文字式與圖像式程式語言之學習成效比較研究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2006
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究旨在探討文字式與圖像式程式語言對於學習成效之影響。台北市某國小兩班六年級學生參與本研究，每班各二十六名學生，總共進行25節課之教學實驗。實驗過程中，一班學生使用MSWLogo，另一班則使用Drape，兩者皆屬Logo系列之程式語言，但MSWLogo提供文字式指令供使用者撰寫程式，而Drape則提供圖像式語法。
本研究所收集之量化資料為五次紙筆測驗及一次期末上機實作測驗成績。紙筆測驗包括記憶、理解、應用與分析等認知能力之測驗題目，期末上機實作測驗則包括16題創作題和8題修改題。量化資料分析結果顯示，學習MSWLogo（文字式語言）的學生在前三次紙筆測驗的成績均優於Drape（圖像式語言）組，達統計上之顯著性，但於第十五節與末期之兩次紙筆測驗，兩組成績則並未達顯著差異。由此似可推論Drape（圖像式語言）在學習初期之門檻較高，但當學生對於程式語法逐漸熟悉後，兩者間之差異逐漸縮小。在上機實作測驗方面，MSWLogo組在創作題之平均分數雖高於Drape組，但未達統計上的顯著性；在修改題方面，兩組平均分數相近，亦無顯著差異。
本研究所收集之質化資料包括：以螢幕擷取軟體所錄製之學生上機實作程式設計過程、實驗後問卷調查結果、學生之學習心得、及教師之教學日誌等。質化資料之分析顯示，在程式設計過程中，MSWLogo學習者易犯語法錯誤；相對的，Drape學習者則易因某些圖像式指令相似度過高或違背直觀原則而產生混淆。換言之，兩者各有其使用上的缺點。在學習態度方面，兩組學生無論在學習程式設計的喜好程度，或未來繼續學習程式設計的意願上均無顯著差異。
整體而言，本研究顯示國小六年級學生使用MSWLogo（文字式語言）或Drape（圖像式語言）學習程式設計並未造成學習成效或學習態度上之顯著差異。一般人易於直覺認定圖像式語言較易於學習，且較易為國小學生所接受，本研究應有助於矯正此一錯誤認知，並提供教師於選擇適合國小學生學習之程式語言時的重要參考。
In this research we investigated if the use of textual or iconic programming languages would result in different learning effects. Fifty-two six graders from a local elementary school participated in this research. A class of 26 students learned to program in MSWLogo and the other class of 26 students learned Drape. Both MSWLogo and Drape are Logo-style languages; however, programmers use textual commands to program in MSWLogo while iconic commands are used in Drape. The quantitative data collected in this research included grades of five paper-based tests and a hands-on programming test. Each paper-based test included questions assessing such cognitive abilities as knowledge, comprehension, application and analysis. The programming test consisted of 24 problems: 16 of them required students to write complete programs while the remaining eight problems were for students to modify existing programs. Analyses of test grades revealed that students of the MSWLogo group performed significantly better than those of the Drape group in the first three paper-based tests. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the last two tests. It seems that there is a steeper learning curve for students to program in Drape (iconic language) than in MSWLogo (textual language). Nevertheless, when students become more and more familiar with language syntax, the difference diminishes. The hands-on programming test did not show a significant difference between performances of the two groups, whether with write-complete-program problems or with modify-program problems. The qualitative data collected in this research included automatically captured screen logs of students’ programming processes while they were working on the programming test, results of a questionnaire survey conducted at the end of the experiment, and journals kept by students and the instructor. A qualitative analysis of these data indicated that students of the MSWLogo group made syntactic errors frequently while students of the Drape group were often confused by icons that were not intuitively clear or those icons that looked similar to each other. Apparently, each language has its own disadvantages in usability. With regard to students’ attitudes toward programming, there were no significant differences between the two groups in how much students liked programming or if they would like to learn to program again in the future. To sum up: This research concludes that there are no differences between the two groups of six graders who learned MSWLogo (textual language) and Drape (iconic language) respectively, whether in students’ performance or their attitudes toward programming. Many people may tend to think that iconic languages are easier to learn and would be preferred by elementary school students. Our findings may help to shed such a delusion and provide some useful hints to primary school teachers when it comes to select a suitable programming language for their students to learn.
In this research we investigated if the use of textual or iconic programming languages would result in different learning effects. Fifty-two six graders from a local elementary school participated in this research. A class of 26 students learned to program in MSWLogo and the other class of 26 students learned Drape. Both MSWLogo and Drape are Logo-style languages; however, programmers use textual commands to program in MSWLogo while iconic commands are used in Drape. The quantitative data collected in this research included grades of five paper-based tests and a hands-on programming test. Each paper-based test included questions assessing such cognitive abilities as knowledge, comprehension, application and analysis. The programming test consisted of 24 problems: 16 of them required students to write complete programs while the remaining eight problems were for students to modify existing programs. Analyses of test grades revealed that students of the MSWLogo group performed significantly better than those of the Drape group in the first three paper-based tests. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the last two tests. It seems that there is a steeper learning curve for students to program in Drape (iconic language) than in MSWLogo (textual language). Nevertheless, when students become more and more familiar with language syntax, the difference diminishes. The hands-on programming test did not show a significant difference between performances of the two groups, whether with write-complete-program problems or with modify-program problems. The qualitative data collected in this research included automatically captured screen logs of students’ programming processes while they were working on the programming test, results of a questionnaire survey conducted at the end of the experiment, and journals kept by students and the instructor. A qualitative analysis of these data indicated that students of the MSWLogo group made syntactic errors frequently while students of the Drape group were often confused by icons that were not intuitively clear or those icons that looked similar to each other. Apparently, each language has its own disadvantages in usability. With regard to students’ attitudes toward programming, there were no significant differences between the two groups in how much students liked programming or if they would like to learn to program again in the future. To sum up: This research concludes that there are no differences between the two groups of six graders who learned MSWLogo (textual language) and Drape (iconic language) respectively, whether in students’ performance or their attitudes toward programming. Many people may tend to think that iconic languages are easier to learn and would be preferred by elementary school students. Our findings may help to shed such a delusion and provide some useful hints to primary school teachers when it comes to select a suitable programming language for their students to learn.
Description
Keywords
程式設計, 中小學電腦教育, Computer Programming, Elementary Schools Computer Education