因趨勢變化，科技工具已廣泛運用於教育現場，一零八年實施之新課程綱要更增設科技領域，將運算思維列為學習重點之一，乃學生須具備的重要素養。
本研究旨在探討國小四年級學生使用實體與虛擬的Dash機器人學習態度與運算思維，採準實驗研究，以57名初次接觸運算思維的四年級學生作為研究對象。其中，實驗與控制組分別使用虛擬與實體機器人進行10週的課程，培養運算思維；並以機器人態度量表與運算思維測驗作為研究工具，於實驗前、後填寫問卷、運算思維測驗，收集資料，再以SPSS統計軟體分析，探究課程前後兩組學生的學習態度與運算思維表現，以及在不同成就、性別學生之間的學習成效。結果顯示，實驗組與控制組皆能維持正向學習態度，兩組之間並無顯著差異，但使用虛擬機器人時須注意「設備品質」；運算思維方面，課後實驗組與控制組測驗分數皆顯著提升，並無顯著差異。
而全體研究對象的分析結果中，機器人課程能顯著提升中低成就學生的運算思維表現，然而只有中、高運算思維成就學生的程度落差縮小；不同推理能力的學生間，課程後仍存在運算思維程度差異。另一方面，機器人課程能有效提升男女學生的運算思維，而不同性別學生在機器人課程後的學習態度無顯著差異。在運算思維、學習態度與推理能力間，研究發現運算思維與學生的推理能力、面對新科技的態度上具關聯性。綜上所述，實體與虛擬機器人可作為四年級男女學生的學習工具，裨益更多學生。
有鑑於運算思維的重要性，教師需關注學習設備的品質、課堂中的引導，以及學生用新科技學習時的態度，使四年級學生即早接觸運算思維，以運算思維解決問題，豐厚科技素養。

Technology tools are becoming the main learning tools, and Computational Thinking (CT) is one of the key learning points in K-12 curriculum.
The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of physical and virtual Dash robots on the learning efficiency of the 4th-grade students. A quasi-experimental study was adopted, and 57 students participated in the robotics laboratories. Among them, the experimental group used Virtual robots, while the control group used physical robots to conduct a 10-week robotics course to cultivate the students' CT and learning attitudes.
The results showed that students who used virtual robots have learning attitude differences through the aspects of "equipment quality" which is apparent from the reliability of learning equipment. However, both groups of students could still maintain engaged learning attitudes.
On the other hand, both groups in either gender improved CT. Between different CT achievements students, the students with low achievements improved CT more than the students with high achievements. Moreover, students with low reasoning ability could improve CT through robots. The findings revealed a correlation between CT, reasoning ability, and attitude when facing new technologies in the pre-test.
In summary, robots are suitable as a CT learning tool for male and female students in the 4th grade while maintaining their interest in learning. Not only the quality of learning equipment but also the expected attitude of students when using new technological tools to learn. The findings suggest that students could use physical and virtual robots to develop CT.

王聖灃（2021）。融合機器人的程式設計教學模式對國小學生程式設計與運算思維能力之研究［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺北教育大學數學暨資訊教育學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8nq4jt
吳佩容（2018）。Dash機器人課程對國小中低年級學童程式語言學習態度之影響。國立清華大學教育與學習科技學系［未出版之碩士論文］。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jjs8dh
吳偉元（2018）。運用問題導向學習教學策略提升國小學童運算思維能力之研究-以程式設計課程為例［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺北教育大學數位科技設計學系(含玩具與遊戲設計碩士班)。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ya79d9
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［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺南大學數位學習科技學系數位學習科技碩士在職專班。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hq3944
吳明隆（2009）。SPSS統計應用學習實務：問卷分析與應用統計。五南。
呂庭昀（2020）。DASH機器人課程對國小初學程式設計學童學習態度之影響［未出版之碩士論文］。國立清華大學課程與教學碩士在職專班。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6n3yps
李隆盛、楊秀全（2019）。範例引導學習與問題導向學習之教學策略對國小學生機器人程式學習的影響。數位學習科技期刊，11(4)，77-104。http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/2071260X2019101104004
林育慈、吳正己（2016）。運算思維與中小學資訊科技課程。教育脈動電子期刊，(6)，5-20。 https://bit.ly/2KhC4FL
林湘庭（2018）。將Scratch結合樂高機器人提升小學生運算思維能力之研究［未出版之碩士論文］。中原大學資訊管理研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/h55zb5
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［未出版之碩士論文］。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/a5ur4h
林群峰（2017）。Kodu遊戲設計教學對國小學童運算思維提昇成效之研究［未出版之碩士論文］。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/udtegb
徐芳姿（2020）。不同教學媒介對程式設計的學習動機 及運算思維能力之影響 ─以泰北一所偏鄉中學為例［未出版之碩士論文］。國立嘉義大學數位學習設計與管理學系研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/wgn5y8
桃園市政府（2021）。桃園女孩日資訊女力系列活動報名中，鄭市長力推資訊領域性別平權。桃園市政府新聞電子報。 https://bit.ly/30AHx69
國立臺灣師範大學資訊工程學系（2021）。運算思維推動計畫。https://compthinking.csie.ntnu.edu.tw/index.php/
國家教育研究院（2014年1月7日）。十二年國民基本教育課程發展指引。國家教育研究院。https://bit.ly/2Z3Pm3N
國家教育研究院（2019年5月）。科技領域課程手冊。國家教育研究院課程及教學研究中心。https://bit.ly/30Jz1Sf
國家教育研究院（2020年6月）。國民小學科技教育及資訊教育課程發展參考說明。國家教育研究院。https://bit.ly/3cAsX12
教育部（2014，11月）。十二年國教課程綱要總綱。教育部。https://bit.ly/3CxFA7N
教育部（2016，5月）。2016-2020資訊教育總藍圖。教育部。https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/3/relfile/6315/46563/65ebb64a-683c-4f7a-bcf0-325113ddb436.pdf
莊惠淇（2015）。中小學資訊科技課程運算思維內涵規劃［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/886t3c
陳沛均（2019）。國中小學生運算思維與程式設計能力之研究［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺灣師範大學資訊工程學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ym8ahc
陳育賢（2019）。國小學童程式運算思維能力分析：以mBot機器人為例［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺南大學教育學系科技發展與傳播碩士班。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u5qvpe
陳佩萱（2019年1月）。美感素養與英語STEAM課程對國小學生運算思維與英語學習之影響。教育科技與學習7:1 27-54 https://bit.ly/30IsbfL
陳怡如（2021年3月）科技女力，改變世界。工業技術與資訊月刊，349。https://bit.ly/3Fx9lHJ
黃玉如（2016）。探討自造者課程對國小五年級學生運算思維態度之助益 ─以Webduino程式設計為例［未出版之碩士論文］。國立高雄師範大學軟體工程與管理學系。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/95a64g
黃雅戀（2019）。機器人程式設計課程對學童運算思維能力及 STEM 學習態度之影響［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺北教育大學教育傳播與科技研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/g42hru
黃薇燁（2017）。性別因素對學生使用不同類型機器人學習運算思維之影響［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/xeq3g8
詹郁立（2021）。合作學習對國小高年級生學習Dash book中Swift程式語言之研究［未出版之碩士論文］。國立清華大學課程與教學碩士在職專班。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/959duu
新竹市政府教育局（2020）。新竹市國民小學資訊科技課程教學指引。新竹市政府教育局。https://bit.ly/30JnuCI
臺北市政府教育局（2018）。臺北市科技領域國小資訊科技課程教學綱要。臺北市政府教育局。https://bit.ly/327l8ht
蔡雯欣（2018）。「不插電的資訊科學」課程對國小五年級學生於電腦程式設計課程之學習態度、自我效能與運算思維能力之影響［未出版之碩士論文］。國立臺灣科技大學數位學習與教育研究所。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/x7xs5q
賴榮飛（2017）。課程協作與實踐專刊。十二年國教新課綱推動專案辦公室。https://bit.ly/3cvAA9m
Raven, J. C., Styles, I. & Raven, M. （2006）瑞文氏標準矩陣推理測驗指導手冊［陳榮華、陳心怡譯］。中國行為科學。
Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M.N. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Comput. Hum. Behav., 105, 106185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106185
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children's computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Comput. Hum. Behav., 105, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
Araujo, A. L., Andrade, W. D., Guerrero, D. S., & Melo, M. R. (2019). How many abilities can we measure in computational thinking? A study on Bebras challenge. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3287324.3287405
Association for Computing Machinery, Code.org, Computer Science Teachers Association, Cyber Innovation Center, and National Math and Science Initiative. (2016). K-12 Computer Science Framework. https://k12cs.org/
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, pp. 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Bers, M.U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early childhood research and practice, 12. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7507-8.ch043
Bers, M.U. (2017). Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315398945
Brennan, K. & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada. Vol. 1. ( pp. 1–25). http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489914.008
Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L.A., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students' computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Comput. Educ., 109, 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
Chiazzese, G., Arrigo, M., Chifari, A., Lonati, V., & Tosto, C. (2019). Educational robotics in primary school: measuring the development of computational thinking skills with the Bebras tasks. Informatics, 6, 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6040043
Code.org (2015), Evaluation Reports. The Code logo and Hour of Code. https://code.org/about/evaluation
Csizmadia, A.P., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C.C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational Thinking: A guide for teachers. http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/6695/original.pdf
Dagiene, V. & Sentence, S. (2016). It's Computational Thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. ISSEP. Springer. 2016 (pp. 28–39). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46747-4_3
Delal, H., & Oner, D. (2020). Developing middle school students' computational thinking skills using unplugged computing activities. Informatics Educ., 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.01
Djambong, T., & Freiman, V. (2016). Task-Based assessment of students' computational thinking skills developed through visual programming or Tangible coding environments. International Association for Development of the Information Society. http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1938612
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), UNESCO Santiago (2020). Education in the time of COVID-19. UNESCO. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/45905/1/S2000509_en.pdf
Fowler, A. (2017). Engaging young learners in making games: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. 65, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3102071.3116225
ISTE & CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved December 25, 2020, from http://doi.org/10.4324/9781003102991-6
Izu, C., Mirolo, C., Settle, A., Mannila, L., & Stupurienė, G. (2017). Exploring Bebras tasks content and performance: A multinational study. Informatics Educ., 16, 39-59. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2017.03
K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. (2016). K-12 Computer Science Framework. https://k12cs.org/
Kalelioglu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Comput. Hum. Behav., 52, 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047
Liu, A.S., Newsom, J., Schunn, C.D., & Shoop, R. (2013). Students learn programming faster through robotic simulation. Tech Directions, 72, 16-19. https://bit.ly/3oKNBRX
Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2018). Developing computational thinking test using Bebras problems. CC-TEL/TACKLE@EC-TEL. http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/10316/1/AM-Developing-2017.pdf
Micro: bit Educational Foundation (2021). Micro: bit home learning. https://microbit.org/get-started/home-learning/
Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of Scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. Revista de educación a distancia 46(pp. 1–23). https://bit.ly/3CC0zWW
Marcelino, M.J., Pessoa, T., Vieira, C., Salvador, T., & Mendes, A.J. (2018). Learning computational thinking and scratch at distance. Comput. Hum. Behav., 80, 470-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.025
OECD (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on education - Insights from Education at a Glance 2020. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020.pdf
Palts, T. (2021). A model for assessing computational thinking skills. Dissertationes Informaticae Universitatis Tartuensis. http://hdl.handle.net/10062/71913
Pruet, P., Ang, C.S., & Deravi, F. (2016). Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: Students' technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav., 55, 1131-1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.063
Relkin, E., Ruiter, L.E., & Bers, M.U. (2020). TechCheck: Development and validation of an unplugged assessment of computational thinking in early childhood education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 482-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09831-x
Relkin, E., Ruiter, L.E., & Bers, M.U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Comput. Educ., 169, 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222
Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A.R., & Escherle, N.A. (2017). Principles of computational thinking tools. Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking, pp 291-305. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_18
Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment. International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (CTE 2017), Hong Kong, China. https://bit.ly/3kSXNqw Kong, S.C., Sheldon, J., Li, K.Y., (Eds.) The Education University of Hong Kong
Romn-Gonzlez, M., Prez-Gonzlez, J., & Jimnez-Fernndez, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
Rose, S., Habgood, J., & Jay, T. (2017). An exploration of the role of visual programming tools in the development of young children’s computational thinking. Electronic journal of e-learning 15.4, pp. 297–309. http://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.15.4.2368
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2020, May 13). LCQ4: Online teaching and learning. https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202005/13/P2020051300266.htm?fontSize=1
United States Distance Learning Association (2021). Distance Learning Resource. https://usdla.org/
USA Bebras. (2021). Bebras® Computing Challenge. https://www.bebraschallenge.org/
UK Bebras. (2021). Challenges - UK Bebras. https://www.bebras.uk/index.php?action=user_competitions
Vilnius University (2021). Bebras. https://www.bebraschallenge.org/
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S. C. & Kinshuk. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160, 104023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational Thinking and thinking about computing. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A., 366, 3717–3725. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
Wing, J.M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49, 33 - 35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Witherspoon, E.B., Higashi, R.M., Schunn, C.D., Baehr, E., & Shoop, R. (2017). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18, 1 - 20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3104982
Wonder Workshop (2021). A Robot For Every Learner. https://www.makewonder.com/
Wu, P., Chiu, F., Mayerová, K., & Kubincová, Z. (2018). Educational robotics at primary school: Comparison of two research studies. 2018 17th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2018.8424621