本研究使用Wonder APP不同的程式語言介面教學，探討學生使用不同程式語言介面之課程的APP學習經驗、探討學生參與不同程式語言介面之課程的學習成效，以及探討學生參與不同程式語言介面之課程的學習感受等三項結果，研究結果分述如下：一、由使用性測試結果發現使用者對Wonder App的介面互動行為與先前使用經驗有關。在程式介面的使用性檢測中，國中學生對於APP上的比較注意視覺美感原則及容易原則。二、以不同程式語言介面建立之鷹架來學習程式，學生的程式能力都有明顯的進步。「先使用積木式介面學習程式，再用文字式介面學習程式」，接受此鷹架支持的高中學生學習成效較好。「先使用圖像式介面學習程式，再用積木式介面學習程式」，接受此鷹架支持的國中學生學習成效較好。三、參與本研究之學生在參與程式課程前具有高度期待感，在課程參與後認為透過 Wonder APP 控制Dash機器人，來學習程式設計能實際操作且與之互動，較容易學習程式，認為 Wonder APP是有助於學習程式設計之工具。研究結論：一、在Wonder APP上有關互動介面行為應關切之特點：(一)提供基本功能操作影片；(二)提供開啟檢索工具提示；(三)在特定區塊內呈現一系列選單；(四)提供醒目的提示符號、設計簡淺易懂的操作圖示、提供預示性的圖形化介面。二、初學者在學習程式遇到困難時，需協助建立鷹架產生新的鷹架支持，進而解決問題。

This research teaches by different programming language interfaces of Wonder APP, discuss the APP learning experience of students using different programming language interfaces, discuss the learning effectiveness of students in courses of different programming language interfaces, and discuss the learning feeling of students participate in courses of different programming language interfaces. The research results are as follows:
I.From the usability test results, the user's interface interaction behavior of Wonder App is related to the previous use experience. In the usability test of the program interface, junior students focus the principle of visual beauty and the principle of ease.
II.Using scaffolds with different programming language interfaces to learn programming, the programming skills of students have improved directly. "First learning program by block interface, and then learning program by text interface." Students who accept this scaffolding support have better learning. "First learning program by graphical interface, and then learning program by block interface." Students who accept this scaffolding support have a better learning.
III.The students participating in this study have high expectation before participating in the course. After the course, they controll Dash robot by Wonder APP to learn programming, and it is easier to learn the programming.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的與問題 3
1.3名詞解釋 5
1.3.1 程式語言 5
1.3.2 視覺化程式語言 6
1.3.3 文字式程式語言 7
1.3.4 學習感受 8
1.3.5 學習成效 8
1.3.6 教育機器人 8
1.3.7 鷹架 8
1.4研究範圍與限制 11
1.4.1 研究範圍 11
1.4.2 研究限制 11
第二章 文獻探討 13
2.1資訊科技教育脈絡與發展 13
2.1.1 科技領域課程綱要 15
2.1.2 資訊科技教育課程 16
2.1.3 運算思維能力 17
2.2程式語言與程式設計 23
2.2.1 視覺化程式設計語言 23
2.2.2 文字式程式語言 24
2.3程式設計學習工具 27
2.3.1 Scratch 27
2.3.2 Blockly 29
2.3.3 Swift Playground 32
2.3.4 教育性機器人 33
2.4介面設計 39
2.4.1 使用性 39
2.4.2 使用性評估方法 40
2.5鷹架理論與程式設計學習 43
第三章 研究方法 53
3.1研究架構 53
3.1.1 程式語言介面之使用性研究 54
3.1.2 程式語言介面之學習成效 54
3.2實驗設計 59
3.2.1 研究對象 59
3.2.2 研究時程 59
3.2.3 實驗設備 59
3.3研究工具 61
3.3.1 程式語言工具介面使用性問卷 61
3.3.2 程式測驗 65
3.3.3 學習感受量表 66
3.4研究步驟 69
3.5資料處理 71
3.5.1 量化資料分析 71
3.5.2 質性資料分析 72
第四章 研究結果與討論 73
4.1 程式語言介面之使用性研究 73
4.1.1 使用者基本資料 73
4.1.2 介面行為分析 74
4.1.3 設計原則使用評價 80
4.1.4 研究小結 82
4.2程式語言介面之學生學習成效 83
4.2.1 國中階段學生實驗前、後學習成效表現之分析 83
4.2.2 高中階段學生實驗前、後學習成效表現之分析 88
4.2.3 研究小結 93
4.3程式語言介面之學生學習感受 95
4.3.1 國中生對於程式語言介面學習程式之學習感受 95
4.3.2 高中生對於程式語言介面學習程式之學習感受 99
4.3.3 研究小結 104
第五章結論與建議 107
5.1研究結論 107
5.1.1 程式語言介面使用性之研究 107
5.1.2 程式語言介面之學生學習成效 108
5.1.3 程式語言介面之學習感受 108
5.2研究建議 111
5.2.1 程式語言介面使用性之研究 111
5.2.2 程式語言介面之學生學習成效 111
5.3未來研究 113
參考文獻 115
中文部分 115
英文部分 121
附件一：Wonder APP使用性研究問卷 129
附件二：Wonder Blcokly指令介紹 133
附件三：Wonder APP教學反應問卷 137
附件四：Wonder in Apple Swift Playgrounds 138
附件五：Wonder in Apple Swift Playgrounds 程式測驗 143

吳文雄（2002）。電腦技能學習者過去的績效、目標認同、電腦自我效能及電腦績效因果關係之驗證－社會認知理論與目標設定理論的整合。師大學報：科學教育類，47（1），39-54。
徐逸娟（2017）。眼動追蹤回饋鷹架對高中生 自我效能、測驗焦慮與學習成效 之影響：以C程式語言課程為例。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文，新竹市。
徐椿樑（2001）。鷹架學習理論在專業技術教學的成效分析之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文，台北市。
科技部（2016）。進擊的全民寫程式！你今天coding了嗎？科技大觀園。取自https://v1.scitechvista.nat.gov.tw/zh-tw/Feature/C/0/1/10/16/2331.htm
教育部中等教育司（1995）。國民中學課程標準。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2001）。教育部中小學資訊教育總藍圖。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2008a）。教育部中小學資訊教育白皮書。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2008b）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題－資訊教育。臺北市：教育部。
教育部 (2016) 。2020 資訊教育總藍圖。臺北市：教育部。
國家教育研究院（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
國家教育研究院（2017）。科技領域課程手冊（106.6.13更新四版）。臺北市：教育部。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學。台北：東華。
張菀珍. (1997). 鷹架理論在成人教學實務之應用. 成人教育, 40, 43-52.
張蓓渝（2013）。電子書閱讀介面設計之使用性評估研究-以iPad 平板電腦為例。碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學，台北市。
張瓊方（2011）。從21世紀關鍵能力淺談未來學校。數位典藏與學習電子報。取自http://newsletter.teldap.tw/news/InsightReportContent.php?nid=4271&lid=489
張瀞文、程遠茜、賓靜蓀（2016）。教育下一波：程式設計開啟兒童的未來。親子天下，76，120-125。
陳宏一（2006）。演算法－程式語言學習的基礎。取自https://www.ithome.com.tw/node/37320
葉丙成（2016）。葉丙成：「怎麼教、怎麼學」才是真正重要的關鍵──談國教資訊教育走向。天下雜誌。取自http://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/215/article/4635
葉謹睿（2010）。互動設計概論。台北市：藝術家。
劉明洲（2017）。創客教育、運算思維、程式設計～幾個從「想」到「做」的課程與教學設計觀念。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（1），138-140。
劉敏娜、張倩葦（2018）。國外計算思維教育研究進展。開放教育研究，24（1），41-53。
顧兆仁、陳立杰（2011）。大型觸控螢幕內三維虛擬物件的旋轉操控模式與手勢型態配對之研究。設計學報，16（2），1-22。

英文部分
Association for Computing Machinery(ACM) SIGPLAN (2003). Bylaws of the Special Interest Group on Programming Languages of the Association for Computing Machinery. New York, NY, USA
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis,A., Freeman, A. & Hall Giesinger, C. （2017）. NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
Adams Beckers, S., Cummins, M., Freeman, A., Hall, C. & Yuhnke, B. （2016）. NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
Aho, A. V .（2012）. Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55（7）, 832–835.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment, Reporting Authority （ACARA）. （2017a）. Draft Australian F-10 curriculum Learning areas. Retrieved November 3,2017 , https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/learning-areas/
Australian Curriculum, Assessment, Reporting Authority （ACARA）.（2017b）. Draft Australian F-10 curriculum technologies. Retrieved November 3,2017, https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/aims/
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C.（2011）.Bringing computational Thinking to K-12:What is Involvedand What is the Role of the Computer Science Education Community? ACM Inroads,2（1）,p.52
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23-28).
Ben-Ari, M. (1996). Understanding programming languages. Wiley.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. （2012）. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking . Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, Canada.
Bruckman, A., Jenson, C., &; Debonte, A. （2002）. Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL environment. In Proceedings of the CSCL 2002 conference （pp. 119-227）. Boulder, Colorado.
Bau, D., Gray, J., Kelleher, C., Sheldon, J., & Turbak, F. （2017）. Learnable programming: blocks and beyond. Communications of the ACM, 60（6）, 72-80.
Computing at School（CAS）.（2016）. Computational Thinking .Retrieved from https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/concepts/computational-thinking/
Cooper, S., & Dann, W. (2015). Programming: A key component of computational thinking in cs courses for non-majors. ACM Inroads, 6(1), 50-54.
Cowen, T. (2013). Average is over: Powering America beyond the age of the great stagnation. Penguin.
Dagiene, V., Stupuriene, G. （2016）. Bebras – a sustainable community building model for the concept based learning of informatics and computational thinking. Informatics in Education, 15（1）, 25–44.
David A. Schmidt.（1994）. The structure of typed programming languages, MIT Press, p 32
Dean, Tom （2002）. Programming Robots. Building Intelligent Robots. Brown University Department of Computer Science. Retrieved from http://cs.brown.edu/people/tdean/courses/cs148/02/programming.html
Dede, C. , Mishra, P. & Voogt, J. （2013）. Working Group 6: Advancing computational thinking in 21st century learning. EDUsummIT 2013, International summit on ict in education, Washington.
Department for Education. （2014）. Michael Gove speaks about computing and education technology. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-speaks-about-computing-and-education-technology
du Boulay, B., O'Shea, T. & Monk, J.（1989）The Black Box Inside the Glass Box: Presenting Computing Concepts to Novices.Studying the Novice Programmer. E. Soloway and J. C. Spohrer.Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 431- 446.
Fain, Y.（2004）Teaching kids programming: Even younger kids can learn Java. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://java.sys-con.com/node/44575
Floyd C. (1984) A Systematic Look at Prototyping, In: Budde R. et. al. (eds.), Approaches to Prototyping, Springer-Verlag.
Funkhouser, C. P. （1993） The influence of problem solving software on student attitudes about Mathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25（3）, 339-346.
Google for Education（n.d）. Exploring Computational Thinking:CT overview. Retrieved November 3,2017 ,from https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/#!ct-overview
Google (2015). Exploring Computational Thinking. Retrieved November 3,2019 from https://www.google.com/edu/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/
Grover, S.,& Pea, R.（2013）.Computational Thinking in K-12:A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Research.42（1）,38-43.
Hix, D., & Hartson, H. R. （1993）. Developing user interfaces: ensuring usability through product & process. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hsieh, C. C., & Chiu, F. Y. (2019). Examining the role of STEM in Twelfth-grade Robot Subject Instruction using the UTAUT model.
Hvannberg, E. T., Law, E. L.-C., & Lárusdóttir, M. K. （2007）. Heuristic evaluation: Comparing ways of finding and reporting usability problems. Interacting with Computers, 19（2）, 225-240. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2006.10.001
International Society for Technology in Education（ISTE）.（2011）.Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K–12 Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2
IDC. （2013, December 3）. Worldwide Tablet Shipments Forecast to Slow to Single-Digit Growth Rates by 2017, According to IDC. Retrieved from http://www.gfkmri.com/
IDC.（2016, February 18）. One in Five Tablets Sold in 4Q15 Was a Detachable, Says IDC Retrieved from http://www.idc.com/
Ihamäki, P. I. R. I. T. A., & Heljakka, K. （2018, January）. Smart, skilled and connected in the 21st century: Educational promises of the Internet of Toys （IoToys）. In Proceedings of the 2018 Hawaii University International Conferences, Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences & Education, Prince Waikiki Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Iivari, J., & Iivari, N. (2011). Varieties of user‐centredness: An analysis of four systems development methods. Information Systems Journal, 21(2), 125-153.
Introduction to computational thinking.(2015 November 25) BBC Bitesize. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zp92mp3/
Iverson, K. E. (1962, May). A programming language. In Proceedings of the May 1-3, 1962, spring joint computer conference (pp. 345-351).
Jost, Beate; Ketterl, Markus; Budde, Reinhard; Leimbach, Thorsten (2014). Graphical Programming Environments for Educational Robots: Open Roberta - Yet Another One?. 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia. pp.381–386.
Kagima, L.A., & Hausafus, C. O.（2000）. Integration of electronic communication in higher education: Contributions of faculty computer self-efficacy. The Internet and Higher Education, 2（4）,221-235.
Kim, J., & Moon, J. Y.（1998）. Designing towards emotional usability in customer interfaces—trustworthiness of cyber-banking system interfaces. Interacting with Computers, 10（1）, 1-29. doi:10.1016/s0953-5438（97）00037-4
Lin,Y., McKeachie, W.J., ＆Kim, Y.C.（2003）. College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motination and learning. Learning ＆Individual Differences, 13, 251- 258.
Lye, S. Y. , & Koh, J. H. L.（2014）. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.
Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W.（2002）. Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Education Psychology, 94, 171-185.
Ministry of Education.（2012）. Computer Application Syllabus. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences
Ministry of Education （MOE）.（2017） . O-Level Computing Syllabus. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences
Myers, B., Hudson, S. E., & Pausch, R.（2000）. Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction （TOCHI）, 7（1）, 3–28.
NETP .（2010）.Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf
Nielsen, J.（1993）. Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic Press.
Nguyen-Duc, A., Wang, X., & Abrahamsson, P. (2017, May). What influences the speed of prototyping? An empirical investigation of twenty software startups. In International Conference on Agile Software Development (pp. 20-36). Springer, Cham.
Norman, D. A.（2002）. The Design of Everyday Things. New York, NY, USA:Basic Books.
Palumbo, D. B. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of educational research, 60(1), 65-89.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. （2007）. Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0816.pdf
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H.（2002）. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction （1st ed.）. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk D. H. （1996）. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Prensky, M. （2007）. Digital game-based learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Reeve, J.（1996）. Motivation others: Nurtring inner motivational resources. Needham Heights. MA:Allyn＆Bacon.
Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. （2008）. Handbook of Usability Testing: Howto Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests （2nd ed.）. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer science education, 13(2), 137-172.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. （2011）. Interaction Design: Beyond Human -Computer Interaction （3rd ed.）. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Society, R. （2012）. Shut down or restart: The way forward for computing in UK schools. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-computing-in-schools.pdf
The Association for Computing Machinery （ACM）.（2005）Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report. Retrieved from http://disi.unal.edu.co/dacursci/sistemasycomputacion/docs/ComputingCurricula/ cc2005.pdf
Wang, C.-M., & Huang, C.-H. (2015). A Study of Usability Principles and Interface Design for Mobile e-Books. Ergonomics, 58(8), 1253-1265.
Weng, W.（2015）.Eight skills in future work. Education, 135（4）, 419-422.
White House (2016) Computer Science for All. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation（n.d）. Deeper Learning. Retrieved November 3,2017 ,from https://www.hewlett.org/strategy/deeper-learning/
Wing, J. （2008）. Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions on the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366（1881）, 3717-3725.
Wing, J. M.（2006）. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49（3）, 33- 35.
Wirth, N.（1978）. Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
World Economic Forum（WEF）.（2016）. The Future of Jobs. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016/
Wu, M. L., & Richards, K.（2011）. Facilitating computational thinking through game design. In Edutainment Technologies. Educational Games and Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality Applications（pp. 220-227）. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.