系統測試的教導模式對測試行為之影響

Effects of System Testing Models on Testing Performances

黃麗分(Li-Fen Huang)；洪瑞雲(Ruey-Yun Horng)；黃永昌(Yung-Chang Huang)

系統測試 ； 教導模式 ； 正向測試 ； 負向測試 ； 證偽 ； system testing ； instructional model ； falsification ； confirmation ； positive test ； negative test

應用心理研究

22期（2004 / 06 / 01）

121 - 155

繁體中文

本研究的目的在探討不同的系統測試教導模式對測試行為的影響。實驗一共有79個大學生被隨機分派至三個系統測試的教導情境（正向測試、正+負向測試、控制組）。其中正向測試是專家系統中所常用的以法則的正向描述為推論基礎的教導模式；正向+負向測試則是除了法則的正向測試之外還要進行負向（另有法則）測試；控制組則是沒有任何的教導。在經過三次練習後，受試者即按照學到的測試策略進行系統測試的作業。結果顯示，使用正向+負向測試的受試者所測試的法則涵蓋面較廣，且可由負向測試產生可削弱原先法則的負向測試案例；代價則是較長的解題時間、在進行負向測試時可能犯錯、以及對自己的測試正確性信心較低。相對上，正向測試組雖可以系統法則來引導測試，在測試涵蓋面上僅與控制組較相似，且主要都是正向的測試，控制組的測試活動則主要是在案例層次。此結果顯示，以正向法則為推理基礎的教導模式若能輔以負向法則測試的教導，則可以引導受試者在正向的證真測試之外也從事可以削弱系統法則的負向測試。實驗二修訂了實驗一的部分程序，並以新的受試者及實驗材料重現了實驗一的發現。

In Experiment 1, 79 college students were randomly assigned to one of three system-testing instructional models (positive test, positive + negative test and control) to work on 5 system-testing tasks. With 3 practice items, students in the positive test, positive + negative test conditions received instructions and practiced on the system-testing model assigned to them before they worked on the remaining 2 system-testing tasks. Students in the control group practiced on the same 3 practice items without any specific instructions. Results showed that students who received positive + negative test model formulated more correct testing rules, and were able to apply testing instances inconsistent with system’s rules. However, the positive + negative test model also required more time to formulate the test plan and produced more errors during negative test. In contrast, subjects who received only the positive test model performed in a manner similar to the control group. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1 with different system-testing tasks and modified experimental procedures. Results of the present study showed that positive + negative test model could be employed to enhance the use of falsifying instances in system testing.

1. 林緯倫、連韻文(2001)。如何能發現隱藏的規則？從科學資優生表現的特色，探索提昇規則發現能力的方法。科學教育學刊，9，299-322。
   連結：
2. Beyth-Marom, R.,Fischhoff, B.(1983).Diagnosticity and pseudoddiagnosticity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45,1185-1195.
3. Bruner, J. S.,Goodnow, J. J.,Austin, G. A.(1986).A study of thinking.New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction, Inc.
4. Carnap, R.,J. A. Kourany (Ed.)(1998).Scientific knowledge: Basic issues in the philosophy of sciences.Belmont, CA:Wodsworth Publishing Company.
5. Doherty, M. E.,Mynatt, C. R.,Tweney, R. D.,Shiavo, M. D.(1979).Pseudodiagnosticity.Acta Psychology,43,107-111.
6. Evans, St. B. T.(1989).Biases in human reasoning: Causes and consequences.Hove, East Sussex:Erlbaum.
7. Gorman, M. E.(1995).Confirmation, disconfirmation, and invention: The case of Alexander Bell and the telephone.Thinking and Reasoning,1,31-53.
8. Gorman, M. E.,Satfford, A.,Gorman, M. E.(1987).Disconfirmation and dual hypotheses on a more difficult version of Wason`s 2-4-6 task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A,1-28.
9. Klahr, D.,Dunbar, K.(1988).Dual space in scientific reasoning.Cognitive Science,12,1-48.
10. Klayman, J.,Ha, Y. W.(1987).Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing.Psychological Review,94,211-228.
11. Klayman, J.,Ha, Y. W.(1989).Hypothesis testing in rule discovery: strategy, structure, and content.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,15,596-604.
12. Koehler, D. J.(1994).Hypothesis generation and confidence in judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20,461-469.
13. Medin, D. L.,Wattenmarker, W. D.,Michalski, R. S.(1987).Constraints and preferences in inductive learning: An experimental study of human and machine performance.Cognitive Science,11,299-339.
14. Neumann, P.G.(1988).Risks to the public in computers and related systems.ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Note,13(3),3-17.
15. Newstead, S. E.,Evans, St. B. T.(1995).New directions in thinking and reasoning.Hove, UK:Erlbaum.
16. Oaksford, M.,Chater, N.(1994).A rational analysis of selection task as optimal data selection.Psychological Review,101,608-631.
17. Platt, J. R.(1964).Strong inference.Science,146,347-353.
18. Popper, K. R.(1959).The logic of scientific discovery.London:Hutchinson.
19. Teasley, B. E.,Leventhal, L. M.,Mynatt, C. R.,Rohlman, D. S.(1994).Why software testing is sometimes ineffective: Two applied studies of positive test strategy.Journal of Applied Psychology,79,142-155.
20. Tweeny, R. D.,Chitwood, S. T.,S. E. Newstead,J. St. B. T. Evans (Eds.)(1995).Perspectivs on thinking and reasoning: Essays in honor of Peter Wason.Hove, UK:Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Tweney, R. D.,Doherty, M. E.,Worner, W. J.,Pliske, D. B.(1980).Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32,109-123.
22. Wason, P. C.(1960).On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,12,129-140.
23. Wason, P. C.,B. M. Foss (Ed.)(1966).Reasoning.New horizons in psychology,135-151.
24. Wason, P. C.,Johnson-Laird, P. N.(1972).Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content.Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press.
25. 林迪意(1996)。博士論文(博士論文)。交通大學工業工程與管理系。
26. 楊昌裔(2000)。博士論文(博士論文)。清華大學工業工程系。