近年來運算思維的提倡，致使程式設計課程的蓬勃發展，不斷有相關的研究提出，而好的教材設計也需要搭配良好的學習或教學策略來幫助學習者提升能力，因此本研究課程中除了在教材中使用價格便宜與發展性高的 Arduino 微控制器與 3D列印教具的創客課程外，研究者從中導入基於設計的學習( Design
Based Learning ) 以提升學習者運算思維的能力。
本研究旨在探討以基於設計的學習融入國小學生視覺化程式設計創客課程探討運算思維概念、問題解決能力與學習態度之研究，實驗課程將受試者分為實驗組(實施「基於設計的教學方式」視覺化程式課程)與控制組(實施「傳統的直接教學方式」視覺化程式課程)，兩組課程內容相同，控制組教師使用直接教學的方式一步一步帶著學習者進行學習;而實驗組教師採用基於設計的教學方式讓學習者靠著 DBL 的策略進行學習，本研究兩組各 32 位來自國小四、五、六年級的受試者。
在檢驗學習成效方面，研究者參考相關文獻開發出運算思維概念測驗，並使用學習態度問卷、以及問題解決能力問卷來了解兩組學習者的差異。此外在課程最後時有 3位專家評量成品，並搭配課程中相關記錄與課後滿意度問卷輔助本研究之結論。
研究結果發現: (一) 無論控制組或實驗組在視覺化程式設計創客課程之後，運算思維概念皆顯著提升。(二)雖然兩組在課程後的問題解決能力自陳問卷上未達顯著提升，但在「提出可能的解決策略」與「評鑑行動的效能」的面項中實驗組顯著高於控制組。(三)實驗組在課程結束後的學習態度自陳問卷顯著提升且顯著高於控制組並在「興趣」面項中達顯著差異。(四)成品評分中，實驗組整體與各項得分皆顯著高於控制組。最後，研究者根據本研究之發現，提出相關討論與未來研究建議。

In recent years, the advocacy of computational thinking has led to the vigorous development of programming courses. Even though there are many related researches focusing on the issue, it is believed that good curriculum design also needs to be matched with good learning or teaching strategies to help learners improve their abilities. Therefore, in this research experiment, in addition to the Maker course that uses inexpensive and highly developed Arduino microcontrollers and 3D printing teaching aids, the researchers introduced Design-Based Learning to enhance learners ability for computational thinking.
This research aims to explore the effect of integrating Design-Based Learning in elementary school students’ visual programming maker curriculum on students’ computational thinking, problem-solving abilities, and learning attitudes. The study divided the subjects into an experimental group with Design-Based Learning strategy implemented in visual programming course and a control group with traditional direct teaching in the same course. There were 32 fourth, fifth, or sixth grade students in each group from an elementary school participated in the experiement.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of learning in the study, the researcher developed a conceptual test for computational thinking after reviewing relevant literature, and he also utilized the Learning Attitude Questionnaire and the Problem Solving Ability Questionnaire to understand the differences between the two groups of learners. At the end of the courses, 3 experts were also invited to evaluate the finished products developed by the participants; moreover, relevant class observation and records and after course satisfaction questionnaires were used to support the conclusion of this research.
The results of the study are as the following:
1. Both the experimental group and the control group have significantly improved students’ computational thinking after the visual programming maker course.
2. Although the problem-solving ability on the self-reporting questionnaire of the two groups was not significantly improved after the courses, the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group on the two sub-contructs, "possible solution strategy" and "evaluation action effectiveness".
3. The self-reported Learning attitude for the experimental group was improved significantly after the end of the course and was significantly higher than the control group, especially the significant differences were found in its sub-construct, interests.
4. For the finished product scores, the overall and the sub-constructs for the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group. Finally, the researcher put forward relevant discussions and suggestions for future research based on the findings of this study.

一、 中文部份
十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱（2014）。國家教育研究院。取自
https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/87/pta_5321_975881_56626.pdf
王湄雁(2015)。樂高機器人融入專題式導向學習於大學生程式設計課程之學習
成效, 態度與問題解決能力之研究。國立台灣科技大學數位學習與教育研究
所學位論文。
余民寧 (1997)。教育測驗與評量. 台北 : 心理 .
李政興 (2017) 。運用合作學習於國小程式設計課程對學生問題解決能力、學習
成就與態度影響之研究。國立屏東大學教育學系碩士班學位論文。
李啟嘉 (2012) 。 ADDIE 教學設計模式融入專題導向學習對大學生問題解決能
力及自我導向學習傾向影響之研究。國立台北科技大學技術及職業教育研
究所碩士班學位論文 。
林榮聰. (2000). 設計科系學生學習態度之探討. 國立臺灣科技大學工程技術研究
所設計技術學程碩士論文, 台北市.
周俊欽 (2017) 。以兩階段提示為基礎之不插電程式設計系統對學生程式運算思
維之影響。國立臺北教育大學數學暨資訊教育學系學位論文, 1-76。
國家教育研究院（2016）。新課綱「程式設計」，學邏輯解問題。國家教育研
究院電子報 ， 134 。取自
https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/index.php?edm_no=134&content_no=2672
張玉山. (2002). 虛擬團隊之創造力研究-以師院勞作課程為例。國立臺灣師範大
學工業科技教育學系學位論文, 1-255.
陳秀伃 (2006) 。青少年音樂性別刻板印象之調查研究. 國立臺北教育大學音樂
教育學系碩士學位論文, 1-44。
陳明溥 (2007) 。程式語言課程之教學模式與學習工具對初學者學習成效與學習
態度之影響。 師大學報: 科學教育類。
曾葉強 (2014) 。專題研究課程對學習成效之影響-以 Arduino 為例. 宜蘭大學多
媒體網路通訊數位學習碩士在職專班學位論文, 1-77。
黃茂在, & 陳文典. (2004). [問題解決] 的能力. 科學教育月刊.
賴協志（2012）。學習態度對學生學習與學校效能影響之研究。國家教育研究
院 （編號﹕NAER-101-24-C-1-03-07-1-17）。

二、 英文部份
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer
Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational
thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant
differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670.
Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer
programming and coding priorities, school curricula and initiatives across
Europe. Brussels: European Schoolnet.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is
Involved and what is the role of the computer science education
community?. Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational
thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum.
Computers & Education, 72, 145-157.
Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes
and behaviors. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 39(1), 146-170.
Bouquet, F., Bobroff, J., Fuchs-Gallezot, M., & Maurines, L. (2017). Project-based
physics labs using low-cost open-source hardware. American Journal of
Physics, 85(3), 216-222.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and
assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver,
Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002, January). Gender and programming
achievement in a CSCL environment. In Proceedings of the conference on
computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL
community (pp. 119-127). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Buffum, P. S., Lobene, E. V., Frankosky, M. H., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., &
Lester, J. C. (2015, February). A practical guide to developing and validating
computer science knowledge assessments with application to middle school. In
Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education (pp. 622-627). ACM.
Calder, N. (2010). Using scratch: an integrated problem-solving approach to
mathematical thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(4), 9-14.
Chao, P. Y. (2016). Exploring students' computational practice, design and
performance of problem-solving through a visual programming
environment. Computers & Education, 95, 202-215.
Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M.
(2017).Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday
reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162-175.
Clark, J., Rogers, M. P., Spradling, C., & Pais, J. (2013). What, no canoes? Lessons
learned while hosting a scratch summer camp. Journal of Computing Sciences in
Colleges, 28(5), 204-210.
Communication of the ACM , 52(6), 28-30.
Cortina, T. J. (2015). Reaching a broader population of students through unplugged
activities. Communications of the ACM, 58(3), 25-27.
CSTA & ISTA (2011)Operational definition of computational thinking for K–12
education Accessed from:
http://www.csta.acm.org.ezproxy.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Curriculum/sub/CompThinkin
g.html
D’Ausilio, A. (2012). Arduino: A low-cost multipurpose lab equipment. Behavior
research methods, 44(2), 305-313.
Denning, P. J. (2009). The Profession of IT Beyond Computational Thinking,
Department for Education in England (DOEE) (2013, September 11). National
curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in
englandcomputing-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england
computingprogrammes-of-study
Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based
learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55
65.
Feurzeig, W., Papert, S. A., & Lawler, B. (2011). Programming-languages as a
conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. Interactive Learning
Environments, 19(5), 487-501.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R.
(2004). Design‐based science and student learning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
Griffith, K. M., Cataldo, R. D., & Fogarty, K. H. (2016). Do-it-yourself: 3D models of
hydrogenic orbitals through 3D printing. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9),
1586-1590.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state
of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Hoegh, A., & Moskal, B. M. (2009, October). Examining science and engineering
students' attitudes toward computer science. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Information Technology Foundation for Education (Estonia). (2015). ProgeTiger
Programme. Retrieved from https://www.hitsa.ee/it-education/educational
programmes/progetiger
Jang, Y., Lee, W., & Kim, J. (2015). Assessing the usefulness of object-based
programming education using arduino. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, 8(S1), 89-96.
Jho, H., Hong, O., & Song, J. (2016). An analysis of STEM/STEAM teacher
education in Korea with a case study of two schools from a community of
practice perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology
Education, 12(7).
Jun, S., Han, S., & Kim, S. (2017). Effect of design-based learning on improving
computational thinking. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 43-53.
Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating
educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during
design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26-39.
Kim, H. (2015). The Effect of a Climate Change Monitoring Program on Students'
Knowledge and Perceptions of STEAM Education in Korea. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6).
Kiss, G. (2010, October). A comparison of programming skills by genders of
Hungarian grammar school students. In 2010 7th International Conference on
Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing and 7th International Conference on
Autonomic & Trusted Computing (pp. 24-30). IEEE.
Law, K. M., Lee, V. C., & Yu, Y. T. (2010). Learning motivation in e-learning
facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education, 55(1), 218
228.
Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner
attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066-1080.
López-Rodríguez, F. M., & Cuesta, F. (2016). Andruino-a1: Low-cost educational
mobile robot based on android and arduino. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic
Systems, 81(1), 63-76.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational
thinking through programming: What is next for K-12?. Computers in Human
Behavior, 41, 51-61.
Martín-Ramos, P., Lopes, M. J., da Silva, M. M. L., Gomes, P. E., da Silva, P. S. P.,
Domingues, J. P., & Silva, M. R. (2018). Reprint of ‘First exposure to Arduino
through peer-coaching: Impact on students' attitudes towards
programming’. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 420-427.
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming
experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal
of experimental child psychology, 160, 92-106.
McMenamin, P. G., Quayle, M. R., McHenry, C. R., & Adams, J. W. (2014). The
production of anatomical teaching resources using three‐dimensional (3D)
printing technology. Anatomical sciences education, 7(6), 479-486.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle‐school science through
design‐based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept
learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of engineering education, 97(1), 71
85.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd Edition, New York: McGraw–Hill.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic
Books, Inc..
Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics
educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 1(1), 95-123.
Peppler, K. A. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to
integrate the arts and STEM. IEEE Computer, 46(9), 38-43.
Perenc, I., Jaworski, T., & Duch, P. (2019). Teaching programming using dedicated
Arduino Educational Board. Computer Applications in Engineering Education.
Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational
thinking-what-and-why
Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: Benefits and gender
concerns. Computers & Education, 59(2), 385-398.
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which
cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the
Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual
programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school:
A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers &
Education, 97, 129-141.
Schelly, C., Anzalone, G., Wijnen, B., & Pearce, J. M. (2015). Open-source 3-D
printing technologies for education: Bringing additive manufacturing to the
classroom. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 28, 226-237.
Style, D. (2001). Class meetings:Building leadership, problem-solving and decision
making skills in the respectful classroom. Markham: Pembroke.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics
and programming achievement. International journal of technology and design
education, 23(3), 691-702.
Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2019). Grouping matters in computational robotic
activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 99-105.
The magazine of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science.
Topalli, D., & Cagiltay, N. E. (2018). Improving programming skills in engineering
education through problem-based game projects with Scratch. Computers &
Education, 120, 64-74.
Tsai, C. Y. (2019). Improving students' understanding of basic programming concepts
through visual programming language: The role of self-efficacy. Computers in
Human Behavior, 95, 224-232.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced
learning environments. Educational technology research and
development, 53(4), 5-23.
Whitley, K. N. (1997). Visual programming languages and the empirical evidence for
and against. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 8(1), 109-142.
Wilson, A., & Moffat, D. C. (2010, September). Evaluating Scratch to Introduce
Younger Schoolchildren to Programming. In PPIG (p. 7).
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33
35.
Wing, J. M. (2011).Research Notebook: Computational thinking–what and Why?