運算思維能力已被視為二十一世紀最重要的技能之一，其旨在透過電腦科學基本概念來理解人類行為的方法，即可解讀為一種解決問題的方案與系統設計的技巧。如今，許多國家都強調運算思維係數位原民的基本能力，而非僅僅是電腦科學家；因此如何培養學生未來面臨複雜問題的解決能力成為當前教育應著重的方向。隨著資訊技術的發展，視覺化程式語言提供了不同的程式撰寫工具，以避免學生出現語法錯誤與程式語言的不熟悉。此外，基於有形的學習程式設計方式亦逐漸受到重視，它能讓學生直接操作物理對象與檢視其結果，為運算思維的培育展開了全新的樣貌。是故，本研究旨在透過視覺化程式設計與有形的程式設計融入國小學童運算思維課程中，以評估二種不同的編程工具對於學生的影響。因此，本研究即以視覺化組別與有形的組別進行施測，從研究結果顯示，在運算思維的表現上，我們發現使用視覺化程式設計的學生能有更好的表現，而這種現象在女生更為明顯。基於這項研究，我們不僅充份地描述了導致這項結果的原因，還在文未討論了研究結果以作為後續研究的參考依據，並給予未來研究者一個全新的研究藍圖。

Computational thinking (CT) is considered to as one of the most important skills in the 21st Century. It aims is to understand the methods of human behavior through the basic concepts of computer science, which can be interpreted as a solution to the problem and the design of the system. Nowadays, even many countries have stressed the CT competence as an essential skill for digital natives, not just for computer scientists. Therefore, how to cultivate students the competence of CT to resolve future complicated problems becomes an emerging issue confronting current education. With the development of information technology, visual programming languages provide different programming tools to avoid making syntax errors and unfamiliar programming codes. In addition, the tangible learning programming tools have gradually been paid more attention. It allows students to directly manipulate physical objects and view their results, which has opened up a new look for the cultivation of CT. Thus, this study aims to integrate visual programming and tangible programming as tools into the CT course in the primary school. These findings show that students who use visual programming can have more significant performance, especially female in the performance of computing thinking. Based on this research, we not only adequately describe the reasons for this result, but also discuss the findings as a reference for subsequent investigation, and give future researchers a new research blueprint.

[1] Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
[2] Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.
[3] 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.
[4] Ball, T., Protzenko, J., Bishop, J., Moskal, M., de Halleux, J., Braun, M., . . . Riley, C. (2016). Microsoft touch develop and the BBC micro: bit. Paper presented at the Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C), IEEE/ACM International Conference on.
[5] Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
[6] Bers, M. U. (2007). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom.
[7] 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.
[8] Board of Science and Technology, D. I. G. I. C. (2017). Digital Innovation & Governance Initiative Program. Retrieved from https://www.digi.ey.gov.tw
[9] Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
[10] Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a Generation’s Way of Thinking: Teaching Computational Thinking Through Programming. Review of Educational Research, 0034654317710096.
[11] Bundy, A. (2007). Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing, 1(2), 67-69.
[12] Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding A Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10.
[13] Chao, P.-Y. (2016). Exploring students' computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers & Education, 95, 202-215.
[14] 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.
[15] Denning, P. J. (2009). The profession of IT Beyond computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 28-30.
[16] Education, M. o. (2017). 12-year National Basic Education Curriculum Outline. Retrieved from https://www.edu.tw/
[17] Eguchi, A. (2013). Educational Robotics Theories and Practice: Tips for how to do it Right. Robotics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 193.
[18] Flannery, L. P., Silverman, B., Kazakoff, E. R., Bers, M. U., Bontá, P., & Resnick, M. (2013). Designing ScratchJr: support for early childhood learning through computer programming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children.
[19] García-Peñalvo, F. J., Reimann, D., Tuul, M., Rees, A., & Jormanainen, I. (2016). An overview of the most relevant literature on coding and computational thinking with emphasis on the relevant issues for teachers.
[20] González, M. R. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of EDULEARN15 Conference.
[21] Grover, S. (2015). “Systems of Assessments” for Deeper Learning of Computational Thinking in K-12. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
[22] Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
[23] Gutek, G. L. (2004). The Montessori method: the origins of an educational innovation: including an abridged and annotated edition of Maria Montessori's The Montessori method: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
[24] Hatley, L., Winston-Proctor, C. E., Paige, G. M., & Clark, K. (2017). CULTURE AND COMPUTATIONAL THINKING. Culture, Learning, and Technology: Research and Practice, 109.
[25] Hoegh, A., & Moskal, B. M. (2009). Examining science and engineering students' attitudes toward computer science. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE'09. 39th IEEE.
[26] Ioannidou, A., Bennett, V., Repenning, A., Koh, K. H., & Basawapatna, A. (2011). Computational Thinking Patterns. Online Submission.
[27] ISTE. (2015). CT leadership toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4
[28] ISTE, & CSTA. (2011). Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K-12 Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf
[29] Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code. org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210.
[30] Kalelioğlu, F., Gülbahar, Y., Akçay, S., & Doğan, D. (2014). Curriculum integration ideas for improving the computational thinking skills of learners through programming via scratch. Paper presented at the Local proceedings of the 7th international conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution and perspectives.
[31] Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245-255.
[32] 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.
[33] Koorsse, M., Cilliers, C., & Calitz, A. (2015). Programming assistance tools to support the learning of IT programming in South African secondary schools. Computers & Education, 82, 162-178.
[34] Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558-569.
[35] Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31-43.
[36] Kumar, D. (2014). Digital playgrounds for early computing education. ACM Inroads, 5(1), 20-21.
[37] Kwon, D.-Y., Kim, H.-S., Shim, J.-K., & Lee, W.-G. (2012). Algorithmic bricks: a tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 474-479.
[38] Lawanto, K., Close, K., Ames, C., & Brasiel, S. (2017). Exploring Strengths and Weaknesses in Middle School Students’ Computational Thinking in Scratch. In Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking (pp. 307-326): Springer.
[39] Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264.
[40] 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.
[41] Malizia, A., Turchi, T., Danesi, F., Fogli, D., & Bell, D. (2017). TAPASPlay: a Tangible Game-Based Learning Approach to Foster Computational Thinking Skills. IS-EUD 2017, 59.
[42] Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 16.
[43] Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch (Vol. 40): ACM.
[44] Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction.
[45] Martin, F. G. (2001). Robotic explorations: a hands-on introduction to engineering (Vol. 200): Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, USA.
[46] Maurer, M. M. (1994). Computer anxiety correlates and what they tell us: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(3), 369-376.
[47] McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to Tangible Programming Bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326-337.
[48] Meshkati, N. (1988). Toward development of a cohesive model of workload. In Advances in Psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 305-314): Elsevier.
[49] Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, M. (2017). Towards Data-Driven Learning Paths to Develop Computational Thinking with Scratch. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing.
[50] Özden, M. (2015). Computational thinking. In.
[51] Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational psychology review, 6(4), 351-371.
[52] Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: NY: Basic Books.
[53] Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: NY: Basic Books.
[54] Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1-11.
[55] Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J., . . . Paterson, J. (2007). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCSE Bulletin.
[56] Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International encyclopedia of education, 2, 6452-6457.
[57] Piaget, J. (2005). Language and Thought of the Child: Selected Works vol 5: Routledge.
[58] Pintrich, P. R. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).
[59] Raffle, H. S., Parkes, A. J., & Ishii, H. (2004). Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.
[60] 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.
[61] Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Extending the nomological network of computational thinking with non-cognitive factors. Computers in Human Behavior.
[62] Sapounidis, T., & Demetriadis, S. (2009). Tangible programming interfaces: a literature review. Paper presented at the Proceedings 4th Balkan conference in informatics, Thessaloniki.
[63] Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition.
[64] 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.
[65] Sharlin, E., Watson, B., Kitamura, Y., Kishino, F., & Itoh, Y. (2004). On humans, spatiality and tangible user interfaces. Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Theme issue on Tangible Interfaces in Perspective, 8, 338-346.
[66] Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review.
[67] Sklar, E., Parsons, S., & Stone, P. (2003). Robocup in higher education: A preliminary report. Paper presented at the Robot Soccer World Cup.
[68] Smith, M. (2016). Computer science for all Accessed. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
[69] Sáez-López, J.-M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129-141.
[70] Spolaôr, N., & Benitti, F. B. V. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112, 97-107.
[71] Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293-319.
[72] Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (1995). Interaction-level support for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock—an open programming language. Paper presented at the The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning.
[73] Swaid, S. I. (2015). Bringing computational thinking to STEM education. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3657-3662.
[74] U.S. Department of Labor, B. o. L. S. (2016). Computer and Information Technology Occupations. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/
[75] Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research, 11(4), 342-365.
[76] Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715-728.
[77] Voyles, M. M., Fossum, T., & Haller, S. (2008). Teachers respond functionally to student gender differences in a technology course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 322-345.
[78] Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
[79] 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.
[80] Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. The Journal of the learning sciences, 17(4), 517-550.