Scratch是美國麻省理工學院所發展的一套全新電腦圖形化程式語言，適合在電腦資訊領域中剛起步的初學者的電腦程式語言。在學習Scratch過程中訓練高層次的邏輯思考，讓學習 Scratch的學生可以建立電腦程式如何設計的觀念。然而，目前很少文獻同時討論性別與電腦自我效能此兩因素對學習Scratch的影響。本研究將透過研究性別與電腦自我效能對學生學習程式的影響。本研究實驗對象國中二年級308位學生，施以14 週Scratch程式教學，透過量化與開放式問卷的資料蒐集，對學習者在程式設計的學習上之電腦自我效能、性別及其程式學習成效進行探討。研究結果發現，學習者的Scratch 學習成就與性別上沒有差異，但在一些指令類別上會有差異;同時在電腦自我效能與學習成就之間具有相關性。最後電腦自我效能與性別，對於學習成就上，並無交互作用發生。

Scratch is a brand new graphical programming language developed by the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), which is suitable for the programming beginners. During the Scratch learning, learners can get a high-level logical thinking, so that using Scratch allows beginners such as young students to understand the logic of programming and how to creatively build a program. However, there are few researches simultaneously discussing the impacts of gender difference and computer self-efficacy on learning performance of Scratch. Therefore this research attempts to address these issues. The survey questionnaires were carried out by 308 8th- grade students, after 14-week Scratch program lessons. The statistical results found that gender does not significantly influence overall learning performance, but significantly influences the detailed instructions (e.g. loop instructions). Computer self-efficacy significantly influences the overall learning performance. But there is no interaction between gender and computer self-efficacy. Some implications limitations are also given.

目錄
摘　　要 ii
Abstract iii
誌　　謝 iv
目錄 vi
第一章　研究背景 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
第二章 參考文獻 3
2.1 Scratch介紹 3
2.2 Scratch相關研究及其內容 4
2.3性別對Scratch學習的影響 5
2.4電腦自我效能與對Scratch的學習的影響 8
2.5電腦自我效能與性別的交互影響 9
第三章 研究方法 11
3.1 教學環境與研究對象 11
3.2 研究變項 11
3.3 實驗流程 14
3.4 資料分析實驗流程 20
第四章 研究結果 22
4-1性別與程式學習 23
4-2 電腦自我效能與程式學習 24
4-3 交互作用 25
4-4 問卷反饋 27
第五章 結論與建議 37
5-1性別與程式學習 37
5-2電腦自我效能與程式學習 38
5-3 結論與限制 40
5-4 實務意涵 41
參考文獻 42
簡歷 48


表目錄
表3-1 成就測驗的試題 12
表3-2教學單元與相關程式學習概念 15
表4-1 程式指令與性別之t-test 22
表4-2電腦自我效能(CSE)與各項指令的One-Way ANOVA 24
表4-3 性別與電腦自我效能之two –way anova 25
表4-4 性別問卷 27
表4-5自我效能問卷 28
表4-6 開放性問卷 31
表4-7 開放性問卷2 33


圖目錄
圖2-1 Scratch操作介紹 4
圖3-1 學生操作程式結果 11
圖3-2 學生操作迴圈程式 11
圖3-3 研究架構圖 21

參考文獻
1.王秀鶯(2013) 。導入Scratch程式教學對國中生自我效能與學習成就之探究～以程式設計課程為例。人文社會學報，9(1)，1-15。
2.王國川（2008）。國小中年級學生以Scratch學習程式語言設計之研究。佛光大學學習與數位科技學系碩士論文。
3.呂麗儀(2009)。電腦自我效能與網路自我效能對資管系學生學習成效與工作選擇意圖之影響。明新科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
4.李一靜(2014)。資管系畢業生就業狀況之性別差異現象－以某科技大學為例。Journal of Information, Technology and Society
5.李月碧、何榮桂（2011）。透過網際網路縮減數位落差－以數位學伴為例。台灣教育，670，2-11。
6.李俊霖（2013）。運用程式模組輔助國小學童Scratch程式設計之研究。國立屏東教育大學資訊科學系碩士論文。
7.施美朱(2000)。國中生電腦學習成就相關因素之研究。台灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所。
8.洪詩玲(2010)。完成問題策略對基本程式概念教學的學習成效研究─以國小四年級學童為例。交通大學理學院科技與數位學習學程學位論文。1-93。
9.范家敏(2005)。高雄縣國小高年級學童電腦遊戲使用行為與電腦態度、電腦自我效能之相關研究。國立臺東大學教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
10.徐龍政(1995)。LOGO作為國小資訊課程初學者語言之適用性研究。臺東師院學報，1995年，6期，p.187~208
11.翁淑緣（2000）。影響國中學生電腦學習意願之個人特性探討。教育與心理研究，23，p147-172
12.張俊傑（2012）。Scratch程式語言教材設計與發展以國一數學直角座標及直線方程式為例。淡江大學教育科技學系數位學習碩士論文。
13.張素芬(2010)。視覺程式語言Scratch適性化教學之研究。國立新竹教育大學藝術與設計學系藝術教育與創作碩士班。
14.許惠美(2014)。國小女性學童互動遊戲設計偏好研究。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告期末報告。
15.郭士豪（2011）。同儕教學法對國小學生學習Scratch程式設計之影響。臺北市立教育大學數學資訊教育學系數學資訊教育教學碩士論文。
16.陳冠岑（2012）。以Scratch學習程式設計及其與學習者認知風格的關連性。國立交通大學理學院科技與數位學習學程
17.陳瑋婷（2011）。自我效能、學習策略與學業成就之關係研究：結合後設分析與結構方程模式。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，4（2），83-96。
18.麥孟生（2000）。個人心理類型、自我效能及態度對電腦學習成效之影響。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
19.程蘊嘉(1994)。性別、學科別對大學新生電腦學習態度之影響。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文。
20.黃健誌（2011）。Scratch軟體應用於國小高年級數學學習之研究-以平面座標單元為例。國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
21.楊建民（2010）。探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國小Scratch程式教學學習成效之研究。國立屏東教育大學碩士論文。
22.楊書銘（2008）。Scratch程式設計對六年級兒童邏輯推理能力、問題解決能力及創造力的影響。台北市立教育大學碩士論文。
23.賴健二(2004)。兒童視覺化中文程式語言之開發與研究。國立台北師範學院教育傳播與科技研究所碩士論文。
24.鍾仁貴（1999）。楷模類型對電腦技能學習的影響。臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系學位論文。
25.豐佳燕、陳明溥(2008)。國小學生學習電腦程式之研究-以Stagecast creator創作遊戲為例。GCCCE2008第十二屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會。
26.魏延超(2000)。教育學程學生對電腦態度及電腦素養之研究。中央大學資訊管理所碩士論文
27.Ah-Fur Lai. (2016). The Flow and Self Efficacy of Sixth Grade Students under Scratch Programming Learning, Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE), 2016 International Conference
28.B Gutiérrez San Miguel, ML Ibáñez Martínez, R Carcedo González, L M Bujosa Vadell, M del Pozo Pérez, F Martín Diz (2014): “Roles and Spanish media, a comparative study of three decades”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 69, pp. 213 to 228.
29.Brosnan, M., & Lee, W. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in computer attitudes and anxiety: The UK and Hong Kong. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (4), 559-577.
30.Cheng Weng Si. (2010). Gender Difference in the Use of Computer Software: Computer Self-Efficacy and Stereotype of Computer Software. SIGCSE Bulletin Inroads 1(4): 78-82.
31.Coffin, R. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Motivational influences on computer-related affective states. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 549-569.
32.Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A. (1995, June). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19, (2), 189-211.
33.du Boulay, B. (1989). Some diffi culties of learning to program. In E. Soloway & J. Spohrer (Eds.), Study- ing the novice programmer, 283-299..
34.Govender, I., Khumalo, S. (2014). Reasoned Action Analysis Theory as a Vehicle to Explore Female Students’ Intention to Major in Information Systems. Journal of Communication, 5(1), 35-44.
35.Grigoreanu, V., Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Cao, J., and Rector, K. (2009). Females'' and males'' end--user debugging strategies: A sensemaking perspective. Educational Technology & Society 13(7): 168-193.
36.Hasni, T. & Lodhi, F. (2011). Teaching Problem Solving more Effectively. SIGCSE Bulletin Inroads 2(3): 58-62.
37.Hong Kian Sam , Abang Ekhsan Abang Othman, Zaimuarifuddin Shukri Nordin (2005). Computer Self-Efficacy, Computer Anxiety, and Attitudes toward the Internet: A Study among Undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology & Society 8(4): 205-219.
38.I Govender. (2014) Increasing self-efficacy in learning to program: exploring the benefits of explicit instruction for problem solving. The Journal for Trans-disciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 10(1) July 2014, pp. 187-200.
39.Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Computer Usage. Omega, 23, (6), 587-605.
40.Jorde-Bloom, P. “Self-Efficacy Expectations as a Predictor of Computer Use: A Look at Early Childhood Administrators,” Computers in the Schools, 5 (1988), 45–63.
41.King, P.M., Kitchener, K, S., Davison, M.I.., Parker, C.A., &Wood, P.K. (1983) The justification of beliefs in young adult: A longitudinal study. Human Development, 26, p91-105.
42.Korkmaz, Ö. (2013). Students’ Difficulties in and Opinions about Designing Algorithms According to Different Instructional Applications. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies , 5(1), 209-218
43.Levine.（1997）Commitment to Learning: Effects of Computer Experience, Confidence and Attitudes Journal of Educational Computing Research. January 1, 1997
44.Maddrey, E. (2011). The Effect of Problem-Solving Instruction on the Programming Self-efficacy and Achievement. Dissertations and Theses. Nova Southeastern University, Florida, USA
45.Margaret Burnett et al, (2010). Gender Differences and Programming Environ- ments: Across Programming Populations. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Sympo- sium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM ’10). 28:1–28:10
46.Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Hsieh, Sulliran, & Guerra, (2007). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38
47.Murphy, C.A., Coover, D., & Owen, S.V. (1989). Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 893-899.
48.Ogletree and Williams.(1990). Sex and sex-typing effects on computer attitudes and aptitude. Sex Roles. December 1990, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 703–712.
49.Seturaman, Medley, Seturaman, S. & Medley, M.D. (2009). Age and Self-efficacy in Programming. Journal of Computer Sciences in Colleges, 25(2): 122-128.
50.Stephen Cooper、Wanda Dann、Randy Pausch(2000) Stephen Copper,Wanda Dann, Randy Pausch(2000). Alice: A 3-D Tool for Introductory Programming Concepts. JCSC, the Consortium for Computing in Small Colleges, 108-117.
51.Vennila Ramalingam, Deborah LaBelle, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2004. Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 36. ACM, 171–175.
52.Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415
53.Yang, T.C., Hwang, G.J., & Yang, S.J.H.*, Hwang, G.H. (2015). A Two-tier test-based approach to improving students’ computer programming skills in a Web-based learning environment, Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 198-210. (SSCI, IF: 0.824)
54.Young, T.P., 1995. Landscape mosaics created by canopy gaps, forest edges, and bush land glades. Selbyana 16, 127-134.
55.Yüksel İ (2012).The current developments in teacher education in Turkey on the threshold of European Union. Int. J. Humanities Soc. Sci. 2(8):49-56.
56.Zhang, Y., & Espinoza, S. (1998). Relationships among computer self-efficacy, attitudes toward computers, and desirability of learning computing skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 30 (4), 420-436.
57.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic Press.