本研究旨在透過行動研究探討Alice程式設計實施於國中之可行性，以及實施時所應注意之事項。研究對象為台北市某國中一年級一個班級，共三十九位學生；本研究的教學內容則規劃為六個單元，依序為「Alice介紹」、「物件、屬性、方法、事件」、「參數」、「函式、數學表示式」、「條件判斷結構」和「迴圈結構」。整個行動研究歷時12週，每週授課兩節（各45分鐘）。每節課均由研究者講授課程內容，接著由學生進行實作練習。教學過程可概分為三個階段。研究者於每一階段深入了解學生的學習情形，探討其學習障礙，並視需要隨時調整教學方式。學生在第一階段中對於Alice的操作環境仍頗生疏，因而時常遭遇操作上的困難。針對此類困難，研究者鼓勵學生互相幫忙，以節省學生等待老師協助解決困難的時間。在第二階段中，學生的主要學習困難在於不知如何運用參數以有效控制物件的動作。由於此階段所講授之參數傳遞概念較為複雜，研究者因而在此階段實施了兩次教學評量。研究者由第一次評量的結果中，整理出學生概念不清之處，並針對那些部份進行重點式的加強說明。第二次的評量結果顯示，學生確實因為加強說明而有著顯著的進步。第三教學階段的教學重點為「函式」，亦屬較為困難的學習內容，研究者因而花費頗多時間講解函式標籤的功用，學生亦因而有了較為深刻的理解，均能照著講義上的操作步驟完成指定練習，並於完成後獲致成就感。整體而言，學生由初期不熟悉Alice設計環境，因而對Alice略有排斥，進而漸入佳境，終而願意發揮想像力與創意，依照自己設計的情境撰寫程式碼，且於本研究的教學過程結束時，大多數學生表示希望有機會繼續學習Alice程式設計或其他程式語言，其中可看出學習態度與學習興趣的明顯轉變。

Action research is used in this study to investigate how Alice programming may be taught in junior high schools. The participants are a class of 39 students in a junior high school in Taipei. The material taught was organized into six units—“An Introduction to Alice,” “Objects, Properties, Methods, and Events,” “Parameters,” “Functions and Arithmetic Expressions,” “Selection Structures,” and “Looping Structures.” The process lasted 12 weeks, with two 45-minute class periods per week. Each period consisted of a lecture given by the researcher followed by a hands-on practice session. The process could be roughly divided into three stages. The researcher identified the learning difficulties students displayed in each stage and adjusted her teaching methods accordingly. It was found that getting familiar with the Alice’s programming environment and becoming able to use it to achieve intended purposes was a challenge for many students during the first stage. They were encouraged to seek help from classmates rather than waiting idly for the instructor to solve their problems. During the second stage, many students had difficulties understanding how to use parameters effectively to control objects’ actions. Considering that parameter-passing is a more complicated concept, the researcher devised two quizzes during this stage. The first quiz was to allow the researcher to identify students’ missing knowledge or misconceptions about parameter-passing. The instructor explained those concepts again in the subsequent lectures and then gave the second quiz, which revealed significant improvement in student performance. Functions were taught in the third stage. Since many students had problems with the usage of function tabs, the researcher spent much time on explaining their usage. Students were thus better able to follow the instructions in the handouts and complete the assigned exercises with a great sense of achievement. Through the process of this action research, the researcher witnessed a change of student’s overall attitudes from initial resistance toward gradual acceptance. At the end, most students found programming interesting and even fun, and some students displayed imagination and creativity in their work. When asked if they would like to continue learning to program in Alice or other languages, a great majority of students responded positively.

1. Andrews, P., Broline, D., Slough, W., & Van Cleave, N. (2001). A set of CS 1 labs utilizing graphical objects and inheritance. Frontiers in Education Conference, 2001. 31st Annual, 1.
2. Blaisdell, J. H., & Burroughs, A. (1985). How to tell if a programming language is OK: what's wrong with basic for teaching business students how to program? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 17(3), 5-8.
3. Browne M., Lowe S., & S., W. (2006). AN ASSESSMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE ANIMATIONS: A CASE STUDY. Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges.
4. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research: Routledge.
5. Connolly, M. V. (1996). Starting Computer Science Using C++ with Objects: A Workable Approach. Association of Small Computer Users in Education (ASCUE) Summer Conference Proceedings (29 th, North Myrtle Beach, SC).
6. Conway, M. J.(1997). Easy-to-Learn 3D Scripting for Novices. University of Virginia.
7. Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Developing Algorithmic Thinking With Alice. The Proceedings of ISECON 2000, 17, 506-539.
8. Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003a). Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 191-195.
9. Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003b). Using Animated 3D Graphics to Prepare Novices for CS1. Computer Science Education, 13(1), 3-30.
10. Dann, W., Cooper, S., & Papert, S. Using 3-D Interactive Animation To provide Program Visualization As A Gentle Introduction To programming.
11. Dann, W., Dragon, T., Cooper, S., Dietzler, K., Ryan, K., & Pausch, R. Objects: Visualization of Behavior and State.
12. Dupras, M., LeMay, F., Mili, A., Laval, U., & de Didactique, D. SOME THOUGHTS ON TEACHING FIRST YEAR PROGRAMMING.
13. Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2004). The TeachScheme! Project: Computing and Programming for Every Student. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 55-77.
14. Feurzeig, W., Papert, S., Bloom, M., Grant, R., & Solomon, C. (1970). Programming-languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 4(2), 13-17.
15. Gee, Q. H., Wills, G. and Cooke, E. . (2005). A first programming language for IT students. In Proceedings of 6th Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for ICS, York, UK. .
16. Grandell, L., Peltomaki, M., Back, R. J., & Salakoski, T. (2006). Why Complicate Things? Introducing Programming in High School Using Python.
17. Howard, E. V., Evans, D., Courte, J., & Bishop-Clark, C. (2006). A Qualitative Look at Alice and Pair-Programming.
18. Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. Proceedings of 3rd LTSN-ICS Conference (Loughborough, August 2002).
19. Ko, A. J. (2004). Designing a Flexible and Supportive Direct-Manipulation Programming Environment. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages-Human Centric Computing (VLHCC'04)-Volume 00, 277-278.
20. Kolling, M., Koch, B., & Rosenberg, J. (1995). REQUIREMENTS FOR A FIRST YEAR OBJECT-ORIENTED TEACHING LANGUAGE.
21. Kurt Lewin(1948) Groups, Experiential learning and action research .Retrieved May 1, 2007 http://www.infed.org/research/b-actres.htm
22. Lee, P. A., & Phillips, C. (2003). An Assessment of C++ as an Introductory Teaching Language. TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES-UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE COMPUTING SCIENCE.
23. Levy, S. P. (1995). Computer language usage in CS1: survey results. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 27(3), 21-26.
24. Lin, Janet M.-C., Yan, Long-Yuen, Yang, Mei-Ching, & Chen, Chiao-Fun (2005). Teaching Computer Programming in Elementary Schools: A Pilot Study. Paper presented at National Educational Computing Conference (NECC 2005).
25. Lister, R., Seppala, O., Simon, B., Thomas, L., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., et al. (2004). A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 119-150.
26. Maheshwari, P. (1997). Improving the learning environment in first-year programming: integrating lectures, tutorials, and laboratories. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 111-131.
27. Moskal, B., Lurie, D., & Cooper, S. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of a new instructional approach. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 75-79.
28. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas: Basic Books.
29. Parker, K. R., Chao, J. T., Ottaway, T. A., & Chang, J. (2006). A Formal Language Selection Process for Introductory Programming Courses. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 133-151.
30. Rearick, M. L., & Feldman, A. A Framework for Understanding Action Research.
31. Rountree, N., Rountree, J., & Robins, A. (2002). Predictors of Success and Failure in a CS1 Course.
32. Stallmann, M. F. (2001). Programming and Proofs, Teaching Logic in Computer Science.
33. Ulloa, M. (1980). Teaching and learning computer programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 12(2), 48-64.
34. 張春興（民80）：張氏心理學辭典（第二版）。臺北：東華書局。
35. 何榮桂（民85）：國中電腦課程標準的內函與特色。資訊與教育，51期，2~10頁。
36. 郭嘉琪、吳正己（民89）：中學電腦課程實施現況調查。
37. 教育部電算中心（民90）：中小學資訊教育總藍圖。
38. 王子玲（民92）：運用合作學習於程式設計專題教學之行動研究。
39. 蔡美華、王文科（民92）：行動研究法。臺北：學富文化。
40. 翁秉仁（民92）：談九年一貫數學。線上檢索日期：2007年5月1日。網址：http:// www.math.thu.edu.tw/~fbyeh/math-teacher/92elementary/appendix/03.doc
41. 黃世隆、賴春錦、呂慶書（民93）：以JAVA繪圖題專題進行高中程式設計教學之行動研究。
42. 楊美菁（民94）：文字式與圖像式程式語言之學習成效比較研究。
43. 李畇龍（民95）：引導合作學習對於國小學童學習Logo程式設計之影響。