本研究旨在探討融入提示於程式積木學習中對於不同程度國小學生程式自我效能與運算思維之影響。本研究為準實驗研究法，以基隆市兩所公立小學四年級學生為研究對象，分別為實驗組使用Code.org(有提示系統)，以及對照組使用Scratch(無提示系統)，兩組的關卡設計相同。實驗課程共六週，每週一次，每次40分鐘。透過「程式自我效能問卷」、「運算思維態度信念問卷」、「運算思維能力測驗」進行前後測，以量化方式分析問卷與測驗，質性方式分析半結構式訪談內容，了解實驗組在實驗前後程式自我效能與運算思維之變化，以及實驗組與對照組程式自我效能與運算思維之差異。
本研究依據結果統整出以下結論：(1)融入提示有助提升實驗組高、中成就學生的程式自我效能與運算思維態度信念。(2)融入提示之實驗組在程式自我效能與運算思維態度信念後測得分優於對照組。(3)不論有無採用提示鷹架，兩組高、中成就學生的運算思維能力皆得到提升。
依據結論給予未來教學與研究上的建議：(1)延長教學介入時間，以提升成效。(2)開發與共編一套培養小學生的運算思維課程。(3)根據不同程度的學生給予不同類型的教學鷹架支持，尤其低成就學生可能需要教師或同儕的鷹架。

This study aims to investigate the effect of incorporating prompting on different levels of elementary school students’ programming self-efficacy (PSE) and computational thinking (CT). Quasi-experimental design was adopted in this study. The research participants were fourth grade students from two public elementary schools in Keelung City. The experimental group used Code.org with prompts, and the control group adopted Scratch without prompts. The learning materials are the same for the two groups. The experiment lasted for six weeks, with one 40-minute-long session every week. PSE questionnaire, CT attitude questionnaire and CT ability test were the research tools for this study. Research participants filled in the questionnaire and test before and after the experiment. The design of the study is a mixed of quantitative and qualitative methods to understand how the experimental course affects students and the difference between the two groups of PSE and CT.
The results of the study found that (a) incorporating prompts can help improve the program self-efficacy and computational thinking attitudes and beliefs of the high- and middle- achievement students; (b) The experimental group has higher post-test scores of program self-efficacy and computational thinking attitudes and beliefs than the control group; and (c) regardless of the prompt scaffolding, the computational thinking ability of the high- and middle- achievement students in both groups is improved.
This study suggests to: (a) extend the teaching intervention period to enhance the effects; (b) develop a set of computational thinking courses for elementary school students; and (c) provide different types of teaching scaffolding to students of different levels, especially the low achievement students.

中文部分
Scratch台灣愛好者社團(2017)。Scratch支援的運算概念2017中文版。2019年10月09日，取自： https://www.shareclass.org/course/1574de50f1bd462fb23841adbfcaa102/material/f62829b8bbb146ba8960acc2682429fb/
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。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，9(1)，1-15。
王韻齡(2019)。【消失的電腦課1】108課綱上路，國小電腦課改融入，22縣市資源大調查。2019年7月22日，取自：https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/5378
王麒富(2009)。應用直觀式Scratch軟體提升國小學童問題解決能力效益之研究。國立臺中教育大學數位內容科技學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
江其勳(2017)。十二年國教課綱後資訊科技課要教什麼？。科學研習，56(12)，42-47。
呂聰賢（2018）。以Scratch開啟孩子的運算思維能力。科學研習，57(5)，4-11。
李尹暘、林曉佩、林君怡(2007)。自我效能理論之分析與應用。澄清醫護管理雜誌 ，3(2)，46-52。
林玉霞(2016)。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。
林育慈、吳正己(2016)。運算思維與中小學資訊科技課程。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊，6，5-20。
林幸淇(2018)。應用Code.org於國小三年級程式設計教學之研究。國立清華大學課程與教學碩士在職專班碩士論文。
林俊閎(2012)。動機因素與鷹架輔助機制對學生圖形化程式語言學習成效之影響。 國立中央大學學習與教學研究所博士論文。
林益聖(2016)。探討國小學童使用Scratch和Code Studio系統學習程式設計的成效差異。中華大學資訊管理學系碩士班碩士論文。
張文奇（2009）。視覺化程式設計對國小兒童高層次思考能力之影響。臺北市立教育大學自然科學系碩士班碩士論文。
張春興(2013)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐重修二版。台北：東華書局。
張瀞文、賓靜蓀、程遠茜(2016)。教育下一波：程式設計開啟孩子的未來。2019年7月15日，取自：https://www.parenting.com.tw/magazine/1337
教育部(1997)。資訊教育基礎建設計畫。臺北：教育部。
教育部(2001)。中小學資訊教育總藍圖。臺北：教育部。
教育部(2008)。2008-2011教育部中小學資訊教育白皮書。臺北：教育部。
教育部(2016)。2016-2020資訊教育總藍圖。臺北：教育部。
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中學暨普通型高級中等學校-科技領域。臺北：國家教育研究院。
教育部(2020)。運算思維推動計畫。2019年11月10日，取自： http://compthinking.csie.ntnu.edu.tw
陳怡芬、林育慈、翁禎苑（2018）。運算思維導向程式設計教學─以[動手玩音樂]模組化程式設計為例。中等教育，69(2)，127-141。
陳俊廷(2015)。國小高年級學童線上自學程式設計對邏輯推理能力之影響。康寧大學資訊傳播研究所碩士論文。
蔡雯欣(2018)。「不插電的資訊科學」課程對國小五年級學生於電腦程式設計課程之學習態度、自我效能與運算思維能力之影響。國立臺灣科技大學數位學習與教育研究所碩士論文。
謝州恩(2013)。鷹架理論的發展、類型、模式與對科學教學的啟示。科學教育月刊，2-16。

英文部分
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
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.
Barradas, R., Lencastre, J. A., Soares, S., & Valente, A. (2020). Developing computational thinking in early ages: A review of the code. org platform. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, 2, 157-168.
Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 245-250.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J.(1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). 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, 1-25.
Buwalda, M., Jeuring, J., & Naus, N. (2018). Use expert knowledge instead of data: Generating hints for hour of code exercises. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, 1-4.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. NH: Heinemann.
Chen, G. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162-175.
Chiu, M. M., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 321-336.
Cigdem, H., & Yildirim, O. G. (2014). Predictors of C# programming language self efficacy among vocational college students. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5(3), 145-153.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 8(1), 2-10.
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress, referenced in http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
Dagienė, 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.
Davis, M. T. (2006). Using procedural scaffolding to support online learning experiences. In Proceedings of International Professional Communication Conference, 144-147.
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(3), 277-296.
Durak, H. Y., Yilmaz, F. G. K., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). Computational thinking, programming self-efficacy, problem solving and experiences in the programming process conducted with robotic activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(2), 173-197.
Dyson, A. H. (1990). Weaving possibilities: Rethinking metaphors for early literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 44(3), 202-213.
Ericson, B., & McKlin, T. (2012). Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 289-294.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Teaching mind and society: A theory of education and schooling. Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, 175-205.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 5-16.
Gee, J. P., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (1992). Discourse analysis. The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, 227-291.
Google. (2015). Exploring computational thinking. Retrieved October 09, 2019, from https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/
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.
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., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 19-37.
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). “Systems of assessments” for deeper learning of computational thinking in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 15-20.
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41.
Hsu, T. C. (2019). A study of the readiness of implementing computational thinking in compulsory education in Taiwan. In Computational Thinking Education, 295-314.
Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-310.
ISTE & CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operationaldefinition-flyer.pdf?sfvrs n=2
Judithann, W. W. (1993). Weekend report: A qualitative study of the scaffolding strategies used by a teacher of children with handicaps during a “sharing time” discourse event. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cincinnati University.
Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210.
Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V., & Repenning, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 59-66.
Kong, S. C. (2017). Development and validation of a programming self-efficacy scale for senior primary school learners. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, 97-102.
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.
Krugel, J., & Ruf, A. (2020). Learners' perspectives on block-based programming environments: Code. org vs. scratch. In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 1-2.
Lambić, D., Đorić, B., & Ivakić, S. (2020). Investigating the effect of the use of code. org on younger elementary school students’ attitudes towards programming. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1-12.
Lee, A. (2015). Determining the effects of computer science education at the secondary level on STEM major choices in postsecondary institutions in the United States. Computers & Education, 88, 241-255.
Liang, H. N., & Sedig, K. (2007). Scaffolding as a strategy to make tools more accessible to young children. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, 978-985.
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 41(1), 260-264.
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.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2018). Case studies of elementary children’s engagement in computational thinking through scratch programming. In Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines, 227-251.
Mühling, A., Ruf, A., & Hubwieser, P. (2015). Design and first results of a psychometric test for measuring basic programming abilities. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 2-10.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh－a response to C. Addison Stone's “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370-373.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Piech, C., Sahami, M., Huang, J., & Guibas, L. (2015). Autonomously generating hints by inferring problem solving policies. In Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, 195-204.
Price, T. W., Dong, Y., & Lipovac, D. (2017). iSnap: Towards intelligent tutoring in novice programming environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 483-488.
Ramalingam, V., La Belle, D. & Wiedenbeck, S. (2004). Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 171-175.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Román-González, M. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In Proceedings of EDULEARN15 Conference, 2436-2444.
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017b). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2018). Extending the nomological network of computational thinking with non-cognitive factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 441-459.
Ruf, A., Mühling, A., & Hubwieser, P. (2014). Scratch vs. Karel: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 50-59.
Rusk, N. (2017). Computational concepts supported in Scratch. Retrieved December 30, 2019, from http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/resources/computational-concepts-scratch-2017
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.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2013). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
ScratchEd. (2017). Computational thinking with Sratch. Retrieved October 09, 2019, from https://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/defining.html
Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Dducation Research, 59-66.
Standl, B. (2017). Solving everyday challenges in a computational way of thinking. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives, 180-191.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, P. F. (2019). Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(8), 1345-1360.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin ed. and trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., & Kong, S. C. (2020). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 104023.
Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Using commutative assessments to compare conceptual understanding in blocks-based and text-based programs. In ICER, 15, 101-110.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Wing, J. M. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking-what and why. The Link Magazine, 20-23.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 465-470.
Yang, K. H., & Lin, H. Y. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of learning Scratch programming with Code.org. In 2019 8th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, 1057-1058.
Yildiz Durak, H. (2018). Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self-efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 740–752.
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Chen, J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 423–431.