問題解決的能力、邏輯思考及創造力皆為21世紀重要的競爭力，由於資訊科技的蓬勃發展，這些能力可以透過實作機器人組裝、參與遊戲式科普活動與學習程式設計概念的過程中持續培養。其中以視覺化程式設計的經濟與便利取得的特性更易於實務上導入，加上其重點在於邏輯思考流程的設計與創建，更進一步降低了學習某一特定程式語言的語義理解困難性，因而被視為是培養程式設計概念的好方法。透過視覺化方式學習程式設計概念時，常以提示的形式給予學習者學習輔助，由於學習程式設計概念是將問題解決邏輯具體化的過程，學習者必須高度使用其心智處理能力，因而當學習者專注度低落時，可能無法確實理解提示所給予的輔助內容，且對於學習成果產生不利的影響。本研究藉由穿戴式腦波設備即時偵測學習者之專注度，提出「即時適性化提示策略」於程式設計概念之學習，此策略以學習者學習過程的專注程度做為學習狀態的適性化指標，來進一步於學習過程中即時調整給予學習者之提示輔助。為了解即時適性化提示策略對於強化程式設計概念學習之影響，本研究採用實驗法，並將64名學習者透過隨機分配的方式將學習者指派至「提示輔助策略（控制組）」及「即時適性化提示策略（實驗組）」進行學習活動。研究結果顯示在視覺化程式學習的環境中，實驗組程式設計概念之學習成效與滿意度顯著高於控制組，因此，可以推論本研究提出之即時適性化提示策略能夠有效強化程式設計概念之學習。

In the 21st century, the abilities of problem solving, logical thinking and creativity are very important competence. These abilities can be improved by the processes of assembling robotic components, engaging game-based science activities, and learning programming concepts. For learning programming concepts, visual programming environment (VPE) is recognized as a good approach in practice because of its economic and easily accessible features. The application of VPE emphasizes on the design and construction of logical thinking flow by successfully lowering the difficulties of understanding programming syntax. Prompting is usually as scaffolds to help learners’ reflection and problem solving processes in VPE because learning programming concepts require high level of metal processing. When learners’ attention is at low level, it would affect learners’ understanding the content of prompts and brings detrimental impact to learning performance. By utilizing wearable brainwave devices to immediately and continuously detect learner’s attention, this study proposes a “real-time adaptive prompting strategy” for learning programming concepts. The proposed strategy uses attention level as an indicator for determining learners’ learning status and providing them with prompting scaffolds during the learning process. To evaluate the real-time adaptive prompting strategy on learning programming concepts, this study recruited a total of 64 participants and conducted an experiment. The participants were randomly assigned to the prompting strategy group (control group) and the real-time adaptive prompting strategy group (experimental group). The results show that learners in the experimental group outperformed the control group in learning performance and satisfaction. Hence, the real-time adaptive prompting strategy proposed by this study is effective to help learners learn programming concepts.

論文審定書 i
論文提要 ii
致謝 iii
摘要 iv
Abstract v
圖目錄 ix
表目錄 xi
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究背景與動機 1
第二節、研究目的 3
第三節、研究問題 4
第二章、文獻探討 5
第一節、視覺化程式語言與程式學習 4
第二節、腦機介面與腦波測量 6
第三節、適性化學習 7
第三章、即時適性化提示策略之設計與開發 10
第一節、即時適性化提示策略 10
第二節、系統設計 13
第三節、學習內容與提示內容 14
第四節、系統流程 30
第四章、研究方法 33
第一節、研究變數與操作型定義 33
第二節、研究假說 35
第三節、研究工具 36
第四節、實驗設計 38
第五節、資料分析 45
第五章、結果與討論 46
第一節、人口統計資訊 46
第二節、程式設計概念分析 46
第三節、腦波專注度分析 48
第四節、問卷及量表分析 53
第五節、綜合討論 55
第六章、結論 60
第一節、研究發現 60
第二節、研究貢獻 61
第三節、研究限制 61
第四節、未來研究 62
參考資料 63
附錄一、前測 68
附錄二、後測 70
附錄三、心流經驗及挑戰-技能平衡問卷 73
附錄四、認知負荷問卷 76

Amadieu, F., Mariné, C., & Laimay, C. (2011). The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 36-40. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.009
Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139-145. doi: 10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139
Basawapatna, A. R., Repenning, A., & Lewis, C. H. (2013). The simulation creation toolkit: an initial exploration into making programming accessible while preserving computational thinking. Paper presented at Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 765-782. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9184-z
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17-66): Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (pp.
Brusilovsky, P., & Peylo, C. (2003). Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 13, 159-172.
Chao, P.-Y. (2016). Exploring students' computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers & Education, 95, 202-215. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.010
Chen, C.-M., & Lin, Y.-J. (2016). Effects of different text display types on reading comprehension, sustained attention and cognitive load in mobile reading contexts. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 553-571. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.891526
Chen, C.-M., & Wu, C.-H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108-121. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.015
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: a 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., 15(5), 107-116.
Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: some theoretical considerations. Psychological review, 70(1), 80. doi: 10.1037/h0039515
El-Nasr, M. S., & Smith, B. K. (2006). Learning through game modding. Comput. Entertain., 4(1), 7. doi: 10.1145/1111293.1111301
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. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12022
Horstmann, C. S. (2009). Big Java: Compatible with Java 5, 6 and 7: John Wiley & Sons.
Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and instruction, 18(2), 135-145. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.011
Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Burke, W. Q. (2010). Entering the clubhouse: Case studies of young programmers joining the online scratch communities. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 22(2), 21-35. doi: 10.4018/joeuc.2010101906
Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code. org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a Robotics Context in the Kindergarten Classroom: The Impact on Sequencing Skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371-391.
Kent, U. o. (2010). Computer Programming Aptitude Test Retrieved 1 April, 2016, from https://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/tests/computer-test.htm
Kerns, K. A., Eso, K., & Thomson, J. (1999). Investigation of a direct intervention for improving attention in young children with ADHD. Developmental neuropsychology, 16(2), 273-295. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN1602_9
Klassner, F., & Anderson, S. D. (2003). Lego MindStorms: Not just for K-12 anymore. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 10(2), 12-18. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2003.1213611
Kobsa, A., Koenemann, J., & Pohl, W. (2001). Personalised hypermedia presentation techniques for improving online customer relationships. The knowledge engineering review, 16(2), 111-155. doi: 10.1017/S0269888901000108
Kumar, D. (2014). Digital playgrounds for early computing education. ACM Inroads, 5(1), 20-21. doi: 10.1145/2568195.2568200
Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmersProceedings of ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (vol. 37, pp. 14-18). ACM.
Lai, S.-Y., Hung, I.-C., & Chen, N.-S. (2015). Exploring the Correlations between Embodiment-based Learners’ Attention or Meditation and Their Flow Experience. Paper presented at The 19th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Leuthardt, E. C., Schalk, G., Wolpaw, J. R., Ojemann, J. G., & Moran, D. W. (2004). A brain–computer interface using electrocorticographic signals in humans. Journal of neural engineering, 1(2), 63. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2011.2172408
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. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Malan, D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for budding computer scientistsProceedings of ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (vol. 39, pp. 223-227). ACM.
Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 367-371. doi: 10.1145/1352322.1352260
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational psychologist, 32(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of learning and motivation, 41, 85-139. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., & Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4), 125-180.
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239-264. doi: 10.1080/08993408.2013.832022
Moritz, S. H., & Blank, G. D. (2005). A design-first curriculum for teaching Java in a CS1 course. SIGCSE Bull., 37(2), 89-93. doi: 10.1145/1083431.1083471
Moskal, B., Lurie, D., & Cooper, S. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of a new instructional approach. SIGCSE Bull., 36(1), 75-79. doi: 10.1145/1028174.971328
Navarro-Prieto, R., & Cañas, J. J. (2001). Are visual programming languages better? The role of imagery in program comprehension. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(6), 799-829. doi: doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0465
Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological review, 65(3), 151.
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive psychology, 19(1), 1-32. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8
Paramythis, A., & Loidl-Reisinger, S. (2003). Adaptive learning environments and e-learning standardsProceedings of Second European Conference on e-Learning (vol. 1, pp. 369-379).
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 423-451. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
Rajaravivarma, R. (2005). A games-based approach for teaching the introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bull., 37(4), 98-102. doi: 10.1145/1113847.1113886
Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Dunwell, I., Martínez-Mirón, E. A., Vargas-Cerdán, M. D., De Freitas, S., Liarokapis, F., & García-Gaona, A. R. (2009). Assessing neurosky’s usability to detect attention levels in an assessment exercise Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends (pp. 149-158): Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02574-7_17
Repenning, A. (2012). Programming goes back to school. Commun. ACM, 55(5), 38-40. doi: 10.1145/2160718.2160729
Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A., & Zola, J. (2000). AgentSheets: End-user programmable simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3(3), 351.
Resnick, M. (2008). Sowing the Seeds for a More Creative Society. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18-22. doi: 10.1145/1518701.2167142
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., & Silverman, B. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67. doi: 10.1145/1592761.1592779
Rizvi, M., Humphries, T., Major, D., Jones, M., & Lauzun, H. (2011). A CS0 course using scratch. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 26(3), 19-27. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2012.6462491
Santally, M. I., & Alain, S. (2006). Personalisation in web-based learning environments. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 4(4), 15. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-480-4.ch015
Sarter, M., Givens, B., & Bruno, J. P. (2001). The cognitive neuroscience of sustained attention: where top-down meets bottom-up. Brain research reviews, 35(2), 146-160. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0173(01)00044-3
Shin, N. (2006). Online learner’s ‘flow’ experience: an empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 705-720. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00641.x
Shin, N., & Chan, J. K. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 275-288. doi: 10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00389.x
Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & education, 50(4), 1183-1202. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205
Tew, A. E., & Guzdial, M. (2010). Developing a validated assessment of fundamental CS1 conceptsProceedings of Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 97-101). ACM.
Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., Woodbury, J., & Jarman, E. (2002). Learning styles and performance in the introductory programming sequence. SIGCSE Bull., 34(1), 33-37. doi: 10.1145/563517.563352
Tseng, J. C., Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers & Education, 51(2), 776-786. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.002
Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, greenfoot, and scratch--a discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 17. doi: 10.1145/1868358.1868364
Utting, I., Cooper, S., K, M., #246, lling, Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch -- A Discussion. Trans. Comput. Educ., 10(4), 1-11. doi: 10.1145/1868358.1868364
Wang, C.-C., & Hsu, M.-C. (2014). An exploratory study using inexpensive electroencephalography (EEG) to understand flow experience in computer-based instruction. Information & Management, 51(7), 912-923. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.05.010
Wilson, C. (2015). Hour of code---a record year for computer science. ACM Inroads, 6(1), 22-22. doi: 10.1145/2723168
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Commun. ACM, 49(3), 33-35. doi: 10.1145/1118178.1118215