本研究旨在設計與實施STEM程式設計教學，並評估其成效。研究以計算物理為例，探討程式設計與物理物體運動單元之跨領域教學之教學設計，及其對於學習者學習程式設計與物理物體運動單元之影響。在運算思維中，建模扮演重要的角色，幫助學習者將問題利用運算的模型表達以進行問題解決；在科學教育中建模亦扮演著重要的角色，透過建模有步驟性與結構性地將問題進行分析、發展解題策略、驗證，反覆嘗試直至問題解決。因此，透過建模導向程式設計教學 (modelling-based instruction) 讓學習者同時體驗運算建模和物理建模，希冀藉此培養學習者之程式設計能力，並同時輔助物理物體運動單元之學習。研究利用準實驗研究法檢驗所發展之教學模式的效益，實驗參與者為167位高中一年級的學習者，在資訊科技課中實施。實驗組教師根據建模過程引導學習者解決物理問題，包含物理物體運動單元之位移、平均速率、加速度問題，學習者在學習過程中可同時體驗運算與物理建模，包含：分析、演算法設計、程式化、解釋四個步驟。控制組則是以傳統方式授課，教師教授程式概念並提供題目讓學習者練習。實驗結果發現：(1) 學習者在STEM程式設計教學中練習較大且複雜之真實世界問題，並將透過建模程序解題，以模擬複雜現象，能幫助學習者學習程式設計並能由建模歷程體認真實世界問題的複雜與多元。(2) 學習者對程式設計建模程序態度持有正向態度，認為建模學習程序的引導，能幫助學習者解決複雜的問題。(3) 透過本研究的建模導向教學，學生較能花時間進行問題解析；而在此建模引導下，高程式設計成就的學習者於演算法設計、程式化、解釋的程序中有較佳的表現：能將問題發展出適當的解題策略，將解題流程轉換為程式碼，且能以不同的輸入進行測試與觀察，並說明程式的邏輯與意涵，這些程序皆為程式設計的重要歷程。

This study designed and implemented interdisciplinary STEM programming instruction, and also evaluated its performance. Computational physics was adopted as an example, to explore the effect of interdisciplinary of programming and physics kinematics on the learning of programming and physics kinematics. In computational thinking, modeling plays an important role in helping students to express the problem using the computational model to solve the problem and describe the behaviors of real-world phenomenon more accurately. Modeling in science education also plays an important role by analyzing the problem step by step through modeling and developing problem solving strategies, validation, and repeated attempts until the problem is solved. Therefore, we intended to design, modelling-based instruction to make students experience both computational modelling and physics modelling, and benefit from the interactive process of these two types of modelling. The study conducted a quasi experimental research methodology to examine the benefit of applying computational physics in programming instruction, the experimental participants were 167 students in the first grade of senior high school, as for the experimental group in computer courses, the computer teachers guided students to solve real physics problems by the modeling process. During the problem solving process, the students went through modelling (Analyse, Algorithm Design, Coding, and Explain) to learn programming and at the same time the concept of physics. Whereas for controlling group, the students were taught by the tranditional methodology. The research findigns include : (a) Through solving large and complex real world STEM problems by programming, students could experience the modeling process to simulate the complex physics phenomenon and their programming ability could then be improved. In additoin, students could be more aware of the complexness of the real-world problems; (b) students had positive attitude toward modelling-based instruction, expecially the guidance of the modeling process for solving the complicated problems; and (c) the modelling-based instruction could help foster students’ problem analysis ability. Under the guidance of modelling, the high programming performers tended to think more logically through simulating the solving process by a flow chart or virtual code, and do better in mapping the logic to program code, testing and observinge with different input values, and explaining the meaning of each program statements, through which students could verify previously learned knowledge and reflect on their own problem solving logic. These stages play important roles in programming.

中文部份
林清山. (1992). 心理與教育統計學(1版). 臺北：東華書局.

英文部份
Abelson, H., Sussman, G. J., & Sussman, J. (1996). Structure and interpretation of computer programs. Justin Kelly. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MXZQAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%22Introduction+to+Data+Abstraction+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.%22+%22Example:+Huffman+Encoding%22+%22%EE%81%89e+Costs+of+Introducing+Assignment+.%22+&ots=oZtDRY10ny&sig=NHHPJ6T94DUymsiht0P0Lxcu9KY
Agarwal, K. K., & Agarwal, A. (2005). Python for CS1, CS2 and beyond. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(4), 262–270.
Angell, C., Kind, P. M., Henriksen, E. K., & Guttersrud, Ø. (2008). An empirical-mathematical modelling approach to upper secondary physics. Physics Education, 43(3), 256.
Areias, C., & Mendes, A. (2007). A Tool to Help Students to Develop Programming Skills. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (p. 89:1–89:7). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1330598.1330692
Bagno, E., Berger, H., & Eylon, B.-S. (2008). Meeting the challenge of students’ understanding of formulae in high-school physics: A learning tool. Physics Education, 43(1), 75.
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1997). Cooperative teaching: Pictures of possibilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(2), 81–85.
Bowen, B., & Deluca, W. (2015). Comparing traditional versus alternative sequencing of instruction when using simulation modeling. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 16(1), 5.
Burrows, A. C., Breiner, J. M., Keiner, J., & Behm, C. (2014a). Biodiesel and Integrated STEM: Vertical Alignment of High School Biology/Biochemistry and Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500029t
Burrows, A. C., Breiner, J. M., Keiner, J., & Behm, C. (2014b). Biodiesel and Integrated STEM: Vertical Alignment of High School Biology/Biochemistry and Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500029t
Canfield, S., Ghafoor, S., & Abdelrahman, M. (2012). Enhancing the programming experience for first-year engineering students through hands-on integrated computer experiences. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(4), 43.
Chang, K.-E., Chen, Y.-L., Lin, H.-Y., & Sung, Y.-T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.01.007
Chi, H., & Jain, H. (2011). Teaching Computing to STEM Students via Visualization Tools. Procedia Computer Science, 4, 1937–1943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2011.04.211
Domert, D., Airey, J., Linder, C., & Kung, R. L. (2012). An exploration of university physics students’ epistemological mindsets towards the understanding of physics equations. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 3(1), 15–28.
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education, 86(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10013
Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1019–1041.
Halloun, I. (1998). Schematic concepts for schematic models of the real world. Science Education, 82(2), 239–263.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440–454.
Hestenes, D. (1997). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. In AIP Conference Proceedings (pp. 935–958). IOP INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING LTD. Retrieved from http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/MODELING.PDF
Huang, S., Becker, K., Mejia, J. A., & Neilson, D. (2015). High School Physics: An Interactive Instructional Approach that Meets the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 16(1), 31.
Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 53–58). Retrieved from http://78.158.56.101/archive/ics/events/conf2002/tjenkins.pdf
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00059-2
Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 37, pp. 14–18). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1067453
Landau, R. H. (2007). Computational Physics Education; why, what and how. Computer Physics Communications, 177(1–2), 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2007.02.040
Lijnse, P. (2006). Models of/for teaching modeling. In Modelling in Physics and in Physics Education, University of Amsterdam, GIREP 2006 International Conference. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Piet_Lijnse/publication/266881687_Models_of__for_Teaching_Modeling/links/545a2cd30cf2cf5164843899.pdf
Lou, S.-J., Diez, C. R., Hsiao, H. C., Wu, W. H., & Chang, S.-H. (2009). A study on the changes of attitude toward STEM among senior high school girl students in Taiwan. In ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://ir.ncue.edu.tw/ir/handle/987654321/13558
Lou, S.-J., Shih, R.-C., Ray Diez, C., & Tseng, K.-H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: an exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8
Lutz, M., & Ascher, D. (1999). Learning Python (1st ed). Beijing ; Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom. TIES STEM Education Monograph Series. Baltimore: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM. Retrieved from http://partnersforpubliced.org/uploadedFiles/TeachingandLearning/Career_and_Technical_Education/Attributes%20of%20STEM%20Education%20with%20Cover%202%20.pdf
Özmen, B., & Altun, A. (2014). Undergraduate Students’ Experiences in Programming: Difficulties and Obstacles. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(3), 1–27.
Ramaila, S. M. (2014). The kinematic equation: an analysis of studentsproblem-solving skills. Retrieved from http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/14325
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18847
Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (2000). Student programming in the introductory physics course: MUPPET. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438181
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Sanders, M. E. (2008). Stem, stem education, stemmania. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/51616
Scherer, D., Dubois, P., & Sherwood, B. (2000). VPython: 3D interactive scientific graphics for students. Computing in Science & Engineering, (5), 56–62.
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481
Sherwood, B. A., & Chabay, R. (2011). Vpython–3d programming for ordinary mortals. Earth, 1000, 6e24.
Sheth, C. V. (2002). Computational physics programme in research and teaching—an African experience. Computer Physics Communications, 147(1), 590–594.
Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005a). The Difficult Process of Scientific Modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer‐based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500206408
Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005b). The Difficult Process of Scientific Modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer‐based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1695–1721. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500206408
Taub, R., Armoni, M., Bagno, E., & Ben-Ari, M. (Moti). (2015). The effect of computer science on physics learning in a computational science environment. Computers & Education, 87, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.013
Teodorescu, R. E., Bennhold, C., Feldman, G., & Medsker, L. (2013). New approach to analyzing physics problems: A Taxonomy of Introductory Physics Problems. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010103
Teodoro, V. D., & Neves, R. G. (2011). Mathematical modelling in science and mathematics education. Computer Physics Communications, 182(1), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2010.05.021
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Xu, S., & Rajlich, V. (2004). Cognitive process during program debugging. In Cognitive Informatics, 2004. Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on (pp. 176–182). IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1327473