臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

程式設計在我們日常生活中可說是處處可見，在社會中也越來越重視程式設計，故將程式設計課程加入教育中也顯得越來越重要，但程式設計的教學並不是一件容易的事，學生排斥程式設計大多是因為對程式語言不熟悉、缺乏興趣，且對於缺乏邏輯思考訓練的學生來說，要面對程式設計更是一大難關。而要改善因為種種因素導致學習程式設計的成效降低，將會是一個值得探討的問題，因此本實驗將針對沒有程式設計相關經驗的學生做實驗。

實驗分為實驗組與對照組，其中對照組執行與以往程式設計課程類似的教學內容，而實驗組則加入Code Puzzle來了解學生對不同的教材介面是否會以不同的觀點來學習程式設計。且在Code Puzzle中，另外設計Type’n’Place與Drag’n’Drop兩種版本，探討學生對何種版本的學習效果較為顯著。結果顯示，自主利用Code Puzzle介面學習並不易取代傳統紙本教材，而易學易用的介面容易讓學生利用回饋效果來尋找答案，回饋效果雖然方便知道答案的正確與否，但過度利用卻會帶來反效果。本研究僅在比較不同教材介面的學習影響，在未來研究上，建議加入輔助學習或與課堂配合，以便更深入探討如何有效學習程式設計。

A program is seen everywhere in our daily routine, and it will be more and more attention in society. Therefore, It is very important to add the programming course to education, but programming teaching is not easy, student reject programming mostly because of the programming is unfamiliar and lack of interest, and for students who lack a logical training is face difficulties in programming. It will be a worthy of discussion to improve lower effectiveness because of various external factors, so this experiment aim to students who have non-experience of the programming.

The experiment have experimental group and control group, in which the control group performs teaching content similar to the previous programming course, and the experimental group will join the Code Puzzle to understand the students of different courseware interface will be different views to learn programming. We have two versions of Type’n’Place and Drag’n’Drop in Code Puzzle, and discuss the effective of two versions on students learning outcome. In the result, use of Code Puzzle to learning oneself is not easy to replace traditional courseware, however, students take advantage of the feedback features to find the answer with interface of easy to learn and use, the feedback features facilitate know the correctness of the answer, but overuse will be opposite effect. This study only compares the effect of different courseware interface on learning, in future research, proposals add in scaffolding or with the subject, in order to discuss how to learn programming.

目錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 VIII
第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
2.1學習程式設計的重要性 5
2.2自我效能的影響 7
2.3人機介面互動與視覺化工具對學習的幫助 9
2.4數位遊戲式學習 10
第三章 研究方法 12
3.1研究對象 12
3.2實驗設計 12
3.3實驗設備 14
3.3.1人機介面 14
3.3.2標準化教學內容 17
3.4實驗流程 19
3.5資料收集方法 21
3.6統計分析 23
第四章 研究結果分析與討論 24
4.1 邏輯能力差異 27
4.2 前測成績差異 28
4.3 後測成績差異 30
4.4 實驗組與對照組學習成效 31
4.4.1鍵盤操作 32
4.4.2滑鼠操作 33
4.4.3對照組 33
4.5 組間學習成效比較 34
4.5.1鍵盤操作與滑鼠操作的比較 35
4.5.2實驗組與對照組的比較 38
第五章 結論與建議 40
5.1結論 40
5.2建議 41
參考文獻 42
附錄一 受測者須知及實驗同意書 47
附錄二 邏輯能力測驗 48
附錄三 標準化教學內容 50
附錄四 程式碼練習題 53
附錄五 鍵盤與滑鼠版本操作流程 54

 
表目錄
表4.1 各實驗對象數據 24
表4.2 描述性統計 25
表4.3 邏輯測驗ANOVA 27
表4.4 前測結果ANOVA 29
表4.5後測結果ANOVA 31
表4.6 各組成對樣本t檢定結果 32
表4.7後減前成績差異ANOVA 34
表4.8前後成績差異Post Hoc多重比較 35
表4.9實驗組花費時間與拼圖次數描述性統計 36

 
圖目錄
圖1.1 Microsoft Visual C++介面示意圖 3
圖3.1 多人線上學習網架構圖 15
圖3.2 鍵盤操作示意圖 16
圖3.3 滑鼠操作示意圖 16
圖3.4標準化教學內容示意圖 18
圖3.5實驗流程圖 20
圖3.6實驗組與對照組比較之目的 23
圖4.1 前後測驗Q-Q圖 26
圖4.2邏輯分數平均數圖 28
圖4.3前測分數平均數圖 30
圖4.4後測分數平均數圖 31
圖4.5實驗組花費時間Q-Q圖 36
圖4.6實驗組拼圖次數Q-Q圖 37
圖4.7前後成績差異平均數圖 38

1.王吉源，「小學六年級學童學習程式設計對邏輯思考推理能力之影響」，康寧大學資訊傳播學系碩士班，碩士論文，2013。
2.王秋貴，「以ADDIE模式探討數位學習教材之教學設計-以國中程式語言教學為例」，南華大學資訊管理學系，碩士論文，2016。
3.李中正，「不同成就學生於模擬遊戲環境中程式學習效果之探究」，國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所，碩士論文， 2010。
4.邱瑞城，「引起主動學習的動機研究-以程式設計為例」，國立高雄應用科技大學資訊管理系碩士在職專班，碩士論文，2013。
5.林盟憲，「一個適用於個別練習之程式設計學習系統」，國立中山大學資訊管理研究所，碩士論文，2008。
6.林玉霞，「探討影響國小學童遊戲程式設計學習動機和學習成效之因素-以新北市某國小為例」，中華大學資訊管理學系碩士班，碩士論文，2016。
7.胡瑞城，「運用LEGO機器人輔助程式設計學習之研究」，國立嘉義大學教育科技研究所，碩士論文，2010。
8.郭士豪，「同儕教學法對國小學生學習Scratch程式設計之影響」，台北市立教育大學數學資訊教育教學碩士學位班，碩士論文，2011。
9.陳立奇，「e-Learning協作模式：以C語言程式設計為例」，東海大學資訊工程研究所，碩士論文，2015。
10.徐文俊，「數位遊戲融入Unity程式設計學習系統之建構與其成效之探討」，國立台南大學數位學習科技學系，博士論文，2017。
11.許書毓，「程式設計迷思概念診斷與矯正」，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學研究所，碩士論文，2016。
12.楊靜怡，「訓練方法與學習風格對程式設計學習成效的影響」，國立中正大學資訊管理研究所，碩士論文，2008。
13.楊士青，「高中生以Greenfoot學習Java程式設計的學習效果」，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學研究所，碩士論文，2013。
14.廖祐梓，「遊戲導向教材對高中生程式設計學習之影響」，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學研究所，碩士論文，2012。
15.劉偉晟，「對話輔助之程式設計學習系統」，崑山科技大學數位生活科技研究所，碩士倫文，2013。
16.Anthony Robins, Janet Rountree and Nathan Rountree, "Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion," Computer Science Education, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 137-172(2003).
17.Applin, A. G., "Second language acquisition and CS1," SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 174-178(2001).
18.Bandura, Albert, "Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change," Psychological review, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 191-215(1977).
19.Bandura, Albert and Daniel Cervone, "Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation," Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 92-113(1986).
20.Bandura, Albert, "Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy," Developmental psychology, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 729-735(1989).
21.Bandura, Albert, "Social cognitive theory of self-regulation," Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 248-287(1991).
22.Corritore, C. L. and Wiedenbeck, S., "What do novices learn during program comprehension?" International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 199-222(1991).
23.Davies, S. P., "Models and theories of programming strategy," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 237-267(1993).
24.Deek, F. P., Kimmel, H. and McHugh, J. A., "Pedagogical changes in the delivery of the first-course in computer science: Problem solving, then programming," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 8, No. 7, pp. 313-320(1998).
25.Du Boulay, B., "Some difficulties of learning to programming," Journal of Educational computing research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 57-73(1986).
26.Elliot Soloway, "Should we teach students to program," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 10, pp. 21-25(1993).
27.Hundhausen, C. D., Farley, S. F. and Brown, J. L., "Can direct manipulation lower the barriers to computer programming and promote transfer of training?: An experimental study," ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 1-40(2009).
28.Jenkins, T. and Davy, J., "Dealing with diversity in introductory programming," Paper presented at the Proceedings of 1st Annual LTSN-ICS Conference (2000).
29.Kasurinen, Jussi, Mika Purmonen and Uolevi Nikula, "A study of visualization in introductory programming," 20th Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group Conference(PPIG), (2008).
30.Kelleher, Caitlin and Randy Pausch, "Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers," ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.37, No. 2, pp. 83-137(2005).
31.Kölling Michael, Quig Bruce, Patterson Andrew and Rosenberg John, "The BlueJ system and its pedagogy," Computer Science Education, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 249-268(2003).
32.Kölling, Michael, "The greenfoot programming environment," ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 1-21(2010).
33.Linn, Marcia, C., "Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework," Journal of Science Education and technology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 103-126(1995).
34.Miller Philip, Pane John, Meter Glenn and Vorthmann Scott, "Evolution of novice programming environments: The structure editors of Carnegie Mellon University," Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 140-158(1994).
35.Paliokas, Ioannis, Christos Arapidis and Michail Mpimpitsos, "PlayLOGO 3D: A 3D interactive video game for early programming education: Let LOGO be a game," Third International Conference on. IEEE, 2011.
36.Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books. (1980).
37.Papert, S., The Children’s Machine, Basic Books, New York. (1993).
38.Piraye Bayman and Richard, E. Mayer, "A diagnosis of beginning programmers' misconceptions of BASIC programming statements," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 677-679(1983).
39.Prensky, Marc, "Digital game-based learning," Computers in Entertainment (CIE), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 21-24(2003).
40.Richard, E. Mayer, Jennifer, L. Dyck and William Vilberg, "Learning to program and learning to think: what’s the connection," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 605-610(1986).
41.Robertson, Judy and Cathrin Howells, "Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning," Computers & Education, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 559-578(2008).
42.Resnick, Mitchel., "All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten," Presented at Creativity & Cognition conference. (2007)
43.Schar, S. G., "The influence of the user interface on solving well- and ill-defined problems," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 1-18(1996).
44.Sedig, K., Klawe, M. and Westrom, M., "Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware," ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 34-59(2001).
45.Sorva, J., "Notional machines and introductory programming education," Trans. Comput. Educ., Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 1-31(2013).
46.Te'eni, D., "Direct manipulation as a source of cognitive feedback: a human-computer experiment with a judgement task," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 453-466(1990).
47.Tversky, R. A., "Creativity and Psychopathology," New York, NY: Praeyer (1980).
48.Wiedenbeck, S. and Ramalingam, V., "Novice comprehension of small programs written in the procedural and object-oriented styles," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 71-87(1999).