學習點數用於遊戲化元素中，是近年來新型態的線上學習方法。此點數機制依據遊戲性。可能會因為學習者參與點數機制方式，導致學習點數的成效不如預期。過往線上學習時常使用點數機制來給予學習者刺激提升學習者的學習動力，藉此提升學習者的學習成效，但卻較少討論到點數是如何刺激學習者的學習動力，並讓學習者改善自己的學習策略藉此達成更好的學習成效。

於是此篇研究希望透過學習點數的互動設計，來了解學習者在分配點數跟學習策略之間是如何互相影響，藉此來更深入了解學習點數的與學習者學習策略的關係，讓未來學習點數的機制可以設計的更完善。因此為了進一步了解使用者在點數機制下學習行為跟點數之間如何互相影響的問題上而進行設計。本研究的設計先經由前測，了解學習平台的易用性，經過主題式分析方法，分別整理出關於如何操作平台、點數互動機制的樣貌以及課程設計之建議。

本研究開發一具有學習點數系統的線上學習平台，讓實驗參與者連續12天內上完10堂Figma課程，並欲探討 （1） 在學習平台中加入下注型態的學習點數會如何影響學習者的學習策略;（2） 學習線上課程之習慣;（3）下注在學習歷程中代表的意義。實驗招募 11 人對Figma課程有興趣的學生，質性數據分析發現，影響學生學習的動機因素，本研究結果可提供未來學習點數在學習平台之作為後續機制設計之參考。

Learning points used in gamification are new online learning methods in recent years. This point mechanism is based on gameplay. The way learners participate in the point mechanism may lead to less effective learning points than expected. Previously, online learning often used the point mechanism to stimulate learners, enhance learners’ learning motivation, and increase their learning effectiveness. However, it is seldom discussed how points stimulate learners' learning motivation, allowing learners to improve their learning strategies to achieve better learning results.

Therefore, through the interactive design of learning points, this study hopes to understand how learners are influenced between the allocation of points and the learning strategy. Thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the relationship between learning points and learners’ learning strategies and making the design of learning points mechanism more comprehensive in the future. Therefore, to design questions based on how learning behaviors and points affect each other, this study uses a pre-test to understand the usability of the learning platform. After thematic analysis, we categorized suggestions on how to operate the platform, the appearance of the point interaction mechanism, and the course design.

This study develops an online learning platform with a learning point system, allowing the participants to complete 10 Figma courses in 12 consecutive days. We are studying (1) How adding bet-type learning points to the learning platform will affect learners' learning strategies. (2) The habit of learning online courses (3) The meaning of betting in the learning process. The experiment recruited 11 students who are interested in the Figma course. Qualitative data analysis found the motivational factors affect students' learnings. The results of this study can provide ideas on the design of subsequent mechanisms for points application on learning platforms.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood cliffs.
Bullón, J. J., Encinas, A. H., Sánchez, M. J. S., & Martínez, V. G. (2018, April). Analysis of student feedback when using gamification tools in math subjects. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1818-1823). IEEE.
Coupe, N., Peters, S., Rhodes, S., & Cotterill, S. (2019). The effect of commitment-making on weight loss and behaviour change in adults with obesity/overweight; a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1-16.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. University Rochester Press.
Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional technology and distance learning, 12(4), 49-52.
Estabrooks, P. A., Nelson, C. C., Xu, S., King, D., Bayliss, E. A., Gaglio, B., ... & Glasgow, R. E. (2005). The frequency and behavioral outcomes of goal choices in the self-management of diabetes. The Diabetes Educator, 31(3), 391-400.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362
Garcia, I. (2013). Learning a language for free while translating the web. does duolingo work?. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(1), 19.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenière, M. A. K. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation as a function of age: The mediating role of autonomy support. Social Psychology of Education, 15(1), 77-95.
Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the art definition and utilization. Institute of Media Informatics Ulm University, 39, 31.
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013, October). Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? An empirical analysis of common gamification elements. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on gameful design, research, and applications (pp. 66-73).
Pelling, N. (2011). The (short) prehistory of gamification. Funding Startups (& other impossibilities), 9.
Rogers, T., Milkman, K. L., & Volpp, K. G. (2014). Commitment devices: using initiatives to change behavior. JaMa, 311(20), 2065-2066.
Sainz de Abajo, B., de la Torre-Díez, I., López-Coronado, M., Aguiar Pérez, J., & de Castro Lozano, C. (2019, September). Aplicación plural de herramientas para gamificar. Análisis y comparativa. In IN-RED 2019. V Congreso de Innovación Educativa y Docencia en Red (pp. 990-999). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.
Shi, L., & Cristea, A. I. (2016, June). Motivational gamification strategies rooted in self-determination theory for social adaptive e-learning. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 294-300). Springer, Cham.
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons.
Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C., Oliveira, W., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Shi, L., ... & Cristea, A. I. (2019). Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing Gamification taxonomy. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1-14
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of educational psychology, 81(3), 329.