臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在電腦科學教育文獻中，許多研究證明雙人合作程式設計是有效的教學策略，其能降低程式錯誤、提升程式品質、縮短專案完成時間、以及增加學習者信心。雙人合作程式設計更發展成另一種學習方法，即遠端雙人合作程式設計，兩位學習者可在不同地點共同撰寫程式。因其成效難以控制而不使用於教學課程中，研究上雖有正向成果，多是單次、特定單元、或是小樣本的實驗。再者，許多認知負荷與程式學習之相關研究的學習形式上多針對合作或是個人學習上，鮮少學者對雙人合作學習進行認知負荷方面的測量，更未運用於遠距雙人合作程式設計中，也無學者進行三種教學策略在認知負荷上的比較。
44位受測者於程式設計課程中歷經三階段不同形式之學習活動，使用視覺化程式語言StarLogo TNG完成程式題目。一為在單人完成程式設計題目時；二為安排以面對面的形式進行傳統雙人合作程式設計；三為在遠距情況下安排雙人合作程式設計。最後記錄三種情況的認知負荷數據，在最後階段蒐集學生撰寫程式過程中的對話紀錄，使用交談分析方法並歸納出可能的特定行為樣式。根據統計結果顯示，學習者偏好傳統雙人合作程式設計，而遠距雙人合作形式其認知負荷與個人情形差異不大。對話紀錄進行編碼後發現，剛開始的四分之一時間中多在處理solar energy物件；小於第二四分位數的四分之一時間則相對其他物件的部分是heat物件部分較多；小於第三四分位數的四分之一時間很明顯地處理setup物件部分；最後四分之一時間中則處理runtime物件。

Research results from computer science education show that pair programming is an effective teaching strategy. For it can reduce programming errors, improve the quality of programming, shorten the project timing, and make learners feel more confident. Pair programming can also be developed to another way of learning, which is distributed pair programming, two learners can perform pair programming at different places. But because the results are hard to control, distributed pair programming is rarely being used in teaching programs, even though there are some positive outcomes from research results, these outcomes are mostly from short term, specific, or small sample researches. Furthermore, most of the studies of cognitive load and learning programming are focus on teamwork or single person, studies of cognitive load and learning programming on pair programming are hard to find, and none of those studies is designed for distributed pair programming, nor the comparison between three different types of teaching strategy.
The study compares the cognitive loads for the visual programming language, called StarLogo TNG, under three circumstances that is alone, pair programming, and distributed pair programming with 44 subjects. During the experiment, we recorded the data from those three circumstances, collected the conversations between students during the coding process, and used conversation analysis to conduct to possible behavior patterns. The experimental results show that learners prefer pair programming to designing programs alone, and there is no significant difference between the individual programming and distributed pair programming. The result of encoded conversation dialog shows that the first quarter of the time, subjects are mostly dealing with solar energy object; the second quarter of the time is heat object; the third quarter is setup object; and the final quarter is runtime object.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝 iv
目錄 v
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 ix
第一章 緒論 - 1 -
第一節、 研究背景與動機 - 1 -
第二節、 研究目的 - 4 -
第三節、 研究問題 - 4 -
第四節、 研究限制 - 5 -
第五節、 論文架構 - 5 -
第六節、 名詞解釋 - 6 -
一、 視覺化程式語言 (Visual Programming Language) - 6 -
二、 雙人合作程式設計(Pair Programming) - 6 -
三、 認知負荷(Cognitive Load) - 6 -
第二章 文獻探討 - 7 -
第一節、 視覺化程式語言 - 7 -
一、 視覺化程式語言之特性 - 7 -
二、 視覺化程式語言介紹與相關文獻 - 7 -
三、 視覺化程式語言應用領域 - 9 -
第二節、 雙人合作程式設計 - 10 -
一、 雙人合作程式設計定義與相似詞 - 10 -
二、 雙人合作程式設計優點 - 13 -
三、 雙人合作程式設計缺點 - 14 -
四、 雙人合作程式設計之人員配對 - 15 -
五、 雙人合作程式設計之相關研究 - 16 -
第三節、 遠距雙人合作程式設計 - 18 -
一、 遠距雙人合作程式設計定義與優點 - 18 -
二、 遠距雙人合作程式設計缺點 - 18 -
三、 應用於遠距雙人合作程式設計工具介紹 - 19 -
第四節、 認知負荷 - 22 -
一、 認知負荷理論與定義 - 22 -
二、 認知負荷分類 - 24 -
三、 認知負荷的衡量 - 26 -
四、 認知負荷相關文獻 - 27 -
第三章 研究方法 - 29 -
第一節、 研究流程 - 29 -
第二節、 研究工具 - 30 -
一、 StarLogo TNG視覺化程式語言 - 30 -
二、 認知負荷問卷 - 33 -
第三節、 前導實驗 - 35 -
一、 錄影觀察視覺化語言之雙人合作程式設計過程 - 35 -
二、 遠端雙人合作程式設計互動觀察 - 39 -
第四節、 實驗設計 - 41 -
一、 實驗對象及環境 - 41 -
二、 程式設計題目 - 41 -
三、 實驗流程 - 42 -
第五節、 資料處理 - 44 -
第四章 實驗結果與分析 - 47 -
第一節、 量化分析 - 47 -
一、 三階段學習活動之認知負荷分析 - 47 -
二、 三階段學習活動之認知負荷與程式課程成績的相關性 - 49 -
三、 性別與三階段學習活動之認知負荷分析 - 50 -
四、 角色與三階段學習活動之認知負荷分析 - 51 -
第二節、 質性分析 - 53 -
一、 對話紀錄分析 - 53 -
二、 程式設計題目等級與分時對話樣式分析 - 56 -
第五章 討論 - 59 -
第六章 結論與未來發展 - 61 -
第一節、 結論 - 61 -
第二節、 未來發展 - 62 -
參考文獻 - 64 -
附件 - 74 -

中文部分
李有仁、鄭江宇、嚴秀茹、林旭峰（2009）。雙人編程環境下人格特質與編程績效關係之研究。資訊管理學報，16（3），143-170。
李佩玲、王俊權、吳志宏、陳金宏（2014）。體感互動電腦遊戲應用於特殊需求學生之體育課程設計。特殊教育與輔助科技，41-45。
林均恒、洪文麟、張智凱（2013）。將模擬系統移轉至視覺化程式語言環境之建置對照─以StarLogo TNG為建置工具。TANET2013臺灣網際網路研討會，1-6。
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，（2），45-54。
涂金堂（2012）。應用認知負荷理論的數學解題教學實驗。國立屏東教育大學學報，38，227-256。
翁嘉鴻（2001）。以認知負荷觀點探討聽覺媒體物件之媒體呈現方式對學習成效之影響。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
張文奇（2009）。視覺化程式設計對國小兒童高層次思考能力之影響。臺北市立教育大學自然科學系碩士班碩士論文。
郭秀緞（2005）。以認知負荷的觀點探討數學問題設計的適切性。教育研究，13，169-182。
郭璟諭（2003）。媒體組合方式與認知型態對學習成效與認知負荷之影響。國立中央大學資訊管理學所碩士論文。
陳彙芳、范懿文（2000）。認知負荷對多媒體電腦輔助學習成效之影響研究。資訊管理研究，2（2），45-60。
黃克文（1996）。認知負荷與個人特質及學習成就之關聯。國立臺北教育大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
黃馨誼、陳又菁（2013）。學習風格與教材呈現對學習成效與認知負荷影響之研究。第九屆知識社群國際研討會，261-272。
葉子榕、陳明璋（2009）。激發式動態教學對學習成效與認知負荷影響之研究(Doctoral dissertation)。國立交通大學科技與數位學習學程所碩士論文。
鄭晉昌（1997）。視覺思考及科學概念的獲取-設計與發展電腦輔助視覺學習環境。教學科技與媒體，（33），20-27。
賴明宏（2010）。Scratch 程式對國小五年級學童邏輯推理能力與科學問題解決能力影響之研究。國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士論文。
 
英文部分
Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., & Sjoberg, D. I. (2007). Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 33(2), 65-86.
Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., & Sjoberg, D. I. (2007). Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 33(2), 65-86.
Baheti, P., Gehringer, E., & Stotts, D. (2002). Exploring the efficacy of distributed pair programming. In Extreme Programming and Agile Methods—XP/Agile Universe 2002 (pp. 208-220). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2008, October). Pair programming: what's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 120-128). ACM.
Booth, T., & Stumpf, S. (2013). End-user experiences of visual and textual programming environments for Arduino. In End-User Development (pp. 25-39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Bossavit, B., & Pina, A. (2013). An interdisciplinary methodology for designing and implementing educational tools for children and youth with special needs. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, (105), 4-8.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. Routledge.
Braught, G., Wahls, T., & Eby, L. M. (2011). The case for pair programming in the computer science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(1), 2.
Bresson, J., Agon, C., & Assayag, G. (2011). OpenMusic: visual programming environment for music composition, analysis and research. InProceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 743-746). ACM.
Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.
Bryant, S. E. (2005). The impact of peer mentoring on organizational knowledge creation and sharing an empirical study in a software firm. Group & Organization Management, 30(3), 319-338.
Bryant, S., Romero, P., & du Boulay, B. (2008). Pair programming and the mysterious role of the navigator. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 519-529.
Canfora, G., Cimitile, A., Di Lucca, G. A., & Visaggio, C. A. (2006). How distribution affects the success of pair programming. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 16(02), 293-313.
Cao, L., & Xu, P. (2005). Activity patterns of pair programming. InSystem Sciences, 2005. HICSS'05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 88a-88a). IEEE.
Carver, J. C., Henderson, L., He, L., Hodges, J., & Reese, D. (2007). Increased retention of early computer science and software engineering students using pair programming. In Software Engineering Education & Training, 2007. CSEET'07. 20th Conference on (pp. 115-122). IEEE.
Chang, S. K., Burnett, M. M., Levialdi, S., Marriott, K., Pfeiffer, J. J., & Tanimoto, S. L. (1999). The future of visual languages. In Visual Languages, IEEE Symposium on (pp. 58-58). IEEE Computer Society.
Chong, J., & Hurlbutt, T. (2007). The social dynamics of pair programming. In Software Engineering, 2007. ICSE 2007. 29th International Conference on (pp. 354-363). IEEE.
Coman, I. D., Sillitti, A., & Succi, G. (2008). Investigating the usefulness of pair-programming in a mature agile team. In Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (pp. 127-136). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 40-95.
da Silva Estácio, B. J., & Prikladnicki, R. (2015). Distributed Pair Programming: A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology, 63, 1-10.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Elsevier Science, Inc.: New York.
Dyba, T., Arisholm, E., Sjoberg, D. I., Hannay, J. E., & Shull, F. (2007). Are two heads better than one? On the effectiveness of pair programming. Software, IEEE, 24(6), 12-15.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78(7), 674-681.
Flannery, L. P., Silverman, B., Kazakoff, E. R., Bers, M. U., Bontá, P., & Resnick, M. (2013, June). Designing scratchjr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 1-10). ACM.
Frick, L. (1980). Peer tutors: The peerless resource. VocEd, 5(8), 28-29.
Fronza, I., Sillitti, A., & Succi, G. (2009). An interpretation of the results of the analysis of pair programming during novices integration in a team. In Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 225-235). IEEE Computer Society.
Goode, J., & Chapman, G.(2013). Exploring Computer Science (version 5.0). Los Angeles : The ECS Team.
Gorla, N., & Lam, Y. W. (2004). Who should work with whom?: building effective software project teams. Communications of the ACM,47(6), 79-82.
Hanks, B. (2005). Student performance in CS1 with distributed pair programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 316-320.
Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. (2009). The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology, 51(7), 1110-1122.
Hulkko, H., & Abrahamsson, P. (2005). A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering (pp. 495-504). ACM.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Polity.
Jeffries, R., Turner, A. A., Polson, P. G., & Atwood, M. E. (1981). The processes involved in designing software. Cognitive skills and their acquisition,255, 283.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Prentice-Hall, Inc..
Katira, N., Williams, L., & Osborne, J. (2005). Towards increasing the compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering (pp. 625-626). ACM.
Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. Jama, 263(10), 1321-1322.
Li, Z., & Kraemer, E. (2014). Social effects of pair programming mitigate impact of bounded rationality. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 385-390). ACM.
Mauldin, M. L. (1994). Chatterbots, tinymuds, and the turing test: Entering the loebner prize competition. In AAAI, 94, 16-21.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90-95.
Murphy, L., Fitzgerald, S., Hanks, B., & McCauley, R. (2010). Pair debugging: a transactive discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 51-58). ACM.
Myers, B. A. (1986). Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization: a taxonomy. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin,17(4), 59-66.
Nawrocki, J., & Wojciechowski, A. (2001). Experimental evaluation of pair programming. European Software Control and Metrics (Escom), 99-101.
Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86(1), 122.
Preston, D. (2005). Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: a review of the research. Journal of Computing Sciences in colleges, 20(4), 39-45.
Repenning, A. (2011). Making programming more conversational. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2011 IEEE Symposium on (pp. 191-194). IEEE.
Rosen, E., Salinger, S., & Oezbek, C. (2010). Project Kick-off with Distributed Pair Programming‖. In Workshop of Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Madrid.
Rosen, E., Salinger, S., & Oezbek, C. (2010). Project Kick-off with Distributed Pair Programming‖. In Workshop of Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Madrid.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). G. Jefferson (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Salinger, S., Plonka, L., & Prechelt, L. (2008). A coding scheme development methodology using grounded theory for qualitative analysis of pair programming. Human Technology, 4 (1), 9-25.
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2011). Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 37(4), 509-525.
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., Grundy, J., & Burch, G. S. J. (2010). An empirical study of the effects of conscientiousness in pair programming using the five-factor personality model. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1 (pp. 577-586). ACM.
Sillitti, A., Succi, G., & Vlasenko, J. (2012, June). Understanding the impact of Pair Programming on Developers Attention. In Proceedings of the ICSE2012 Conference, Zurich, Switzerland.
Smith, D. C. (1977). Pygmalion: a computer program to model and stimulate creative thought (Vol. 40). Birkhauser.
Sweller, J. (1988). “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving : Effects on Learning,” Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1989). “Cognitive Technology: Some Procedures for Facilitating Learning and Problem Solving in Mathematics and Science,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 457-466.
Sweller, J. (1990). “On the Limited Evidence for The Strategies,” Journal for Research in Mathematice Education, 21(5), 411-415.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tabatabaee, S. M., Rajabpour, M., Abdoos, F., Malekirad, A., & Samadi, F. (2013). The impacts of individual and collaborative learning of worked out examples on problem-solving transference and cognitive load. Advances in Applied Science Research, 4(6).
Utley, C. A. (1997). Peer-Mediated Instruction and Interventions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(5), 1-23.
Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1996). Computers and reasoning through talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 10(1), 47-64.
Wendel, D. J. (2006). Design and editing 2.5-dimensional terrain in StarLogo TNG (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Werner, L., & Denning, J. (2009). Pair programming in middle school: What does it look like?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 29-49.
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The Fairy Performance Assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 215-220). ACM.
Wierwille, W. W. & Egg meier, F. L. (1993). “ Recommendations for Mental Workload Measurement in a Test and Evaluation Environment,” Human Factor, 35, 263-281.
Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2000). All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communications of the ACM,43(5), 108-114.
Williams, L., Layman, L., Osborne, J., & Katira, N. (2006). Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. In Agile Conference, 2006 (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Yousoof, M., Sapiyan, M., & Ramasamy, K. (2008). Proposed framework to manage cognitive load in computer program learning. InProceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Artificial intelligence, knowledge engineering and data bases (pp. 50-55). World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS).
Zacharis, N. Z. (2011). Measuring the Effects of Virtual Pair Programming in an Introductory Programming Java Course. IEEE Transactions on Education,54(1), 168-170.
Zhang, L., Ayres, P., & Chan, K. (2011). Examining different types of collaborative learning in a complex computer-based environment: A cognitive load approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 94-98.