傳統的程式設計課程是透過老師講解與示範程式範例，學生照著老師示範的步驟來練習，這種教學方式有兩種缺點。第一：許多學生只會目前學習的範例，遇到新的問題卻不知所措：第二：學生在學習過程中常常發問，由於時間的限制老師很難一一解決所有學生的問題，缺乏即時回饋的機制而讓學生遇到問題無法解決就無法繼續學習，且同樣的問題會重複出現。本研究主要目的是探討利用註記工具支援解決問題教學策略來提升學童在在程式學習活動上的學習成效。本研究採用準實驗研究法，以台北市某國小的六年級學生為研究對象，最後以學習測驗、同儕互評、學習態度問卷共三個項度來評估學生的學習成效，並輔以課堂觀察紀錄的質性資料來分析學生的學習過程。根據分析質化與量化的資料所得到的結果，註記工具支援解決問題教學策略能有效地提昇程式設計課程的學習成效，並能減少學生課堂中所提問的數量，減輕老師的教學負擔。

The traditional course in computer programming depends on explaining and demonstrating program examples by teacher, and the students follow the steps to practice. There are two shortcomings in this pedagogy. First, many students can only finish the program exercises which they are learning, and cannot solve new problems that they never encounter. Second, students often ask questions during the course, but the teacher is hard to answer due to time limitation. The lack of immediate feedback causes students unable to keep learning, and the same asked question will repeat again and again. In this paper, we consider an annotation supported teaching strategy to improving learning achievements of computer programming. Quasi-Experimental Study was used in this study, and the students from the sixth grade of an elementary school of Taipei city were selected. Finally, an achievement test, peer assessment, and attitude questionnaire were used to evaluate the learning achievements. We also collect observation records during the course to analyze the learning process of the student. Analyzing the quantitative and qualitative datum, the results of the study is that an annotation supported teaching strategy can improve learning achievements of computer programming effectively, reduce the asked question ,and alleviate the teaching assignment of the teacher.

[1] Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
[2] Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 20(1), 24-73.
[3] Bolliger, D.U. and Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online course. International Journal on E-Learning, 61-67.
[4] Bishop-Clark, C. (1992). Protocol analysis of a novice programmer. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 24(3).
[5] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
[6] Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model of empirically testing new end-userinformation systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[7] Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.
[8] Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289-299.
[9] Gomes, A. , & Mendes, A.J. (2007). Learning to program - difficulties and solutions. International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007.
[10] Govender, I., & Grayson, D. (2006). Learning to program and learning to teach programming: A closer look. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2006-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, 1687-1693.
[11] Graesser, A. C., & Person, N.K. (1994).Question asking during tutoring. American educational research journal, 31(1), 104-137.
[12] Graham, K.(1983). Introduction to Survey Sampling(1st ed.). Sage Publications.
[13] Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y. & Sharples, M. (2007). A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Computers & Education,48,680-699.
[14] Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin , Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education ITiCSE ''05,37(3), 14-18.
[15] LeJeune, N. F. (2002). Problem-based learning instruction versus traditional instruction on self-directed learning, motivation, and grades of undergraduate computer science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver.
[16] Lin, J.M.-C., Yen, L.-Y., Yang, M.-C. & Chen, C.-F. (2005).Teaching computer programming in elementary school: a pilot study. National Educational Computing Conference.
[17] Maheshwari, P. (1997). Improving the learning environment in first-year programming: integrating lectures, tutorials, and laboratories. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 111-131.
[18] McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (1996). A supplementary package for distance education
students studying introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(1), 73-77.
[19] Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
[20] Nokelainen P., Kurhila J., Miettinen M., Floreen P., & Tirri H. (2003).Evaluating the role of a shared document-based annotation tool in learner-centered collaborative learning, 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 200-203.
[21] Overbaugh, R. C. (1993). A BASIC programming curriculum for enhancing problem–solving ability . Convention of the Assoc. of Educational Communication and Technology, (ERIC ED 355921).
[22] Ovsiannikov, I.A., Arbib, M.A., & McNeill, T.H. (1999). Annotation Technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 329-362.
[23] Papert, S. (1980).Teaching Children Thinking. Computers in Schools: Tutor,Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Pres.
[24] Pea, R. D. (1983). LOGO programming and problem solving. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology.
[25] Perkins D. N., & Martin F. (1986). Fragile Knowledge and Neglected Strategies in Novice Programmers. In E. Soloway, & Iyengar S., (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers. 213-229.
[26] Peter Bancroft ,& Paul Roe (2006). Program Annotations: Feedback for Students Learning to Program, Eighth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2006)
[27] Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
[28] Rensis Likert (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
[29] Rist, R. S. (1995). Program structure and design. Cognitive Science, 19, 507-562.
[30] Rist, R. S. (1996). Teaching Eiffel as a first language. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 9, 30-41.
[31] Pond, K., & Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 314-323.
[32] Schollmeyer, M. (1996). Computer programming in high school vs. college. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(1), 378-382.
[33] Singh, J. K., & Zwirner, W. (1996). Toward a theoretical framework of problem solving within LOGO programming environments. Journal of research on computing in education, 29(1), 68-96.
[34] Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (2003). Note-taking review-practical value for Learners. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.univ-rouen.fr/arobase/bck10.html
[35] Topping, K. J. (1998), Peer Assessments between Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
[36] Volet, S. E., & Lund, C. P. (1994). Meta cognitive instruction in introductory computer programming: A Better explanatory construct for performance than traditional factors. Journal of Education Computing Research, 10(4), 297-328.
[37] Hartmann, W., Nievergelt, J., & Reichert ,R. (2001). Kara, finite state machines, and the case for programming as part of general education. In Proceedings of Symposia on Human Centric Computing 2001.
[38] Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy - A psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28, 17-22.
[39] Yeh, S. W., & Lo, J. J. (2009). Using Online Annotations to Support Error Correction and Corrective Feedback. Computers & Education, 52 , 882-892.