本研究旨在探討文字式與圖像式程式語言對於學習成效之影響。台北市某國小兩班六年級學生參與本研究，每班各二十六名學生，總共進行25節課之教學實驗。實驗過程中，一班學生使用MSWLogo，另一班則使用Drape，兩者皆屬Logo系列之程式語言，但MSWLogo提供文字式指令供使用者撰寫程式，而Drape則提供圖像式語法。
本研究所收集之量化資料為五次紙筆測驗及一次期末上機實作測驗成績。紙筆測驗包括記憶、理解、應用與分析等認知能力之測驗題目，期末上機實作測驗則包括16題創作題和8題修改題。量化資料分析結果顯示，學習MSWLogo（文字式語言）的學生在前三次紙筆測驗的成績均優於Drape（圖像式語言）組，達統計上之顯著性，但於第十五節與末期之兩次紙筆測驗，兩組成績則並未達顯著差異。由此似可推論Drape（圖像式語言）在學習初期之門檻較高，但當學生對於程式語法逐漸熟悉後，兩者間之差異逐漸縮小。在上機實作測驗方面，MSWLogo組在創作題之平均分數雖高於Drape組，但未達統計上的顯著性；在修改題方面，兩組平均分數相近，亦無顯著差異。
本研究所收集之質化資料包括：以螢幕擷取軟體所錄製之學生上機實作程式設計過程、實驗後問卷調查結果、學生之學習心得、及教師之教學日誌等。質化資料之分析顯示，在程式設計過程中，MSWLogo學習者易犯語法錯誤；相對的，Drape學習者則易因某些圖像式指令相似度過高或違背直觀原則而產生混淆。換言之，兩者各有其使用上的缺點。在學習態度方面，兩組學生無論在學習程式設計的喜好程度，或未來繼續學習程式設計的意願上均無顯著差異。
整體而言，本研究顯示國小六年級學生使用MSWLogo（文字式語言）或Drape（圖像式語言）學習程式設計並未造成學習成效或學習態度上之顯著差異。一般人易於直覺認定圖像式語言較易於學習，且較易為國小學生所接受，本研究應有助於矯正此一錯誤認知，並提供教師於選擇適合國小學生學習之程式語言時的重要參考。

In this research we investigated if the use of textual or iconic programming languages would result in different learning effects. Fifty-two six graders from a local elementary school participated in this research. A class of 26 students learned to program in MSWLogo and the other class of 26 students learned Drape. Both MSWLogo and Drape are Logo-style languages; however, programmers use textual commands to program in MSWLogo while iconic commands are used in Drape.
The quantitative data collected in this research included grades of five paper-based tests and a hands-on programming test. Each paper-based test included questions assessing such cognitive abilities as knowledge, comprehension, application and analysis. The programming test consisted of 24 problems: 16 of them required students to write complete programs while the remaining eight problems were for students to modify existing programs. Analyses of test grades revealed that students of the MSWLogo group performed significantly better than those of the Drape group in the first three paper-based tests. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the last two tests. It seems that there is a steeper learning curve for students to program in Drape (iconic language) than in MSWLogo (textual language). Nevertheless, when students become more and more familiar with language syntax, the difference diminishes. The hands-on programming test did not show a significant difference between performances of the two groups, whether with write-complete-program problems or with modify-program problems.
The qualitative data collected in this research included automatically captured screen logs of students’ programming processes while they were working on the programming test, results of a questionnaire survey conducted at the end of the experiment, and journals kept by students and the instructor. A qualitative analysis of these data indicated that students of the MSWLogo group made syntactic errors frequently while students of the Drape group were often confused by icons that were not intuitively clear or those icons that looked similar to each other. Apparently, each language has its own disadvantages in usability. With regard to students’ attitudes toward programming, there were no significant differences between the two groups in how much students liked programming or if they would like to learn to program again in the future.
To sum up: This research concludes that there are no differences between the two groups of six graders who learned MSWLogo (textual language) and Drape (iconic language) respectively, whether in students’ performance or their attitudes toward programming. Many people may tend to think that iconic languages are easier to learn and would be preferred by elementary school students. Our findings may help to shed such a delusion and provide some useful hints to primary school teachers when it comes to select a suitable programming language for their students to learn.

Anderson, J. R., & Jeffries, R. (1985). Novice LISP errors: undetected losses of information from working memory. Human Computer Interaction, 1, 107-131.
Bitter, G. G., & Lu, M-Y. (1988). Factors influencing success in a junior high computer programming course. Educational Computing Research, 4(1), 71-78.
Begel, A. B. (1997). Bongo: a kids’ programming environment for creating video game on web. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman, Green.
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester, & I. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry . London: Taylor & Francis.
Brunett, S. (1999). Evaluation of a Multithreaded Architecture for Defense Applications. (Report No. SDSC TR-1999-1). San Diego: University of California. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.sdsc.edu/TR/
sdsc-tr-1999-1.pdf
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.
Calloni, B. A., Bagert, D. J., & Haiduk, H. P. (1997). Iconic programming proves effective for teaching the first year programming sequence. In proceedings of the twenty-eighth SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, 262-266.
Chen, S., & Morris, S. (2005). Iconic programming for flowcharts, java, turing, etc. In proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on innovation and technology in computer science education ITiCSE '05, 104-107.
Cilliers, C., Calitz, A., & Greyling, J. (2005). The effect of integrating an Iconic programming notation into CS1. In proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education ITiCSE '05, 108-112.
Du Boulay, B., O’Shea, T., & Monk, J. (1999). The black box inside the glass box: presenting comuting concepts to novices. Human-Computer Studies, 51, 265-277.
Gillespie, C. W., & S. Beisser (2001). Developmentally appropriate LOGO computer programming with young children. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 229-245.
Gupta, D. (2004). What is a good first programming language. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://floatingsun.net/articles/good-first-pl.pdf
Guzdial, M. (2003). Programming environments for novices. Retrieved November 12, 2005, from http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/mediaComp-plan/uploads/37/
novice-envs2.pdf
Hartmann W., Nievergelt J., & Reichert R. (2001). Kara, finite state machines, and the case for the programming as part of general education. In proceedings of the 2001 IEEE symposia on human-centric computing languages and environments, 135-141.
Hirakawa, M., Iwata, S., Tahara, Y., Tanaka, M., & Ichikawa, T. (1988). A framework for construction of icon systems. IEEE Workshop on Visual Languages, USA, 45-51.
Kahn, K. (1996). ToonTalk- An animated programming environment for children. Visual Language and Computing, 7, 197-217.
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2003). Lowering the barriers to programming: a survey of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. (Report No. CMU-CS-03-137). PITTSBURGH, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved May 11, 2005, from http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/usr/ftp/2003/
CMU-CS-03-137.pdf
Koss, M. (2005). Logo lessons. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://mckoss.com/logo/
Lin, Janet M.-C., Yan, Long-Yuen., Yang, Mei-Ching., & Chen, Chiao-Fun. (2005). Teaching computer programming in elementary schools: a Pilot Study. National educational computing conference, Philadelphia, USA.
Linn, M. C., & Dalbey, J. (1985). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction: instruction, access, and ability, Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 191-206.
Many, W. A., Lockard, J., Abrams, P. D., & Friker, W. (1988). The effect of learning to program in LOGO on reasoning skills of junior high school students, Educational Computer Research, 4(2), 203-213.
McIver, L. (2000). The effect of programming language on error rates of novice programmers. In E. Bilotta (Ed.) In proceedings of 12 workshop of the psychology of programming interest group , 181-192.
National Research Council (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved May 11, 2005, from http://www.nap.edu/books/030906399X/html/
Newell, A., & Card, S. K. (1985). The prospects for psychological science in human-computer interaction. Human Computer Interaction, 1,209-242.
Overmars, M. (1998). Drape – Drawing Programming Environment. Retrieved June 17, 2005, from http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/markov/kids/drape
Pane, F. J., Ratanamahatana, C. A., & Myers, B. A. (2001). Studying the language and structure in non-programmers’ solutions to programming problem. Human Computer Studies, 54, 237-264.
Pane, J. F. (2002). A programming system for children that is designed for usability. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania.
Pane, J. F., Myers, B. A., & Miller, L. B. (2002). Using HCI techniques to design a more usable programming system. In proceedings of the IEEE 2002 symposia on human centric computing language and environment, 198-206.
Papert, S. (1980). MindStorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Reichert, R., Nievergelt, J., & Hartmann, W. (2001). Programming in schools-why, and how ? , In C. Pellegrini, A. Jacquesson (Hrsg.): Enseigner l'informatique, 143-152.
Repening, A. (1993). Agentsheets: a tool for building domain-oriented visual programming environments. In proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, 142-143.
Shetty, S. (2004). Towards developing tools and technologies for modeling faults in large scale, real time, reactive embedded systems. Unpublished master dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee.
Smith, D. C., & Cypher, A. (1995). KidSim: Child constructible simulations. In proceedings of the imagina ’95 conference, 87-99.
Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Schmucker, K. (1996). Making programming easier for children. Interactions, 59-67.
Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program. Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 21-24.
Taylor, R. P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
Thompson, A. D., & Wang Chen, H-M. (1988). Effects of a logo microworld on student ability to transfer a concept. Educational Computing Research, 4(3), 335-347.
Turcsányi-Szabó, M. (1997). Designing Logo pedagogy for elementary education. Sith education logo conference, 20-23.
Tucker, A., Deek, F., Jones, J., McCowan, D., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2003). A model curriculum for K-12 computer science: Final report of the ACM K-12 task force curriculum committee. New York, NY: The Association for Computing Machinery.
Urban-Lurain, M., & Weinshank, D. J. (2000). Is there a role for programming in non-major computer science courses ? , In proceedings of 30th SEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, 1, T2B-7-T2B11.
Valente, J. A. (1995). Logo as a window into the mind. Logo Update, 1(4).
Wright, T., & Cockburn, A. (2000). Writing, reading, watching: a task-based analysis and review of learners' programming environments. In international workshop on advanced learning, 167-170.
Yelland, N. J. (1995). Encouraging young children’s thinking skills with logo. Childhood Education, 71(3), 152-155.
王萬清（1988）。兒童的Logo問題解決課程設計及效果分析。臺南師院學報，21，117-206。
林清山（1978）。皮亞傑的認知發展研及其在科學教育上的意義。科學教育，15， 19-25。
徐龍政（1994）。LOGO作為國小資訊課程初學者語言之適用性研究。國教之聲，28 (2)，40-48。
徐龍政（1995）。LOGO作為國小資訊課程初學者語言之適用性研究。臺東師院學報，6，187-208。
俞筱鈞（1992）。瑞文氏圖形推理測驗系列指導手冊。臺北市：中國行為科學社。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題。臺北：教育部。
彭麗琦（1994）。從瑞文氏測驗談對測驗的幾點看法。教與愛，46，29-31。
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。
許秀影（2004）。寫程式我最行學生版。臺北縣：虎網科技。
黃永廣、呂志宗、楊晰勛（2000）。中文程式語言Clogo的網路學習環境與互動學習網頁設計。遠距教育，13、14，45-62。
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，國立新竹師範學院數理教育研究所，新竹縣。
蘇順德(1990)。實施電腦LOGO程式設計教學對台灣國小學生思考技能之影響。屏東師院學報，13，211-230。
賴健二(2004)。兒童視覺化中文程式語言之開發與研究，未出版之碩士論文，國立台北師範學院教育傳播與科技研究所，台北市。