本研究目的在探討程式編寫融入STEM課程對國小原住民族學生在原住民族文化認同的影響、對國小學生在運算思維以及程式編寫能力的影響，並進一步探討對國小原住民族學生和非原住民族學生在運算思維以及程式編寫能力的影響差異。本研究以新竹縣27名國小高年級學生為研究對象，採量化、質性並重的混合研究法，進行以Arduino Nano於motoBlockly網站進行程式編寫的 STEM 課程。本研究有四個課程，包含Arduino基本電路、閃耀泰雅織女、獵物Gotcha以及看見原音，進行三日18小時的營隊。本研究在課程前後實施原住民族文化認同量表、Bebras國際運算思維測驗、程式編寫能力測驗來了解學生在原住民族文化認同、運算思維、程式編寫能力的學習成效，並於課程及營隊後實施課程回饋問卷，以瞭解學生在課程後，對於原住民族文化認同以及程式編寫能力的感受與看法。本研究結果如下：(1)國小原住民族學生的原住民族文化認同提升，進一步發現所有原住民族學生都喜歡結合原住民族文化的STEM課程，認為本課程幫助他們認識原住民族文化，並表示未來會繼續深入了解自己的文化。(2)整體學生的運算思維顯著提升。(3)原住民族學生和非原住民族學生的運算思維皆有提升，原住民族學生的進步幅度較非原住民族學生大。(4)原住民族學生和非原住民族學生在運算思維有相似的學習表現。(5)整體學生的程式編寫能力顯著提升，進一步發現學生對於程式編寫感到最困難的部分是根據燒錄結果調整程式。(6)原住民族學生和非原住民族學生的程式編寫能力提升，非原住民族學生的進步幅度較原住民族學生大。(7)原住民族學生和非原住民族學生在程式編寫能力有相似的學習表現，進一步發現出現不符預期的燒錄結果時，非原住民族學生比原住民族學生使用較多方式去檢查程式或線路。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of integrating programming into STEM curriculum on the cultural identity of elementary school Indigenous students, their computational thinking, and coding skills. Furthermore, it aims to explore the differences in the impact on computational thinking and programming skills between Indigenous and non-Indigenous elementary school students. The study was conducted with 27 elementary school students in Hsinchu County, Taiwan, utilizing a mixed-methods approach that combined quantitative and qualitative research methods. The STEM curriculum involved programming with Arduino Nano using the motoBlockly website and consisted of four courses: Basic Arduino Circuits, Shining Atayal Weaver, Hunt Gotcha, and Seeing the Original Sound, conducted over a three-day period totaling 18 hours. To assess the learning outcomes, the study administered Indigenous cultural identity scales, the Bebras International Computational Thinking Test, and a coding skills assessment before and after the curriculum. Feedback questionnaires were also conducted after the curriculum to understand students' feelings and opinions regarding Indigenous cultural identity and coding skills. The study yielded the following results: 1. Indigenous students' cultural identity improved, and it was observed that all Indigenous students enjoyed the STEM curriculum that incorporated their culture. They expressed a desire to continue exploring their culture in the future. 2. Overall, students' computational thinking skills significantly improved. 3. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students showed improvements in computational thinking, with Indigenous students making larger gains. 4. Indigenous and non-Indigenous students demonstrated similar learning performance in computational thinking after the curriculum. 5. Overall, students' programming skills significantly improved. It was noted that students found adjusting programs based on burn results to be the most challenging aspect of programming. 6. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students showed improvements in programming skills, with non-Indigenous students making larger gains. 7. Indigenous and non-Indigenous students displayed similar learning performance in programming skills. Furthermore, it was observed that when unexpected burn results occurred, non-Indigenous students used a more diverse range of inspection methods compared to Indigenous students.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 名詞解釋 4
第四節 研究範圍與限制 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 STEM教育 7
第二節 STEM教育實證研究 9
第三節 程式編寫 16
第四節 程式編寫課程實證研究 19
第五節 原住民族文化認同 24
第三章 研究方法 29
第一節 研究流程 29
第二節 研究對象 31
第三節 研究工具 31
第四節 教材 36
第五節 研究設計 40
第六節 資料蒐集與分析 41
第四章 研究結果與討論 45
第一節 程式編寫融入 STEM 課程對國小學生在原住民族文化認同的影響 45
第二節 程式編寫融入 STEM 課程對國小學生在運算思維的影響 50
第三節 程式編寫融入STEM課程分別對國小原住民族學生和非原住民族學生在運算思維的影響 51
第四節 程式編寫融入STEM課程對國小原住民族學生和非原住民族學生在運算思維的影響差異 53
第五節 程式編寫融入 STEM 課程對國小學生程式編寫能力的影響 54
第六節 程式編寫融入STEM課程分別對國小原住民族學生和非原住民族學生在程式編寫能力的影響 70
第七節 程式編寫融入STEM課程對國小原住民族學生和非原住民族學生在程式編寫能力的影響差異 72
第五章 結論與建議 77
參考文獻 79
附錄 88
附錄一 原住民族文化認同量表 88
附錄二 運算思維測驗 90
附錄三 程式編寫能力測驗 102
附錄四 課程回饋問卷 106
附錄五 教學流程 111

一、中文文獻
行政院（2021）。國情統計通報（135）。行政院主計處。
何昱穎、張智凱、劉寶鈞（2010）。程式設計課程之學習焦慮降低與學習動機維持-以 Scratch 為補救教學工具。數位學習科技期刊，2(1)，11-32。
佘曉清、林煥祥（2019）。PISA 2015 臺灣學生的表現。國立交通大學出版社。
吳百興、吳心楷（2010）。八年級原住民學生在設計導向活動的科學學習。科學教育學刊，18(4)， 277-304。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2010.1804.01
吳瓊洳（2009）。新移民子女文化認同之研究－以雲林縣國中生爲例。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，23(2)，187-204。https://doi.org/10.7037/JNTUE.200912.0187
宋麒麟（2022）。從「文化回應」觀點看原住民族實驗教育之省思。臺灣教育評論月刊，11(2)，19-23。
林育慈、吳正己（2016）。運算思維與中小學資訊科技課程。教育脈動，6，5-20。
邱甯維、魯盈讌、洪瑞兒、許文怡（2021）。情境式STEM探究教學提升國小學童STEM參與度、自我效能及探究能力效益。科學教育學刊，29(4)，325-350。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.202112_29(4).0002
洪萱芳、姚宗威、林淑芬、顏瓊芬（2017）。以地方為基礎之文化融入科學教育課程研究-以泰雅族和賽德克族傳統編織文化為例。科學教育學刊，25(3)，245-276。
范斯淳、游光昭（2016）。科技教育融入 STEM 課程的核心價值與實踐。教育科學研究期刊，61(2)，153-183。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06
張佳慧（2019）。原住民歌舞體驗對學生多元文化意識及原住民文化認同影響之研究。未出版之碩士論文。國立海洋大學。
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要科技領域。台北市：教育部。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/27526/66412.pdf
教育部（2018a）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要數學領域。台北市：教育部。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/27338/72246.pdf
教育部（2018b）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要自然科學領域。台北市：教育部。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/27888/82352.pdf
教育部（2018c）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要科技領域。台北市：教育部。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/27526/66412.pdf
教育部（2020）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要議題融入說明手冊。台北市：教育部。https://ghresource.mt.ntnu.edu.tw/nss/p/BiologyApproach03
教育部(2020)。原住民族教育發展計畫(110-114年)。台北市：教育部。https://reurl.cc/60do25
教育部（2021）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。台北市：教育部。 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/35950/96151.pdf
許木柱（1990）。台灣原住民的族群認同運動 : 心理文化研究途徑的初步探討。在徐正光、宋文里(主編)臺灣新興社會運動（頁127-156）。臺北：巨流。
郭生玉（2004）。教育測驗與評量。新北市中和區：精華。
曾鈺成、馮可強、戴希立、馮智政（2017）。香港願景計畫-推動STEM+教育：STEM 教育的在地化與頂層設計。香港：香港政策研究所。 http://www.hkpri.org.hk/storage/app/media/thumbnail/20170925_stem_web.pdf
湯維玲（2019）。探究美國STEM與STEAM教育的發展。課程與教學， 22(2)，49-77。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201904_22(2).0003
黃志賢 (2006)。結合可能發展區與鷹架之教學方案於原住民高職學生數學文字符號概念改變之研究。科學教育學刊，14(4), 467-491。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2006.1404.05
黃秀蓉(2015)。淺談原住民教育問題與因應對策。臺灣教育評論月刊，4(1)，179-181。
黑帶‧巴彥（曾作振）（2002）。泰雅人的生活形態探源：一個泰雅人的現身說法。新竹縣：新竹縣文化局。
趙貞怡 (2013)。原住民學童在電腦樂高機器人課程中的創造力與團隊合作能力。教育實踐與研究，26(1)，33-62。
劉世閔、鄭姿妮(2013)。一位魯凱族校長推展原住民民族教育之個案研究。教育理論與實踐學刊，28，121-153。
劉易容（2022）。融入「流程圖」於視覺畫程式教學隊國小五年級學生之運算思維能力影響-以國小數學領域之四則混合運算應用題為例。未出版之碩士論文。國立屏東大學。
蔡進雄（2019）。未來教育新趨勢—各國程式設計教育的動態。國家教育研究院電子報，181。https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/edm.php?grp_no=3&edm_no=181&content_no=3188
鄭瑞洲、洪振方、黃台珠(2011)。情境興趣-制式與非正式課程科學學習的交會點。科學教育月刊，340，1-9。https://doi.org/10.6216/SEM.201107_(340).0001
戴照吉（2017）。文化回應簡報式教學對原住民六年級學童科學學習成效之研究-以 [簡單機械] 單元為例。未出版之碩士論文。國立屏東大學。
顏惠君（2016）。文化回應的差異化教學。臺灣教育評論月刊，5(8)，162-165。
譚光鼎（1998）。原住民教育研究。臺北市：五南。
 
二、英文文獻
Aksit, O., & Wiebe, E. N. (2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z
Arslan, K., & Tanel, Z. (2021). Analyzing the effects of Arduino applications on students’ opinions, attitude and self-efficacy in programming class. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1143-1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10290-5
Astuti, R. (1995). “The Vezo are not a kind of people”: Identity, difference, and “ethnicity” among a fishing people of western Madagascar. American ethnologist, 22(3), 464-482.
Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 11(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0036-2
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1994). Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. In Biodiversity conservation: Problems and policies. Papers from the Biodiversity Programme Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (pp. 269-287). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834-860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096
Bybee, R. W. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st century perspectives. NSTA press.
Chen, Y., Chow, S. C. F., & So, W. W. M. (2022). School-STEM professional collaboration to diversify stereotypes and increase interest in STEM careers among primary school students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(3), 556-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1841604
Cheng, P. J., Liao, Y. H., & Yu, P. T. (2021). Micro: bit Robotics Course: Infusing Logical Reasoning and Problem-Solving Ability in Fifth Grade Students Through an Online Group Study System. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.4844
Chiang, F. K., Zhang, Y., Zhu, D., Shang, X., & Jiang, Z. (2022). The influence of online STEM education camps on students’ self-efficacy, computational thinking, and task value. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(4), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09967-y
Chou, P. N. (2020). Using ScratchJr to foster young children’s computational thinking competence: A case study in a third-grade computer class. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 570-595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119872908
Code.org (2013). Hour of Code. https://hourofcode.com/us/zh/faq
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic press.
De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2022). Engaging Students with Integrated STEM Education: a Happy Marriage or a Failed Engagement?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(7), 1291-1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10159-0
Deng, W., Pi, Z., Lei, W., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, W. (2020). Pencil Code improves learners' computational thinking and computer learning attitude. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(1), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22177
Elaine Kao. (2010, October 25). Exploring Computational Thinking. Google Blog. https://ai.googleblog.com/2010/10/exploring-computational-thinking.html?hl=zh_CN
French Academy of Sciences. (2013). Teaching computer science in France, tomorrow can’t wait. https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/rads_0513gb.pdf
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York: Teachers College Press
Geertz, C. (1963). The integrative revolution: primordial sentiments and civil politics in the new states. Old societies and new states: The quest for modernity in Asia and Africa, 105-157.
Gloria Snively, & John Corsiglia.(2000). Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for Science Education. Science Education, 85, 6–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<6::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-R
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2022). Arduino-assisted robotics coding applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 108-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1812136
Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9612-x
HACIOĞLU, Y., & GÜLHAN, F. (2021). The effects of STEM education on the students’ critical thinking skills and STEM perceptions. Journal of Education in Science Environment and health, 7(2), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.771331
Hong, Z. R. (2010). Effects of a collaborative science intervention on high achieving students’ learning anxiety and attitudes toward science. International journal of science education, 32(15), 1971-1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903229304
Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2013). Boys’ and girls’ involvement in science learning and their self-efficacy in Taiwan. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 272-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.628673
Hong, Z. R., Lin, H. S., Wang, H. H., Chen, H. T., & Yang, K. K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students' attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.734935
Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16, 379-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2
Hu, C. C., Yeh, H. C., & Chen, N. S. (2020). Enhancing STEM competence by making electronic musical pencil for non-engineering students. Computers & Education, 150, 103840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103840
International Society for Technology in Education. (2023, April 2). Computational Thinking. https://www.iste.org/areas-of-focus/computational-thinking-in-the-classroom
Jenkins, T. (2002, August). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (Vol. 4, No. 2002, pp. 53-58).
Juškevičienė, A., Stupurienė, G., & Jevsikova, T. (2021). Computational thinking development through physical computing activities in STEAM education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22365
Kastner-Hauler, O., Tengler, K., Sabitzer, B., & Lavicza, Z. (2022). Combined effects of block-based programming and physical computing on primary students' computational thinking skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875382
Kutay, E., & Oner, D. (2022). Coding with Minecraft: The development of middle school students’ computational thinking. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 22(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3471573
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Miller, M. J., Cusick, M. E., Penn, L. T., & Truong, N. N. (2018). Predictors of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics choice options: A meta-analytic path analysis of the social–cognitive choice model by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of counseling psychology, 65(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000243
Levine, M., Serio, N., Radaram, B., Chaudhuri, S., & Talbert, W. (2015). Addressing the STEM gender gap by designing and implementing an educational outreach chemistry camp for middle school girls. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1639-1644. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500945g
Lu, S. Y., Lo, C. C., & Syu, J. Y. (2022). Project-based learning oriented STEAM: The case of micro–bit paper-cutting lamp. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2553-2575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09714-1
Luo, T., So, W. W. M., Li, W. C., & Yao, J. (2021). The development and validation of a survey for evaluating primary students’ self-efficacy in STEM activities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30, 408-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09882-0
McGill, T. J., & Volet, S. E. (1997). A conceptual framework for analyzing students’ knowledge of programming. Journal of research on Computing in Education, 29(3), 276-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1997.10782199
National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation (US). Directorate for Education, & Human Resources. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (Vol. 1). National Science Foundation, Division of Undergraduate Education.
National Science Foundation. (2005). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics talent expansion program (STEP). https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05519/nsf05519.pdf
Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. John Wiley & Sons.
Pewewardy, C. (2003). To be or not to be Indigenous: Identity, race, and representation in education. Indigenous Nations Studies Journal, 4(2), 69-91
Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., ... & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International journal of STEM education, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4
Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
Saygıner, Ş., & Tüzün, H. (2023). The effects of block‐based visual and text‐based programming training on students' achievement, logical thinking skills, and motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 644-658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12771
Sentance, S., Waite, J., Hodges, S., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. (2017, March). " Creating Cool Stuff" Pupils' Experience of the BBC micro: bit. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 531-536). https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017749
Shang, X., Jiang, Z., Chiang, F. K., Zhang, Y., & Zhu, D. (2023). Effects of robotics STEM camps on rural elementary students’ self-efficacy and computational thinking. Educational technology research and development, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10191-7
Siew, N. M., Goh, H., & Sulaiman, F. (2016). Integrating STEM in an engineering design process: The learning experience of rural secondary school students in an outreach challenge program. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(4), 477. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.477
Sigayret, K., Tricot, A., & Blanc, N. (2022, In press). Unplugged or plugged-in programming learning: A comparative experimental study. Computers & Education, 184, 104505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104505
Sysło, M. M. (2015, June). From algorithmic to computational thinking: On the way for computing for all students. In proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 1-1). https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742582
Tolbert, S. (2015). “Because they want to teach you about their culture”: Analyzing effective mentoring conversations between culturally responsible mentors and secondary science teachers of indigenous students in mainstream schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1325-1361. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21240
Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383-1395. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83676
Topalli, D., & Cagiltay, N. E. (2018). Improving programming skills in engineering education through problem-based game projects with Scratch. Computers & Education, 120, 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.011
Tsai, L. T., Chang, C. C., & Cheng, H. T. (2021). Effect of a STEM-Oriented Course on Students' Marine Science Motivation, Interest, and Achievements. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 134-145. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.134
UK Department for Education (2013). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. https://reurl.cc/MRVp74
Unal, A., & Topu, F. B. (2021). Effects of teaching a computer programming language via hybrid interface on anxiety, cognitive load level and achievement of high school students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5291-5309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10536-w
Vallera, F. L., & Bodzin, A. M. (2020). Integrating STEM with AgLIT (agricultural literacy through innovative technology): The efficacy of a project-based curriculum for upper-primary students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 419-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09979-y
Vihavainen, A., Airaksinen, J., & Watson, C. (2014, July). A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research (pp. 19-26). https://doi.org/10.1145/2632320.2632349
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Matewos, A. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Marsh, J. A. (2018). Motivational factors in makerspaces: a mixed methods study of elementary school students’ situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. International journal of STEM education, 5, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0129-0
Wang, C., Vemula, S., & Frye, M. (2020, August). Out-of-school time stem: Teach programming using python for high school girls. In 2020 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEC49744.2020.9397812
Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine, 6, 20-23. https://doi.org/10.4236/eng.2011.34046
Wing, J. (2017). Computational thinking’s influence on research and education for all. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/922
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
Yin, Y., Khaleghi, S., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2022). Developing effective and accessible activities to improve and assess computational thinking and engineering learning. Educational technology research and development, 70(3), 951-988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10097-w
Young, V. M., House, A., Wang, H., Singleton, C., & Klopfenstein, K. (2011, May). Inclusive STEM schools: Early promise in Texas and unanswered questions. In Highly Successful Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education: A Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies. Retrieved May (Vol. 1, p. 2014).
Zhou, S. N., Zeng, H., Xu, S. R., Chen, L. C., & Xiao, H. (2019). Exploring Changes in Primary Students' Attitudes towards Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) across Genders and Grade Levels. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(3), 466-480. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.466
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016