本研究旨在探討引導策略(程序引導、問題引導)、學習順序及性別對國小五年級學生在程式設計學習的成效及態度之影響。研究對象為國小五年級學習者，共224人參與實驗教學，有效樣本203人。研究設計採因子設計之準實驗研究法，自變項包含引導策略與學習順序，引導策略分為「程序引導」及「問題引導」兩種類型，學習順序分為「Scratch+機器人」及「機器人+Scratch」；依變項則包含程式設計學習成效(知識理解、知識應用)及學習態度(學習動機、幫助度、滿意度)。
研究結果顯示：在學習成效方面，(1)就知識理解而言，男生在知識理解表現優於女生；在「Scratch+機器人」學習順序時，程序引導組的知識理解表現優於問題引導組、在使用程序引導策略時，「Scratch+機器人」組的知識理解表現優於「機器人+ Scratch」組；(2)就知識應用而言，男生的程式設計知識應用表現優於女生；引導策略及學習順序各組間的知識應用表現則無顯著差異。在學習態度方面，(3)各實驗組對機器人程式設計學習上均抱持正向態度，特別是「機器人+ Scratch」組有較高的學習動機與滿意度。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of learning guidance strategy and learning sequence on elementary students' performance in learning programming. Participants were 203 fifth grade elementary students. The independent variables of this research were learning guidance strategy, learning sequence and gender. The learning guidance strategies included procedural guidance and question guidance. The dependent variables included learning performance and learning attitude. The quasi-experimental design was applied in this study.
The result revealed that: (a) For knowledge comprehension performance, male students had better learning outcomes than female students on the programming; learning learners in procedural guidance integrated with robot using ultimately performed significantly better on the understanding of programming concept than those learners using robot beforehand; (b) For knowledge application performance, male students had better learning outcomes than female students on the programming learning; whereas there was no significant difference between the learning guidance strategy and learning sequence group. (c) Learners using robot ultimately had more positive impact on learners' attitudes toward learning satisfaction.

中文部分
田耐青(1999)。由電腦樂高談新世紀的學習：一個科技支援之建構學習環境實例。教學科技與媒體，44，24-35。
任欣垚(2011)。數位學習環境融入體驗式學習策略與先備知識對國小學生質因數概念學習之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
伍宏麟(2011)。教學策略與學習工具對程式語言初學者學習成效及學習態度之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
吳明隆、涂金堂(2005)。SPSS與統計應用分析(第一版)。臺北：五南。
林哲宇(2010)。ARCS融入體驗式學習之學習活動中目標導向與教學策略對國小生電腦技能學習之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
侯人俊(2011)。樂高機器人程式設計對國小兒童高層次思考能力之研究(碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學，屏東縣。
洪詩玲(2010)。完成問題策略對基本程式概念教學的學習成效研究─以國小四年級學童為例(碩士論文)。國立交通大學，新竹市。
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
許燕欣(2013)。不同數位模擬對國小電磁作用單元體驗式學習之成效與動機的影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
陳明溥(2007年10月)。程式語言課程之教學模式與學習工具對初學者學習成效與學習態度之影響。師大學報：科學教育類，52(1&2)，1-21。
黃筱琪(2016)。組間競爭與性別對小學生合作學習遊戲式程式設計的影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
廖邦捷(2014)。擴增型態與引導策略對高中電化學反應課程學習成效與動機之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
蔡宗霖(2010)。不同問題解決教學策略對國小生程式設計學習表現及學習態度之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
鄭嘉鴻(2014)。數位學習環境與鷹架策略對國中凸透鏡成像單元學習成效與動機之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
豐佳燕、陳明溥(2008年5月)。國小學生學習電腦程式之研究－以 Stagecast Creator 創作遊戲為例。第十二屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會(GCCCE 2008)，美國：密西根州立大。

英文部分
Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65-79.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The ideal problem solver. A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. A Series of Books in Psychology, New York: Freeman, 1984, 1.
Cesar, E., Cortés, A., Espinosa, A., Margalef, T., Moure, J. C., Sikora, A., & Suppi, R. (2017). Introducing computational thinking, parallel programming and performance engineering in interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 105, 116-126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2016.12.027
Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, Part B, 1201-1212. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.010
Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162-175.
Coxon, S. (2010). Design to Succeed in LEGO WeDo Robotics Challenges.
Dumitraşcu, A. I., Corduban, C. G., Nica, R. M., & Hapurne, T. (2014). LEGO training. An educational program for vocational professions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 332-338. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.644
Fell, C. B., & König, C. J. (2016). Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists. Scientometrics, 108(1), 113-141.
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.
Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students' motivation, engagement and learning in an educational game. Computers & Education, 75, 136-148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.008
Forray, J. M., Leigh, J. S., & Goodnight, J. E. (2016). Teaching methods and the Kolb learning cycle. Educating for Responsible Management: Putting Theory into Practice, 325.
Gagné, R. M. (1975). Essentials of learning for instruction: Dryden Press.
Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Computers & Education, 102, 202-223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.001
Jones, J. L. (2004). Robot programming: McGraw Hill.
Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Learning design by making games. Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world, 71-96.
Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047
Kaya, K. Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2017). Creating and Evaluating a Visual Programming Course Based on Student Experience. In Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking (pp. 135-151). Springer International Publishing.
Korkmaz, Ö. (2016). The Effect of Scratch-and Lego Mindstorms Ev3-Based Programming Activities on Academic Achievement, Problem-Solving Skills and Logical-Mathematical Thinking Skills of Students. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 73-88.
Konak, A., Clark, T. K., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle to improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers & Education, 72, 11-22.
Lee, Y.-D., Kang, J.-J., Lee, K.-Y., Lee, J., & Seo, Y. (2016). The Development of an Educational Robot and Scratch-based Programming. International journal of advanced smart convergence, 5(2), 8-17.
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.
Malan, D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for budding computer scientists. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 223-227.
Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2010). Sequential effects of high and low guidance on children's early science learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 1.
Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621-634.
Mayerová, K. (2012, April). Pilot activities: LEGO WeDo at primary school. In Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics: Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum (pp. 32-39).
McCall, D. (2016). Novice Programmer Errors-Analysis and Diagnostics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kent).
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.224
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc..
Sforza, D., East Rutherford, N. J., Tienken, C. H., & Kim, E. (2016). A Comparison of Higher-Order Thinking Between the Common Core State Standards and the 2009 New Jersey Content Standards in High School. Editorial Review Board, 5.
Snodgrass, M. R., Israel, M., & Reese, G. C. (2016). Instructional supports for students with disabilities in K-5 computing: Findings from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 100, 1-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.011
Soloway, E., & Spohrer, J. C. (2013). Studying the novice programmer. Psychology Press.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22.
Witherspoon, E. B., Schunn, C. D., Higashi, R. M., & Baehr, E. C. (2016). Gender, interest, and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 18.