第五章 結論與建議
第二節 未來研究建議
二、 英文部份
Adams, J. C. (2010). Scratching middle schoolers' creative itch. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Anderson, J. R. (1996). The architecture of cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Baxendell, B.W.（2003）Consistent, coherent, creative: The 3 C's of graphic organizers.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(3), 46-53.
Ben-Ari, M. (1998). Constructivism in computer science education. Proceedings of the twenty-ninth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 261).
Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academies Press.
Bromley, K. D., Irwin-DeVitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995). Graphic organizers: Visual strategies for active learning. Scholastic Professional Books.
Bruner, J. S. (1974). Toward a theory of instruction: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education: Harvard University Press.
Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., Hvorecky, J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997).
Mini-languages: a way to learn programming principles. Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 65–83.
Chitsaz, M. (2011). Scratch as the first programming language: tutorial presentation. J.
Comput. Small Coll., 26(3), 102-103.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (1997). Research on Logo: A decade of progress. Logo: A retrospective, 9–46.
120
CSTA. (2009). # Level I Course: Foundations of Computer Science (Objectives and Outlines). Computer Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/L1-Objectives-and-Outlines.pdf
DeMatteo, R.W. (2010), Informing practice: a model approach to problem solving,Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 16, (3), 132-135.
Du Boulay, B. (1989). Some difficulties of learning to program. Studying the novice programmer, 283–299.
Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with "scratch" on future teachers' opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education.
Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education - ITiCSE '09 (pp. 258). Symposium conducted at the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference, Paris, France.
doi:10.1145/1562877.1562957
Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving.
Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 363–407.
Funkhouser, C. (1993). The Influence of Problem Solving Software on Student Attitudes about Mathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 339–346.
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Little, Brown Boston.
Gans, P. (2010). The benefits of using scratch to introduce basic programming concepts in the elementary classroom: poster session. J. Comput. Small Coll., 25(6), 235-236.
Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249–279.
Govender, I., & Grayson, D. (2006). Learning to program and learning to teach
121
programming: A closer look. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2006-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp.
1687–1693).
Hatch, L. (1988). Problem solving approach. Instructional strategies for technology education, 37, 89.
Holmes, G., & Smith, T. C. (1997). Adding some spice to CS1 curricula. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 29(1), 204–208.
Hyerler, D. (1996). Thinking maps:Seeing is Understanding. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 85-89.
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Association for supervision and Curriculum Development, 187.
Jonassen, D. H., & others. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Merrill.
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83–137.
Keppens, J., & Hay, D. (2008). Concept map assessment for teaching computer programming. Computer Science Education, 18(1), 31–42.
Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1996). The new sourcebook for teaching reasoning and problem solving in junior and senior high school. Allyn and Bacon.
Lambiott, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., & Reynolds, S. B.（1989）.Multi relational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1（4） ,331-367.
Lewis, C. M. (2010). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: logo vs. scratch. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Malan, D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for budding computer scientists. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, SIGCSE '07 (pp. 223–227).
122
Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Portland, OR, USA.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Miller, T. L., & MacQueen, C. (1998). Graphic organizers.
Teaching PreK-8, 28,46–48.
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), 84.
Mayer, R. E. (1981). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 13(1), 121–141.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Teaching for Transfer of Problem–Solving Skills to Computer Programming. Computer-based learning environments and problem solving, 193–206.
Mead, J., Gray, S., Hamer, J., James, R., Sorva, J., Clair, C. S., & Thomas, L. (2006). A cognitive approach to identifying measurable milestones for programming skill acquisition. SIGCSE Bull., 38(4), 182-194. doi: 10.1145/1189136.1189185
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2010). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2005). Assessing science understanding:
A human constructivist view. Academic Press.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional science, 19(1), 29–52.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge Univ Pr.
123
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2007). Programming Osmosis:Knowledge Transfer from Imperative to VisualProgramming Environments. In S. Mann & N. Bridgeman(Eds.), Procedings of The Twentieth Annual NACCQ Conference (pp. 209-215). Hamilton, New Zealand.
Perkins, D. N., & Martin, F. (1986). Fragile knowledge and neglected strategies in novice programmers. Empirical studies of programmers (pp. 213–229).
Perkins, D. N., Schwartz, S., & Simmons, R. (1988). Instructional strategies for the problems of novice programmers.
Pólya, G., & Conway, J. H. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method.
Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ.
Pratt, D. (1994). Curriculum planning: A handbook for professionals. Harcourt Brace College.
Prensky, M. (2008). Programming: The new literacy. Edutopia Magazine. Retrieved on June 27, 2011, from http://www.edutopia.org/programming.
Reed, W. M., Palumbo, D. B., & Stolar, A. L. (1988). The comparative effects of BASIC and Logo instruction on problem-solving skills. Computers in the Schools, 4(3), 105–118.
Reichert, R., Nievergelt, J., & Hartmann, W. (2001). Programming in schools–why, and how? Jacquesson, Alain (Hrsg.): Enseigner l’informatique, 143–152.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J. Silverman, B., Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch:
programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.
Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics & learning. Citeseer.
Rist, R. S. (1995). Program structure and design. Cognitive Science, 19(4), 507–561.
124
Rist, R. S. (1996). Teaching Eiffel as a first language. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 9(1), 30–41.
Rizvi, M., Humphries, T., Major, D., Jones, M., & Lauzun, H. (2011). A CS0 course using Scratch. J. Comput. Small Coll., 26(3), 19-27.
Scratch website. (2010). Retrieved on December 22, 2010, from http://scratch.mit.edu/
Shafto, S. A. (1986). Programming for learning in mathematics and science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 18(1), 302.
Siever, W., Heeler, L., & Heeler, P. (2011). Multi-step problem solving using scratch: a preliminary report. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., 26(5), 244-248.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. Merrill Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2000). Designing technology enhanced learning environments. Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education, 241, 261.
Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch -- A Discussion. Trans. Comput. Educ., 10(4), 1-11. doi:
10.1145/1868358.1868364
Ward, B., Marghitu, D., Bell, T., & Lambert, L. (2010). Teaching computer science concepts in Scratch and Alice. J. Comput. Small Coll., 26(2), 173-180.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17–22.
Wolz, U., Leitner, H. H., Malan, D. J., & Maloney, J. (2009). Starting with scratch in CS 1.
SIGCSE Bull., 41(1), 2-3. doi: 10.1145/1539024.1508869
125
126
127
實作評量: 教師出題小貓咪環遊台灣三圈
單元一：Scratch 程式教學課程活動設計(概念圖版本) 活動名稱 順序與迴圈
(小貓咪跑操場三圈)
教學者 陳文鴻
教學對象 國小五年級學童 教學時間 80 分鐘
教學期間 2011.4 教學人數 約 30 人
教材來源 教學者自編
教學目標
1.能了解座標的概念 2.能了解物件移動的概念 3.能了解順序的概念
128
4.能了解迴圈(重複執行)的概念 5.能了解順序與迴圈在生活中的應用 教學流程 1.教學者敘述題目故事,展示執行成果
2.展示整個概念圖
3.詢問學童故事概念中的背景概念及主角 4.展示故事概念完整支架
5.教師示範操作匯入背景及主角,學童仿作
6.詢問學童小貓咪該如何跑一圈其座標(順序概念)
展示座標概念完整支架
129
7.教師示範操作起點座標,中間點座標,終點座標,學童仿作(動作
類別: )
錯誤發生,詢問學童發生原因 ,解決方法
8.詢問學童小貓咪如何由起點移至中間點座標代入移動概念 (移動需要時間,不是瞬間移動)
9.展示移動概念完整支架
10.教師示範操作由起點座標移至中間點座標再至終點座標學 童仿作(動作類別)
130
11.詢問小貓咪跑一圈後,如何再跑兩圈,學生會再將以上動作積 木在堆疊兩次
12.教師引入重複執行概念，並舉生活常例
13.教師示範操作重複執行之程式積木學童仿作(控制類
別: )
14.教師展示整個概念圖
15.學童完成作業後存檔，上傳至作業展示區 實作評量: 教師出題小貓咪環遊台灣三圈
131
132
133
9.詢問學童魚遇到甚麼狀況會停止
10.學童完成作業後存檔，上傳至作業展示區
134
實作評量: 教師出題電流急急棒
單元二：Scratch 程式教學課程活動設計(概念圖版本) 活動名稱 變數
(小魚回家記)
教學者 陳文鴻
教學對象 國小五年級學童 教學時間 80 分鐘
教學期間 2011.4 教學人數 約 30 人
教材來源 教學者自編
教學目標
1.能了解變數在生活中的例子 2.能了解變數的概念
3.能熟練產生變數,使用變數 4.能了解重複執行的概念
135
5.能了解偵測指令
教學流程 1.教學者敘述題目故事,展示執行成果 2.展示整個概念圖
3.詢問學童故事概念中的背景概念及主角 4.展示故事概念完整支架
5.教師示範操作匯入背景及主角,學童仿作
6.詢問學童魚該如何移動(引進主角隨滑鼠移動之迴圈寫法)展 示移動概念圖
7.講解變數概念，變數起始值，變數增加條件,變數減少條件。
136
8.教師示範操作變數(生命值)設定方法及變數起始值 9.教師示範操作遇到何種角色會使變數(生命值)增加 10.教師示範操作遇到何種角色會使變數(生命值)減少 11.詢問學童魚遇到甚麼狀況會停止
12.教師展示整個概念圖
137
13.學童完成作業後存檔，上傳至作業展示區 評量方式 實作評量: 教師出題電流急急棒
單元三：Scratch 程式教學課程活動設計(傳統教學組) 活動名稱 條件判斷
你的成績是幾分?
教學者 陳文鴻
教學對象 國小五年級學童 教學時間 80 分鐘
教學期間 2011.4 教學人數 約 30 人
教材來源 教學者自編
教學目標
1.能了解多重變數的使用
2.能了解將輸入答案指定給變數方法 3.能了解運算指令
4.能了解條件判斷的指令寫法
教學流程 1. 教學者敘述題目故事,展示執行成果 2. 詢問學童故事概念中的背景概念及主角 3. 教師示範操作匯入背景及主角,學童仿作 4. 解釋及設定國語,數學及總分之初始值
5. 詢問學童如何由電腦提問自行輸入成績?而非如前節之固
138
139
6.詢問學童如何由電腦提問自行輸入成績?而非如前節之固 定變數(引入提問及回答寫法)
7.設定總分變數為國語變數及數學變數相加(引入四則運算寫 法)
8.引入條件判斷的 Scratch 寫法
9.舉生活中條件判斷例子,以總分作條件判斷依據(引入大於，小 於，等於程式判斷的寫法)
10.判斷完畢教師給予回應
11.教師展示整個流程圖
140
13.學童完成作業後存檔，上傳至作業展示區 實作評量: 灌籃高手
單元三：Scratch 程式教學課程活動設計(概念圖版本) 活動名稱 條件判斷
你的成績是幾分?
教學者 陳文鴻
教學對象 國小五年級學童 教學時間 80 分鐘
教學期間 2011.04 教學人數 約 30 人
教材來源 教學者自編
教學目標
1.能了解多重變數的使用
2.能了解將輸入答案指定給變數方法 3.能了解運算指令
4.能了解條件判斷的指令寫法
教學流程 1.教學者敘述題目故事,展示執行成果 2.展示完整概念圖
3.詢問學童故事概念中的背景概念及主角
141
4.展示故事概念完整支架
5.教師示範操作匯入背景及主角,學童仿作 6.解釋及設定國語,數學及總分之初始值
7.詢問學童如何由電腦提問自行輸入成績?而非如前節之固定 變數(引入提問及回答寫法)
8.設定總分變數為國語變數及數學變數相加(引入四則運算寫 法)
9.展示變數概念完整支架
10.引入條件判斷的 Scratch 寫法
11.舉生活中條件判斷例子,以總分作條件判斷依據(引入大於，
142
小於，等於程式判斷的寫法) 12.判斷完畢教師給予回應 13.展示判斷概念圖
14.教師展示整個概念圖
15.學童完成作業後存檔，上傳至作業展示區 評量方式 實作評量: 灌籃高手
143
附錄二 「Scratch 學習態度量表」預試題目
144
145
146
附錄三 「Scratch 成就測驗」預試題目
147
148
149
附錄四 「Scratch 成就測驗」正式施測題目
150
151
152
附錄五 研究工具使用同意書
一、新編問題解決測驗工具使用同意書
153
二、Scratch 學習態度量表與晤談大綱使用同意函
154