一般在中小學課堂使用的機器人（如 LEGO NXT）外型與應用上都較為工程導向，或較有利於吸引男生使用；2014年 Dash & Dot 機器人問世，外型可愛具聲光效果，簡易的外觀設計亦減去硬體組裝及其操控上延伸的問題，或有利於提升女生對程式設計之興趣。本研究探討兩種不同類型機器人－ Dash & Dot 和LEGO NXT對不同性別學生學習運算思維之影響，包括其學習表現、對學習活動態度、學習程式設計刻板印象、對機器人的偏好等。本研究採準實驗設計，參與者為台北市某公立國小四個班級的六年級學生，共計103名。以其中兩班為實驗組，共51人，使用 Dash & Dot 機器人；另外兩班為控制組，共52人，使用 NXT 機器人。兩組實驗實施時間均為兩週共160分鐘，都由同一位電腦教師授課。教材共分成寵物學走路、寵物學看路、寵物找玩具等三個單元，每個單元皆以「認識→活用→創造」教學模式進行，並讓學生在學習單上寫下演算法思考流程，培養學生解題前先釐清問題並規劃解決策略。
研究結果發現：（1）學生皆對於Dash & Dot機器人有較高的偏好，尤其是在外型與顏色的部分；（2）學生的性別與組別在學習的態度上並無顯著差異；（3）男生在學習程式設計上具性別刻板印象，認為他們學習表現較女生好；（4）學生的性別與組別在演算法思考上並無顯差異，大部分學生能觀察到重複模式，然而無法找出判斷迴圈終止的條件。建議未來研究（1）讓學生選擇喜好的機器人進行學習活動；（2）教學設計上，給予學生更多思考的時間，並讓學生有時間熟悉機器人軟硬體設備；（3）成就測驗時，也讓學生實際操作機器人執行演算法思考。建議未來教學設計（1）使用搭配中文軟體的機器人設備；（2）指定小組分工任務避免分工不均；（3）對學生的學習單給予適當的回饋；（4）注意授課環境的選擇與設置。

Robots are generally used in schools to help students learn programming and computational thinking (CT). Traditional robots such as LEGO NXT are more engineering-oriented-- students need to deal with hardware in learning processes, and are considered favor the male students. A newly educational robot, Dash & Dot, was designed with cute appearance and sounds to arouse girls’ interest, and students deal with very few hardware. This study investigated how the two kinds of robots, Dash & Dot and LEGO NXT, affect students’ learning in terms of students' gender. We employed a quasi-experimental design. The participants were one hundred and three sixth grade students. Fifty-one students, served as the experimental group, learned CT through Dash & Dot robots. Fifty-two students, served as the control groups, learned through NXT robots.
The results showed that students preferred using Dash & Dot robot than LEGO NXT, especially for their appearance and color; There was no significant difference in students’ learning attitudes between genders or groups. Boys revealed stereotypes in genders when learning programming-- they considered themselves better than girls. No significant difference was found in algorithm thinking between gender or between groups. We suggest to give students options to choose their favorite robot to learn programming, extending teaching hours so that students would have more time in thinking, and conducting the achievement test by using the robots.

江佩璇（2008）。中小學資訊教育中性別差異之探討。教育與發展，25（4），115-117。
林宇玲（2004）。數位機會？數位落差？從性別觀點反省資訊推廣與訓練計畫。婦研縱橫，69，82-87。
吳肇銘、邵孔屏（1995）。資訊管理教育之微觀設計研究-資訊管理學系學生之邏輯思考能力、學習經驗、性別與其電腦成就之相關性探討。中原學報，23（4），21-28。
許雅慧（2005）。應用LEGO Mindstorms視覺化環境輔助程式設計觀念學習（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
教育部（2013）。提升國民素養專案計畫報告書（初稿）。
教育部（2016）。資訊教育總藍圖。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/3/relfile/6315/46563/65ebb64a-683c-4f7a-bcf0-325113ddb436.pdf
國教院（2015）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校科技領域（草案）。
陳志豪（2004）。高二學生對科學的態度與科學相關行為意向之研究（未出版碩士論文）。私立東海大學教育研究所，臺中市。
黃世隆（2004）。應用電腦樂高輔助高中生程式設計學習之行動研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系，臺北市。
曾義智（2006）。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（未出版碩士論文）。臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系，臺北市。
楊叔卿（1998）。電腦資訊教育與性別差異之研究。視聽教育雙月刊，40，22-31。
蔡麗玲、王秀雲、吳嘉苓（2007）。性別化的科學與科技，性別向度與台灣社會。201-224 頁。台北：巨流。
潘富強（2014）Scratch 遊戲設計之性別研究-以宜蘭縣某國小六年級學童為例。
賴健二（2004）。兒童視覺化中文程式語言之開發與研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所，臺北市。
蕭佳明、黃瑛綺 (2012)。樂高機器人應用於科學與創意教育市場創業之研究。遠東學報，29（3），375-386。

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment, Reporting Authority) (2013). Draft Australian Curriculum: Technologies. Retrieved from http://consultation.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Static/docs/Technologies/Draft%20Australian%20Curriculum%20Technologies%20-%20February%202013.pdf
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2014). How to support students’ computational thinking skills in educational robotics activities. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 43-50).
Becker, B. W. (2001, February). Teaching CS1 with karel the robot in Java. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 50-54). ACM.
Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom. Teachers College Press, NY, NY.
Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157.
Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002, January). Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL environment. In Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 119-127). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Chao, P. Y. (2016). Exploring students' computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers & Education, 95, 202-215.
College Board. (2014). AP Computer Science Principles Curriculum Framework 2016-2017. Retrieved from https://securemedia.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-computer-science-principles-curriculum-framework.pdf
CSTA (2011). CSTA K–12 Computer Science Standards. The ACM K-12 Education Task Force. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CSTA_K-12_CSS.pdf
CSTA (2017). CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards. Retrieved from https://www.csteachers.org/page/standards
Denning, P. J., & Freeman, P. A. (2009). The profession of IT Computing's paradigm. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 28-30.
DE (Department for Education) (2013, September 11). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study
Djambong, T., & Freiman, V. (2016). Task-Based Assessment of Students' Computational Thinking Skills Developed through Visual Programming or Tangible Coding Environments. International Association for Development of the Information Society.
ECT. (2015). Google: Exploring Computational Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/edu/computational-thinking/
Fagin, B. S., Merkle, L. D., & Eggers, T. W. (2001, September). Teaching computer science with robotics using Ada/Mindstorms 2.0. In ACM SIGAda Ada Letters (Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 73-78). ACM.
Giacquinta, J. B., Bauer, J. A., & Levin, J. E. (1993). Beyond technology’s promise.
Grover, S. (2011, April). Robotics and engineering for middle and high school students to develop computational thinking. In annual meeting of the American educational research association, New Orleans, LA.
Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 47, 1991-1999.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., ... & Werner, L.(2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12?. Computers in Human
Behavior, 41, 51-61.
Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2003). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. MIT press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.knowingscience.com/sites/default/files/c-13165_0.pdf
Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010, March). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 265-269). ACM.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3),33–36.
Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions on the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking— What and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking
what-and-why
Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011, March). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 465-470). ACM.
Wolz, U. (2001). Teaching design and project management with Lego RCX robots. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 95-99.