臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討應用App Inventor於程式設計教學之可行性及可能之問題。研究採用個案研究法，參與對象為某公立女子高中資訊科教師一名，及其授課班級的41名學生。藉由分析參與教師應用App Inventor教材之教學情形，來探討應用App Inventor於程式設計教學的效應及問題。本研究教學時間為五週，共進行五個單元，十節課。教學內容包括：程式設計簡介、變數、關係運算及條件判斷等基本概念。教學結束後進行成就測驗和問卷施測，並針對教師及隨機抽選的六名學生進行訪談。
研究結果顯示：(1)學生對使用App Inventor學習程式設計有興趣； (2）使用App Inventor有助於學生理解程式，但對程式撰寫則沒有顯著成效；(3)App Inventor程式指令分類複雜，易影響學生學習成效。針對研究結果，建議教師使用App Inventor於初學者之程式設計教學，以引起學生學習興趣；而在進行程式撰寫教學時，應注意指令分類，由淺入深的導入，以增進學生之學習成就感。建議未來研究可以發展更多類型的App範例、加入性別因素探討，亦或拉長教學的時間，讓學生能夠更深入且廣泛的學習程式設計概念及其應用。

This study aims to investigate the effects of using App Inventor to teach high school student programming. We implemented the case study method in this study. A case teacher and forty-one students, who enrolled in the teacher’s computer class, from a public high school participated in the study. Five programming units using App Inventor, including: introduction to programming, variables, relational operators and conditionals were designed and taught to students in a five-week period with a total of 10 hours.
Analysis from students’ performance test, answers on an attitude questionnaire, and interviews of both teacher and the students, revealed that: (1) App Inventor promoted the students’ learning interest on programming. (2) App Inventor helped student comprehend programs, but did not have effect on coding programs. (3) App Inventor’s complicated instruction sets may affect students’ performance on coding programs. We suggested that teachers can use App Inventor to promote students learning programming. However, instructional approaches should be careful designed to lessen the difficulty resulted from the instruction sets of App Inventor. Future research should develop more app examples, consider whether gender factor will affect learning, and increase the duration of experiment, so that the effects of using App Inventor to teach programming could be better understood.

表目錄 .................................... ii
圖目錄 .................................... iii
第一章 緒論 ............................ 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 .................... 1
第二節 研究目的 ............................ 3
第三節 研究範圍及限制 .................... 3
第二章 文獻探討 ............................ 4
第一節 程式設計學習的問題 .................... 4
第二節 視覺化程式設計環境 .................... 7
第三節 App Inventor應用於程式設計教學 .... 12
第三章 研究方法 ............................ 13
第一節 研究設計 ............................ 13
第二節 研究參與者 .................... 14
第三節 教學規劃 ............................ 15
第四節 研究工具 ............................ 20
第五節 研究步驟 ............................ 23
第六節 資料分析 ............................ 26
第四章 結果與討論 .................... 27
第一節 程式設計學習成就 .................... 27
第二節 程式設計學習態度 .................... 31
第三節 應用App Inventor於程式設計教學之情形 .... 35
第四節 教學的建議與改進 .................... 38
第五章 結論與建議 .................... 40
第一節 結論 ............................ 40
第二節 建議 ............................ 41
參考文獻 ............................ 43
附錄一 程式設計教材 ............................ 47
附錄二 程式設計活動問卷 .................... 70
附錄三 成就測驗試題 ............................ 71
附錄四 課堂觀察表 ............................ 72
附錄五 教師訪談問題 ............................ 73
附錄六 學生訪談問題 ............................ 73

吳正己（2010）。台灣中小學資訊科技教育的沿革與現況。中國教育技術協會資訊技術教育專業委員會第六屆學術年會暨海峽兩岸信息技術教育研討會論文集，（頁 7-11）。西安，中國。
吳正己與林凱胤（1997）。問題解決導向的程式語言教學。資訊與教育雜誌創刊十年特刊。頁 75-83。
吳正己與何榮桂（民87）。高級中學新訂電腦課程的內涵與特色。科學教育月刊（208），頁 26-32。
教育部（2009）。普通高級中學資訊科課程綱要補充說明。臺北: 教育部。
陳宏煒（2003）。高中電腦課程實施現況調查（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., Hvorecky, J., Kouchnirenko, A., &; Miller, P. (1997). Mini language: a way to learn programming principle. Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 65-83.
Costelloe, E. (2004). Teaching Programming The State of the Art. CRITE Technical Report.
Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming Enviroments for Novices. In Computer Science Education Research, 127-154.
Guzdial, M., &; Soloway, E. (2002). Teaching the Nintendo Generation to Program. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 17-21.
Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Science, 53-58.
Karakus, M., Uludag, S., Guler, E., &; Turner, S. W. (2012). Teaching Computing and Programming Fundamentals via App Inventor for Android. Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), 2012 International Conference on, 1-8.
Kelleher, C., &; Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the Barriers to Programming: A Taxonomy of Programming Environments and Languages for Novice Programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83-137.
Kölling, M. (2010). The Greenfoot Programming Enviroment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), Article No.14.
Malan, D. J., &; Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for Budding Computer Scientists. SIGCSE'07 Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 223-227 .
Mayer, E. R., Dyck, L. J., &; Vilberg, W. (1986). Learning to Program And Learning to Think:What’s the Connection? Communication of ACM, 29(7).
McDermott, R., Eccleston, G., &; Brindley, G. (2007). More Than A Good Story - Can You Really Teach Programming Through Storytelling? HE Academy for Information and Computer Science.
McKeithen, K. B., Reitman, J. S., Rueter, H. H., &; Hirtle, S. C. (1981). Knowledge organisation and skill differences in computer programmers. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 307-325.
Myller, N., Laakso, M., &; Korhonen, A. (2007). Analyzing engagement taxonomy in collaborative algorithm visualization. Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 251-255.
Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., . . . Velázquez-Iturbide , J. (n.d.). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. In Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 131-152. New York, NY, USA.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children,computers,and powerful ideas. NY,USA: Basic Books Inc.
Perkins, N. D., &; Martin, F. (1986). Fragile Knowledge and Neglected Strategies in Novice Programmers. Proceedings papers presented at the first workshop on the empirical of programmers, 213-229.
Powers, K., Ecott, S., &; Hirshfield, L. M. (2007). Through the Looking Glass: Teaching CS0 with Alice. SIGCSE '07 Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 213-217.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Hernández, A. M., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., . . . Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for Everyone. Communication of the ACM, 52(11).
Roy, K. (2012). App Inventor for Android: Report from a Summer Camp. SIGCSE '12 Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, 283-288.
Soloway, E. (1986). Learning To Program=Learning To Construct Mechanisms and Explanations. Communication of the ACM, 29(6).
Soloway, E. (1993). Should We Teach Students to Program? Communication of ACM, 36(10).
Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, J., &; Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch - A Discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4).
Valente, J. (1995). Logo as a window into the mind. Logo Update, 4(1).
West, M., &; Ross, S. (2002). Retaining females in computer science: A new look at a persistent problem. JCSC, 17(5), 1-7.
Wolber, D. (2011). App Inventor and Real-World Motivation. SIGCSE'11 Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, (pp. 601-606).