本研究的目的在探討機器車做為前導組織對於學生學習程式設計之影響，探討範圍包括學習成就、態度及心智模型。研究採準實驗設計，參與者為台北某高中高一學生2班共66人，實驗時間共8週（16小時），學生依使用機器車前導組織教學，分為機器車組及控制組。兩組差別僅在於第一週是否使用機器車作為程式設計前導組織，第一週後兩組皆使用傳統程式設計教學。
研究結果發現：（1）機器車前導組織有助於提升學生的設計程式能力，（2）機器車前導組織對於學生學習興趣並未造成影響，（3）學生對使用機器車學習程式設計抱持正向態度，（4）機器車前導組織所建立的心智模型有助於初學者學習程式設計，（5）機器車前導組織課程可能建構錯誤的循序結構心智模型，因此建議教學者在使用機器車進行程式設計教學時，需注意此類錯誤心智模型的產生。

This study investigated the effects of using robots as an advance organizer for learning programming and the mental models might result from the strategy. A quasi-experiment design was implemented in this study. Two classes of high school students, a total of 66 students, had participated in this study. The experiment lasted for eight weeks, with 2 hours per week, totaling 16 hours. One class of the students served as the experiment group, who had robot programming activities as the advance organizer in the first week and then switched to the traditional approach in the rest weeks; the other class served as the control group, who used the traditional programming learning approach throughout the experiment. The findings of this study were: (1) The robot advance organizer had effects on students’ program design performance, but not program comprehension performance. (2) The robot advance organizer did not affect students’ attitudes toward programming in general; however, students appreciated the use of robots as programming learning tools. (3) Most of the mental models resulted from the robot advance organizer were viable for learning programming. (4) Occasionally, some students might have misconception on the sequential concepts due to the prior robot advance organizer activities.

林寶山(1990)：教學論：理論與方法。台北：五南出版社。

張春興(1994)：教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華出版社。

教育部（1995）：高級中學課程標準。台北：教育部。

莊雅茹（1995）：高中學生電腦課程看法之調查。中等教育, 46(1),125-130.

何榮桂、陳麗如（2001）：中小學資訊教育總藍圖的內涵與精神。資訊教育雜誌，85，22-28。

陳宏煒（2003）：高中電腦課程實施現況調查。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。

劉洲（2005）：應用LEGO Mindstorms在高中程式設計教學的成效探討。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。

游鎮嘉（2006）：應用史賓機器人於英語教室做為教師之教學伙伴。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文。

葉佳軒（2006）機器人教育之互動因素分析研究-以高職機械科與電子科學生為例。國立台北教育大學玩具與遊戲設計研究所碩士論文。

許雅惠（2006）：應用LEGO Mindstorms視覺化環境輔助程式設計觀念學習。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系碩士論文。

曾義智（2007）：應用機器人於程式設計教學─實體機器人與模擬軟體使用成效比較。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文。

教育部（2008）：普通高級中學課程綱要。台北：教育部。

謝亞錚（2009）：機器人輔助程式設計教學之學習成效與學生心智模型探討。未出版碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資料教育研究所，台北市。

Adelson, B. (1981). Problem solving and development of abstract categories in programming languages. Memory and Cognition, 9, 422-433.

Ausubel, D.P. (1960).The use of advance organizer in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 514-521.

Ausubel, D.P., ＆ Fitzgerald, D. (1960).The role of discriminability in meaningful verbal material and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52 , 266-274.

Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Education Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Barnes, D. J. (2002). Teaching introductory Java through LEGO MINDSTORMS models. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), 147-151.

Beaubouef, T., & Mason, J. (2005). Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: some thoughts and observations. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2), 103-106.

Becker, B. W. (2001) Teaching CS1 with Karel the Robot in Java. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 50-54.

Bransford, J.D. and Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior, 717-726.

Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E. J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997). Mini language: a way to learn programming principles. Education and Information Technologies, 2 (1), 65-83.

Cañas J. J., Bajo M. T., & Gonzalvo P. (1994). Mental models and computer programming. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(5), 795-811.

Dagdilelis, V., Satratzemi M., & Evangelidis, G. (2004). Introducing secondary education students to algorithms and programming. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 159-173.

Dagdilelis, V., Sartatzemi, M., & Kagani, K. (2005). Teaching Robots in Secondary Schools: Some New and Not-So-New Pedagogical Problems. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'05), 757 - 761, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Dooling, D.J. and Lachman, R. (1971). Effects of comprehension on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 216-222.

Dooling, D.J. and Mullet, R.L. (1973). Locus of thematic effects on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 404-406.

du Boulay, B., O’Shea, T., & Monk, J. (1989). The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices. In E. Soloway & J.C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer, pp. 431-446. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellinger, H. (2003). A nature sense of algorithm: Children should learn computer programming as a basic skill. Retrieved Febuary 13, 2008, from http://hunter.ellinger.org/education/ProgrammingForChildren.htm.

Fagin, B., Merkle, L. (2003). Mesuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 307-311.

Flowers, T. R., & Gossett, K. A. (2002). Teaching problem solving, computing, and information technology with robots. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17(6), 45-55.

Guzdial, M.& Soloway, E. (2002). Teaching the Nintendo generation to program. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 17-21.

Hartmann, W., Nievergelt, J., & Reichert, R. (2001). Kara, finite state machines, and the case for the programming as part of general education. Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Symposia on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments, 135-141, Stresa, Italy.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge London.

Klassner, F. (2002). A case study of LEGO Mindstorms'™ suitability for artificial intelligence and robotics courses at the college level, Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 8-12.

Lawhead, P. B., Duncan, M. E., Bland, C. G., Goldweber, M., Schep, M., Barnes, D. J., et al. (2003). A Road Map for teaching Introductory Programming Using LEGO Mindstorms Robots. ACM SIGCSE Bullelin, 35(2), 191-201.

Lesh, R.A. (1976). The influence of two types of advanced organizers on an instructional unit about finite groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 87-91.

Mannila, L., Peltomaki, M., & Salakoski, T. (2006) What about a simple language? Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program. Computer science education , 16(3), 211-227.

Mayer, R.E. (1975). Different problem solving compentencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 725-734.

Mayer, R.E. (1976). Some conditions of meaningful learning of computer programming:Advance organizers and subject control of frame sequencing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 143-150.

Mayer, R. E. (1978). Advance organizers that compensate for the organization of text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 880-886.

Mayer, R.E. (1979). Twenty years of research on advance organizer：assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results. Instructional Science, 8, 33-167.

Mayer, R.E. (1981). The psychology if how novices learn computer programming. Computing Surveys, 13, 232-141.

Mayers, B. A. (1986). Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization a taxonomy. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 59-66. Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Patterson-McNeill, H., & Binkerd, C. L. (2001). Resources for using LEGO Mindstorms. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 16(3), 48-55.

Perkins, D. N., & Martin, F(1986). Fragile knowledge and neglected strategies in novice programmers. In E. Soloway and S. Lyengar, Eds . Empirical Studies of Programmers (pp.213-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perkins, D. N., Schwartz, S., & Simmons, R. (1988). Instructional strategies for the problems of novice programmers. In R. E. Mayer, Ed. Teaching and Learning Computer programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pennington, N., (1987). Stimulus structures and mental representations in expert comprehension of compuer programs. Cognitive psychology, 19(3), 295-341

Putnam, R. T., Sleeman, D., Baxter, J. A., & Kuspa, L. K. (1989). A summary of misconceptions of high school BASIC programmers. In E. Soloway and J. c. Spohrer (eds.), Studying the Novice Programmers (301-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Robin, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172.

West, L.H.T. and Fensham, P.J. (1976). Prior knowledge or advance organizers as effective variables in chemical learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,13: 297-306.

Wiedenbeck, S. & Ramalingam, V. (1999). Novice comprehension of small programs written in the procedural and object-oriented styles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51(1), 71-87.

Williams, A. B. (2003). The qualitative impact of using LEGO Mindstorms robots to teach computer engineering. ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 46(1), 206-206.

Wolfe, D., Gossett, K., Hanlon, P. D., & Carver, C.A., Jr. (2003). Active learning using mechatronics in a freshman information technology course. 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 3, 5-8, Boulder, Colorado.