在傳統的學習方式，學習者學習程式語言多半透過傳統書目搭配自我學習，大多學習者採取被動式的學習方式，且學習效果呈現兩極化，但現今教育制度已由傳統單向式教學轉為雙向式教學、學習亦從被動式轉為主動式。在概念圖融入課程教學的相關研究中，概念圖已被視為用來促成有意義學習的知識表徵工具、改善傳統的機械式學習，且能夠有效協助學習者建構知識；概念圖也能夠作為教學輔助之工具，促進學生學習並作為教材設計及教學評量的一種方式。過去對於概念圖的相關研究多為科學相關領域，用來融入較抽象科目之相關領域教學之研究則較為少見。
本研究將概念圖用於程式開發之相關語言領域輔助教學，以台灣科技大學修習系統分析與設計課程之大學部學生作為研究對象，探討概念圖輔助程式語言開發之實施歷程與成效，以及學習者對於概念圖作為學習輔助教材之評價。本研究之研究方法為行動研究，藉由本研究構建之課程藍圖將概念圖帶入課程實施中，透過課程教學、學習作業、學習者的訪談，從中進行教學調整與概念圖成效探討。本研究之研究貢獻如下：
1. 概念圖用於程式語言輔助教學有助於學習者快速了解系統實際開發技巧，達到有意義學習之目的
2. 透過概念圖教學，可以提高學習者對於程式語言之間關係的了解，並藉由合作學習共同完成學習目標使得專業知識建構更周全
3. 藉由本研究所建立之課程藍圖，可協助學習者達到學習目標

In the traditional way of learning, learners always through the traditional textbooks with self-learning for programming languages. Learners mostly take passive learning way, but the learning effectiveness shows polarization. The education system has changed from one-way teaching to two-way teaching, and the learning way has changed from passive way to active way, too. The studys of concept maps into curriculum teaching show the concept maps have been regarded as a tool for characterizing meaningful learning, improving traditional rote learning, and assisting learners in building knowledge effectively. Concept maps can also be use as a teaching aids tool to promote the students’ learning effectiveness and as the basis for the textbooks designed for the teaching methods of assessment. The past relative researches on a subject of teaching concept maps mainly focus on the scientific subject, the abstracted subjects fields appeared few.
In this study, concept map was took into programming languages related fields to conctruct the teaching framework. With the students who attend System Analysis and System Design in NTUST, to explore the effectiveness and the evaluation of learners by using concept maps. The research method is the action research, and the concept maps constructed by this study taken into the curriculum implementation. The concept maps’ learning effectiveness discussed through the teaching of the curriculum, the study operation and the learner's interviews. The results of this study are as follows:
1. The concept maps for programming languages-assisted instruction can help learners to understand the actual development skills of the system and to achieve the meaningful learning objectives.
2. Concept maps into the curriculum can improve the learners understanding the relationship between programming languages and completing the learning objectives by cooperative learning.
3. The curriculum blueprints established in this study can help the learners achieve learning objectives.

中文參考文獻
1. 余民寧，有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究，商鼎文化出版社(2003)。
2. 李春雄，圖解數位學習：理論與實務(2013)。
3. 張春興，教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐，東華出版社(1996)。
4. 黃政傑、吳俊憲，合作學習：發展與實踐200)。
5. 張莞珍(1997)。鷹架理論在成人教學實務之應用。成人教育，40，43-51。
6. 葉至誠、葉立誠(1999)，研究方法與論文寫作，第三版，商鼎。
7. 陳明溥，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，2007)。
8. 蕭瑞祥、謝明釗，運用知識地圖於數位學習教材設計之研究(資訊管理學報，第十六卷第一期)。
9. 林生傳(1998)，建構主義的教學評析. 課程與教學, 1(3), 1-14。
10. 張新仁(1993)，奧斯貝的學習理論與教學應用，教育研究，第32期，第31~51頁。
11. 林麗羨、陳龍川，建構主義教室的呈現，國教園地，55(56)，22-27。
12. 余民寧、陳嘉成(1996)，概念構圖：另一種評量方法(政治大學學報，第七十三期，第161~200頁)。
13. 陳嘉成、余民寧，以概念圖為學習策略知教學對自然科學習得促進效果之研究，政治大學學報，第七十七期，第201~235頁(1998)。
14. 石哲政，概念圖融入知識管理課程教學成效影響之研究，國立台灣科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文(2014)
15. 吳惠婷，小組合作概念圖融入國小一年級生活課程之行動研究，國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文(2009)。
16. 林璟芳，運用概念構圖於國小讀報教育對閱讀理解效應之研究，國立台北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文(2012)。
17. 施嘉桓，概念圖與認知型態對數位學習成效影響之研究，國立暨南國際大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文(2007)。
18. 吳裕聖，概念構圖教學策略對國小五年級學生科學文章閱讀理解及概念構圖能力之影響，國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文(2000)。
19. HTML&CSS：網站設計建置優化之道(2012)。
20. 苟英、秦濤、白靈、高博，這樣學JavaScript又快又省力(2012)。
21. 洪國勝，JavaScript網頁設計與專題製作(2009)。
22. 林基源、陳柏宏，PHP+MySQL快速入門(2010)。
網頁參考文獻
1. W3schools(https://www.w3schools.com/)
2. 給初學者看的 Web 程式語言導覽(http://asukademy.com/)
3. 網路研習室(http://www.webpage.idv.tw/)
 
英文參考文獻
1. Cox, K. R. & Clark, D. (1994). Computing models that empower students. Computer Education, 23(4), 277-284.
2. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Teaching for transfer of problem-solving skills to computer programming. In E. D. Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl & L. Verschaffel (Eds), Learning environment and problem solving (pp. 193-206). NY: Springer-Verlag.
3. Schwartz, S. (1988). Empirical studies of a “Metacourse” to enhance the learning of BASIC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305926).
4. Govender, I. & Grayson, D. (2006). Learning to program and learning to teach programming: A closer look. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2006-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, 1687-1693.
5. Rist, R. S. (1995). Program structure and design. Cognitive Science, 19, 507-562.
6. Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy: A psychological overview. SIGCSE Bulletin, 28, 17-22.
7. Kirsner, K. (1998). Implicit and explicit mental processes. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
8. Norman, G. R. & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basic of problem-based learning: a review of the evidence. Acad Med, 67(9), 557-565.
9. Green, T. R. G. & Petre, M. (1992). When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. In G. C. vander Veer, M. J. Tauber, S. Bagnarola and M. Antavolits (Eds.) Human-computer interaction: Tasks and organization. CUD: Rome.
10. Deek, F. P., Kimmel, H. & McHugh, J. A. (1998). Pedagogical changes in the delivery of the first-course in computer science: Problem solving, then programming. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 313-320.
11. Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 149-170.
12. Mayer, R. E. & Fay, A. L. (1987). A chain of cognitive changes with learning to program in logo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 269-279.
13. Pea, R. D. & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137-167.
14. Shneiderman, B. & Mayer, R. E. (1979). Syntactic/semantic interactions in programmer behavior. A model and experimental results. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 8, 219-238.
15. Kintsch, W. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum(1974).
16. Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D.A. Representation in memory. In R. C. Atkinson.
17. Collins, A. M. & Quillian, M. R. “Retrieval time from semantic memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8:240-247(1969).
18. Ausubel, D. P. The Psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Strattion(1963).
19. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Novak, J. D. The use of concept mapping and Gowin’s ‘V’ mapping instructional strategies in junior high school science. Report of the Cornell University ‘Learning How to Learn’ Project (New York, Ithaca)(1981).
21. Novak, J. D. Learning, Creating, and Using knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1998).
22. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
23. Lindsay, P. H., Norman, D. A. (1977). Hunan information processing: An instroduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.
24. Tsien, J. Z. (2007). The memory, Scientific American, July, 52-59.
25. Wandersee & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 19-40). San Diego: Academic Press.
26. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
27. Wiegmann, D. A. et al.,“Effects of Knowledge Map Characteristics in Information Processing,＂Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 1992, pp. 136-155.
28. O'Donnell, A. M. et al.,“Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cognitive Processing,＂Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 2002, pp. 71-86.
29. Vygotsky, L., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
30. Analysis on the Adaptive Scaffolding Learning Path and the Learning Performance of e-Learning
31. Doyle, W.(1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., 392-431). New York: Macmillan.
32. Gee, J. P., Michaels, S., & O＇Conner, M. C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M. D. Lecompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle(Eds.). The handbook of qualitative research in education(pp.227-291). New York: Acdemic Press.
33. Dickson, S. V., Chard, D. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1993). An integrated reading/writing curriculum: A focus on scaffolding. LD Forum, 18(4), 12-16.
34. Davidson, N. & Worsham, T. (1992). Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning. New York: Teachers College of Columbia University.
35. Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative learning in context: An educational innovation in everyday classrooms. New York: State University of New York.
36. Slavin, R. E. (1990). A practical guide to cooperative learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
37. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
38. Arends, R. I. (2004). Learning to teaching (6 ed). New York: Mcgraw-Hill Companies.
39. Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K. & Vadasy, P. F.(2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional Children, 69, 279-292.
40. Steven, R. J. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to middle school literacy instruction. Educational Research & Evaluation, 9, 137-160.