臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

程式碼審查的概念除了被軟體行業大量運用外，近年也開始被導入到教學領域中，由於諸多研究都證實了導入了程式碼審查的教學模式，確實能夠提高學習成效，因此本研究旨在探究何種程式碼審查方式能夠更好激勵學生的學習動機與改善學習成效，並且同時盡可能地降低教師的工作量。
本研究將學生分為實名組與匿名組實行同儕程式碼審查一個學期，每次作業都要求每位學生需要對至少三名同儕進行審查評分與意見回饋，研究數據通過問卷調查與學生的審查意見收集，本研究也設計了作業自動批改架構，藉此有效降低教師工作量。
研究結果透過迴歸分析顯示兩組樣本的學習動機與學習成效皆有顯著提升，然而兩組樣本在比較過後並未有顯著差異；實名組的學生，因可以知道誰是程式碼的主人，而在評論時會比較注意用詞，並且較少給出無用評論；匿名組的學生，因不知道誰是程式碼的主人，評論上較為客觀，也更敢給予真實的意見，但較多學生給出無用的審查意見敷衍了事。
總體來說，本研究提出的程式碼審查架構確實能夠增加學生的學習動機與學習成效，學習態度方面則為實名制較佳，實名制相較於匿名制，能讓學生更為負責任，學習成效方面也是實名制更佳，但兩種程式碼審查方式並沒有太大的差別。

In addition to being widely used by the software industry, the concept of code review has also been introduced into the teaching field in recent years. Since many studies have confirmed that the introduction of code review teaching mode can indeed improve learning effectiveness, this study aims to explore Which code review method can better motivate students' learning motivation and improve learning effect, and at the same time reduce the workload of teachers as much as possible.
In this study, students are divided into real-name groups and anonymous groups to conduct peer code review for one semester. Each assignment requires each student to review, grade and give feedback to at least three peers. The research data is collected through questionnaires and students' review opinions. Collecting, this study also designs an automatic correction framework for homework, thereby effectively reducing the workload of teachers.
The results of the study showed that the learning motivation and learning effect of the two groups of samples were significantly improved through regression analysis, but there was no significant difference between the two groups of samples after comparison; the students in the real-name group, because they could know who was the owner of the code, were not in the real-name group. When making comments, they pay more attention to the words and give less useless comments; the students in the anonymous group, because they do not know who is the owner of the code, are more objective in their comments and dare to give real opinions, but more students give Useless censorship comments perfunctory.
In general, the code review framework proposed in this study can indeed increase students' learning motivation and learning effectiveness. In terms of learning attitude, the real-name system is better. Compared with the anonymous system, the real-name system can make students more responsible and effective in learning. The real-name system is also better, but there is not much difference between the two code review methods.

書名頁 i
中文摘要 ii
英文摘要 iv
誌謝 vi
目錄 vii
圖目錄 xii
表目錄 xiv
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究目的 2
1.4 論文大綱 6
第二章 文獻探討 7
2.1 學習理論 7
2.1.1 學習動機 7
2.1.2 學習態度 7
2.1.3 學習成效 8
2.2 同儕互評 (Peer Assessment) 8
2.2.1 同儕互評的定義 8
2.2.2 同儕互評的理論支持 9
認知衝突理論 10
後設認知理論 10
社會學習理論 12
多元智能理論 13
批判性思維 14
社會建構主義 15
2.2.3 同儕互評的相關研究分析 17
2.3 程式碼審查 (Code Review) 18
2.3.1 程式碼審查的定義 18
2.3.2 程式碼品質 (Code Quality) 21
2.3.3 程式碼的功能性 (Code Functional Quality) 21
2.3.4 程式碼的非功能性 (Code Non-Functional Quality) 23
效能 23
可讀性 24
可維護性 26
第三章 研究方法 29
3.1 研究方法 29
3.1.1 量化研究方法 30
3.1.2 質性研究方法 32
3.2 研究設計 33
3.2.1 研究流程 33
3.2.2 研究變數 34
3.2.3 研究假設 35
3.2.4 研究參與者與分組 36
3.2.5 問卷設計 37
3.3 同儕程式碼審查框架設計 40
3.3.1 程式碼審查的問題與解決方案 41
3.3.2 同儕程式碼審查流程 42
3.3.3 同儕程式碼審查框架 44
3.4 同儕程式碼審查平台 45
3.4.1 前置準備工作(教師端) 46
建立GitHub Classroom 46
建立Assignment 49
使用GitHub Classroom Assistant下載學生Assignment 52
3.4.2 審查平台使用(學生端) 54
接受Assignment 54
下載Assignment 56
上傳Assignment 57
3.4.3 同儕程式碼審查 58
A班(實名制) 58
B班(匿名制) 63
3.4.4 自動化評分系統 67
功能性 67
非功能性 68
第四章 研究結果與分析 70
4.1 量化分析 70
4.1.1 各變數間的關係 70
學習動機與學習態度 70
學習動機與學習成效 71
學習態度與學習成效 73
學習態度在學習動機和學習成效之間的中介作用 74
4.1.2 全體樣本初始能力差異 76
起點行為控制 76
背景變量影響 76
4.1.3 全體樣本前後差異 77
研究變數 77
測驗與考試 79
4.1.4 兩組樣本結果差異 81
學習動機 81
學習態度 82
學習成效 83
期初測驗-期中考 84
期中考-期末考 85
期初測驗-期末考 86
4.2 質性分析 87
4.2.1 兩組樣本比對 88
審查意見差異 88
對於實名與匿名的偏好差異 92
4.2.2 全體樣本分析 95
審查意見 95
程式碼審查教學方法 99
實名制 100
匿名制 101
4.3 驗證假設 102
4.3.1 H1：學習動機對學習態度有正向之顯著影響 102
4.3.2 H2：學習動機對學習成效有正向之顯著影響 102
4.3.3 H3：學習態度對學習成效有正向之顯著影響 102
4.3.4 H4：學習態度在學習動機和學習成效間具有中介作用 103
4.3.5 H5：實名制班級整體會優於匿名制班級 103
4.4 結果討論 105
4.4.1 研究假設 105
4.4.2 自動化評分系統與作業設計 105
4.4.3 學生的審查態度 106
4.4.4 實名制與匿名制 107
第五章 結論與建議 108
5.1 結論 108
5.2 建議 109
參考文獻 110
附錄 113
附錄1 問卷結果 113
附錄1.1實名組期中問卷調查結果 113
附錄1.2匿名組期中問卷調查結果 115
附錄1.3實名組期末問卷調查結果 118
附錄1.4匿名組期末問卷調查結果 122
附錄2 程式碼 126
附錄2.1功能性自動化評分系統：前置處理 126
附錄2.2功能性自動化評分系統：自動評分 127
附錄2.3功能性自動化評分系統：生成代號 128
附錄2.4功能性自動化評分系統：分配審查對象 128
附錄2.5功能性自動化評分系統：儲存成績、生成README 129
附錄2.6非功能性自動化評分系統：前置處理 130
附錄2.7非功能性自動化評分系統：自動評分 131
附錄2.8非功能性自動化評分系統：儲存成績 131

[1] K. Topping, “Peer Assessment Between Students,” Review of Educational Research, 1998.
[2] T. K. T. &. A. M. Nachev, “Programming Style in Introductory Programming Courses,” International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 2015.
[3] J. S. &. M. Joy, “Effective Peer Assessment for Learning Computer,” SIGCSE BULL, pp. 122-126, 2004.
[4] E. F. G. &. M. A. P.-Q. &. D. C. &. M. Ardis, “Using peer review in teaching computing,” 於 Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 2005.
[5] H. P. B. W.-L. &. S. J. A. Pon-Barry, “Expanding capacity and promoting inclusion in introductory computer science: a focus on near-peer mentor preparation and code review.,” Computer Science Education, pp. 54-77, 2017.
[6] J. Heywood, Assessment in Higher Education: Student Learning, Teaching, Programmes and Institutions, Jessica Kingsley, 2000.
[7] 張春興, 現代心理學：現代人研究自身問題的科學, 台北: 東華書局, 2001.
[8] 張春興, 教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐 重修二版, 台北: 東華書局, 2007.
[9] 張春興, 教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐, 台北: 東華書局, 2000.
[10] 陳雅晴, “學習動機、學習態度與學習成效關聯性之研究,” 2008.
[11] 邱貴發, “電腦輔助教學成效探討,” 視聽教育雙月刊, pp. 11-18, 1992.
[12] W. Wager, “闡明學習成效－傳達您對學生的期望,” 通識教育季刊, pp. 101-114, 2003.
[13] F. R. C. F. &. C. J. Guay, “Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education.,” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, p. 233–240, 2008.
[14] D. B. &. R. C. &. J. Sampson, “Peer learning and assessment,” David Boud & Ruth Cohen & Jane Sampson, 第 冊24, 編號 4, pp. 413-426, 2006.
[15] 洪詩婷, “影片註記輔助同儕互評,” 2018.
[16] 廖偉辰, “專題作品庫系統與導入同儕互評機制之研究,” 2007.
[17] J. Piaget, Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child, Viking Press, 1970.
[18] Perret-Clermont, Social interaction and cognitive development in children., London: Academic Press, 1980.
[19] M. A. Forrester, The Development of Young Children's Social-Cognitive Skills, Psychology Press, 1992.
[20] J. H. F. &. P. H. M. &. S. A. Miller, Cognitive Development, Prentice-Hall, 1977.
[21] J. H. Flavell, “Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.,” The nature of intelligence.
[22] A. Bandura, Social learning theory., Prentice-Hall, 1977.
[23] H. Gardner, Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences., New York: Basic Books., 1983.
[24] E. M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, 1941.
[25] 溫明麗, 批判性思考教學：哲學之旅, 台北: 師大書苑, 1998.
[26] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process., MIT Press, 1978.
[27] A. P. &. A. L. Brown, Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities, 1984.
[28] 林篠芬, “應用網路同儕互評於國小社會領域對筆記品質及學習成效之影響,” 2020.
[29] 林英文, “線上同儕評量對國中生簡報製作技能學習成效之研究,” 2002.
[30] 楊國鑫, “推廣網路同儕互評系統於高級工業職業學校教學課程之研究,” 2000.
[31] 謝孟寬, “網路合作學習以同儕互評建議模式對高中生寫作能力表現之影響,” 2009.
[32] 廖仁毓, “使用Moodle工作坊探索同儕互評中等級評量與質性回饋對於學生學習成效之影響,” 2017.
[33] M. E. Fagan, Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development, International Business Machines, 1976.
[34] T. G. &. D. G. &. S. Finzi, Software Inspection, Addison-Wesley Professional, 1994.
[35] G. W. Russell, Experience with inspection in ultralarge-scale development, IEEE Software, 1991.
[36] L. C. B. &. B. G. F. &. F. Vollei, Assessing the cost-effectiveness of inspections by combining project data and expert opinion, IEEE, 2000.
[37] M. Kasireddy, “EVALUATING THE USABILITY OF COLLABORATION TOOL FOR SOFTWARE INSPECTION PROCESS,” 2019.
[38] E. W. Cannon, “Survey of Modern Methods of Data Processing,” 於 Proceedings, Annual Logistics Conference, No. 4 held in Washington, D.C. 16-19 Mar 1953. Part 1. Unclassified Section, 1953.
[39] R. T. Yeh, 於 Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Software Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1982.
[40] R. F. &. R. Vandermolen, Airborne Electronic Hardware Design Assurance: A Practitioner's Guide to RTCA/DO-254, CRC Press, 2017.
[41] 覃征, 软件工程与管理, 北京: 清華大學出版社, 2005.
[42] G. E. &. J. Strachan, “Global Business Information Technology,” 2004.
[43] D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Addison-Wesley, 1968.
[44] N. Wirth, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, 1976.
[45] P. a. S. D. Journals, Don't Comment Your Code. Code Your Documentation, Independently published, 2020.
[46] B. K. &. P. J. Plauger, The Elements of Programming Style, McGraw-Hill, 1978.
[47] 黃韋期, “程式設計課程之團隊程式碼審查流程與系統建置,” 2021.
[48] 吳謝妙芬, “學習動機、學習態度、學習滿意度與學習成效關係之研究-以人體彩繪職業訓練為例,” 2015.
[49] G.-J. Y. L.-H. &. W. S.-Y. Hwang, “A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students' learning performance in natural science courses.,” Computers & Education, 2013.
[50] 王子耕, “學習構成要素滿意度中介下，學習動機對學習成效影響之研究-以成人自主學習者為例,” 2013.
[51] H.-C. H. G.-J. T. C.-C. &. T. J. C. R. Chu, “Peer assessment to promote Deep Learning and to reduce a Gender Gap in the Traditional Introductory Programming Course.,” Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 2017.
[52] 吳有龍&張啟瑞&林寶安, “警察機關 [受理報案 e 化資訊系統] 員警使用滿意度,” 2011.
[53] 鄭守杰, “網路同儕互評對國小學童學習成效之影響,” 2003.