本研究旨在探討「LEGO WeDo2.0 Activies」課程方案實施於臺灣國小三年級學生，教師運用教學鷹架輔助學生學習，探究臺灣國小三年級學生在LEGO WeDo2.0 Activies之學習成效。以研究者曾經任教過兩年的低年級學生，但已升上三年級的8名學童為研究對象，採行動研究法。研究者根據「LEGO WeDo2.0 Activies」課程方案翻譯並修改設計，共四個單元內容的教學實施，並於教學實施後的隔週，進行學生學習反思寫作活動，整個研究歷程為八週，每週2個小時。
運用LEGO WeDo2.0的課程方案、教學現場的錄影帶、「機器人話題」訪談逐字稿、四個單元活動的軼事記錄、第四單元任務導向的程式設計學習結果、三個單元學生反思寫作的學習文件和LEGO WeDo2.0程式方塊的問卷調查，進行研究資料的蒐集與分析。本研究的主要結論如下：
一、 運用焦點團體訪談方式進行「機器人話題」討論，了解三年級學生對機器人概念和技術的認識，學生探討發展出使用機器人來處理人道的議題，內容層面觸及科技倫理。
二、 LEGO WeDo2.0 Activities屬跨領域課程，其程式設計是特定學科內容知識(CK)，教師必須整合學科教學知識(PCK)，才能促使學生有效學習。而學生適性教學的實施，立基於教師學術與教學的專長，為了讓學生可以學到有興趣的課程或單元，本研究有專長教師協同教學，讓學生成功學習。
三、 本研究在LEGO WeDo2.0 Activitie實施時，提供多元的教學鷹架、同儕鷹架和後設認知鷹架，讓師生或同儕之間的對話交流，有助於學生的學習。
四、 研究發現學生在學習反思活動中，運用寫作方式於科學的學習反思，有助學習的內化與深化，透過書寫活動可監控自我的學習歷程與內在對話，提高學習的品質，進入高層次的思考。
五、 LEGO WeDo2.0課程內涵具素養的學習，可以提供教育創新的環境，讓學生展能。
關鍵字: 國小、LEGO WeDo2.0、鷹架教學、學習反思、學生學習成效、行動研究

This research aims to explore the implementation of the "LEGO WeDo2.0 Activies" curriculum program for third-grade students in Taiwan elementary schools. Teachers use teaching scaffolds to assist students in learning, and to explore the learning effectiveness of third-grade students in Taiwan's elementary schools in LEGO WeDo2.0 Activies. Taking the researcher as the research object of the junior students who have been teaching for two years but have been promoted to the third grade, the action research method is adopted. The researcher translated and revised the design according to the "LEGO WeDo2.0 Activies" course plan. The teaching of four units was implemented, and the students' learning reflective writing activities were conducted every other week after the teaching was implemented. The entire research process was eight weeks, every week 2 hours.
Use LEGO WeDo2.0's curriculum plan, teaching site video tapes, "robot topic" interview verbatim transcripts, anecdotal records of four unit activities, the fourth unit task-oriented programming learning results, and three units of student reflection writing The study documents and the questionnaire survey of LEGO WeDo2.0 program blocks are used to collect and analyze research data. The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. Use focus group interviews to discuss "robot topics" to understand the understanding of the concept and technology of robots by third-grade students. Students discuss and develop the use of robots to deal with humanitarian issues. The content level touches on the ethics of science and technology.
2. LEGO WeDo2.0 Activities is a cross-field curriculum, and its programming is subject-specific content knowledge (CK). Teachers must integrate subject teaching knowledge (PCK) to encourage students to learn effectively. The implementation of student-adaptive teaching is based on teachers' academic and teaching expertise. In order to allow students to learn interesting courses or units, this research has expertise in teachers' collaborative teaching so that students can learn successfully.
3. 3. When this research is implemented in LEGO WeDo2.0 Activitie, it provides multiple teaching scaffolds, peer scaffolds and post-cognitive scaffolds, so that the dialogue and exchanges between teachers and students or peers can help students learn.
4. The study found that students use writing methods for scientific learning reflections in learning reflection activities, which helps to internalize and deepen learning. Through writing activities, they can monitor their own learning process and inner dialogue, improve the quality of learning, and enter a higher level Thinking.
5. The content of LEGO WeDo2.0 course is literate learning, which can provide an environment of educational innovation and enable students to display their skills.
Keywords: Elementary School, LEGO WeDo2.0, scaffold teaching, learning reflection, student learning effectiveness, action research.

一、中文部分
方德隆(1999)。課程與教學研究。高雄：復文圖書出版社。
王如哲(2010)。解析「學生學習成效」。評鑑雙月刊，27，62。
王佳琪(2017)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要之核心素養課程：評量的觀點∘臺灣教育評論月刊，6 (3)，35-42∘
王佳琪、何曉琪、鄭英耀(2014)。科學創造性問題解決測驗之發展。測驗學刊，61 (3)，337-360 ∘
王裕德、陳元泰、曾鈴惠(2012)。機器人問題導向程式設計課程對女高中學生學習程式設計影響之研究。科學教育月刊，354，11-29。
朱敬先(1997)。教育心理學：教學取向。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
池俊吉，(2011)。大學院校推動學習成效為本教育應有之認知與作為。評鑑雙月刊，33，取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/09/01/4825.aspx。
吳木崑(2009)。杜威經驗哲學對課程與教學之啟示。臺北市立教育大學學報，40(1)，35-54。
吳東權(2008)。工研院機器人技術發展現況概述。載於台灣機器人產業發展協會舉辦之「臺北國際機器人展」經貿資料專刊，34-35。
吳璧如(2017)。質性研究綜合在教學研究上的運用。教育研究月刊，278，60-78。
吳璧純(2013)。從三種評量類型看多元評量的意義∘新北市教育季刊，8，20-40∘
吳璧純(2017)。素養導向教學之學習評量∘臺灣教育評論月刊，6 (3)，30-34∘
吳璧純、鄭淑慧、陳春秀(2017)，以學生學習為主軸的生活課程素養導向教學∘教育研究月刊，275，50-63。
周淑惠。(2005)。鷹架引導策略。國教世紀，216，45-56。
林文琪(2019)。我寫·我思·我在：反思寫作教學理論與實踐。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
林清山(2018)。素養導向教師教育內涵建構及實踐之研究∘教育科學研究期刊，63(4)，261-293∘
邱于真(2010)。如何推動學生學習成效評量：以台灣大學為例。評鑑雙月刊，28，19-22。
侯秋玲、吳敏而(譯) (2016)。核心問題 開啟學生理解之門(Jay McTighe & Grant Wiggins)。臺北市：心理。
施能木(2009)。樂高組件對國小學童學習生活科技課程「簡單機械」單元之影響研究。生活科技教育月刊，42(2)，3-26。
洪文東(2007)。兒童的科學觀。幼兒保育學刊，5，1-11。
洪月女、靳知勤(2008)。科學寫作理論與教學之探討。課程與教學季刊，11(2)，173-192。
胡瑞萍、林陳涌(2002)。寫作與科學學習∘科學教育月刊，253，2-18∘
范欣華(2012)。大學生對學生學習成效品質保證機制滿意認知之關鍵事件研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所，臺北市。
徐聯恩、林明吟，(2005)。成果導向教育的教育改革及其在美國實踐的經驗。教育政策論壇，8 (2)，55-74。
張春興(1994)。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。
張海龍(譯) (2019)。學得更好(Ulrich Boser) 。臺北市：方智。
教育部(2019)。十二年國教課綱國民小學標準本位評量工具彙編-自然科學領域。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心。
教育部(2019)。十二年國教課綱國民小學標準本位評量工具彙編-語文領域(國語文)。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心。
教育部(2019)。十二年國教課綱國民小學標準本位評量工具彙編-藝術領域。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心。
郭實渝(2008)。教學建構主義的哲學基礎。台東大學教育學報，19(2)，119-142。
陳昇飛(2014)。理論與實務的對話-建構主義在數學教育上的再思。臺中師院學報，18(2)，71-87。
陳昇飛(2016)。教師語文教學鷹架之搭建及其教學策略之發展。國民教育研究集刊，15，179-204。
陳昇飛(2020)。鷹架的搭建與幼兒創造思考之探究。教育理論與實踐學刊，19，139-163。
陳新豐(2017)。探討國小教師數位閱讀科技學科教學內容知識內涵。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(1)，149-153。
陳慧娟(1998)。科學寫作有效促進概念改變的教學策略。中等教育，49(6)，123-131。
曾正宜(2009)。學習科學之核心議題與研究趨勢。教育研究集刊，61(3)，105-121。
鈕文英(2018)。質性研究方法與論文寫作。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
黃秀雯(2019)。適性、合作與對話：學研議教學模式的理論基礎與教學策略。學校行政雙月刊，122，123-140。
黃政傑、吳俊憲(2006)。合作學習：發展與實踐。臺北：五南。
黃政傑、林佩璇(1996)。合作學習。臺北：五南。
黃政傑、張嘉育(2010)。讓學生成功學習：適性課程與教學之理念與策略。課程與教學季刊，13(3)，1-22。
黃淑玲、池俊吉(2010)。如何評估學生的學習成效-以加州州立大學長灘分校系所訪視與測量中心之經驗為例。評鑑雙月刊，28，9-12。
葉辰楨、王國華、蔡明政(2010)。後設認知鷹架策略融入科學探究教學之探討。科學教育研究與發展季刊，58，1-32。
劉祥通、周立勳(1997)。數學寫作活動-國小數學教學的溝通工具∘國民教育研究學報，3，239-262∘
蔡忻怡(2015)。問題本位學習中鷹架支持對國小資優生自主學習改變之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系，臺北市。
謝周恩(2013)。鷹架理論的發展、類型、模式與對科學教學的啟示。科學教育月刊，364，2-16。
韓宜娣(2011)。鷹架支持與自我效能對國小學生程式設計學習表現與學習態度之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，臺北市。
簡立仁、楊靜怡、楊宜庭(2008)。科技教育的新方向—於中等學校電腦科學課程內整合機器人學程。科學教育月刊，314，39-47。
簡梅瑩(2010)。反思教學應用於培養大學生批判思考與多元文化學習之探討∘師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，3(1)，21-40∘
藍偉瑩(2019)。教學力 深化素養學習的關鍵。臺北市：親子天下股份有限公司。
羅廷瑛、張璟媛(2004)。科學寫作活動的知識建構對國小學生自然科學學習效果之影響。教育心理學報，35(4)，337-354。
譚天(譯) (2018)。科技選擇（Vivek Wadhwa &Alex Salkever）。臺北市：經濟新潮社。
蘇明俊、羅豪章(2007)。科學寫作融入野外探究教學之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，2(3)，163-188。

二、英文部分
Bain, J. D., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Mills, C. (1999). Using journal writing to enhance student teachers’ reflectivity during field experience placements. Teachers and Teaching, 5(1), 51-73.
Bieger, E. M. (1995). Promoting multicultural education through a literature-based approach. The Reading Teacher, 49(4), 308-312.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 12, 73-86.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided co-operative learning and individual knowledge acguisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp.392-452). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruce, S. M., & Pine, G. J. (2010). Action reseachin special education: An inquiry approach for effective teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Carter, P. L., Ogle, P. K., & Royer, L. B. (1993). Learning logs: What are they and how do we use them? In N. L. Webb & A. F. Coxford. (Eds.). Assessment in the mathematics classroom, 87-96. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Christina Chalmers (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100.
Dyson, A. (1990). Special educational needs and the concept of change, Oxford Review of Education, 16(1), 55-66.
Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Eisen, A. (1996). “Disease of the week” reports: Catalysts for writing and participation in large classes. An easy, effective introduction to scientific writing and research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 25(5), 331-333.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, PA: University Press.
Gallagher, J. (2007). Teaching Science for understanding: A practical guide for middle and high school teachers. Upper Saddle River, NH: Pearson.
Hill, J. R. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource of resource-based learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52.
Hubbard, R. S., & Pow, B. M. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook for teacher-researchers (Rev. ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Heinemann-Butterworth.
Jeffrey, D. W., Tanya, P., & Julie, D. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding adolescents to lifelong literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachears as researcher: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students’s strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317-348.
Kulm, G. (1994). Mathematics assessment: What works in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Linder, S.P., Abbott, D., & Fromberger, M. J. (2006). An instructional scaffolding approach to teaching software design. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21(6) , 1-4.
Martha Larkin (2002). Using Scaffolded Instruction to Optimize Learning. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education Arlington VA, 1-4.
Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing and Conceptual change; a classroom study. Learning and cal, 11, 305-329.
Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and Conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199-226.
Miller, L. D. (1991) Writing to learn mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 84(7), 516-521.
Miller, R. G. & Calfee, R. C. (2004). Bulding a better reading-writing assessment: Bridging cognitive theory, Instruction, and assessment. English Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 6-11.
Moon, J. (2001). PDP working paper 4: Reflection in higher education learning. Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jenny_Moon2/publication/255648945_PDP_Working_Paper_4_Reflection_in_Higher_Education_Learning/links/5596672f08ae99aa62c76f45/PDP_Working_Paper_4_Reflection_in_Higher_Education_Learning.pdf
Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Portfolios as evidence of reflective practice: What remains ‘untode’. Education Research, 47(1), 25-44.
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge journal of Education, 32(2), 203-218.
Penny L. Beed, E. Marie Hawkins and Cathy M. (1991). Roller Moving Learners toward Independence: The Power of Scaffolded Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44 (9) , 1-4.
Rada, R., Acquah, S., Baker, B., & Ramsey, P. (1993). Collaborative learning and the MUCH system. Computers and Education, 20(3), 225-233.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become (Vol. 69). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Roid, G. H. (1994). Patterns of writing skills derived from cluster analysis of direct-writing assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 159-170.
Saye, J. W., & Brush F T. A. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning in history and social studies: Tools to support problem-based historical inquiry. American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Sigel, I. E., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. &Johnson J. E. (1980). Parental distancing beliefs and children’s representational competence within the family context. Research Report. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Stringer; E. T. (2014). Action research: A handbook for practitioners (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, D. (1998). A guide to evaluating your own writing. Retrieved May 24, 2006, from htttp://www.mcu.edu. Wdepartmen Vpubaffair/parn/pais/write/critical-thinking.htm
Tchudi, S. (1986). Teaching writing in the content areas: College level. Washington, DC: National Educational Assocation Publication.
Veselovsk’a, M., Kubincov’a, Z. & Mayerov’a, K. (2019). Comparison of LEGO WeDo 2.0 robotic models in two different grades of elementary school. The10th International Conference on Robotics in Education,Vienna.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. ( M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman, eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yore, L.D., Hand, B.M. Goldman, S.R., Hildebrand, G. M. Osborne, J.F., Treagust, D.F., & Wallace, D.S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3),347-352.
Zhao, J. ( 2012 ). The definition and essence of pedagogical content knowledge. PK Fok - Hong Kong Teachers' Centre Journal, 11, 145–163.