本研究探討國小學生在資訊教育課程中採用跨校分組合作學習的方式對於其運算思維以及學習態度的影響。研究對象為 64 位分別來自 S 國小、P 國小、F國小的國小五年級學生,分組方式為兩到三人一組。採用的是準實驗研究法,實驗組為 S 國小加上 P 國小或 F 國小的學生採用跨校分組的合作學習方式,對照組則皆為 S 國小的學生採用同校分組的合作學習方式。研究主要採用「運算思維量表」、「合作問題解決態度問卷」進行運算思維及學習態度的分析。研究發現:一、資訊教育課程中,採用跨校分組的合作學習方式對於學生的運算思維能力有顯著提升。二、資訊教育課程中,採用跨校方式分組的合作學習方式對於低成就學生的運算思維能力有顯著的提升,而對於高成就學生的運算思維能力則無顯著提升。三、資訊教育課程中,以跨校方式分組的合作學習方式對於女生的運算思維能力有顯著的提升,而對於男生的運算思維能力則無顯著提升。四、資訊教育課程中,以跨校分組的合作學習方式對於學生的學習態度無顯著提升。

This research investigates the impact of using cross-school group collaborative learning in information education courses on elementary school students' computational thinking and learning attitudes. The subjects were 64 fifth-grade students from S Elementary School, P Elementary School, and F Elementary School, with groups consisting of two to three students each. This is a quasi-experimental design study.The experimental group consisted of students from S Elementary School paired with P or F Elementary School for cross-school group collaborative learning, while the control group consisted of students from S Elementary School using same-school group collaborative learning. The main instruments used in the study were the "Computational Thinking Scale" and the "Collaborative Problem Solving
Attitude Questionnaire" to analyze student’s computational thinking ability and learning attitudes. The research showed the following conclusions. (1) In information education courses, using cross-school group collaborative learning significantly improved students' computational thinking abilities. (2) In information education courses, cross-school group collaborative learning significantly enhanced the computational thinking abilities of low-achieving students but did not significantly improve the computational thinking abilities of high-achieving students. (3) In information education courses, cross-school group collaborative learning significantly enhanced the computational thinking abilities of female students but did not significantly improve those of male students. (4) In information education courses, cross-school group collaborative learning did not significantly improve students' learning attitudes.

中文文獻
王亭茵(2001)。師範院校生應用合作學習於資訊融入教學課程之研究。合作學習發展與實踐,429-460。台北市:五南。
何世敏(2014)。自主學習 1.0 至 2.0 及之後:如何讓學生成為學習的真正主角。香港:香港教育局九龍塘教育服務中心。
李秀華(2015)國小書法欣賞教學對學生書法學習態度的影響。師大學報:人文與社會科學類,50(2),69-88。
吳舒民(2017)。採用鷹架導引系統提升國小學童運算思維能力之研究。國立臺南大學碩士論文,臺南市。
周宜慶(2017)。國小高年級學生合作式問題解決能力與態度之研究。國立臺南大學碩士論文,臺南市。
林楷芸(2020)。融入反思活動之運算思維課程對於國小高年級學生運算思維概念與能力之影響。國立中央大學碩士論文,桃園市。
侯雅齡(2023)。跨校混成教學於資賦優異學生獨立研究課程之實踐。特殊教育研究學刊,48(2),77-110。
洪宗顯(2023)。LEGO STEAM 課程對國小學生邏輯思維與運算思維之影響。臺北市立大學碩士論文,台北市。
國家教育研究院(2020)。國民小學科技教育及資訊教育課程發展參考說明。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/9/doc/280/1090611_%E5%9C%8B%E6%B0
%91%E5%B0%8F%E5%AD%B8%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80%E6%95%99%E
8%82%B2%E5%8F%8A%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A%E6%95%99%E8%82%
B2%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E5%8F%83%E
8%80%83%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E.pdf
張如瑩、郎亞琴(2011)。合作學習對國小三年級學生社會學習領域學習表現之研究。教育科學期刊,10(1),151-172。
張杏如(2013)。國小教師對小組合作學習的瞭解與實施現況之研究。國立台東大學碩士論文,台東市。
張翊芳(2023)。行動載具結合探究社群模式對國小學生運算思維課程學習成效之影響。國立中正大學碩士論文,嘉義縣。
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL002057
許崇獻(2002)。影響合作學習成效的因素;建構性活動、真實的學習情境、與團體組成方式。政治大學學報,84,203-226。
黃詩芸(2022)。結合擴增實境與程式教育桌遊對運算思維能力及認知負荷影響之探究。國立清華大學碩士論文,新竹市。
葉冠伶(2010)。南市推「跨校合作創新學習試辦計畫」黃偉哲與偏遠地區學校學生一起上課。台南市政府新聞。
劉文榜(2023)。以積木式程式語言推廣運算思維之研究–以小學五、六年級為例。國立聯合大學碩士論文,苗栗縣。
盧瑞珍(2013)。合作學習對學生學習成效影響之後設分析-以 2005 至 2012 年之學位論文與期刊為範圍。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文,台北市。

英文文獻
ATC21s (2012). ATC21s Collaborative Problem Solving long version. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13smp1qfmR4
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Research, 18, 32-42.
Computer Science Teachers Association & the International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education.

Confrey, J. (1995). A theory of intellectual development. For the learning of Mathematics, 15(1), 38-48.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2015). Learning Together and Alone. Better: Evidence-Based Education, 7, 4-5.
Department of Education (1996). Getting America’s Students Ready for 21st Century Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge. A Report to the Nation on Technology and Education.
European Commission (2020). Digital Education Action Plan, 2021-2027.
Hsu, T. C., Chang C., Wong, L. H., & Aw, G. P. (2022). Learning Performance of Different Genders’ Computational Thinking, Sustainability, 14(24).
Lin, C. P., Yang, S. J., Lin, K. Y., Looi, C. K., & Chen, Y. H. (2022). Explorations of Two Approaches to Learning CT in a Game Environment for Elementary School Students, Journal of Computers in Education, 9(2), 261-290.
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. L. (2009). Thinking about Computational Thinking. SIGCSE Bull, 41(1), 260-264.
Marcos, R. G., Juan-Carlos, P. G., Jesús, M. L., & Gregorio, R. (2018). Extending the nomological network of computational thinking with non-cognitive factors, Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 441-459.
Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., & Hsu, C. Y. (2021). The Computational Thinking Scale for Computer Literacy Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4),579-602.
O'Neil, H. F., Chuang, S.-H. (S.), & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issues in the Computer-based Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 361–373.
OECD (2017)。PISA 2015 Collaborative Problem-solving Framework.
Office of Education Technology (2022). Advancing Digital Equity for All: Community-Based Recommendations for Developing Effective Digital Equity Plans to Close the Digital Divide and Enable Technology-Empowered Learning.
Papert, S. (1996). An Exploration in the Space of Mathematics Educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 95-123.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38 –43.
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2014). Computational Thinking: The developing definitions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299450690_Computational_thinking_the_developing_definition
UNESCO (2015). Qingdao Declaration, 2015: Seize Digital Opportunities, Lead Education Transformation.
UNESCO (2017). Qingdao Statement: strategies for leveraging ICT to achieve Education 2030.
United Nations (2022). Gateways to Public Digital Learning: A multi-partner initiative to create and strengthen inclusive digital learning platforms and content.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
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.
Wing, J. M. (2010). Computational Thinking: What and Why? Unpublished
Manuscript, Pittsburgh, PA: Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
Zeliha, D. K., İbrahim, D., Christoph, R., & Mehmet, B. H. (2022). The Effect of Gender, Grade, Time and Chronotype on Computational Thinking: Longitudinal Study, Informatics in Education, 21(3), 465–478.