的過程，我們瞭解到虛擬野外考察系統對於學生學習的幫助、限制和適合的使用方式。

段落二中，我們利用學生合作瀏覽、老師示範教學兩種方式讓學生使用3D虛擬野外考察系統，透過不同的研究設計，我們可以達到不同的教學目標。而在多重回歸中，學生認為『系統是不是能夠幫助他們學習』是其中一的顯著的因子。當學生認為系統能夠協助他們學習時，後測成績顯著優於其他學生。

段落三中，我們引進了虛擬環境量表，利用觀察學生如何完成虛擬任務，瞭解不同特性學生在虛擬學習環境中的表現。完成虛擬任務的時間在性別有顯著差異。而『系統是不是能夠幫助他們學習』為顯著因子則再次被觀察到。

段落四中，基於段落二的發現，經過不同的分析方式，發現透過不同的研究設計：學生合作瀏覽、老師示範教學。兩種方式讓學生使用3D虛擬野外考察系統可以達到不同的教學目標。學生合作瀏覽可以提高學生的想實際前往野外考察的機率，老師示範教學可以有效提高學習成效。

The dissertation has developed the three-dimensional Virtual Reality Learning Environment for Field Trip (3DVLE(ft)) system (sectionⅠ) and used statistical models to explain the relationship between virtual learning environment preference, use, and learning outcomes in 10th grade earth science students (sectionⅡ) and explored gender bias in virtual learning environments (sectionⅢ).
SectionⅠ
In sectionⅠ, the developing process of the three-dimensional Virtual Reality Learning Environment for Field Trip (3DVLE(ft)) system were appearing. The 3DVLE(ft) system developed by us not only functions as multimedia virtual-reality software which supplies close-to-real geological field trip experiences, but also tries to tailor the 3D-CVFT to diverse students’ learning needs by leveraging on auto grading and feedback interfaces in the system. In the 3DVLE(ft) system, users have ample opportunities for exploratory and observational activities, which are prominent activities in field trip. Some possible educational implications in terms of the use of virtual reality technology as alternative to actual field trips in the area of earth science are also discussed.
SectionⅡ
In sectionⅡ, the study investigated the relationship between the use of a three-dimensional Virtual Reality Learning Environment for Field Trip (3DVLE(ft)) system and the achievement levels of senior high school earth science students. The 3DVLE(ft) system was presented in two separate formats: Teacher Demonstrated Based and Student Co-navigated Based. The results from the pre- and post-intervention assessments, along with the demographic and affective data, were used to fit a series of multiple regression models to explore the relationship between achievement, attitude, and learning environment preference. Pre-intervention test score, virtual learning environment preference and use, the degree to which students found the system helpful, and gender were all significantly related to post-intervention test score variability, as was the interaction between gender and prior use of virtual environments.
SectionⅢ
In sectionⅢ, the study investigated the relationship between student gender, perception of intervention helpfulness, and earth science learning in a virtual learning environment, the three-dimensional Virtual Reality Learning Environment for Field
Trip (3DVLE(ft)). Students completed a virtual task to gauge their comfort in navigating virtual worlds, a pre-assessment and questionnaire, tasks within the 3DVLE and a post-test and questionnaire. Data were fit to a series of regression models to explicate the relationship between 1) gender and navigational comfort, 2) attitude and perception of helpfulness, and 3) navigational comfort, perception of helpfulness, and academic performance. Significant relationships were noted in all three models.
Section Ⅳ
In sectionⅣ, in this study, a follow-up analysis of the data reported in Lin , Tutwiler, & Chang (in press), we investigated the relationship between student use of a virtual field trip (VFT) system and the probability of students reporting wanting to visit the national park site upon which the VFT was modeled, controlling for content knowledge and prior visits to the park. Students who were able to navigate the VFT in teams were more likely than their peers who had the system demonstrated by a teacher to want to visit the national park. In addition, students with higher pre-intervention content knowledge were more likely to want to visit the national park than their peers with lower pre-test scores, in both the teacher demonstration and student co-navigation conditions.

References
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. 2005. Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development 53, no.1: 86–107.
Brown, R. M., Hall, L. R., Holtzer, R., Brown, S. L. & Brown, N. L. (1997). Gender and video game performance. Sex Roles, 36, 11,12, 793–812.
Bruckman, A. S. 1997. MOOSE Crossing: Construction, community, and learning in a networked virtual world for kids. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA.
Bull, G., Bull, G., & Kajder, S. 2004. Tapped In. Learning & Leading with Technology 31, no.5: 34–37.
Chang, C. Y. 2001. Comparing the impacts of a problem-based computer-assisted instruction and the direct-interactive teaching method on student science achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology 10: 147–153.
Chang, C. Y. 2004. Could a laptop computer plus the LCD projector amount to improved multimedia geoscience instruction? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20: 4-10.
Chang, C. Y. 2006. Effect of the interaction of instructional delivery model and preference of learning environment on students’ attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology 37: 799-802.
Chang, C. Y.*, Hsiao, C. H., & Barufaldi, J. P. 2006. Preferred-actual learning environment ‘spaces’ and earth science outcomes in Taiwan. Science Education 90, no.3: 420-433.
Chang, C. Y.*, Lin, M. C., Yang, C. F., & Lin, C. Y. 2010. A VR too for assisting geological field trip. Journal of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation 3, no.2: 190-192.
Chou, C. & Tsai, M.J. 2007. Gender differences in Taiwan high school students’ computer game playing. Computers in Human Behavior 23, no.1: 812–824.
Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. 2006. A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology 46, no.3: 27–36.
Dede, C. 2009. Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323, no.5910: 66-69.
Desai, R., Krishnan-Sarin, S., Cavallo, D. & Potenza, M. N. (2010). Video-gaming among high school students: health correlates, gender differences, and problematic gaming. Pediatrics, 126, 1414–1424.
Dieterle, E., & Clarke, J. 2007. Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and networking (2nd ed.). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Press.
Elliott, J. L. 2005. AquaMOOSE 3D: A constructionist approach to math learning motivated by artistic expression. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Falk, J., Martin,W., and Balling, J. 1978. The novel field trip phenomenon: adjustment to novel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 15, no.2: 127-134.
Feng, J., Spence, I. & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science, 18, 10, 850–855.
Hoffman, B. & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: a mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 245–270.
Kapp, K.M, & O’Driscoll, T. 2010. Learning in 3D: Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration. John Wiley & Sons Press.
Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J. E., & Dede, C. 2010. A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology 41, no.1: 56-68.
Kulik, C-L. C. & Kulik, J. A. 1986. Effectiveness of computer-based education in colleges. AEDS Journal 19: 81–108.
Kulik, C-L. C. & Kulik, J. A. 1991. Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: an updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 7: 75–94.
Lee, M. S., & Chang, C. Y. 2004. Development and exploration of the earth science classroom learning environment instrument (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Science Education 12, no.4: 421– 443.
Lin, M. C., Chang, C. Y 2008. The application of the 3D virtual reality on field trip: Taking the Example of Hsiaoyukeng. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Baltimore (Marriott),USA.
Lin, M. C., Tutwiler, M. S. & Chang, C. Y. (in press). Exploring the relationship between virtual learning environment preference, use, and learning outcomes in 10th grade earth science students. Learning, Media & Technology. DOI:10.1080/17439884.2011.629660.
Nelson, B.C., & Erlandson, B.E. 2008. Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: reflection on design practice. Education Tech Research 56, no.5-6: 619-641.
Ogletree, S. M. & Drake, R. (2007). College students’ video game participation and perceptions: gender differences and implications. Sex Roles, 56, 537–542.
Ramasundaram, V., Grunwald, S., Mangeot, A., Comerford, N.B. & Bliss, C.M. 2005. Development of an environmental virtual field laboratory. Computers & Education 45, no.1: 21-34.
Riedl, R., Bronack, S., & Tashner, J. 2005. Innovation in learning assumptions about teaching in a 3-D virtual world. Paper presented at the International College Teaching Methods and Styles Conference, Reno, NV.
Schlager, M. S., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. 2002. Evolution of an online education community of practice. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace, 129–158. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Smith D.G.W. & Abley M.W. 1996. Multi-media computer-assisted instruction in mineralogy. Journal of Geoscience Education 44: 189–196.
Spicer, J. J., & Stratford, J. 2001. Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Community Assisted Learning 17: 345–354.
Squire, K. R., & Jenkins, H. 2003. Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight 3, no.1: 5–33.
Stumpf, R.J., Douglass, J., & Dorn, R.I. 2008. Learning desert geomorphology virtually versus in the field. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32, no.3: 387-399.
Trindade, J., Fiolhais, C., & Almeida, L. 2002. Science learning in virtual environments a descriptive study. British Journal of Educational Technology 33, no.4: 471-488.
Tuthill, G. and Klemm, E. B. 2002. Virtual field trips: Alternatives to actual field trip. International Journal of Instructional Media 29, no.4: 453-4.
Woerner, J. J. 1999. Virtual fieldtrips in the earth science classroom. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual International Conference of the Association for Education of Teachers in Science, Greenville NC: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, 1232-1244.