臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

資訊管理領域中的程式語言是一門重要學科，對於來自不同背景的學習者與初次學習的學習者，在學習程式語言時容易產生門檻，然而在程式語言學習中，學習者缺少經驗下發生錯誤容易發生挫折，而程式除錯與程式追蹤是程式撰寫過程的重要工作，目前傳統程式撰寫的教學方式，以及市面上的教材亦都少有除錯與追蹤的練習。

本研究旨在探討以Java除錯追蹤教材與題庫學習對於學習者在學習成效上的影響，其目的為設計一套Java程式語言除錯追蹤教材及題庫，使學習者在學習的過程當中降低學習挫折及累積經驗，並探討學習者在軟體的輔助下，對學習成效會不會有影響。

本研究以國立雲林科技大學資訊管理系大學部共72位學生為實驗對象，並根據期中成績將學生以系統抽樣的方式分為三組，主動式、被動式與傳統式。經過『迴圈』課程講授與習題練習之後，主動式分組進行本研究設計除錯追蹤教材及題庫的訓練，被動式分組透過視覺化追蹤軟體進行程式觀察，以及傳統式分組持續復習課程教材與習題。在學習訓練之後進行後測，結果顯示本研究設計除錯追蹤教材及題庫對中、低程式度的學習者有更好的幫助，然而，視覺化追蹤軟體對高程度的學習者的幫助較好。

Programming language is an important subject in the field of information management. However, learners from different backgrounds can have varying degrees of difficulty when learning a new programming language. Moreover, for learners with few experiences, debugging a buggy program can be very frustrating. As a result, reducing the frustration through training learners on how to debug and trace a program is important for learners to overcome difficulties in learning programming. Unfortunately, few text book and learning materials exists that focuses on helping learners to acquire debugging and tracing abilities.

This study aims at designing a Java debugging and tracing material and compares its effectiveness with software-assisted tracer and debugger.

A group of 72 students from the Department of Information Management of National Yunlin University of Science and Technology are divided into three groups: active, passive, and no-assistance. After receiving lecture and practicing exercises on Loop, the active group studies additional debugging and tracing material designed by this study, the passive group observes how programs are executed using a visual tracer, and the no-assistance group reviews the lecture material. A post-test is then given to all the students. The result shows that Java debugging and tracing material designed by this study is more helpful for middle to low level students; whereas, visual tracer is more helpful for upper level students.

摘 要 i
ABSTRACT ii
誌 謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 x
一、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.1.1 學習者背景不一 1
1.1.2 單一類型的程式練習 1
1.1.3 程式編輯不是唯一工作 1
1.1.4 除錯、追蹤訓練受到忽略 2
1.1.5 初學者缺少寫程式的經驗 2
1.1.6 碰到錯誤易產生挫折 2
1.1.7 市面上缺乏程式除錯教材 2
1.2 研究目的 3
1.2.1 程式除錯追蹤教材及搭配題庫 3
1.2.2 降低學習挫折及累積經驗 3
1.2.3 以不同的角度理解程式語言 3
1.2.4 追蹤軟體 4
1.2.5 除錯追蹤教材對不同程度學習者影響 4
1.3 研究範圍與限制 4
1.4 名詞解釋 4
1.5 研究步驟 5
二、文獻與相關技術探討 6
2.1 程式追蹤 6
2.2 發現學習 6
2.3 經驗學習 7
2.4 Java的追蹤與除錯軟體 8
2.4.1 Jeliot 3 9
2.4.2 jGrasp 10
三、研究架構與教材題庫設計 11
3.1 研究對象 11
3.2 研究架構 11
3.3 研究設計 11
3.4 研究變數定義 12
3.5 研究假說 12
3.6 教材與題庫設計 12
3.6.1 編譯時期錯誤或語法錯誤 (compile-time error) 16
3.6.2 語意與追蹤學習 18
3.6.3 執行時期錯誤 (run-time error) 22
四、實驗與資料分析 25
4.1 實驗對象 25
4.2 實驗分組設計 25
4.3 實驗課程內容 25
4.4 實驗設計 25
4.5 實驗工具 26
4.6 實驗流程 27
4.7 資料分析工具 28
4.8 學習者實驗前測成績分析 28
4.8.1 無程度分組 28
4.8.2 高程度分組 29
4.8.3 中、低程度分組 30
五、研究結論與未來研究 36
5.1 研究結論 36
5.2 未來方向 37
參考文獻 38
附錄 A 40
A.1 實驗訓練習題(迴圈) 40
A.1.1 編譯時期錯誤訊息選擇題 40
A.1.2 編譯時期錯誤訊息程式修正題 41
A.1.3 追蹤觀念題與執行結果題 42
A.1.4 追蹤變數過程題 43
A.1.5 追蹤及改寫題 44
A.1.6 邏輯除錯題 45
A.1.7 邏輯除錯題 46
A.1.8 邏輯除錯題 47
A.1.9 邏輯除錯題 48
A.2 實驗後測習題(迴圈) 49
A.2.1 編譯時期錯誤訊息選擇題 49
A.2.2 編譯時期錯誤訊息程式除錯題 50
A.2.3 追蹤觀念題與執行結果題 51
A.2.4 追蹤變數過程題 52
A.2.5 追蹤及改寫題 53
A.2.6 邏輯除錯題 54
A.2.7 邏輯除錯題 55
A.2.8 邏輯除錯題 56
A.2.9 程式撰寫題 57
A.2.10 程式撰寫題 57
A.2.11 程式撰寫題 57
A.2.12 程式撰寫題 57
A.2.13 程式撰寫題 57
A.3 初學者常見的編譯錯誤統計 58
A.3.1 第一類：基本認識 58
A.3.2 第二類：條件判斷式 60
A.3.2 第三類：迴圈 62
A.3.2 第四類：遞迴 63

[1]程式語言學習網PLWeb，URL：http://plweb.org/
[2]教育部群科課程資訊網，2010，URL：http://tpde.tchcvs.tc.edu.tw/course/
[3]林宗德、董少桓，2006，”Java程式設計教學平台”，第十七屆物件導向技術及應用研討會，台北，長庚大學，9月12日，C3-4。
[4]董少桓，林宗德，沈維倫，錢傳明，沈勇嘉，2005，”支援教師分身的智慧型程式語言教學平台”，全國計算機會議，台南。
[5]方世榮，1998，統計學導論，三版，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北
[6]劉佩宜，2010，不同前導組織與先備知識層次在電腦程式設計學習之影響，國立虎尾科技大學，碩士論文
[7]Bruner, J.S., 1977, The process of Education :a landmark in educational theory. Harvard University Press. 卲瑞珍譯，1995，教育的歷程，台北，五南
[8]B. Shneiderman., 1986, “Empirical studies of programmers: The territory, paths, and destinations.” In E. Soloway and S. Iyengar, editors, Empirical Studies of Programmers, pages 1–12. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
[9]Chang, K., Chiao, B., Chen, S., & Hsiao, R., 2000, “A programming learning system for beginners—A completion strategy approach.” IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 211-220.
[10]D. N. Perkins, C. Hancock, R. Hobbs, F. Martin, and R. Simmons., 1989, “Conditions of learning in novice programmers.” In E. Soloway and J. C. Spohrer, editors, Studying the Novice Programmer, pages 261–279. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
[11]Eckerdal, A., 2009, “Novice programming students’ learning of concepts and practice.” Dissertation presented at mathematics and computer science, department of information technology, Upsalla University, Sweeden, March 6. <http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:173221>.
[12]F. D’etienne and E. Soloway., 1990, “An empirically-derived control structure for the process of program understanding.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33(3):323–342.
[13]Hailpern, B. and Santhanam, P., 2002, “Software Debugging, Testing, and Verification.” IBM Systems Journal, Volume 41, Number 1, pp. 4-12
[14]James H. Cross, T. Dean Hendrix, and Larry A. Barowski., 2002, “Using the debugger as an integral part of teaching CS1.” In 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, November, volume 2, pages F1G-1-F1G-6. IEEE.

[15]J. R. Anderson, R. Farrell, and R. Sauers, 1984, “Learning to program in Lisp.” Cognitive Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 87–129.
[16]Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A., 2005, “The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications.” Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc.
[17]Kolb, D.A., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, England.
[18]Mulholland P, EisenstadtM., 1998, “Using software to teach computer programming: Past, present and future.” In Stasko J. T, Domingue J, Brown M. H, Price B. A, editors, Software Visualization–Programming as a Multimedia Experience, pages 399–408. The MIT Press.
[19]Sleeman, D., 1986, “The Challenges of Teaching Computer Science.” Communications of the ACM, 9, September, pp. 840-841.
[20]S. Fitzgerald, B. Simon, and L. Thomas., 2005, “Strategies that students use to trace code: An analysis based in grounded theory.” In Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Computing Education Research, pages 69–80. ACM Press.
[21]V. Vainio and J. Sajaniemi., 2007, “Factors in novice programmers’ poor tracing skills.” In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’07). ACM Press.
[22]Yoon, B. and Garcia, O., 1998, “Cognitive Activities and Support in Debugging.” Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems, pp. 160-169.