本研究將合作學習運用在國小學童的 KPL（Kids’ Programming Language）程式設計教學中，目的在於了解學生是否因為不同的分組方式而產生不同的學習成效，以及學生在不同分組方式下的合作行為。某國小兩班五年級學童（共66名）參與本研究。研究者根據學生的瑞文氏標準推理能力測驗成績，將一班學童進行異質分組，另一班進行同質分組，每組均為3 人。本研究實施了20 週的KPL程式設計教學，其間以學習單、成就測驗卷、學習態度問卷、個別訪談及解題過程實況錄影，收集量化與質性資料並加以分析。研究結果顯示，不同分組方式並未造成兩組學生在學習成效上的明顯差異。分別針對高、中、低三類學習成就學生進行組間比較，亦未發現不同分組方式帶來學習成效上的顯著差異。此結果與過去部份學者的發現略有不同，殆可歸因於教學內容難度偏高、學生的學習積極性不足、以及樣本數過少所致。在合作解題行為上，兩組間較明顯之差異包括︰異質組之低學習成就學生因有高學習成就組員引導，使其得以按照指示執行任務，因而與組員間有著較佳之互動；但異質組在分工時，組員通常只負責固定的工作，而同質組組員則較傾向於輪流負責不同的工作。

This research aims to investigate if different grouping methods affect student performance in learning to program in KPL (Kids’ Programming Language) and how students collaborate with team members during problem solving. Two intact classes of 66 fifth graders participated in this study. Based on Raven’s SPM test scores, students of one class formed heterogeneous teams, whereas students of the other class formed homogeneous teams. Each team composed of three members. The KPL instruction lasted 20 weeks, during which student worksheets, tests, a questionnaire, video recording, and individual interviews were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data. Analyses of collected data indicated that different grouping methods did not result in statistically significant difference in student performance between the two groups. Separate between-group comparisons of student performance with respect to high achievers, medium achievers, and low achievers did not reveal significant difference either. Such findings were inconsistent with those in several previous studies. Possible reasons may be content difficulty, students’ lack of motivation to learn computer programming, and insufficient sample size. As for collaborative behavior, noticeable differences between the two groups included: the low-achievers in heterogeneous teams interacted more with team members, mostly because they would follow the guidance provided by the high-achieving student in his/her team; however, the roles played by each team member in a heterogeneous team during collaboration tended to be fixed across different projects, whereas members of a homogeneous team were more likely to shift roles during collaboration.

劉錫禎（1997）。合作學習電腦實驗教學的應用。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
林素如（2004）。國中生物教師試行合作學習之行動研究。未出版碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學，彰化市。
李畇龍（2006）。引導合作學習對於國小學童學習Logo程式設計之影響。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
林裕雲（1999）。實施電腦LOGO程式設計教學對台灣國小學生解題能力之影響－國小六年級學生之個案研究。未出版碩士論文，國立屏東師範學院，屏東市。
國民教育司（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
康錦程（2008）。引導合作學習對於國小學童學習程式設計之影響─以KPL為例。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北市：五南圖書公司。
黃正中（2003）。合作學習應用在國中電腦科教學成效之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學，彰化市。
黃文聖（2001）。國小學童在LOGO學習環境中數學學習與解題之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立新竹師範學院，新竹市。
徐龍政（1995）。LOGO作為國小資訊課程初學者語言之適用性研究。台東師院學報，7，187-208。
許宏彰（2005）。國小學童LOGO語言程式設計思維歷程之研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺北教育大學，台北市。
張秀梅（2003）。不同能力分組方式在合作學習應用中對學習態度和學習成就的影響。未出版碩士論文，淡江大學，台北市。
蔡依玲（2008）。國小電腦課教學現況調查。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
蘇順德（2000）。實施電腦LOGO程式設計教學對台灣國小學生思考技能之影響。屏東師院學報，13，211-230。
楊美菁（2005）。文字式與圖像式程式語言之學習成效比較研究。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
楊書銘（2008）。Scratch程式設計對六年級學童邏輯推理能力、問題解決能力及創造力的影響。未出版碩士論文，台北市立教育大學，台北市。
王國川（2008）。國小中年級學生以Scratch學習程式語言設計之研究。未出版碩士論文，佛光大學，宜蘭縣。
王金國、張新仁（2003）。國小六年級教師實施國語科合作學習之研究。教育學刊，21，53-78。
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。未出版碩士論文，國立台中教育大學，台中市。
Benaya, T., & Zur, E. (2007). Collaborative Programming Projects in an Advanced CS Course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22(6), 126-135.
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(3), 313-320.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning?. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1-19, Oxford: Elsevier.
Ellison, C. M., Boykin, A. W., Tyler, K. M., & Dillihunt, M. L. (2005). Examining classroom learning preferences among elementary school students. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(7), 699-708.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2001). Effective Syrategies for Cooperative Learning. J.Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69–75.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27-40.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1983). Social interdependence and perceived academic and personal support in the classroom. The Journal of Social Psychology, 120 , 77-82.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory: Cooperative learning. In R. Scott, et al. (Eds). Theory and research on small groups. NY：Plenum Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 67-74.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104.
Lewis, C. M. (2010). How Programming Environment Shapes Perception,Learning and Goals: Logo vs. Scratch. SIGCSE’10, March 10–13, 2010, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Marinopoulos, D., & Stavridou, H. (2002). The influence of a collaborative learning environment on primary students’ conceptions about acid rain. Educational Research, 37(1), 18-24.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002). The Effects of Pair-Programming on Performance in an Introductory Programming Course. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90-95.
Mueller, A., & Fleming, T. (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work at school. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 259-265.
Payne, B.K., & Monk-Turner, E. (2006). Students' Perceptions of Group Projects: The Role of Race, Age, and Slacking. College Student Journal, 40(1), 132-139.
Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom. The Science Teacher, 73(1), 33-39.
Perkins, D. N., & Martin, F. (1986). Fragile knowledge and neglected strategies in novice programmers. In E. Soloway & S. Lyengar (Eds.), Empirical Studies of programmers. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pea, R. D. (1983). Logo Programming and Problem Solving (Tech. Rep. No. 12). New York: Bank street college of Education, Center for children and technology.
Polya, G. (1945). How To Solve It. Princeton, NJ：Princeton University Press.
Sabin, R., & Sabin, E. (1994). Collaborative learning in an introductory computer science course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin , Selected papers of the twenty-fifth annual SIGCSE symposium on Computer science education, 26(1), 302-308.
Samurçay, R. (1989). The concept of variable in programming: Its meaning and use in Problem-Solving by novice programmers. Studying the Novice Programmer, 9, 161-178.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York：Academic Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is Collaborative Learning? In Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher and V. Tinto ed. , University Park, PA, National Center on Postsecondary Teaching.
Walker, H. M. (1997). Collaborative learning: a case study for CS1 at Grinnell College and UT-Austin. in Proceedings of ACM SIGCSE 1997, 209-213, New York, New York：ACM Press.
Webb, N. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of educational psychology, 76(2), 211-224.