在模擬遊戲情境中學習永續：實踐與反思

根據實踐中的理論，個人會以擁護理論與他人交流，但有另外一套指引行為的使用理論，與擁護理論往往有段距離，對於永續，人們是否也是知其名但不行其實？尤其永續並非一人可成，人們在情境中是否能夠與他人同管理對資源的使用，一同邁向永續？本研究之目的在於探討參與者在模擬遊戲情境中與他人一同學習永續的歷程，採混合研究法，在資料收集、分析與結果呈現上，以質性資料為主、量性資料為輔，以實踐中的理論為質性分析架構，透過模擬遊戲FishBanks提供以漁業為背景的虛擬情境，以及在玩兩次遊戲之間穿插反思討論的活動架構，讓16位成人參與者同時在遊戲中與情境和他人互動，展現使用理論。參與者在第一次遊戲中演示了「共有財的悲劇」，之後進入永續發展的兩個面向：反思不永續的問題及成因並加以改善，以及理性設計邁向永續的方式；接下來在第二次遊戲中確認這些設計。結果顯示，參與者在遊戲前已對永續相關概念有高度認同(擁護理論)，在第一次遊戲中的使用理論顯示，在經濟導向目標下各組相互競爭漁獲，會擔心漁獲下降產生損失，但沒有讓魚群恢復的機制，也無法透過組間協商產生群體決策。事後反思問題出在公司的營運方式、獲利策略及和問題心態上，在形成過漁之餘，各組雖自行制約但步調不一，此外引導人頻繁拍賣船隻也引人詬病。群體進一步商討出共同的永續導向目標及規範，並在第二次遊戲中以協商做為平衡群體捕撈量和魚群量恢復的管道，各組也因考量環境導向目標而改變獲利模式，透過自我克制及遵守群體規範來減緩捕撈壓力，關注魚密度低的海域且提早規劃派船，重視信任及群體和諧，但也因為群體策略結果不如預期，加上第二組的求勝行徑與第四組的不參與群體，以及參與者對情境的解讀不同、迷思、情緒、勞累及潛在社會價值觀等因素，為落實永續增加變數，群體於最後一次協商時打破原有制約規則，回歸自由競爭市場。不過，參與者在活動對永續內涵及做法產生更深更廣的認知，且在多方面展現雙環學習，也表現出小規模公地治理的群體行為模式。總的來說，本研究豐富了永續教育中的內涵，尤其是社會面向，參與者能夠在模擬遊戲的多個系統中體驗複雜問題，看清不永續發展歷程並將解決問題的層次提升至群體，共同規劃並實驗群體治理資源使用的過程，如此產生對不永續和永續更深刻的認識與學習；但在從「我」變成「我們」的過程中，個人的行為或學習似乎跟不上對群體的規劃，許多個人的使用理論形成群體運作上的障礙，包含來自價值觀的框架，可見參與者雖然展現對永續的重視以及個人層面的學習和行為改變，但在相互搭配上並不穩定，建議未來可著重創建共享願景並提升衝突管理的技能，以增進團隊學習，也可以在遊戲中增加角色或改變設定來擴大學習的系統與情境，以求更貼近現實狀況；研究者另就教學實務和未來研究兩個面向提出建議。

關鍵字

學習永續；模擬遊戲； FishBanks ；實踐中的理論；使用理論

並列摘要

According to Theory in Practice, one uses espoused theory to communicate with others but theory-in-use, which is usually different from the espoused theory, is the theory directing his or her behaviors. Do people know about sustainability but not practice it? While pursuing sustainability requests people work together, do people really know how to work with others to manage the use of resources under certain situation? This research aims to explore the process that the participants work with each other to reach sustainability within the simulated scenario. It is a mixed method study. Qualitative data were collected and analyzed based on the framework of Theory in Practice to describe the process, with supplement by quantitative data. A total of 16 adults participated in this research and played the simulation game FishBanks, which creates the virtual situation of fishery, twice in a row with a reflection and discussion session in between. They publicly tested their theory-in-use while interacting with the game system and others. In the first game, the participants together demonstrated “the Tragedy of the Commons.” They then went through the process of (1) reflecting on problems and coming out possible solutions; (2) reasonably designing the way of reaching a sustainable future. Those are correspondent to the two phases of sustainable development. They further confirmed their plans in the second game. The results show that the participants had highly agreed with some concepts about sustainability (espoused theory) before playing the game. They, however, intensely competed for fish under the economic-oriented goal in the first game while worrying about losses due to declining catches. They did not develop any mechanism for the fish population recovery and could not reach any group decision through negotiation. They then realized that there was something wrong with their way of running the business, with the strategy of making profits, and with their attitude. When over-fishing occurred, each team might adjust their strategies individually but not working together. They also blamed the game manager on selling too many fishing boats to them. The participant then discussed as a group to build sustainability-oriented goals, as well as relative regulations. Each teams modified its own profit-making patterns and tried to balance the total catch and fish population through negotiation. They reduced fishing pressure through self-restraint and following the regulations; concerned about the low fish density and planed ahead for it; emphasized trust and group harmony. However, because of unsatisfaction towards the outcomes of group decisions; Team2’s behaviors of wanting to win badly and Team4’s non-cooperation; different interpretation for things; misunderstanding; being emotional; tiredness and potential social values, etc…, the path of practicing sustainability was not smooth at all. The group regulations were eventually abandoned within the last negotiation and the situation returned to be competitive again. Nevertheless, the participants gained deeper and broader understanding of ‘what sustainability is’ and ‘how to practice it’. Double-loop learning cases have been seen on various aspects and a small scale of governing the commons occurred. Consequently, this research has enriched the contents of Education for Sustainability, especially the social aspect. The participants were able to understand the complex issue within the simulation game with multiple systems; to clearly see the process of unsustainable-development and to elevate the level of problem solving to a higher level (group); to plan together and test different ways of managing resources use. They generated profound understanding and learning regarding unsustainability and sustainability. However, in the process of changing from "individual" to "group", individual behavior or learning seemed to be unable to keep up with the planning for the group future. Some individual’s theory-in-use became the obstacles to group operation, including those boxes created by values. Even though the participants tried to emphasis on sustainability, to demonstrate learning and behavior change in personal-level, their collaboration were not stable. For the future, it is suggested to build the shared vision of sustainability and improve the competence of managing conflicts to enhance group learning. It is also welcome to add new roles into the game scenario or change some settings to expand the system and context for the learning environment, as well as to make the simulation closer to the reality. The researcher also made some suggestions towards teaching practice and future study.

並列關鍵字

learning about sustainability ； simulation game ； FishBanks ； Theory in Practice ； theory-in-use

參考文獻

Argyris, C. & Schӧn, D.A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar

Awwal, N., Alom, M., & Care, E. (2015). Game Design for Learning to Solve Problems in a Collaborative Environment. In Munkvold, R. & L. Kolás (Eds.), Proceedings of The 9th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp.25-33). Nord-Trondelag University College Steinkjer. ISBN: 978‐1‐910810‐58‐3, ISSN: 2049-0992

Google Scholar

Ayres, R. U., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Gowdy, J. M. (1998). Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability. (TI Discussion Paper; No. 98-103/3). Tinbergen Institute (TI).

Google Scholar

Ballard, D. (2000). The Cultural Aspects of Change for Sustainable Development. Eco-Management and Auditing, 7(2), 53-59. doi: 10.1002/1099-0925(200006)7:2<53::AID-EMA125>3.0.CO;2-N

Google Scholar

Barreteau, O., Le Page, C., & Perez, P. (2007). Guest Editorial: Simulation and Gaming in Natural Resource Management. Simulation & Gaming, 38(2): 181-184. doi: ff10.1177/1046878107300657ff.ffhal-00453835

Google Scholar

國際替代計量

在模擬遊戲情境中學習永續：實踐與反思

全文下載

主題瀏覽