A Comparison of Inquiry-Based Conceptual Feedback vs. Traditional Detailed Feedback Mechanisms in Software Testing Education: An Empirical Investigation
A Comparison of Inquiry-Based Conceptual Feedback vs. Traditional Detailed Feedback Mechanisms in Software Testing Education: An Empirical Investigation
复制标题
软件测试教育中基于探究的概念反馈与传统详细反馈机制的比较：实证研究
DOI：
10.1145/3408877.3432417
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Walia, Gursimran
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cordova, Lucas;Carver, Jeffrey;Gershmel, Noah;Walia, Gursimran
当前测试教育工具提供的关于学生测试套件缺陷的反馈，要么模仿行业代码覆盖工具，要么列出学生测试套件中缺失的特定指导测试用例。虽然在某种意义上是有用的，但这些类型的反馈类似于揭示问题的解决方案，这可能会无意中鼓励学生采用试错方法进行测试，而不是使用更系统的方法来鼓励学习。除了不能告诉学生为什么他们的测试套件是不够的，这种类型的反馈可能会激励学生变得依赖于反馈，而不是自己思考。为了解决这一缺陷，有机会研究其他反馈机制，包括积极强化测试概念。我们认为，使用基于探究的学习方法比简单地提供答案更好。为了促进这种类型的学习，我们提出了测试导师，一个基于网络的作业提交平台，通过可定制的反馈引擎支持不同级别的测试教学法。我们通过对两门二年级课程的实证研究来评估不同类型反馈的影响。我们使用Testing Tutor为学生提供不同类型的反馈，无论是传统的详细代码覆盖反馈还是基于查询的学习概念反馈，并比较效果。结果表明，与接受传统代码覆盖率反馈的学生相比，接受概念性反馈的学生具有更高的代码覆盖率（通过不同的度量），更少的冗余测试用例，以及更高的编程成绩。
The feedback provided by current testing education tools about the deficiencies in a student's test suite either mimics industry code coverage tools or lists specific instructor test cases that are missing from the student's test suite. While useful in some sense, these types of feedback are akin to revealing the solution to the problem, which can inadvertently encourage students to pursue a trial-and-error approach to testing, rather than using a more systematic approach that encourages learning. In addition to not teaching students why their test suite is inadequate, this type of feedback may motivate students to become dependent on the feedback rather than thinking for themselves. To address this deficiency, there is an opportunity to investigate alternative feedback mechanisms that include a positive reinforcement of testing concepts. We argue that using an inquiry-based learning approach is better than simply providing the answers. To facilitate this type of learning, we present Testing Tutor, a web-based assignment submission platform that supports different levels of testing pedagogy via a customizable feedback engine. We evaluated the impact of the different types of feedback through an empirical study in two sophomore-level courses. We use Testing Tutor to provide students with different types of feedback, either traditional detailed code coverage feedback or inquiry-based learning conceptual feedback, and compare the effects. The results show that students that receive conceptual feedback had higher code coverage (by different measures), fewer redundant test cases, and higher programming grades than the students who receive traditional code coverage feedback.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1145/1029994.1029995
发表时间：
2003-09
期刊：
ACM J. Educ. Resour. Comput.
影响因子：
--
作者：
S. Edwards
通讯作者：
S. Edwards
DOI：
10.1016/j.jss.2004.03.016
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
J. Syst. Softw.
影响因子：
--
作者：
B. Kitchenham;D. Budgen;P. Brereton;Philip Woodall
通讯作者：
Philip Woodall
培养具有国际理解和优点的资源和环境经理（高级）：为本科生项目引入研究经验
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
R. Yin
通讯作者：
R. Yin
作为研究人员的大学科学教师：模糊学术界限
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Sandra K. Abell
通讯作者：
Sandra K. Abell
DOI：
10.1109/csee.1998.658300
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
Proceedings 11th Conference on Software Engineering Education
影响因子：
--
作者：
Timothy Lethbridge
通讯作者：
Timothy Lethbridge