本研究主要在探討運用鷹架理論結合OECD（Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development）合作問題解決架構設計出硬鷹架以導入高中STEM機器人選修課程，探討單純使用合作問題解決中的軟鷹架與軟硬鷹架共同使用在高中學生運算思維能力、態度與程式編程的自我效能是否有所影響。
研究對象為選修機器人課程的高中二年級生，兩個班級共55名學生。本研究採用準實驗研究法，實驗組與對照組皆以合作方式進行STEM機器人課程，其中實驗組多給予合作問題解決的硬鷹架。
研究共實施15週，其中課程大致分為三個階段，機構設計、程式設計與挑戰活動。實驗中特別在機構設計與程式設計兩部分實施合作問題解決硬鷹架。本研究主要探討三大問題：1. STEM機器人課程中，軟鷹架與軟硬鷹架對於學生運算思維能力的差異與影響。2. STEM機器人課程中，軟鷹架與軟硬鷹架對於學生運算思維態度的差異與影響。3. STEM機器人課程中，軟鷹架與軟硬鷹架對於學生程式編程自我效能的差異與影響。
研究結果表示軟鷹架與軟硬鷹架對於學生的運算思維能力、態度皆未有顯著影響，而程式編程自我效能僅在演算法的向度中有顯著影響。在運算思維能力中以題目的難易度來看，在難度高的題目中，僅使用軟鷹架的學生表現反而較好，這可能代表硬鷹架的加入反而增加學生的認知負荷，也可能與鷹架設計不良或是使用的時機有關。然而學生的運算思維態度並未因STEM機器人課程而有所提升，這可能是因為態度需要較長的時間培養。不論是軟鷹架還是硬鷹架在程式編程自我效能中皆有顯著的提升，表示STEM機器人課程能夠提升學生對於程式編程的自信心。

This study explored to design a hard scaffolding in a robotics course of Taiwanese public high school by using of scaffolding theory combined with the cooperative problem solving architecture of OECD（Organization for Economic Co-operation and development）. Exploring whether the use of the soft scaffolding and the soft and hard scaffolding in cooperative problem solving affects of high school students' computational thinking performance, computational thinking attitudes and programming self-efficacy.
The participants of the study were second-year high school students who took the robotics course, with 55 students in two classes. In this study, the quasi-experimental research method was adopted. The experimental group and the control group all conducted the STEM robotics course in a cooperative manner, and the experimental group gave the hard scaffolding for cooperative problem solving.
The study was conducted an experiment with a total of 15 weeks. The course is divided into three parts, mechanical design, programming and challenge activities. In the experiment, the cooperation between the two parts of the mechanical design and programming was implemented to solve the hard scaffolding. This study is following research questions: 1. In STEM robotics course, do the student who use soft and hard scaffolding have significantly better computational thinking performance than students without hard scaffolding. 2. In STEM robotics course, do the student who use soft and hard scaffolding have significantly better computational thinking attitude than students without hard scaffolding. 3. In STEM robotics course, do the student who use soft and hard scaffolding have significantly better programming self-efficacy than students without hard scaffolding.
As a consequence, it is concluded that integrated soft scaffolding and hard scaffolding is not helpful to students' computational thinking performance and attitude. Also, the programming self-efficacy has the only significant influence on the orientation of the algorithm.
In students' computational thinking performance, from a difficulty perspective, in the difficult level, the performance of the soft scaffolding is better, which may mean that the addition of the hard scaffolding increases the cognitive load of the student, and the scaffolding may be improperly designed or wrong timing.
However, students' computational thinking attitudes have not improved due to the STEM robotic course, which may be because attitudes take longer to develop. Both the soft scaffolding and the hard scaffolding have significantly improved in programming self-efficacy, indicating that the STEM robotic course can enhance students' confidence in programming.

一、中文文獻
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
二、外文文獻
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
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.
Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM, 47(7), 1047-1065.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
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?. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 505-518. Springer, New York, NY.
Berland, M., & Lee, V. R. (2011). Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(2), 65-81.
Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 628-647.
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.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. European Commission, JRC Science for Policy Report.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, 21, 34.
Bruner, J. S. (1973). Going beyond the information given. Beyond the information given, 143-175.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1-2.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
Byrne, P., & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49-52.
Cetin, I. (2016). Preservice Teachers’ Introduction to Computing: Exploring Utilization of Scratch. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 997-1021.
Cetin, I., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2016). Learning sorting algorithms through visualization construction. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 27-43.
Cetin, I., & Top, E. (2014). ACE cycle in programming education by using visualization. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 274-303.
Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiu, B. C., Liu, C. C., Chiang, S. H. F., Wen, C. T., ... & Wu, S. W. (2017). An analysis of student collaborative problem solving activities mediated by collaborative simulations. Computers & Education, 114, 222-235.
Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1201-1212.
Chen, C.-H., Wu, I. C., & Jen, F. L. (2013). Designing online scaffolds for interactive computer simulation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(3), 229-243.
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, R. M., & Mahboobin, A. (2018). Scaffolding to Support Problem-Solving Performance in a Bioengineering Lab-A Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(2), 109-118.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
Cohen, J.(1998). Statistical power analysis for the behaveoral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CSTA-Computer Science Teacher Association. (2011). CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards. CSTA Standards Task Force. ACM.
Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Millán, E., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). The NISPI framework: Analysing collaborative problem-solving from students' physical interactions. Computers & Education, 116, 93-109.
Dagienė, V. (2006). Information technology contests - introduction to computer science in a attractive way. Informatics in Education, 5(1), 37-46.
Dagiene, V., & Futschek, G. (2008). Bebras international contest on informatics and computer literacy: Criteria for good tasks. In International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools-Evolution and Perspectives, 19-30.
Dagienė, V., Stupurienė, G. (2016). Bebras - a sustainable community building model for the concept based learning of informatics and computational thinking. Informatics in Education, 15(1), 25-44.
Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46, 277-296.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. Handbook of research on teaching, 3, 392-431.
Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191-202.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 55-66.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 21-38.
Gomoll, A., Tolar, E., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Šabanović, S. (2018). Designing human-centered robots: The role of constructive failure. Thinking Skills and Creativity.
Griffin, P. (2014). Performance assessment of higher order thinking. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(1), 1-16.
Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and Approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Grover, S. (2011). Robotics and engineering for middle and high school students to develop computational thinking. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014). Assessing computational learning in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education, 57-62. ACM.
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25, 199-237.
Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, 37-56. Springer, Dordrecht.
Hilke, E. V. (1990). Cooperative Learning. Bloomington, IN: Phi Detta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. Journal of applied psychology, 72(2), 307.
Hubwieser, P., & Mühling, A. (2014). Playing PISA with bebras. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 128-129.
Hur, M. H. (2006). Empowerment in terms of theoretical perspectives: Exploring a typology of the process and components across disciplines. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(5), 523-540.
Izu, C., Mirolo, C., Settle, A., Mannila, L., & Stupuriene, G. (2017). Exploring Bebras Tasks Content and Performance: A Multinational Study. Informatics in Education, 16(1), 39-59.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45-83.
Khaliliaqdam, S. (2014). ZPD, scaffolding and basic speech development in EFL context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 891-897.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14-31.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403-437.
Kong, S. C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students' interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers & Education, 127, 178-189.
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558-569.
Lam, R., & Muldner, K. (2017). Manipulating cognitive engagement in preparation-to-collaborate tasks and the effects on learning. Learning and Instruction, 52, 90-101.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge.
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K., Willmott, P., & Dewhurst, M. (2017). A Future that Works: Automation, Employment, and Productivity. McKinsey Global Institute.
McArthur, D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 197-244.
McDonald, S., & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit for learning in the early years. British journal of educational technology, 43(4), 641-651.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90-95.
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239-264.
Morcom, V. (2014). Scaffolding social and emotional learning in an elementary classroom community: A sociocultural perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 67, 18-29.
Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate Scratch projects. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 132-133.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). Pisa 2015 draft collaborative problem solving assessment framework. OECD Publishing.
Psycharis, S. (2013). Examining the effect of the computational models on learning performance, scientific reasoning, epistemic beliefs and argumentation: An implication for the STEM agenda. Computers & Education, 68, 253-265.
Rahmani, R., Abbas, M., & Alahyarizadeh, G. (2013). The effects of peer scaffolding in problem-based gaming on the frequency of double-loop learning and performance in integrated science process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1994-1999.
Ramalingam, V., LaBelle, D., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2004, June). Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 171-175. ACM.
Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education(CTE 2017). The Education University of Hong Kong, 154-159.
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.
Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 69-92.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3-20.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior.
Tsai, C. C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 26(14), 1733-1750.
Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, P. F. (2018). Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0735633117746747.
Tseng, H., Wang, C. H., Ku, H. Y., & Sun, L. (2009). Key factors in online collaboration and their relationship to teamwork satisfaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 195.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process.Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C.（2012). The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 215-220.