機器人教學為一個跨領域課程，整合電機、電子、機械、資訊、控制等科技領域的知識和技能。6E（Engage、Explore、Explain、Engineer、Enrich、Evaluate）模式是以學習者為中心的教學模式，目的是提升學習者設計與探究的能力，搭配實作教學活動可以整合理論與實作經驗，補強學生無法將課程內容實際應用的情況。透過實作教學活動與6E模式，能提供學習者理解課程知識及驗證概念的機會，並且深化學習者對知識概念的理解及應用。
本研究旨在探討不同教學模式（6E模式、傳統教學模式）對國小高年級學生在機器人實作教學課程對學習動機、學習成效及實作能力之影響。使用6E模式搭配實作教學，發展在地學校文化特色為「螃蟹」主題的機器人教學課程，其中課程內容包含了資訊科技與生活科技，學生透過實作活動設計程式與組裝機器人，達到動手做、動腦思考、自我導向的學習。研究對象為國小高年級學生共70位學生，實驗採用準實驗研究法，自變項為教學模式，依照不同教學模式分為6E模式與傳統教學模式兩種；依變項則包含學習動機、學習成效與實作能力。研究結果顯示：(1)兩組學生對機器人實作課程皆抱持正向的學習動機且感興趣；(2)採用6E模式在機器人實作課程能有效的提升學習成效及實作能力。

Robot education was an interdisciplinary curriculum, integrated knowledge and skills of electrical, electronic, mechanical, computational, control and other fields. 6E (Engage, Explore, Explain, Engineer, Enrich, Evaluate) model is a student-centered teaching model. The purpose of this model is to strengthen the design and scientific inquiry ability. By combining with the hands-on teaching activities which could integrated theory and practice, enhanced student’s abilities for course content that couldn’t apply. Through hands-on teaching activites and 6E model, provided opportunity for students to enrich their knowledge and evaluate the concept.
The purpose of this study was to design a 6E model of the robot course and explore elementary students’ learning motivation, learning effectiveness and hands-on ability. Through hands-on teaching activites and 6E model, “Crab” was chosen as the course subject, by development the school-based local cultural features. The course included the teaching fields of information technology and living technology. Students not only learned to programming but also assembled robot by themselves, achieved self-oriented learning. The participants were the fifth and sixth graders and the effective sample size was 70. A quasi-experimental design was employed with type of teaching model as the independent variables. While the teaching models included 6E model and traditional teaching model. The dependent variables were learning motivation, lerning effectiveness and hands-on ability. The results show that 6E model in robot education will improve learning motivation, learning effectiveness and hands-on ability.

一、 中文部分
王靜媺（2008）。資訊多媒體融入體育教學對國中學生學習動機及學習效果之影響。私立輔仁大學體育學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，台北縣。
吳靜吉、程炳林（1992）。激勵的學習策略量表之修訂。測驗年刊，39，59-78。
呂永鈞（2015）。藉由國小五年級學生學習程式設計探究運算思維能力在Bebras測驗上的表現。國立臺灣大學電信工程學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
李賢哲（2001）。以動手做（DIY）工藝的興趣培養中小學童具科學創造力之人格特質。科學教育，243，2-7。
汪殿杰、巫鍵志、王意蘭、吳致娟（2014）。強調動手實作的科技教育-以臺北市立大同高中為例。中等教育，65（4），141-151。
周家卉（2008）。實作評量在生活科技課程實施之探討。生活科技教育月刊，41（7），51-83。
周韻芳（2008）。數位教材之動機設計對網路學習者的動機表現與學習策略運用之影響。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
林育慈、吳正己（2016）。運算思維與中小學資訊科技課程。教育脈動，6，5-20。
林坤誼（2016）。虛實STEM場域對培養國中生合作問題解決能力的效益。論文發表於第五屆工程與科技教育學術研討會，國立臺灣師範大學。
姚經政、林呈彥（2016）。STEM教育應用於機器人教學-以6E教學模式結合差異化教學。科技與人力教育季刊，3（1），53-75。
翁偉誠（2015）。創造性問題解決導向的國小機器人教學設計。科技與人力教育季刊，1（3），40-54。
國家教育研究院（2015）。十二年國民基本教育科技領域課程綱要草案研修說明。台北：國家教育研究院。
張永福（2008）。實作評量的特性及其理論基礎。研習資訊，25（3），79-86。
張玉山、楊雅茹（2014）。STEM教學設計之探討：以液壓手臂單元為例。科技與人力教育季刊，1（1），2-17。
張玉山、簡爾君（2016）。透過ARCS理論提高學習動機的STEM教學設計。科學研習，55（4），32-41。
張春興（2003）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐（修訂版）。台北市：東華。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。台北：教育部。
陳怡靜、張基成（2015）。兩岸機器人教育的現況與發展。中等教育，66（3），37-59。
曾吉弘（2015）。結合智慧型手機與機器人之專題導向式教學。中等教育，66（3），82-87。
黃一峯、朱耀明（2013）。知識來源對學生動手做活動學習影響探究分析。工業科技教育學刊，6，45-56。
黃玉枝（2013）。以動手做科學促進身心障礙學生對科學學習的興趣。南屏特殊教育，4，23-36。
黃政傑（2014）。翻轉教室的理念、問題與展望。臺灣教育評論月刊，3（12），161-186。
詹志禹（1996）。認識與知識:建構論VS.接受觀。教育研究，49，25-38。
趙貞怡（2013）。原住民學童在電腦樂高機器人課程中的創造力與團隊合作能力。教育實踐與研究，26（1），33-62。
蔡依帆、吳心昀（2014）。STEM整合教學活動-空投救援物資。科技與人力教育季刊，1（1），40-54。
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。
韓宜娣(2011)。鷹架支持與自我效能對國小學生程式設計學習表現與學習態度之影響。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
聶健文、顏芳慧（2010）實作導向的護理研究訓練成效評值。南臺灣醫學雜誌，6（1）， 30-37。
顏春煌（2007）。漫談數位學習的理論。空大學訊，385，91-96。
羅希哲、蔡慧音、曾國鴻（2011）。高中女生STEM網路專題式合作學習之研究。高雄師大學報，30，41-61。

二、 外文部分
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47.
Arangala, C. (2013). Developing curiosity in science with service. J. Civic Commit, 20, 1-10.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Banzi, M., & Shiloh, M. (2014). Getting Started with Arduino: The Open Source Electronics Prototyping Platform. Maker Media, Inc..
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
Barry, N. (2014). The ITEEA 6E learning byDeSIGN™ Model. The Technology and Engineering Teacher, March, 14-19.
Beer, R. D., Chiel, H. J., & Drushel, R. F. (1999). Using autonomous robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85-92.
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.
Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: testing the model structure and a comparison among products--three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 333-346.
Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287-296.
Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15(3), 158-178.
Blank, D. (2006). Robots make computer science personal. Communications of the ACM, 49(12), 25-27.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1-25).
Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., Hvorecky, J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997). Mini-languages: a way to learn programming principles. Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 65-83.
Bull, G., & Berry, R. (2011). Classroom engineering and craft technologies. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38, 26–27.
Burke, B. N. (2014). The ITEEA 6E Learning ByDesign™ Model: maximizing informed design and inquiry in the integrative STEM classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(6), 14-19.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, effectiveness and applications. Retrieved from http://www.bscs.org/bscs-5e-instructional-model
Calder, N. (2010). Using Scratch: An integrated problem-solving approach to mathematical thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(4), 9-14.
Chang, C. K. (2014). Effects of using Alice and Scratch in an introductory programming course for corrective instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 185-204.
Chang, Y. S., Chien, Y. H., Lin, H. C., Chen, M. Y., & Hsieh, H. H. (2016). Effects of 3D CAD applications on the design creativity of students with different representational abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 107-113.
Cheng, C. C., Huang, P. L., & Huang, K. H. (2013). Cooperative learning in lego robotics projects: exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. Journal of Networks, 8(7), 1529-1535.
Clark, J., Rogers, M. P., Spradling, C., & Pais, J. (2013). What, no canoes? Lessons learned while hosting a scratch summer camp. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(5), 204-210.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997-1003.
Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) (2011). CSTA K-12 computer science standards. The ACM K-12 Education Task Force. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/aM7X3A.
Corral, J. M. R., Balcells, A. C., Estévez, A. M., Moreno, G. J., & Ramos, M. J. F. (2014). A game-based approach to the teaching of object-oriented programming languages. Computers & Education, 73, 83-92.
Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering. Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking (pp. 155-173). Springer Singapore.
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/ucFwE9.
Dagdilelis, V., Sartatzemi, M., & Kagani, K. (2005, July). Teaching (with) robots in secondary schools: some new and not-so-new pedagogical problems. In Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'05) (pp. 757-761). IEEE.
Dale, E. (1969). Audiovisual methods in teaching. NY: Dryden Press.
de Kereki, I. F. (2008, October). Scratch: applications in computer science 1. In 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Saratoga Springs, NY.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692-699.
Fairchild, A. J., Horst, S. J., Finney, S. J., & Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and new validity evidence for the Academic Motivation Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 331-358.
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.
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97.
Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-8.
Gandy, E. A., Bradley, S., Arnold-Brookes, D., & Allen, N. R. (2010). The use of lego mindstorms nxt robots in the teaching of introductory java programming to undergraduate students. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 9(1), 2-9.
Gerstner, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Cognitive achievement and motivation in hands‐on and teacher‐centred science classes: Does an additional hands‐on consolidation phase (concept mapping) optimise cognitive learning at work stations?. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 849-870.
Gonzalez-Gomez, J., Valero-Gomez, A., Prieto-Moreno, A., & Abderrahim, M. (2012). A new open source 3d-printable mobile robotic platform for education. Advances in Autonomous Mini Robots, 49-62.
Goodman, B. E., Freeburg, E. M., Rasmussen, K., & Meng, D. (2006). Elementary education majors experience hands-on learning in introductory biology. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 195-203.
Google (2015). Exploring computational thinking. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/edu/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Hill, L., & Ciccarelli, S. (2013, October). Using a low-cost open source hardware development platform in teaching young students programming skills. In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education (pp. 63-68). ACM.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2014). Operational Definition of Computational Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Kafai, Y. B., Burke, Q., & Resnick, M. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Mit Press.
Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code. org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210.
Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679-685.
Karp, T., & Maloney, P. (2013). Exciting young students in grades K-8 about STEM through an afterschool robotics challenge. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 39-54
Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26-39.
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.
Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26-34.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status, 1, 383-434.
Klopp, T. J., Rule, A. C., Schneider, J. S., & Boody, R. M. (2014). Computer technology-integrated projects should not supplant craft projects in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 865-886.
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. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.rondout.k12.ny.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx.
Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Jarvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, Caparica, Portugal.
Lai, C. S., & Lai, M. H. (2012, June). Using computer programming to enhance science learning for 5th graders in Taipei. In Computer, Consumer and Control (IS3C), 2012 International Symposium on (pp. 146-148). IEEE.
Lee, J. H., McCullouch, B. G., &; Chang, L. M. (2008). Macrolevel and microlevel frameworks of experiential learning theory in construction engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 134(2), 158-164.
Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lu, Y. L., Lian, I. B., & Lien, C. J. (2015). The Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Evaluating Creative Products in Science Class and its Modification for Educational Evaluation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 413-435.
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.
Madani, R., Moroz, A., Baines, E., & Makled, B. (2016). Realising a child's imagination through a child-led product design for both two-dimensional and three-dimensional products. International Journal of Materials and Product Technology, 52(1-2), 96-117.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. New York.：W. H. Freeman.
McCormick, R. (2004). Collaboration: The challenge of ICT. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 159-176.
McKee, G. T. (2007). The robotics body of knowledge [Education]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 14(1), 18-19.
McNally, M., Goldweber, M., Fagin, B., & Klassner, F. (2006, March). Do lego mindstorms robots have a future in CS education?. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 61-62). ACM.
McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to Tangible Programming Bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing,8(5), 326-337.
Mellodge, P., & Russell, I. (2013, July). Using the arduino platform to enhance student learning experiences. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 338-338). ACM.
Mistikoglu, S., & Ozyalcin, I. (2010). Design and development of a cartesian robot for multi-disciplinary engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 30-39.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). The impact of educational robotics on student STEM learning, attitudes, and workplace skills. Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning, 186-203.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Welch, G. (2016). Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: results from a US robotics project. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 686-691.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ouahbi, I., Kaddari, F., Darhmaoui, H., Elachqar, A., & Lahmine, S. (2015). Learning basic programming concepts by creating games with scratch programming environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1479-1482.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. (Trans A. Rosin). Viking.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., & McKeachie, W. J. (1989) A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Research and future directions, 28 (4), 253-260.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., ... & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
Rother, K., Rother, M., Pleus, A., & Belzen, A. U. Z. (2010). Multi-stage learning aids applied to hands-on software training. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 11(6), 582-586. doi: Doi 10.1093/Bib/Bbq024
Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W.M.G., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching Programming in Secondary School: A Pedagogical Content Knowledge Perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73-88.
Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two years case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129-141.
Satterthwait, D. (2010). Why are'hands-on'science activities so effective for student learning?. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(2).
Schollmeyer, M. (1996). Computer programming in high school vs. college. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(1), 378-382.
Seaman, J., Beightol, J., Shirilla, P., &; Crawford, B. (2010). Contact theory as a framework for experiential activities as diversity education: An exploratory study. Journal of Experiential Education, 32, 207-225.
Selby, C., &Woollard, J. (2014) Computational Thinking: The developing definitions. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2014. ACM.
Sengupta, A. (2009) CFC (Comment-First-Coding) – A simple yet effective method for teaching programming to information systems students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(4), 393-399.
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351-380.
Somyürek, S. (2015). An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 25.
Somyürek, S. (2015). An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 25-41.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children's achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66(1), 209-223.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.
Tamir, P. (1976). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. Technical Report, Science Education Center, The University of lowa.
Trowbridge, L. W., & Bybee, R. W. (1990). Becoming a secondary school science teacher. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Trumper, R. (1997). Applying conceptual conflict strategies in the learning of the energy concept. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(1), 5-18.
Tsai, K. C. (2016). Fostering creativity in design education: using the creative product analysis matrix with chinese undergraduates in Macau. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 1-8.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Yáñez, C., Okada, A., & Palau, R. (2015). New learning scenarios for the 21st century related to Education, Culture and Technology. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 12(2), 87-102.
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291-314.