本研究結合說服式科技、反思學習的相關文獻，以 Fogg 行為改變理論為框架，整理遊戲及反思學習相關文獻，提出 8 條反思遊戲的設計準則，並依據此架構設計一款桌上型遊戲 – 「動物園大挑戰」。遊戲讓玩家體驗打造自己的夢幻動物園，遊戲期間玩家必須分享自己過去於動物園遊園的經驗、感受及想法 ; 遊戲中也埋藏多起真實發生過的動物園爭議議題，讓玩家接收各方觀點的同時，也發表自己並聆聽同儕們的看法，並讓學生反思動物園的價值。
本研究採用準實驗設計，將 24 位國小高年級學童分為兩組：實驗組試玩依照設計準則設計的桌上型遊戲，對照組則玩動物棋，以此驗證設計準則的成效。試玩結束後，讓學生們畫出自己理想中的動物園，並表達他們的看法，借此觀察兩組學童的差異。經過獨立樣本 T 檢定，發現實驗組學生表現優於對照組學生，且差異具有顯著性。因此得到結論，本研究所提的反思遊戲設計準則與所設計的「動物園大挑戰」的確幫助學生反思動物園議題。

The present study aims to investigate whether the board game with issues of zoo transformation, "Zoo Challenge", can help students to reflect the value of zoos. This study consolidated literature in Reflective Learning and Persuasive Technology to propose design guidelines for games of reflection, using the Fogg behavior model as the framework. Eight guidelines were proposed, and “Zoo Challenge” is a game that developed by it. It emphasized on the controversial issues of the zoo in the world and asked players to rethink the values of zoos.
The study design was set on a randomized field experiment design with two groups playing two different board games, respectively "Zoo Challenge", and “Jungle Chess”.

The study objects were a class of 24 fifth graders in an elementary school in Hsinchu City. After playing games, all students were asked to draw their ideal zoo and present it, which was the evaluation test. The study analyzed students’ performance by independent-sample t-test to distinguish the difference between students’ reflective ability in two groups. The results showed that the two groups had a significant difference on reflective ability. The proposed design guidelines and “Zoo Challenge” helped students to reflect zoo issues successfully.

Atkins, S., & Murphy, K. (1993). Reflection: a review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(8), 1188–1192.
Bartle, R. A. (2004). Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders.
Boenink, A. D., Oderwald, A. K., De Jonge, P., Van Tilburg, W., & Smal, J. A. (2004). Assessing student reflection in medical practice. The development of an observer-rated instrument: reliability, validity and initial experiences. Medical Education, 38(4), 368–377.
Bogost, I. (2008). The rhetoric of video games. The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, 117–140.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, 18–40.
Boyd, E. M., & Fales, A. W. (1983). Reflective Learning: Key to Learning from Experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23(2), 99–117.
Bubnys, R., & Žydžiūnaitė, V. (2010). REFLECTIVE LEARNING MODELS IN THE CONTEXT OF HIGHER EDUCATION: CONCEPT ANALYSIS. Problems of Education in the 21st Century.
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives (Vol. 178). Univ of California Press.
Calleja, G. (2011). In-game: From immersion to incorporation. MIT Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
de la Hera Conde-Pumpido, T., & Others. (2014). Persuasive Structures in Advergames. Conveying Advertising Messages through Digital Games. University Utrecht.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Boston etc.(DC Heath and Company) 1933. Retrieved from https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-Fromm/frontdoor/index/index/docId/7969
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00692056/
Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Games Research, 37(2), 37–53.
Flanagan, M., & Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Values at Play in Digital Games. MIT Press.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Ubiquity, 2002(December). https://doi.org/10.1145/764008.763957
Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (Vol. 4, p. 1722).
Khaled, R. (2018). Questions Over Answers: Reflective Game Design. In D. Cermak-Sassenrath (Ed.), Playful Disruption of Digital Media (pp. 3–27). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall. Inc.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Moon, J. A. (2004). A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. Psychology Press.
Müller, L., Rivera-Pelayo, V., & Heuer, S. (2012). Persuasion and Reflective Learning: Closing the Feedback Loop. In Persuasive Technology. Design for Health and Safety (pp. 133–144). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1967). Psychometric theory (Vol. 226). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paras, B. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design.
Proulx, J. (2006). Constructivism: A re-equilibration and clarification of the concepts, and some potential implications for teaching and pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy, 8(1), 65–85.
Quimby, M. L., Vig, K. W. L., Rashid, R. G., & Firestone, A. R. (2004). The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. The Angle Orthodontist, 74(3), 298–303.
Schell, J. (2014). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. AK Peters/CRC Press.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Solomon, J. (1987). New Thoughts on Teacher Education. Oxford Review of Education, 13(3), 267–274.
Williams, A. J., & Williams, R. H. (2008). Red light, green light: altering attitudes about climate change with a game practice simulation game. Psicología Política, (37), 71–84.
Williams, R. H., & Williams, A. J. (2007). In pursuit of peace: Attitudinal and behavioral change with simulations and Multiple Identification Theory. Simulation & Gaming, 38(4), 453–471.