臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討擴增實境學習輔助及先備知識對八年級學生Scratch專題式遊戲創作的學習成效及學習動機之影響。本研究採因子設計之準實驗研究法，研究對象為八年級學生，有效樣本162人。自變項包含教學策略(演練範例、遊戲設計)、學習輔助型態(紙本學習單、AR學習單)與先備知識(高先備知識、低先備知識)；依變項包含學習成效(知識理解、知識應用)與學習動機(價值成分、期望成分)。
研究結果顯示：在學習成效方面，(1)就知識理解而言，高先備知識學習者的知識理解表現優於低先備知識學習者、學習輔助及教學策略各組學習者的知識理解表現無顯著差異；(2)就知識應用而言，教學策略×學習輔助二維交互作用達顯著水準，使用遊戲設計教學策略時，AR學習組的知識應用表現優於紙本學習組、使用AR學習單時，遊戲設計組的知識應用表現優於演練範例組；而且，學習輔助×先備知識二維交互作用也達顯著水準，使用紙本學習單為教學輔助時，高先備知識學習者的知識應用表現優於低先備知識學習者、低先備知識學習者使用AR學習輔助的知識應用表現優於紙本學習輔助。在學習動機方面，(3)各實驗組學習者對學習活動皆抱持正向動機表現、而且，AR學習組的學習動機表現優於紙本學習組、遊戲設計組的學習動機也優於演練範例組。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different instructional strategies, learning assistance tools and prior knowledge on junior high school students’ performance and motivation toward Scratch project-based game making. A quasi-experimental design was employed and the independent variables were types of instructional strategies, learning assistance tools and prior knowledge. The dependent variables were the students’ learning performance and motivation. The participants were eighth graders.
The results revealed that (a) for knowledge comprehension performance, high-prior knowledge group outperformed the low-prior knowledge group. , whereas there was no significant difference between the different instructional strategies group and learning assistance tools group; and (b) as for knowledge application, the interaction between instructional strategies and learning assistance tools is significant, the AR-learning assistance tool group outperformed the paper-learning assistance tool group while using the game-design learning instructional strategie, and the game-design learning instructional strategie group outperformed the working-examples instructional strategie group while using the AR-learning assistance tool; the interaction between learning assistance tools and prior knowledge is significant, the high-prior knowledge group outperformed the low-prior knowledge group while using the paper-learning assistance tool, and the AR-learning assistance tool is better than paper-learning assistance tool for low-prior knowledge learners; (c) as for learning motivation, all participants showed positive motivation toward the employed learning assistance tools and the augmented reality group revealed higher degree motivation than the paper group; and the game-design learning group revealed higher degree motivation than the working-examples group.

目錄
摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 v
附表目錄 vii
附圖目錄 ix
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與背景 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 研究範圍與限制 4
第四節 名詞釋義 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 程式設計學習 9
第二節 程式設計教學策略 11
第三節 擴增實境在程式設計的輔助 14
第三章 研究方法 17
第一節 研究對象 17
第二節 研究設計 18
第三節 研究工具 21
第四節 實驗流程 31
第五節 資料分析 32
第四章 結果與討論 37
第一節 Scratch程式設計學習成效表現 37
第二節 電腦學習動機表現 47
第五章 結論與建議 67
第一節 結論 67
第二節 建議 71
參考文獻 73
附錄 79
附錄一 演練範例組學習單 80
附錄二 遊戲設計組學習單 86
附錄三 Scratch程式設計學習成效測驗卷 95
附錄四 電腦學習動機問卷 100

教育部 (2016)。教育部2016-2020資訊教育總藍圖。臺北市：教育部。
Akcaoglu, M. (2014a). Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583-600.
Akcaoglu, M. (2014b). Teaching problem solving through making games: Design and implementation of an innovative and technology-rich intervention. In In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (597-604).
Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72-81.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Book Excerpt. George Lucas Educational Foundation.
Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 765-782.
Billinghurst, M. (2002). Augmented reality in education. New horizons for learning, 12.
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P. & Glaser, R. (1989). Self‐explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J. & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An Augmented Reality-based Mobile Learning System to Improve Students' Learning Achievements and Motivations in Natural Science Inquiry Activities. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352-365.
Clancy, M. (2004). Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. Computer Science Education Research, 85-100.
Du Boulay, B., O'Shea, T. & Monk, J. (1981). The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 14(3), 237-249.
Fowler, J. F., & Fedsim. (1983). Use of computer-assisted instruction in introductory management science. The Journal of experimental education, 52(1), 22-26.
Govender, I., & Grayson, D. (2006). Learning to program and learning to teach programming: A closer look. Media 2006 Proceedings, 1687-1693.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 18-29.
Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming environments for novices. Computer Science Education Research, 2004, 127-154.
Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school: Ablex Publishing.
Hohn, R. L., & Moraes, I. (1998). Use of rule-based elaboration of worked examples to promote the acquisition of programming plans. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38(2), 35-40.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Kafai, Y. B., & Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children's learning: Routledge.
Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M. S. & Dede, C. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers & Education, 68, 545-556.
Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26-39.
Kipper, G., & Rampolla, J. (2012). Augmented Reality: An emerging technologies guide to AR: Elsevier.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Linn, M. C. (1985). The cognitive consequences of programming instruction in classrooms. Educational Researcher, 14(5), 14-29.
Liu, P. H. E., & Tsai, M. K. (2013). Using augmented‐reality‐based mobile learning material in EFL English composition: An exploratory case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), E1-E4.
Malan, D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for budding computer scientists. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 223-227.
Marks, J., Freeman, W., & Leitner, H. (2001). Teaching applied computing without programming: A case-based introductory course for general education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 80-84.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of learning and motivation, 41, 85-139.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning: Cambridge university press.
Newkirk, R. L. (1973). A comparison of learner control and machine control strategies for computer‐assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 10(2), 82-91.
Nilsson, B., & Folkestad, G. (2005). Children's practice of computer-based composition 1. Music Education Research, 7(1), 21-37.
O'Neil Jr, H. F., Perez, R. S. & O'Neil, H. F. (2003). Technology applications in education: A learning view: Routledge.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas: Basic Books, Inc.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Thinking frames. Educational leadership, 43(8), 4-10.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators, 163-181.
Santos, M. E. C., Chen, A., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Miyazaki, J., & Kato, H. (2014). Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on learning technologies, 7(1), 38-56.
Sengupta, A. (2009). CFC (Comment-First-Coding)-A Simple yet Effective Method for Teaching Programming to Information Systems Students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(4), 393.
Seo, D. W., & Lee, J. Y. (2013). Direct hand touchable interactions in augmented reality environments for natural and intuitive user experiences. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(9), 3784-3793.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn: Macmillan.
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi delta kappan, 87(2), 105-111.
Shepherd, A., & Cosgrif, B. (1998). Problem-based learning: A bridge between planning education and planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(4), 348-357.
Shuell, T. (2001). Learning theories and educational paradigms.
Simon, H. A. (1995). Problem forming, problem finding and problem solving in design. Design & Systems, 245-257.
Sommerauer, P., & Müller, O. (2014). Augmented reality in informal learning environments: A field experiment in a mathematics exhibition. Computers & Education, 79, 59-68.
Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1986). Novice mistakes: Are the folk wisdoms correct? Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 624-632.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional science, 32(1), 9-31.
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education: ASCD.
Vickers, P. (2008). How to think like a programmer: Problem solving for the bewildered: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Vos, N., Van Der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 56(1), 127-137.