本研究旨在觀察與分析國小四年級學童以同儕配對或親子配對學習MSWLogo程式設計之合作方式、對話層次、合作意願及學習興趣。本研究採多重個案研究法，從桃園縣某國小四年級自願參與之學童與家長立意抽樣同儕組（男男、女女與男女配對）與親子組（父子、母子與母女配對）各三組為研究對象。親子合作非屬學校正規教學活動，因此以暑期電腦營分兩階段實施。本研究規劃十二節教學課程，每節五十分鐘。每節課教學者先講授課程內容後，再由個案進行合作解題，於每階段結束後讓九位學童進行個別實作解題，其目的在於觀察同儕或親子配對學習對個案造成之影響。另外，研究者於課程結束後針對個案逐一進行深入訪談，以探究不同組別間的合作方式與學習態度。以下彙整本研究所獲致之結論：
在「合作方式」方面，包含：（1）在操作權方面，合作初期同儕組皆不適應共用一部電腦，僅女女配對組協調共同操作；後來各組皆由能力較好的人取得較多操作機會；親子組均由孩子操作電腦，偶而也有父母介入操作之情形。（2）在主導權方面，合作初期同儕組參與解題頻率較為平均，隨著指令與圖形困難度提高，各組也隨之由解題能力較好的人主導解題；親子組有兩組在孩子遇到困難時家長介入指導，而母子配對組則完全由媽媽主導，可從訪談內容中發現親子組之合作互動，皆反映平日父母指導孩子做功課之方式。
在「對話層次」方面，包含：（1）各組出現相當高百分比之程序性對話，可能與各組必須不斷地操作與執行MSWLogo指令完成圖形，自然出現較多與執行步驟相關之對話，或許在其他學科方面之學習不見得會有此種現象。（2）同儕組男男配對組與男女配對組皆出現許多社交性對話，女女配對組卻咸少出現；女女配對學習程式設計似乎能有較多聚焦於任務相關之討論。
在「合作意願」方面，三名同儕組學童與全數親子組學童皆喜歡此種配對方式，有意願再參加相同配對方式之學習，另外三名同儕組學童則比較喜歡自己一個人學習。在「學習興趣」方面，四名同儕組學童與全數親子組學童喜歡學習MSWLogo程式設計，也有興趣再學習進階課程，僅兩位同儕組學童表示學習此程式設計較困難。
茲就本研究之結論作三項後續研究建議：（1）本研究觀察親子配對合作有助於學童學習MSWLogo程式設計，建議可在國小多實施親子配對學習程式設計或電腦技能課程；（2）本研究觀察同儕組女女配對組較能相互合作討論，男男配對組與男女配對組則容易爭奪操作權，也較容易由一人主導解題，建議可探討不同性別配對合作學習是否會影響學童學習程式設計之成效；（3）MSWLogo程式設計之語法過於簡單，建議採用語法較複雜之程式語言進行相同之研究，如：Python，或許可觀察出有別於本研究之觀察結果。

The purpose of this study was designed to observe and analyze cooperative ways, levels of dialogue, cooperative willingness, and learning attitudes of peer pairs and parent-child pairs learning MSWLogo programming for the fourth-grade elementary school students in Taoyuan County, Taiwan. This qualitative study, used a multiple-case study analysis, was designed to evaluate learning styles and interactive information for purposive sample of three peer pairs (sexual classification of each peer pair is two-boy, two-girl, and boy-girl) and three parent-child pairs (blood relationship of each parent-child pair is father-son, mother-son, and mother-daughter). Instructional experiment divided into two phases, was implemented by means of programming activities in summer vacation in that parent-child cooperation is a non-formal education activity during that period of school time. Including twelve sections of programming instruction, MSWLogo course was carried out fifty minutes each section. After instructor taught one-section course, each pair was asked to solve problems cooperatively and immediately. Besides, each pair was also demanded to work out practical puzzles at the end of each stage. As a result, implications and performance were scrutinized and examined in individual pairs. In addition, participants were interviewed profoundly and individually in order to investigate cooperative patterns and learning attitudes of varied pairs. The results and conclusions were followed:
In the aspect of cooperative modalities, including: (1) Regarding the view of operational right, peer pairs were incompatible with sharing a computer mutually at the initial cooperative stage except that two-girl pair could coordinate their efforts to operate by turns. However, afterward better-performance participant of each peer pair had earned more opportunities to operate the shared computer. As for parent-child pairs, the shared computer was operated by the child of each parent-child pair. It was occasionally involved in taking control of the situation by their parent, especially the second phase. (2) Regarding the view of leading right, each person of peer pairs had initially the same opportunities to participate in solving problems; however, afterward the more difficult instructions and graphics were, the more opportunities better-performance participant of each peer pair had. As for parent-child pairs, the process of the problem-solving was interfered and dominated by parent when their child encountered greater difficulties except mother-son pair. Concerning mother-son pair, the problem-solving programming was completely dominated by parent throughout the entire process instead. It was found out that the cooperative and interactive styles of parent-child pairs reflected the ways of parent’s upbringing and attitude from the content of the interviews.
In the levels of dialogue, including: (1) There were extremely high percent of procedural conversations in each of all sixth pairs. It was assumed that peer pairs or parent-child pairs had to operate and implement instructions continuously so as to finish MSWLogo graphics. Therefore, it resulted in many conversations related to the steps of programming implementation. There might have not been the same results in learning other subjects. (2) There had been considerable social conversations in two-boy pair and boy-girl pair except two-girl pair. Instead of sociabilities, it seemed that there had been more numerous discussions related to programming tasks in two-girl pair.
In the Willingness to cooperate, the peer group of three children and all children are like parent-child groups such matching means and the will to participate in the same way of matching study, three other children, peer group comparison study of a person like themselves.　In the Interested in learning, peer group of four children and all the parent-child groups like children learning MSWLogo programming, also interested in learning more advanced courses, only two peer groups that children learn the program design more difficult.
It is on the conclusions of this study for three follow-up study recommended: (1) The observation of parent-child pairs cooperation will help children learn MSWLogo programming, More than the implementation of recommendations of the parent-child pair in Primary school learning programming or computer skills courses； (2) The observation of the two-girl pair to discuss mutual cooperation, two-boy pair and boy-girl pair Easy wins for the right to operate, but also more Easily by one person-led problem solving. Proposal could explore different gender-matching study will affect students study the effectiveness of programming; (3) The syntax of MSWLogo programming is too simple, proposed to use the more complex syntax of the programming language for the same study, such as: Python, or permission to observe different from the results of this study was observed.

Aumon, U. (1997). Cooperative Parent-Child Learning in a LEGO-Logo Environment. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://eurologo.web.elte.hu/lectures/armon.htm

Battistich, V., & Solomon, D., & Delucchi, K. (1993). Interaction Processes and Student Outcomes in Cooperative Learning Groups. The Elementary School Journal, 94(1), 19-32.

Bishop-Clark, C. & Courte, J. & Howard, E. V. (2006). Programming in pairs with alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 213-228.

Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1988). Social and Cognitive Interactions in Educational Computer Environments. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 87-106.

Giles, D. (1993). Logo With Low Achievers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(1), 28-39.

Gyanani, T. C., & Pahuja, P. (1995). Brief research report：Effects of peer tutoring on abilities and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 469-475.

Hawkins, J. (1984). The interpretation of Logo in practice (Technical Report No. 34). New Youk, Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology. (ERIC ED257452)

Jaworski, A. P., & Brummel, B. (1984). Introducing computer education into an early elementary curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 250059)

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer assisted cooperative, competitive, and individual learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382-392.

Kapa, E. (1999). Problem solving, planning ability and sharing processes with LOGO, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(1), 73-84.

Keeler, C. M. & Anson, R. (1995). An assessment of cooperative learning used for basic computer skills instruction in the college classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(4), 379-393.

Keller, J. K. (1990). Characteristics of LOGO Instruction Promoting Transfer of Learning: A Research Review, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(1), 55-71.

King, J. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem-solving within computer-assisted cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 1-15.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006-1017.

Nilholm, C., & Saljo, R. (1996). Co-action, situation definitions and sociocultural experience. An empirical study of problem-solving in mother-child interacion. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 325-344.

Oliver, R. Omari, A., & Herrington, J. (1998). Exploring student interactions in collaborative World Wide Web computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2/3), 263-287.

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

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Slavin, R. E. (1995).Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.(2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Webb, N. M., & Kenderski, C. M. (1984). Student interaction and learning in small group and whole class settings. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes. New York : Macmillan.

仇永善（民94）。國小六年級學生在Logo環境中學習多邊形概念之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺中教育大學數學教育系碩士論文，台中市。

王子玲（2004）。運用合作學習於程式設計專題教學之行動研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

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。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

林裕雲（2002）。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。未出版之碩士論文，國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所論文，屏東縣。

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，6，187-208。

崔夢萍（1999）。電腦程式語言Logo和電腦多媒體教學對臺灣省國小五年級學童的創造思考力之影響。台北市立師範學院學報，30，209-228。

張富強（1992）。在LOGO環境中學習幾何之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所，彰化市。

教育部（2003）。國民中學九年一貫課程網要重大議題。臺北：教育部。

許宏彰（2005）。國小學童LOGO語言程式設計思維歷程之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺北教育大學數學教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。

黃文聖（2000）。國小學童在Logo學習環境中數學學習與解題之研究。未出版之碩士論文，新竹師範學院碩士論文，新竹市。

黃正中（2003）。合作學習應用在國中電腦科教學成效之研究，未出版之碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所，彰化市。

黃政傑、林佩璇（1999）。合作學習教學法。八十學年度國民教育輔導工作計劃，台灣省國民教育輔導團主編。

黃建庭（2003）。配對程式設計的學習成效評估－應用演算法模擬軟體於迴圈的學習，未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

楊美菁（2005）。文字式與圖像式程式語言之學習成效比較研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

劉淑芳、楊淑晴（2004）。以「合作學習」為策略實施國小三年級資訊教育之研究。教育研究資訊，12（6），33-56。

龐偉智（1999）。合作學習與電腦實驗教學－以鏈結串列學習為例，未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。