近年來，受惠於各國教育單位的推動，STEM教育被廣泛應用於相應的課程中，這樣的學習方式有助於學生發展創造性思維、解決問題能力和創新能力。我國亦隨著STEM教育的盛行廣設適合於STEM教學活動的環境與學習材料，並融合動手做活動來培養學生整合跨領域的能力。然而，學生會因個人過往的背景、學習歷程或經驗在學習上有不同的節奏。翻轉教室 (Flipped classroom)被提出用以改善現行教學場域中所面臨的學生節奏不一，此種教學模式已被證實可以提升學生的學習成效，並且可以幫助學生擺脫心理壓力和限制。此外，翻轉教室模式更加注重學生的主動參與和自主學習。聊天機器人是一種基於人工智慧技術的自然語言處理應用，它可以模擬人與人之間的對話，並提供各種服務和功能。聊天機器人在教育領域中有許多潛在的優勢和應用，例如：提供個性化和即時的回饋和建議、增加學生的互動和參與度、減輕教師的負擔和工作量等。聊天機器人可以做為學生的學習夥伴，並根據學生的學習情況和需求來提供適當的支持和引導。儘管聊天機器人在各領域中有不錯的成效，不過在教育領域中，聊天機器人的應用似乎仍然不太普及特別在探討STEM教育中的程式教育方面研究甚少。
本研究旨在探討將聊天機器人融入STEM翻轉教室學習活動中，是否可以提高學生的學習成效和體驗。本研究採用準實驗設計，以高中生為對象共34人，分為實驗組17人和控制組17人，進行為期一週的STEM程式教育課程，教授嵌入式樹莓派開發版與Python程式語言之間透過接線麵包板應用感測器、LED燈、電阻。實驗組使用一套結合聊天機器人的翻轉教室學習系統，控制組則使用傳統的翻轉教室模式。本研究以前後測、動機量表、期望價值量表和學習歷程紀錄等工具收集資料，並進行描述性統計、曼-惠特尼U檢定、Wilcoxon W檢定和相關性分析等方法進行資料處理和分析。本研究發現：(1)與控制組相比，實驗組的學生在後測成績上有顯著的提升；(2)與控制組相比，實驗組的學生在期望價值上有顯著的提升；(3)與控制組相比，實驗組的學生在內在動機存在顯著差異；(4)學生的學習表現與動機和期望價值之間有正相關。本研究認為，將聊天機器人融入STEM翻轉教室學習活動中，可以增加學生的學習成就、期望價值與內在動機，並提供一個互動和個性化的學習環境。
本研究建議未來可以進一步分析學習歷程記錄探討翻轉教室下是否會出現高階思維的特徵，以及補充聊天機器人的關鍵字資料集以便學習者可以得到更多即時的協助，且能夠與學生探討更多話題。此外，仍需探討聊天機器人在不同領域和年級的STEM教育中的應用效果和影響因素。

In recent years, STEM has been widely applied in corresponding curricula. This approach assists students in developing problem-solving skills. However, the progress of students' learning depends on their background. Flipped classrooms have been proposed for improvement. Additionally, the flipped classroom model emphasizes self-directed learning. A chatbot, based on artificial intelligence technology, is a natural language processing application that can simulate human-to-human conversations and provide various services and functions.
Therefore, this study introduces a learning platform for teaching STEM courses. The primary focus is on instructing the application of sensors, LED lights, and resistors using a breadboard, bridging the Raspberry Pi development board and the Python programming language. The study design includes a quasi-experimental group where students receive chatbot-assisted learning and a control group without chatbot assistance. The experimental group was equipped with a chatbot, while the control group was not. A total of 34 high school students participated in a one-week STEM program, with 17 students in the experimental group and 17 in the control group. The study found that: (1) students in the experimental group exhibited significantly higher posttest scores compared to the control group; (2) students in the experimental group showed significantly higher expectancy values than the control group; (3) there was a significant difference in intrinsic motivation between students in the experimental group and the control group; (4) a positive correlation existed between students' academic performance and their motivation and expectancy values.

Agbo, F. J., Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., & Adewumi, S. (2019). A systematic review of computational thinking approach for programming education in higher education institutions. Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research.
Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334-345.
Cheah, C. S. (2020). Factors contributing to the difficulties in teaching and learning of computer programming: A literature review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep272.
Chen, H.-L., Vicki Widarso, G., & Sutrisno, H. (2020). A chatbot for learning Chinese: Learning achievement and technology acceptance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(6), 1161-1189.
Chen, J. C., Huang, Y., Lin, K. Y., Chang, Y. S., Lin, H. C., Lin, C. Y., & Hsiao, H. S. (2020, Feb). Developing a hands-on activity using virtual reality to help students learn by doing . Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(1), 46-60.
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. Ieee Access, 8, 75264-75278.
Chocarro Eguaras, R., Cortiñas Ugalde, M., & Marcos Matas, G. (2021). Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: a technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educational Studies.
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 898-909.
ÇINAR, S., PIRASA, N., Neslihan, U., & Erenler, S. (2016). The effect of STEM education on pre-service science teachers’ perception of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(special), 118-142.
Cui, Y., Hong, J.-C., Tsai, C.-R., & Ye, J.-H. (2022). How Does Hands-On Making Attitude Predict Epistemic Curiosity and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Career Interests? Evidence From an International Exhibition of Young Inventors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
Cui, Y., Hong, J., Tsai, C., & Ye, J. (2022). How does Hands-On Making Attitude Predict Epistemic Curiosity and STEM Career Interests? Evidence from an International Exhibition of Young Inventors. Journal: Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 859179.
Cunningham-Nelson, S., Boles, W., Trouton, L., & Margerison, E. (2019). A review of chatbots in education: practical steps forward. 30th annual conference for the australasian association for engineering education (AAEE 2019): educators becoming agents of change: innovate, integrate, motivate.
Dahlan, J. A., & Wibisono, Y. (2021). The Effect of Hands-On and Computer-Based Learning Activities on Conceptual Understanding and Mathematical Reasoning. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 143-160.
De Andrade, I. M., & Tumelero, C. (2022). Increasing customer service efficiency through artificial intelligence chatbot. Revista de Gestão, 29(3), 238-251.
DeBoer, J., Haney, C., Atiq, S. Z., Smith, C., & Cox, D. (2019). Hands-on engagement online: using a randomised control trial to estimate the impact of an at-home lab kit on student attitudes and achievement in a MOOC. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(1-2), 234-252.
Demirhan, E., & Şahin, F. (2021). The effects of different kinds of hands-on modeling activities on the academic achievement, problem-solving skills, and scientific creativity of prospective science teachers. Research in Science Education, 51(Suppl 2), 1015-1033.
Deng, X., & Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis and systematic review of the effect of chatbot technology use in sustainable education. Sustainability, 15(4), 2940.
Deveci Topal, A., Dilek Eren, C., & Kolburan Geçer, A. (2021). Chatbot application in a 5th grade science course. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6241-6265.
Diaz, C. M., Siguenza, J. I., & Gimenez, X. (2021, Jan-Mar). Synchronous Flipped Classroom in STEM subjects Clase Invertida Sincrona en asignaturas STEM . Revista De Educacion(391), 15-39.
Durrani, U. K., Al Naymat, G., Ayoubi, R. M., Kamal, M. M., & Hussain, H. (2022). Gamified flipped classroom versus traditional classroom learning: Which approach is more efficient in business education? The International Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 100595.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents' achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 21(3), 215-225.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1-8.
Fetzer, J. H., & Fetzer, J. H. (1990). What is Artificial Intelligence? Springer.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 41(4), 47-56.
Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K., & Thompson, A. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: Connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in human Behavior, 93, 279-289.
Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-14.
Gencer, A. S., Dogan, H., Bilen, K., & Can, B. (2019, Jan). Integrated STEM Education Models [Review]. Pamukkale Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi-Pamukkale University Journal of Education(45), 38-55.
Goh, C. F., & Ong, E. T. (2019). Flipped classroom as an effective approach in enhancing student learning of a pharmacy course with a historically low student pass rate. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(6), 621-629.
HACIOĞLU, Y., & GÜLHAN, F. (2021). The effects of STEM education on the students’ critical thinking skills and STEM perceptions. Journal of Education in Science Environment and health, 7(2), 139-155.
Hafni, R., Herman, T., Nurlaelah, E., & Mustikasari, L. (2020). The importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education to enhance students’ critical thinking skill in facing the industry 4.0. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bogeholz, S. (2010, Nov). Hands-on Activities and Their Influence on Students' Interest . Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743-757.
Hoshang, S., Hilal, T. A., & Hilal, H. A. (2021). Investigating the acceptance of flipped classroom and suggested recommendations. Procedia Computer Science, 184, 411-418.
Huang, W., Hew, K. F., & Gonda, D. E. (2019). Designing and evaluating three chatbot-enhanced activities for a flipped graduate course. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research.
Huang, Y.-M., Cheng, A.-Y., & Wu, T.-T. (2022). Analysis of learning behavior of human posture recognition in maker education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
Izadpanah, S. (2022, Dec). The impact of flipped teaching on EFL students' academic resilience, self-directed learning, and learners' autonomy . Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 12, Article 981844.
Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Puente, S. T., & Torres, F. (2011). Hands-on experiences of undergraduate students in Automatics and Robotics using a virtual and remote laboratory. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2451-2461.
Jdaitawi, M. (2019). The effect of flipped classroom strategy on students learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 665-680.
Kaimal, G., Ray, K., & Muniz, J. (2016). Reduction of cortisol levels and participants' responses following art making. Art therapy, 33(2), 74-80.
Kanadli, S. (2019). A meta-summary of qualitative findings about STEM education. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 959-976.
Kearney-Volpe, C., & Hurst, A. (2021). Accessible web development: Opportunities to improve the education and practice of web development with a screen reader. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), 14(2), 1-32.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1-11.
Kondaveeti, H. K., Kumaravelu, N. K., Vanambathina, S. D., Mathe, S. E., & Vappangi, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on prototyping with Arduino: Applications, challenges, advantages, and limitations. Computer Science Review, 40, 100364.
Kumar, J. A. (2021). Educational chatbots for project-based learning: investigating learning outcomes for a team-based design course. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1-28.
Lee, H.-J., & Yi, H. (2021). Development of an onboard robotic platform for embedded programming education. Sensors, 21(11), 3916.
Lee, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, P.-Y. (2022). Impacts of an AI-based cha bot on college students’ after-class review, academic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation. Educational technology research and development, 70(5), 1843-1865.
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-16.
Lin, K.-Y., Yeh, Y.-F., Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, J.-Y., Yang, K.-L., & Wu, H.-K. (2023). STEM education goals in the twenty-first century: Teachers’ perceptions and experiences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(2), 479-496.
Lin, K.-Y., Yu, K.-C., Hsiao, H.-S., Chu, Y.-H., Chang, Y.-S., & Chien, Y.-H. (2015). Design of an assessment system for collaborative problem solving in STEM education. Journal of Computers in Education, 2, 301-322.
Lin, Y.-N., Hsia, L.-H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2022). Fostering motor skills in physical education: A mobile technology-supported ICRA flipped learning model. Computers & Education, 177, 104380.
Liu, D., Lv, Y., & Huang, W. (2023). How do consumers react to chatbots' humorous emojis in service failures. Technology in Society, 73, 102244.
Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2023). A Review of Integrating AI-based Chatbots into Flipped Learning: New Possibilities and Challenges. Frontiers in Education.
Luo, C. J., & Gonda, D. E. (2019). Code Free Bot: An easy way to jumpstart your chatbot! 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education (TALE).
Luo, C. J., Wong, V. Y. L., & Gonda, D. E. (2020). Code free chatbot development: An easy way to jumpstart your chatbot! Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale.
Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Kinnunen, P., Simon, & Sinclair, J. (2020). Theories and models of emotions, attitudes, and self-efficacy in the context of programming education. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM conference on international computing education research.
Mateos-Sanchez, M., Melo, A. C., Blanco, L. S., & García, A. M. F. (2022). Chatbot, as educational and inclusive tool for people with intellectual disabilities. Sustainability, 14(3), 1520.
McCarthy, J. (2004). What is artificial intelligence?
Mierdel, J., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). Is creativity, hands-on modeling and cognitive learning gender-dependent? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 91-102.
Mohammed, H. J., & Daham, H. A. (2021). Analytic Hierarchy Process for Evaluating Flipped Classroom Learning. Computers, Materials & Continua, 66(3).
Moraiti, I., Fotoglou, A., & Drigas, A. (2022). Coding with Block Programming Languages in Educational Robotics and Mobiles, Improve Problem Solving, Creativity & Critical Thinking Skills. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(20).
Nee, C. K., Rahman, M. H. A., Yahaya, N., Ibrahim, N. H., Razak, R. A., & Sugino, C. (2023). Exploring the Trend and Potential Distribution of Chatbot in Education: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(3).
Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033.
Pereira, J., Fernández-Raga, M., Osuna-Acedo, S., Roura-Redondo, M., Almazán-López, O., & Buldón-Olalla, A. (2019). Promoting learners’ voice productions using chatbots as a tool for improving the learning process in a MOOC. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(4), 545-565.
Pintrich, P. R. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).
Putro, P. A. W., Pramadi, Y. R., Setiawan, H., Gunawan, N. K., Hadiprakoso, R. B., & Kabetta, H. (2019). Correlation Between Motivation and Achievement of Competencies in the Hands-On Learning Method. 2019 5th International Conference on Education and Technology (ICET).
Rehmat, A. P., & Hartley, K. (2020). Building engineering awareness: Problem based learning approach for STEM integration. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1).
Rifandi, R., & Rahmi, Y. L. (2019). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: a literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Saez-Lopez, J.-M. (2021). Introducing robotics and block programming in elementary education. Sáez-López, JM, Buceta Otero, R., y De Lara García-Cervigón, S.(2021). Introducing robotics and block programming in elementary education. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 24(1), 95-113.
Schmulian, A., & Coetzee, S. A. (2019). The development of Messenger bots for teaching and learning and accounting students’ experience of the use thereof. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2751-2777.
Silva, L., Mendes, A. J., Gomes, A., & Cavalcanti de Macêdo, G. F. (2021). Regulation of learning interventions in programming education: A systematic literature review and guideline proposition. Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.
So, W. W. M. (2023). Does computation technology matter in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) projects? Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(1), 232-250.
Spyropoulou, N., Glaroudis, D., Iossifides, A., & Zaharakis, I. D. (2020). Fostering Secondary Students' STEM Career Awareness through IoT Hands-On Educational Activities: Experiences and Lessons Learned. IEEE Communications Magazine, 58(2), 86-92.
Sreelakshmi, A., Abhinaya, S., Nair, A., & Nirmala, S. J. (2019). A question answering and quiz generation chatbot for education. 2019 Grace Hopper Celebration India (GHCI),
Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019). STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the context based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Tapalova, O., & Zhiyenbayeva, N. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in Education: AIEd for Personalised Learning Pathways. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(5), 639-653.
Tian, X., Risha, Z., Ahmed, I., Lekshmi Narayanan, A. B., & Biehl, J. (2021). Let's talk it out: A chatbot for effective study habit behavioral change. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1-32.
Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383-1395.
Ugras, M. (2018). The Effects of STEM Activities on STEM Attitudes, Scientific Creativity and Motivation Beliefs of the Students and Their Views on STEM Education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5).
Varnavsky, A. (2022). Chatbot to increase the effectiveness of the «flipped classroom» technology. 2022 2nd International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education (TELE).
von Hausswolff, K. (2022, Jan). Practical thinking while learning to program - novices' experiences and hands-on encounters . Computer Science Education, 32(1), 128-152.
Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010, 2010/02/01). The effects of game strategy and preference‐matching on flow experience and programming performance in game‐based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.
Wang, X., Sun, Y., & Ding, D. (2022). Adaptive dynamic programming for networked control systems under communication constraints: a survey of trends and techniques. International Journal of Network Dynamics and Intelligence, 85-98.
Wei, X., Cheng, I.-L., Chen, N.-S., Yang, X., Liu, Y., Dong, Y., Zhai, X., & Kinshuk. (2020). Effect of the flipped classroom on the mathematics performance of middle school students. Educational technology research and development, 68, 1461-1484.
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., & Kong, S.-C. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160, 104023.
Winkler, R., & Söllner, M. (2018). Unleashing the potential of chatbots in education: A state-of-the-art analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings.
Witherspoon, E. B., Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., Baehr, E. C., & Shoop, R. (2017, Dec). Developing Computational Thinking through a Virtual Robotics Programming Curriculum . Acm Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 20, Article 4.
Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., & Funtowicz, M. (2020). Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations.
Wu, E. H.-K., Lin, C.-H., Ou, Y.-Y., Liu, C.-Z., Wang, W.-K., & Chao, C.-Y. (2020). Advantages and constraints of a hybrid model K-12 E-Learning assistant chatbot. Ieee Access, 8, 77788-77801.
Xie, T., & Pentina, I. (2022). Attachment theory as a framework to understand relationships with social chatbots: a case study of Replika.
Yildiz Durak, H. (2020). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 179-195.
Zhang, C., & Lu, Y. (2021). Study on artificial intelligence: The state of the art and future prospects. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 23, 100224.
Zhao, M. Q., & Allen, R. (2023). Training problem-solvers by using real world problems as case studies. International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Robotics.
Zheng, L., Bhagat, K. K., Zhen, Y., & Zhang, X. (2020). The effectiveness of the flipped classroom on students’ learning achievement and learning motivation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 1-15.
Zhu, C. J., Sun, M., Luo, J. T., Li, T. Y., & Wang, M. H. (2023, Jun). How to harness the potential of ChatGPT in education? . Knowledge Management & E-Learning-an International Journal, 15(2), 133-152.
Ziaeefard, S., Miller, M. H., Rastgaar, M., & Mahmoudian, N. (2017). Co-robotics hands-on activities: A gateway to engineering design and STEM learning. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 97, 40-50.
Ziaeefard, S., Page, B. R., Knop, L., Ribeiro, G. A., Miller, M., Rastgaar, M., & Mahmoudian, N. (2017). GUPPIE program—A hands-on STEM learning experience for middle school students. 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).
Zuo, X., Yu, X., Du, M., & Song, Q. (2022). Generating Consistent Multimodal Dialogue Responses with Emoji Context Model. 2022 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (ICAIBD).
Іatsyshyn, A., Іatsyshyn, A., Artemchuk, V., Kameneva, I., Kovach, V., & Popov, O. (2020). Software tools for tasks of sustainable development of environmental problems: peculiarities of programming and implementation in the specialists’ preparation. E3s web of conferences.
林坤誼. (2018). STEM 教育在台灣推行的現況與省思. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(1), 41.