在本研究中，我們於Scratch開發了部分完成和解決問題此兩種類型的起始專案，並用以作為鷹架，主要目的是為了幫助學生避免在基礎程式設計課題中產生迷思概念，並探究兩者之中，哪一種專案類型能更好地達到這個目標，同時增加學生的正向學習情緒並減少負面學習情緒。學生的運算思維實踐情形也是本研究的關注重點之一。兩種起始專案皆採用預先設計好且相同的角色和背景，但以不同方式引導學生找出問題的正解。以部分完成專案學習的學生，需要透過修復和重組，找出缺失的概念相關模塊；而透過解決問題專案學習的學生，則必須從頭開始創建Scratch區塊來構建自己的問題解決方案。共計96名印尼六年級小學生參加這項為期6週，有關程式設計中迴圈概念的準實驗研究。出乎意料的是，研究結果顯示在通過兩種不同類型起始專案學習的學生中，皆發現到迷思概念的出現，不過與以解決問題起始專案學習的學生相比，接受部分完成起始專案的學生產生迷思概念更為多樣化。兩組學生的學習情緒並沒有顯著差異。此外，我們還發現學生的先備知識對專案創建過程中運算思維實踐情形有所影響。根據本研究的發現，我們還討論了一些相關實務建議。

The current study developed and used two types of scaffolds for students to avoid misconceptions in basic programming: the part-complete and problem-solving starter projects. The aim of the study was to explore which intervention was better to avoid misconceptions in basic programming, increase students’ enjoyment and decrease boredom. Students’ computational thinking practices were explored as well. Starter projects were pre-designed with characters and backdrops with different approaches to find a correct solution. The part-complete starter project required students to fix and restructure the blocks as it missed some concept-related blocks, while for the problem-solving starter project, students had to construct their own problem-solving schema by creating and customizing the blocks from scratch. A total of 96 Indonesian grade 6 elementary students participated in the 6-week quasi-experimental study about the loops concept in programming. Contrary to expectations, the results did not favor the part-complete starter project. Misconceptions were found in both groups. Moreover, the misconceptions found among students who received the part-complete starter projects were more varied in comparison with the students who received the problem-solving starter projects. In both groups, students’ enjoyment was high and the boredom was low, and no significant difference was found. Students with higher problem-solving abilities tended to plan before project creation and refer to external sources. In contrast, some students with lower problem-solving abilities did not plan before project creation and did more trial-and-error. Practical recommendations are made.

Altadmri, A., & Brown, N. C. C. (2015). 37 million compilations. Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677258
Binnema, D. (2004). Interrelations of psychiatric patient experiences of boredom and mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 25(8), 833–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840490506400
Borne, I. (1991). Object-oriented programming in the primary classroom. Computers & Education, 16(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(91)90048-V
Bosch, N., D’Mello, S., & Mills, C. (2013). What emotions do novices experience during their first computer programming learning session? Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_2
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1, 25
Chen, A. (1998). Perception of boredom: Student’s resistance to a secondary physical education curriculum. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 21(2), 1–20.
Coenraad, M., Palmer, J., Weintrop, D., Eatinger, D., Crenshaw, Z., Pham, H., & Franklin, D. (2021). The effects of providing starter projects in open-ended scratch activities. Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432390
Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges. 15(5), 107–116.
Dixon, R. (2007). Teaching Software Engineering Principles Using Robolab and Lego Mindstorms. International Journal of Engineering Education. 23. 868-873.
Gaudiello, I. & Zibetti, E. (2013). Using control heuristics as a means to explore the educational potential of robotics kits. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 15-28.
Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017723
Halasz, F., & Moran, T. P. (1982). Analogy considered harmful. Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '82. https://doi.org/10.1145/800049.801816
Harvey, B., & Mönig, J. (2010). Bringing “no ceiling” to scratch: Can one language serve kids and computer scientists? Proceedings of Constructionism 2010 Conference. 1–10.
Hsu, T.-C., & Hwang, G.-J. (2021). Interaction of visual interface and academic levels with young students’ anxiety, playfulness, and enjoyment in programming for robot control. Universal Access in the Information Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00821-3
Jagacinski, C. M., & Duda, J. L. (2001). A comparative analysis of contemporary achievement goal orientation measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(6), 1013–1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971626
Lumby, J. (2011). Enjoyment and learning: policy and secondary school learners’ experience in England. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903540680
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Mladenović, M., Boljat, I., & Žanko, Ž. (2017). Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1483–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9673-3
Mladenović, M., Žanko, Ž., & Boljat, I. (2019). Programming Misconceptions at the K-12 Level. Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_234-1
Mladenović, M., Mladenović, S., & Žanko, Ž. (2020). Impact of used programming language for K-12 students' understanding of the loop concept. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2020.103817
Mladenović, M., Žanko, Ž., & Granić, A. (2021). Mediated transfer: From text to blocks and back. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 29, 100279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100279
Moon, J., Do, J., Lee, D., & Choi, G. W. (2020). A conceptual framework for teaching computational thinking in personalized OERs. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0108-z
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H. W., Murayama, K., & Goetz, T. (2017). Achievement emotions and academic performance: Longitudinal models of Reciprocal Effects. Child Development, 88(5), 1653–1670. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12704
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and Performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716
Putwain, D. W., Schmitz, E. A., Wood, P., & Pekrun, R. (2020). The role of Achievement Emotions in Primary School Mathematics: Control–value antecedents and achievement outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12367
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. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
Samperio, N. (2019). Learning strategies used by high and low achievers in the first level of English. Profile: Issues in Teachers´ Professional Development, 21(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n1.68246
Sleeman, D., Putnam, R. T., Baxter, J., & Kuspa, L. (1986). Pascal and high school students: A study of errors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.2190/2xpp-ltyh-98nq-bu77
Strong, R., Silver, H., Perini, M., & Tuculescu, G. (2003). Boredom and its opposite. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 24–29
Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the stem disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
Tze, V. M., Daniels, L. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2015). Evaluating the relationship between boredom and academic outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9301-y
Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.2190/4nk5-17l7-twqv-1ehl
Van Merriënboer, J. J., & De Croock, M. B. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 365–394. https://doi.org/10.2190/mjdx-9pp4-kfmt-09pm
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weintrop, D. (2019). Block-based programming in computer science education. Communications of the ACM, 62(8), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341221
Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). To block or not to block, that is the question. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771860
Weintrop, D., Rutstein, D., Bienkowski, M., & McGee, S. (2021). Assessment of computational thinking. Computational Thinking in Education. 90-111. Routledge.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Viewpoint: Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 46(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Žanko, Ž., Mladenović, M., & Krpan, D. (2022). Analysis of school students' misconceptions about Basic Programming Concepts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 719–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12643