隨著社會型態與科技不斷改變，博物館服務的核心，逐漸由「物」轉變為「人」，並確立以教育為使命的立場。所以博物館開始重視與人的互動，並希望提供適性的學習服務，但這些適性服務多是考量觀時間、參觀目的等客觀條件，忽略了喜好、興趣等主觀條件，而這些主觀條件應該可以大幅提升學習成效。
因此本研究於新店文史館進行為期六天的實驗，了解以不同動線型態進行博物館學習時，學習動機與學習成就的變化。實驗中受測者被分為一般動線組及適性動線組，分別以一般固定動線或以興趣為順序的適性動線參觀，再以學習成就前後測、學習動機量表與訪談，觀察學習成效的差異。
研究發現進行博物館參觀學習，確實可以形成學習成就。以不同動線型態進行博物館參觀學習時，適性動線參觀會引發較高的學習動機並帶來較高的學習成效。另外，如果學習者要以適性動線進行博物館參觀學習，博物館的展出內容必須確區分單元，以避免觀眾混淆進而降低適性動線的效果。

Museums are gradually shifting their focus from offering the “physical” towards the more “human” aspect of their core services, in order to contend with constant social change and continued technological development, while firmly establishing its educational purpose. Therefore, museums are beginning to value human interaction with the aim towards providing suitable educational services; however, these aptitude services have mainly considered objective conditions, such as viewing length and visit motivation, but neglected the subjective conditions such as visitor preference and interest, even when these subjective conditions should be helpful in greatly increasing learning achievement.
This study conducted a six day experiment at the Xindian Cultural and History Museum examining the effects on learning motivation and learning achievement through the adoption of different path lines while learning at the museum. The subjects are divided into normal path line and aptitude path line groups, visiting the museum via a conventional pre-fixed path line or a path line following the visitor’s interest, respectively. In this study, pre-test and post-test learning achievement results are recorded, learning motivation surveys, and interviews are used to examine whether there is a difference in learning achievement and learning motivation between the two groups and whether there is a correlation between learning achievement and learning motivation when taking different path lines.
The results of this study concluded learning achievement is obtained through visiting and learning at the museum. When examining the difference in path lines, it is found that the visitors adopting the aptitude path line will generate higher learning motivation and obtain higher learning achievement.Additionally, the result of this study suggests the museum should organise the exhibits into clearly recognisable units to avoid confusing the visitor, in order for visitors taking the aptitude path line to obtain optimal learning achievement.

中文文獻
丁維欣、余智雯、彭潔薇、顏芊螢（2016）。博物館語音導覽過時了嗎？。科技博物，20（4），5-24。
王韋堯、黃詩珮、劉怡寧（2012）。消費品廣告設計之情緒效價與喚起分析。設計學報，17（3）。
王珩（2005）。從 ARCS 模式探討英語學習動機之激發策略。臺中教育大學學報: 人文藝術類，19（2），89-100。
白宗易、王嘉淳、陳克舟（2015）。觀光工廠解說導覽人員滿意度之探討。中原體育學報（7）， 32-44。
石世祐、王琨淇、王世旭、王維志、葉明峰、鄭淵源、李明聰、劉正章、洪堯順、王昭平（2014）。建築資訊模型運用於火災避難設計之個案研究。營建管理季刊（97），1-11。
石侃、蘇超、盧昱波（2019）。人工智慧（AI）：博物館未來發展的必要工具。科技博物，23（1）， 29-41。
吳函蓁、鄭育書（2016）。購買動線設計對顧客滿意度與重購意願之影響。全球管理與經濟,，12（1），103-120。
吳淑華（2012）。博物館展示配置與參觀行為關係之研究。科技博物，16（3）， 89-108。
李靜芳（2007）。回首來時路：20年來的臺灣博物館教育。博物館學季刊，21（2）， 7-31+33。
林佳葦（2017）。博物館平面文宣優化研究－以國立臺灣博物館活動簡訊為例。國立臺灣博物館學刊，70（1），65-100。
林紹陽、董少桓、林宗德、曾筱倩（2017）。一個支援適性化學習的程式設計練習系統。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，13（2）， 139-151。
范賢娟（2007）。以經驗為基礎的博物館學習理論。博物館學季刊，21（1）， 73-81+83。
高亞涓、金凱儀（2019）。無所不在的學習系統應用於古蹟導覽之學習成效與動機影響。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，15（2），173-198。
耿鳳英（2006）。虛與實: 新世紀的博物館展示趨勢。博物館學季刊， 20（1），81-96。
張美珍（2003）。 從探索學習的觀點探究博物館參觀活動單的運用。科技博物，7（2）， 63-79。
黃政傑、張嘉育（2010）。讓學生成功學習: 適性課程與教學之理念與策略。課程與教學，13（3），1-22。
黃國豪、陳碧茵、賴世偉、林春合（2009）。博物館學習導覽系統之建置、應用與成效分析。數位學習科技期刊，1（4），307-325。
黃然、楊劍東、翁維珠、張正明（1995）。魚市場作業動線規劃。海大漁推（18）， 25-28。
黃慶輝（2012）。室內物業之服務動線管理與更新：以產後護理之家為例。物業管理學報，3（2），81-91。
劉書瑋（2016）。探索式學習應用於適地性歷史回溯遊戲之學習成效探討 (未出版之碩士論文)。台灣師範大學：台北市。
劉婉珍（2001）。以展覽為核心的博物館課程。博物館學季刊，15（4）， 3-18。
蔡明甫（2014）。以數位敘事融入國小社會領域教學之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。台灣師範大學：台北市。
蕭瑞棠（2004）。 博物館環境：另一種學習理念的初探.。博物館學季刊，18（1）， 63-71。
霍秉坤、黃顯華（2000）教科書前導組體設計之探討。課程與教學，3（2），95-114+156。
顏上晴（2000）。博物館觀眾導引之研究－以國立科學工藝博物館為例。科技博物, 4（5），86-109。
顏上晴（2002）。博物館到館參觀導引研究－以國立科學工藝博物館為例。科技博物，6（3）， 47-61。

英文文獻
Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(S1), S17-S33.
Anderson, M. L. (1999). Museums of the future: The impact of technology on museum practices. DAEDALUS-BOSTON MASS-, 128, 129-162.
Ansbacher, T. (1998). John Dewey's experience and education: Lessons for museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 41(1), 36-50.
Ansbacher, T. (1999). Experience, inquiry, and making meaning. Exhibitionist, 18(2), 22-26.
Ansbacher, T. (2000). What did you see and do? A brief introduction to experience-based exhibits. Informal Learning Review, 40, 1-2.
Ansbacher, T. (2002). Misunderstandings of meaning making. The Exhibitionist, 21(1), 1-4.
Ansbacher, T. (2005). Rethinking our goals: Putting process first. Informal Learning Review, 74, 1-6.
Brusilovsky, P., Eklund, J., & Schwarz, E. (1998). Web-based education for all: a tool for development adaptive courseware. Computer networks and ISDN systems, 30(1-7), 291-300.
Cole, P. R. (1995). Constructivism--Rediscovering the Discovered. Curator, 38(4), 225-227.
Corkill, A. J. (1992). Advance organizers: Facilitators of recall. Educational Psychology Review, 4(1), 33-67.
Dornan, T., Boshuizen, H., King, N., & Scherpbier, A. (2007). Experience‐based learning: a model linking the processes and outcomes of medical students' workplace learning. Medical education, 41(1), 84-91.
Ebitz, D. (2005). Qualifications and the Professional Preparation and Development of Art Museum Educators. Studies in Art Education, 46(2), 150-169.
Eklund, J., & Sinclair, K. (2000). An empirical appraisal of the effectiveness of adaptive interfaces for instructional systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(4), 165-177.
Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When buildings don’t work: The role of architecture in human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(1), 85-94.
Falk, J. H., Scott, C., Dierking, L., Rennie, L., & Jones, M. C. (2004). Interactives and visitor learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(2), 171-198.
Fawkner, L. B. (1997). One Museum Discovers the Web. Journal of Museum Education, 22(1), 12-14.
Guler, K. (2015). An exhibition design checklist for visitor circulation. Museum Management and Curatorship, 30(1), 63-74.
Hamma, K. (2004). The role of museums in online teaching, learning, and research. First Monday, 9(5).
Hein, G. E. (2002). Learning in the Museum: Routledge.
Hein, G. E. (2004). John Dewey and museum education. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(4), 413-427.
Hennes, T. (2002). Rethinking the visitor experience: Transforming obstacle into purpose. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45(2), 109-121.
Hsi, S. (2003). A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 308-319.
Hwang, G.-J., Sung, H.-Y., Hung, C.-M., Huang, I., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Development of a personalized educational computer game based on students’ learning styles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 623-638.
Ibrahim, M., & Al-Shara, O. (2007). Impact of interactive learning on knowledge retention. Paper presented at the Symposium on Human Interface and the Management of Information.
Jameson, A. (2009). Adaptive interfaces and agents. Human-Computer Interaction: Design Issues, Solutions, and Applications, 105, 105-130.
Jarrier, E., & Bourgeon-Renault, D. (2012). Impact of mediation devices on the museum visit experience and on visitors' behavioural intentions.
John, M. S., & Huntwork, D. (2005). A case study of “Planetary landscapes: Sculpting the solar system”. Curator: The Museum Journal, 48(3), 281-300.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2.
Keller, J. M. (2009). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach: Springer Science & Business Media.
Kovavisaruch, L., Sanpechuda, T., Chinda, K., Sornlertlamvanich, V., & Kamolvej, P. (2017). Museum layout evaluation based on visitor behavior and visiting suggestion under time constrain. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 7(3), 5-18.
Magoulas, G. D., Papanikolaou, Y., & Grigoriadou, M. (2003). Adaptive web‐based learning: accommodating individual differences through system's adaptation. British journal of educational technology, 34(4), 511-527.
Mann, L., & Tung, G. (2015). A new look at an old friend: Reevaluating the Met's audio-guide service. Paper presented at the MW2015: Museums and the Web 2015, Chicago, IL, USA.
Marín-Morales, J., Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Greco, A., Guixeres, J., Llinares, C., Gentili, C., . . . Valenza, G. (2019). Real vs. immersive-virtual emotional experience: Analysis of psycho-physiological patterns in a free exploration of an art museum. PLOS ONE, 14(10), e0223881.
Popescu, E., Badica, C., & Moraret, L. (2010). Accommodating learning styles in an adaptive educational system. Informatica, 34(4).
Richards, W. H., & Menninger, M. (1993). A Discovery Room for Adults. The Journal of Museum Education, 18(1), 6-11. Retrieved from
Rubino, I., Barberis, C., Xhembulla, J., & Malnati, G. (2015). Integrating a Location-Based Mobile Game in the Museum Visit :Evaluating Visitors’ Behaviour and Learning. J. Comput. Cult. Herit., 8(3), 1-18.
Schilit, B. N., & Theimer, M. M. (1994). Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts. IEEE Network, 8(5), 22-32.
Small, R. (2000). Motivation in instructional design. Teacher Librarian, 27(5), 29.
Van Winkle, C. M. (2012). The Effect of Tour Type on Visitors' Perceived Cognitive Load and Learning. Journal of Interpretation Research, 17(1).
Wang, M. C. (1980). Adaptive instruction: Building on diversity. Theory Into Practice, 19(2), 122-128.
Wang, Y.-C., & Usher, J. M. (2007). A reinforcement learning approach for developing routing policies in multi-agent production scheduling. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 33(3), 323-333.
Wojciechowski, R., Walczak, K., White, M., & Cellary, W. (2004). Building virtual and augmented reality museum exhibitions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth international conference on 3D Web technology.
Yuksel, B. F., Oleson, K. B., Harrison, L., Peck, E. M., Afergan, D., Chang, R., & Jacob, R. J. (2016). Learn piano with BACh: An adaptive learning interface that adjusts task difficulty based on brain state. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 chi conference on human factors in computing systems.