學習編程對於程式初學者而言是有難度的，因為他們會面臨一些令人不愉快的
過程，例如 : 解決問題、了解新事物、培養邏輯思考的能力。學習寫程式也可以透過玩
桌遊這樣不插電的活動。桌遊對於多數人來說唾手可得、隨時隨地皆可遊玩，且通常
具備相對親民的價格。目前有許多桌遊都可以促進學習者的計算思維，其設計也具備
了一些編程要素，但大多數的桌遊在遊玩時都是一次走一步，學習者需要一種棋盤遊
戲的機制，可以模擬存儲他們的想法，並通過使用透明層使其可見和可追溯。基於現
有的桌遊，我們設計了一款桌遊不單單只是一次走一步，而是還能夠讓思考過程變成
可見概念及內儲程式概念。這款程式學習桌遊我們稱它為 “多層次計算思維”。
本論文中所提出的桌遊能夠藉由透明層保留學習者的思考過程，並提供學習者
在遊戲後進行反思。我們的桌遊具備計算思維的概念及技巧，以及控制程序流程的基
本結構，例如 : 循序(sequence)、選擇(selection)、迴圈(loop)。我們的卡片設計採納
了 Scratch 方塊，透過這些卡片學習者能夠體驗到基於方塊的視覺化程式設計(block-
based visual programming)。学习者在完成棋盘游戏和练习后，可以在 Scratch 环
境中轻松检查程序是否正确。量化資料分析的結果會用來探討使用者對我們的桌遊的
看法。我們使用了基於四個維度的內在動機量表 (Intrinsic Motivation Inventory ; IMI)
問卷，其四個維度分別是興趣/享受、努力/重要性、壓力/緊張和價值/有用性。數據分
析的結果指出我們提出的桌遊能夠引起參與者的興趣，且令使用者享受遊玩桌遊的過
程，此外這款桌遊也能夠用來學習編程，即便在學習過程中可能需要花費一些心力。

Learning programming for novice programmers is difficult for them. They will face
unpleasant processes such as problem-solving, understanding new things, and logical thinking
capabilities. Learning programming can use unplugged activities, such as board games. Board
games were accessible to everyone, anywhere and anytime, which are more affordable to them.
Currently, various board games can foster learners’ computational thinking and have
programming elements, but they are mostly operated on one step at one time. Learners need a
mechanism from board games that can simulate to store their thinking and make it visible and
traceable by using a transparent layer. Based on current board games that have already been
developed, we designed a board game that not just operated on one step at one time. We
designed a board game that implemented making thinking visible concept and stored program
concept, namely Cothi Mula board game for learning programming.
In this study, our board game can store learners’ thinking on a transparent layer and
make it visible for later reflection. Our board game has computational thinking concepts and
skills, and a basic structure of control to construct a program, i.e., sequence, selection, and loop.
Learners experience block-based visual programming through our cards design that adopted
Scratch block. Learners can easily check whether the program was correct or not in the Scratch
environment after they finished playing the board game and exercises. Quantitative data
analysis was collected to investigate learners’ perceptions of playing our board game. We used
the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) questionnaire based on four dimensions, namely
Interest/Enjoyment, Effort/Importance, Pressure/Tension, and Value/Usefulness. Based on data
analysis, found that our board game can attract participant interest, they enjoyed playing our
board game, and this board game can be used to learning programming, but they need some
effort to play our board game.

Affleck, G. a. (1999). Identifying a need for web-based course support. In ASCILITE (Vol. 99).
Akpinar, Y., & Altun, A. (2014). Programming education requirement in information society
schools. Elementary Education Online, 13(1), 1-14.
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A
K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47-57.
Aspray, W. (1990). The stored program concept. IEEE Spectrum, 27(9), 51.
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),
48-54.
Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 45-73.
Böhm, C., & Jacopini, G. (1966). Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two
formation rules. Communications of the ACM, 9(5), 366-371.
Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D.
(2017, November). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged
activities in primary school. Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary
computing education, pp. 65-72.
Chen, K. Z., & Chi, H. H. (2020). Novice young board-game players’ experience about
computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-13.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3),
297-334.
del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational
thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers &
Education, 150: 103832.
Govender, I., & Grayson, D. (2006). Learning to program and learning to teach programming: A
closer look. EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 1687-1693). Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and
academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russel, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2002). Instructional media and
technologies for learning. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hinebaugh, J. P. (2009). A board game education. R&L Education.
Kuo, W. C., & Hsu, T. C. (2020). Learning computational thinking without a computer: How
computational participation happens in a computational thinking board game. The AsiaPacific
Education
Researcher,
29(1),
67-83.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., . . . Werner, L. (2011).
Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37.
Noda, S., Shirotsuki, K., & Nakao, M. (2019). The effectiveness of intervention with board
games: a systematic review. BioPsychoSocial medicine, 13(1), 1-21.
Oliveira, C. (2016). The importance of learning computer programming for engineers. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, (pp. 2311-2314).
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Books.
Perkins, D., & Ritchhart, R. (2003). Making thinking visible. New horizons for learning, 8.
Piteira, M., & Costa, C. (2013). Learning computer programming: study of difficulties in learning
programming. Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Information Systems
and Design of Communication, (pp. 75-80). Lisboa, Portugal.
Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, play and games: What makes games engaging. Digital game-based
learning, 5(1), 5-31.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., . . .
Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 6067.
Rich, P. J., Jones, B. L., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E., & Perkins, M. (2017). Computing and
Engineering in Elementary School: The Effect of Year-long Training on Elementary
Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs About Teaching Computing and Engineering.
International Journal Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(1), 1-20.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote
engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. John Wiley & Sons.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review
and discussion. Computer science education, 13(2), 137-172.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Salen, K., Tekinbaş, K. S., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.
MIT Press.
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition.
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of
learning. Phi delta kappan, 87(2), 105-111.
Tan, P. H., Ling, S. W., & Ting, C. Y. (2007). Adaptive digital game-based learning framework.
In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Digital interactive media in
entertainment and arts, (pp. 142-146).
Tishman, S., & Palmer, P. (2005). Visible thinking. Leadership compass, 2(4), 1-3.
Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2018). Training computational thinking through board
games: The case of Crabs & Turtles. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(2), 2544.
Van Eck, R. (2007). Six ideas in search of a discipline. In B. E. Shelton, & D. A. Wiley, The
design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 31-60). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
366(1881), 3717-3725.
Wing, J. M. (2011). Research Notebook: Computational Thinking-What and Why? The Link -
The magazine of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy-a psychological overview. ACM Sigcse
Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22.
Wu, W. H., Hsiao, H. C., Wu, P. L., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Investigating the learning‐
theory foundations of game‐based learning: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 28(3), 265-279.
Wu, S. Y., & Su, Y. S. (2018). Design a computational thinking board game based on
programming elements. International Conference on Computational Thinking Education
2018, (pp. 19-20). Hong Kong.
Zagal, J. P., Rick, J., & Hsi, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games.
Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 24-40.
Zhuang, Y., Saputro, A., Liyanawatta, M., Wang, J. H., Yang, S. H., & Chen, G. D. (2021).
Making the thinking results of programming visible and traceable with a multi-layer
board game. Proceedings of the 5th APSCE International Computational Thinking and
STEM in Education Conference 2021, (pp. 71-76). Singapore: National Institute of
Education.