臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

Scratch軟體的視覺化及拼圖式設計之介面，增加了程式設計的易學性，程式分享網站提供學習者知識累積及共創的平台，藉由現成範例的拆解、組合、重構和微調，初學者從仿效中學習程式概念，增加學習的自主和彈性。
本研究依學習者認知風格偏好的不同，將國中九年級受試學生分為場地獨立和場地依賴二組，以學生自學過程中的程式設計策略和解題行為來觀察其學習歷程，並以學習任務來檢測學習成效，探討個別差異在Scratch學習程式設計之影響。
根據本研究結果，得到下列結論：
一、不同認知風格學生，在Scratch學習程式設計，其設計策略沒有顯著差異，可能與範例式學習只需修改部分程式有關，所以採用的策略較不明顯，但場地獨立偏好之學習者較傾向Bottom-Up方式。
二、場地獨立偏好之學生，傾向使用解構的解題行為進行程式設計，於拆解和重組次數上較多，能從中瞭解程式概念。
三、在Scratch學習程式設計，不會因為認知風格偏好的差異而產生學習成效之不同。

Scratch, a visual and block-based programming language software, makes programming easy to learn. Websites of Scratch program sharing provide further knowledge and a discussion platform for students. With deconstructing, combination, reconstruction and fine tuning, beginners learn the concepts of programming by imitating and recombination. This approach encourages autonomy and flexibility in learning programming.
In this study, we collect data from 75 junior high school students for research by convenience sampling, and use Group Figure-Embedded Test (GFET) to measure the tendency of their cognitive style. We observe the learning process of the students in terms of their design strategy and program-solving behavior, evaluate their learning achievements based on a design tasks, as well as investigate the individual differences.
Based on the result of experiment, our primary findings are as follows:
a. Different cognitive styles show no relationship with design strategy. This may result from the fact that the students need only to modify others’ program. However, the learners with Field Dependence tendency usually use the Bottom-Up approach.
b. The students with Field Dependence tendency express problem-solving behavior of deconstruction in programming, show higher frequency of breaking down modules and recombination, and find out more concepts of programming.
c. Cognitive Styles have no relationship with learning achievements in program design of Scratch.

摘 要 i
ABSTRACT iii
誌 謝 v
目 錄 vi
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 ix
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 研究問題 4
1.4 名詞定義 4
1.5 研究範圍與限制 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1 程式設計 6
2.1.1 程式設計的重要性 6
2.1.2 程式設計的工具 7
2.1.3 範例式學習 18
2.1.4 程式設計策略 20
2.2 Scratch的特色 23
2.2.1 視覺、拼圖式程式設計介面 23
2.2.2 拆解、重組程式解題方式 25
2.2.3 範例式學習－觀察、模仿 27
2.2.4 自主學習 29
2.3 認知風格 31
2.3.1認知風格定義 31
2.3.2認知風格分類 32
第三章 研究方法與設計 39
3.1 研究架構 39
3.2 研究對象 40
3.3 研究工具 41
3.4 實驗設計 50
第四章 資料分析 52
4.1 描述性統計分析 52
4.2使用Scratch軟體學習程式設計時，不同認知風格學習者，在設計策略上是否有差異性？ 54
4.3使用Scratch軟體學習程式設計時，不同認知風格學習者，在解題行為上是否有差異性？ 60
4.4使用Scratch軟體學習程式設計時，不同認知風格學習者，其學習成效是否有差異性？ 67
第五章 結論與建議 68
參考文獻 69

中文文獻
王鼎中、丘聖光、林淑玲、梅文慧、林美娟(2009)。創新程式設計課程與教學模式之研發。論文發表於中華民國第二十四屆科學教育學術研討會，台北市。
朱君怡(2010)。動畫式教學策略對學生創意能力與電腦態度之影響：以物件導向程式設計為例。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文。
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。
何昱穎、許靜坤、王一成、林育伶(2011)。視覺化程式語言之遊戲式數位學習活動設計與評估。資訊教育學門與科學教育學門99年度專題計畫聯合成果討論會議。
林輝鐸，莊桓綺，陳怡琴，羅珮妤，鄭郁蝶(2010)。3D動畫學習環境－以電腦程式語言學習對比學習時間與學習成效之研究。全球商業經營管理學報。頁45-54。
林曉薇(2010)。維新或危機？－論Web2.0及其對教育研究之意涵。臺北市立教育大學學報，41(1)，171-198。
許宏彰(2005)。國小學童LOGO語言程式設計思維歷程之研究。國立臺北教育大學數學教育研究所碩士論文。
許麗玲(2000)。認知風格在虛擬實境遠距學習遷移之影響。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文。
許梅君(2008)。不同演練範例呈現對高職生程式設計學習之影響。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文。
黃文聖（2001）。國小學童在Logo學習環境中數學學習與解決之研究。國立新竹師範學院數理研究所碩士論文。
游朝煌(1995)。大學學生空間能力、邏輯思考能力、不同補充教學策略及相關因素對程式設計學習成效影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文。
張素芬(2010)。視覺程式語言Scratch適性化教學之研究。論文發表於新竹教育大學舉辦之2010電腦與網路科技在教育上的應用研討會，新竹縣。
羅芝芸（1998）。兒童認知風格、情緒智力與問題解決能力之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系碩士班碩士論文。

英文文獻
Adams, L. S. (1996). Semiotics2: Structuralism and post-structuralism. The methodologies of art（pp.162-178）. Colorado: Westview Press.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Carnegie Mellon University (2006). Press release: Carnegie Mellon collaborates with EA to revolutionize and reinvigorate computer science education in the US. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http://www.alice.org/simsannounce.html
Catherine, B. C. (1992). Field Independence and programming achievement: A Meta-Analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 348983).
Clark, C., & Yinger, R. (1979). Research on teacher planning, a progress report. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11 (11), 175-7.
Clements, D.H. (1991) Enhancement of Creativity in Computer Environments,American Educational Research Journal, 28, pp. 173-187.
Clements, D.H. & Gullo, D.F. (1984). Effects of Computer Programming on Young Children’s Cognition, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 1051-1058.
Costelloe, E. (2004). Teaching Programming The State of the Art. CRITE Technical Report.
Cronbach,L.J. & Snow,R.E.(1977). Aptitudes and instructional method. New York: Irvington.
Curry, J. A.(1983). On the formation of polar continental air, J. Atmos. Sci., 40, 2279–2292.
Driver, R.& Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education,13,105-122.
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.
Goldstein, K. M., & Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style: Five approaches and research. New York: Wiley.
Jeroen J. G, V, Merrienboer & Hein P. M. Krammer(1987). Instructional strategies and tactics for the design of introductory computer programming courses in high school. Instructional Science, 16, 251-285.
Jonassen, D. H. (1993, April). Effects of semantic network versus production rule representation on structural knowledge. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols.1–2). New York: Norton.
Kuchinskas, G. (1979). Whose cognitive style makes the difference? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 269-271.
Kurtz, T. E. (1981). BASIC in ACM, History of Programming Languages.
Kuhlen, R. G. (1968). Developmental changes in motivation during the adult years. In B. L.
Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging (pp. 115-1 36). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189.
Malan, D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for Budding Computer Scientists. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education.
Many, W. A., Lockard, J., Abrams, P. D., & Friker, W.(1988). The effect of learning to program in Logo on reasoning skills of junior high school students. Journal of Computing Research., 4(2), 203-213.
Mayer, R. E. & Fay, A. L. (1987). A chain of cognitive changes with learning to program in logo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 269-279.
Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in Learning. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass, 4-33.
Neisser, U.(1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian journal of psychology, 45(3), 255-287.
Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. A. (2001). The structure and reliability of Riding’s congnitive style analysis test. Conference 2001 of the European Learning Styles Information Network, University of Glamorgan, UK.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Rayner & Riding.(1998).Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behavior. London: David Fulton Publishers,19-36.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., . . . Kafai, Y. (2009, Nov.). Scratch－Programming for Everyone. Communications of the ACM, 52, 60-67.
R. Mancy and N. Reid.(2004). Aspects of cognitive style and programming. In E. Dunican and T. Green, editors, Proc. of the 16th Workshop of the Psycology of Programming Interest Group, 1–9.
Richardson, A. (1977) Verbaliser-Visualiser: A Cognitive Style Dimension, Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, pp. 109-126.
Riding, R.J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles - An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.
Shafto, S. A. S. (1986), Programming for learning in mathematics and science, ACM SIGCSE　　Bulletin, 18(1), 296-302.
Sweller, J.. & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59-89.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in a society. Cambridge: Harvard University of Chicago Press.
Wardell, D. & Royce, J. R. (1978). Relationships between cognitive and temperament traits and the concept of “style”. Journal of Multivariate Experimental Personality and Clinical Psychology, 1, 244–266.
Webb, N. M. (1984). Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive requirements and group processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1076-1088.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy: A psychological overview. SIGCSE Bulletin, 28, 17-22.
Witkin,H.A., Moore,C.A., Goodenough,D.R. & Cox,P.W.(1977). Field dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.