本研究旨在探討程式設計教學方式及引導策略對於國小四年級學習者在微型電腦micro:bit程式設計學習成效及學習態度的影響。學習者依循不同的學習方式與學習單所提供之引導策略進行遊戲專題。研究對象為國小四年級學習者，採因子設計之準實驗研究法，參與者為台北市某國小四年級217位學生，剔除未能全程參與者50人，並依前測總分剔除各組極端值共15人，故有效樣本152人。自變項包含教學方式及引導策略；教學方式依教學導引之差異區分為「情境導向學習」與「功能導向學習」；引導策略則依提供之引導方式分為「問題引導」與「程序引導」。依變項包含程式設計之學習成效(知識理解、知識應用、實作表現)與學習態度(動機、幫助度、滿意度)。
研究結果顯示：就學習成效而言，(1)在知識理解方面，功能導向學習組優於情境導向學習組；(2)在知識應用方面，以功能導向為學習方式時，問題引導組的學習表現優於程序引導組；而以問題引導為策略時，功能導向學習組的學習表現優於情境導向學習組；(3)在實作表現方面，以情境導向為學習方式時，問題引導組的學習表現優於程序引導組；而以程序引導為策略時，功能導向學習組優於情境導向學習組。在學習態度方面，(4)各實驗組學習者對微型電腦micro:bit程式設計學習活動皆抱持著正向的學習動機；(5)以程序引導為策略時，情境導向學習組的學習者比功能導向學習組感受到較高的學習幫助度與滿意度。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of types of teaching strategy and guiding strategy on elementary students’ micro:bit programming performance and attitude. A quasi-experimental design was employed and a total of 152 fourth graders participated in the experimental activity. The independent variables included programming teaching strategy (situation-oriented vs. function-oriented), and guiding strategy (question-guidance vs. procedure-guidance). The dependent variables were students’ learning performance and attitude.
The results revealed that: (a) for the comprehension performance, the function-oriented group outperformed the situation-oriented group; (b) as for the application performance, while receiving the function-oriented learning, the question-guidance group outperformed the procedure-guidance group, and the function-oriented group outperformed the situation-oriented group while receiving the question guidance; (c) for the programming project performance, while receiving the situation-oriented learning, the question-guidance group outperformed the procedure-guidance group, and the function-oriented group outperformed the situation-oriented group while receiving the procedure-guidance; (d) all participants showed positive motivation toward the implemented mico:bit programming learning; furthermore, (e) in the procedure-guidance group, the situation-oriented group showed higher degree of attitude in aspects of helpfulness and satisfaction.

中文部分
呂郁欣(2017)。引導策略與學習順序對國小機器人程式設計學習成效及態度之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
林哲宇(2010)。ARCS融入體驗式學習之學習活動中目標導向與教學策略對國小生電腦技能學習之影響。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
李彩鳳(2018)。鷹架策略與提示策略對不同先備知識國中生程式設計課程學習成效與動機之探討(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
張春興(1996)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實務。臺北市：東華。
張曉瑀(2018)。目標設定與引導策略對不同先備知識國中生以智慧眼鏡輔助機器人程式設計學習之成效及動機探討(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
黃樹群(2018)。不同學習風格高中生以任務導向策略學習程式設計的學習成效。國立臺灣彰化師範大學，彰化縣。
教育部(2017)。十二年國民基本教育課程總要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
陳沛均(2019)。國中小學生運算思維與程式設計能力之研究。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
臺北市教育局(2018)。臺北市科技領域國小資訊科技課程教學綱要。臺北市：教育局資訊教育科。
蘇晉輝、盧東華。MakeCode for micro: bit 結合開發板及模擬器提升學生學習成效與態度研究-以新北市某國小學生為例。全國計算機會議(NCS 2019)。金門縣：國立金門大學。

英文部分
Barnes, D. J., Fincher, S., & Thompson, S. (1997). Introductory problem solving in computer science. In 5th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Computing,.36-39.
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), p.48–54.
Burbaite, R., Bespalova, K., Damasevicius, R., & Stuikys, V. (2014). Context aware generative learning objects for teaching computer science. International Journal of Engineering Education,30(4), 929-936.
Carlborg, N., Tyren, M., Heath, C., & Eriksson, E. (2019). The scope of autonomy when teaching computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 130-139.
Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X. & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers and Education, 109, 162–175.
Chen, M. P. & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Augmented-reality as a scaffolding tool for learning geometry. In In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 1525–1529.
Clark, R. E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction ? Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure, 158–183.
Cooper, S., Dann, W., Pausch, R., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. In Journal of computing sciences in colleges, 15(5). Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, 107-116.
CSTA. (2011). Computational thinking in K-12 education leadership toolkit. Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), 43.
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.
Dean Jr, D. & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384–397.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.
Feng, C. Y. & Chen, M. P. (2014). The effects of goal specificity and scaffolding on programming performance and self-regulation in game design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 285–302.
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Genc, Y., Riedel, S., Souvannavong, F., Akinlar, C. & Navab, N. (2002). Marker-less tracking for AR: A learning-based approach. Proceedings-International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2002, 295–304.
Girvan, C., Conneely, C. & Tangney, B. (2016). Extending experiential learning in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 129–139.
Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Hayes, E. (2008). Game content creation and it proficiency: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 51(1), 97-108.
Hill, J. R. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.
Hollenbeck, J. R. & Brief, A. P. (1987). The effects of individual differences and goal origin on goal setting and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(3), 392–414.
Isomöttönen, V., Lakanen, A. J., & Lappalainen, V. (2011). K-12 game programming course concept using textual programming. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 459-464.
Issa, G., Hussain, S. M. & Al-Bahadili, H. (2014). Competition-based learning. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(1), 1–13.
Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (2003). The theory & practice of learning. Psychology Press.
Joshi, M. P. (2005). Experiential learning process: Exploring teaching and learning of strategic management framework through the winter survival exercise. Journal of Management Education, 29(5), 672–695.
K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. (2016). K-12 Computer Science Framework. Retrieved from ACM website: https://k12cs.org/
Kaczmarczyk, L. C., Petrick, E. R., East, J. P. & Herman, G. L. (2010). Identifying student misconceptions of programming. Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’10, 107–111.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and culture, 1(1), 36-40.
Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210.
Kalelioglu, F., & Sentance, S. (2019). Teaching with physical computing in school: The case of the micro: bit. Education and Information Technologies, 1-27.
Katiyar, A., Kalra, K. & Garg, C. (2015). Marker based augmented reality. Advances in Computer Science and Information Technology, 2(5), 441–445.
Kesim, M. & Ozarslan, Y. (2012). Augmented reality in education: Current technologies and the potential for education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47(222), 297–302.
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83-137.
Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1455-1464.
Kim, S. H., & Jeon, J. W. (2007). Programming lego mindstorms nxt with visual programming. In 2007 International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, 2468-2472.
Kobsiripat, W. (2015). Effects of the media to promote the scratch programming capabilities creativity of elementary school students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 227–232.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Inc. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Korkmaz, Ö. (2016). The effect of Scratch and Lego Mindstorms Ev3 based programming activities on academic achievement, problem solving skills and logical mathematical thinking skills of students. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 73–88.
Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R. & Dossett, D. L. (1978). Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(2), 163–171.
Lazonder, A. W. & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.
Lin, M. H., Chen, M. P., & Chen, C. F. (2013). Exploring peer scaffolding opportunities on experiential problem solving learning. In International Conference on Computational Collective Intelligence, 572-581. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 5(2), 117–124.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–269.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Goal-setting theory of motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1–6.
Lykke, M., Coto, M., Jantzen, C., Mora, S. & Vandel, N. (2015). Motivating students through positive learning experiences : A comparison of three learning designs for computer programming courses. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 80–108.
MacLaurin, M. B. (2011). The design of Kodu: A tiny visual programming language for children on the Xbox 360. In Proceedings of the 38th annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages, 241-246.
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1-15.
Matlen, B. J. & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634.
Moreno-León, J., Román-González, M., & Robles, G. (2018). On computational thinking as a universal skill: A review of the latest research on this ability. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, 1684-1689.
Paris, C., Colineau, N., Lu, S., & Vander Linden, K. (2005). Automatically generating effective online help. International Journal on E-learning, 4(1), 83-103.
Pea, R. & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168.
Race, P. (2000). Task-based learning. Medical education, 34(5), 335-336.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer science education, 13(2), 137-172.
Ruggiero, D. & Green, L. (2017). Problem solving through digital game design: A quantitative content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 28–37.
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.
Sentance, S., Waite, J., Hodges, S., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. (2017,). " Creating Cool Stuff" Pupils' Experience of the BBC micro: bit. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, 531-536.
Sirkiä, T. & Sorva, J. (2012). Exploring programming misconceptions: An analysis of student mistakes in visual program simulation exercises. 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 19–28.
Spohrer, J. C. & Soloway, E. (1986). Novice mistakes: Are the folk wisdoms correct? Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 624–632.
Teo, Y. H. & Chai, C. S. (2009). Scaffolding online collaborative critiquing for educational video production. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 1(1), 51-66.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22.
Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M. & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(2), 1–22.
Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem based learning. British Medical Journal, 326, 328-330.
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning by computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 103607.