測試驅動程式開發有助於編寫簡潔可用和高品量的程式碼，並加速軟體開發過程，但在職的軟體工程師往往因無法快速習得測試驅動程式開發的繁瑣程序而放棄。為了讓軟體工程師有效地學習測試驅動程式開發的程序並增進其進行測試驅動程式開發的意願，本研究針對測試驅動程式開發的流程，錄製程式撰寫步驟的教學影片以示範各種開發範例，希望學習者能藉由觀看影片教材，同時學習測試驅動程式開發相關的概念型知識與程序型知識，包含：測試驅動程式開發每個步驟的目的、原因、作法及適用時機。
本研究採準實驗研究法，研究參與者為台灣北部某公司14位軟體工程師。實驗組觀看影片以學習測試驅動程式開發的流程，對照組則透過投影片教材進行學習，學習後則分析比較兩組的學習者在程序性知識與概念性知識的學習效益以及學習態度之差異。
實驗結果發現，軟體工程師分別透過觀看投影片及教學影片之教材練習後，對於測試驅動程式開發的觀念與學習能力有所提升。本研究得出以下結論： (1)本研究中教學影片與投影片練習，對於概念性知識的影響沒有明顯的差異、(2) 本研究中教學影片與投影片練習，對於學習者的學習態度上並無顯著差異、(3)本研究中影片教學對於較複雜的程序型知識明顯優於投影片教學。

Test-Driven Development is a software development process, which can improve the software quality by the repetition of development cycles to meet the requirements using test cases. However, the software engineers usually ignore the importance of Test-Driven Development because of its complex process. In order to improve the effectiveness of learning Test-Driven Development and inspire software engineers’ motivation of applying Test-Driven Development during software development, this study employed instructional videos to demonstrate the development process of the test driver. The learners could learn both the conceptual and procedural knowledge of Test-Driven Development, including the purposes, reasons, methodologies, and timing of each stage.
A quasi-experimental study was conducted on 14 software engineers of a company in north Taiwan to examine the effectiveness of the proposed vide-based learning, in which the experimental group studied by watching the instructional videos whereas the control group only learned by studying the slides.
The research findings include: software engineers in the experimental group could benefit from the video-based learning in terms of complex procedural knowledge, but had similar performance of conceptual knowledge compared with those in the control group. Video-based learning also did not enhance participants’ motivation in conducting Test Driven Development.

壹、中文部分
王秀玲（1990年，6月）。蓋聶﹝R.M. Gagne﹞教學理論之研究。教育研究集刊，32，207-216。
何耿旭（2012）。教學影片融入合作學習對七年級學生整數運算學習成就的影響。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺南大學應用數學研究所碩士班，臺南市。
吳昭容、徐千惠（2010，3月）。兒童如何在重複中找到規律？--重複樣式的程序性與概念性知識。教育科學研究期刊，55(1)，1-25。
卓海明（2016）。運用數位影片教學方式對國中生排球發球得分之影響研究。未出版之碩士論文，吳鳯科技大學應用數位媒體研究所，嘉義縣。
林君潔（2010）。運用影片教學對國小高年級學童的環境議題認知與態度影響之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系，高雄市。
林淑微（2014）。雲端程式設計學習平台上同儕互評與反思對程式設計學習之影響。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，臺北市。
林鴻惠（2013）。影片教學聽前活動在高中生英文聽力學習之行動研究。未出版之碩士論文，淡江大學教育科技學系數位學習在職專班，新北市。
洪萬生（2005年，4月）。從程序性知識看算數書。師大學報，50(1)，75-89。
張春興（1994）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市：臺灣東華
張雅媚（2014）。影片教學對學生的社會領域學習動機、態度及成效之影響—以國小五年級為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學教育研究所，高雄市。
陳招池（2004）。國語修辭教學程序性知識習得之研究，未出版之碩士論文，國立新竹教育大學臺灣語言與語文教育研究所，新竹市。
陳麗婷、楊志堅（2008年，12月）。數學概念與程序覺知的發展歷程：電腦化認知反應測驗之實徵研究。教育研究與發展期刊，4(4)，121-150。
楊湘琳（2011）。教學影片結合網路學習平台的數學補救教學成效。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育學系在職進修碩士班，臺北市。
楊維楨（2003）。資訊與通訊術語辭典。臺灣：鼎文。

貳、英文部分
Aureliano, V. C. (2014). Self-explaining from Videos as a Methodology for Learning Programming. PPIG Doctoral Consortium 2014, (pp. 1-5).
Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, pp. 115-131.
Bayman, P., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Using conceptual models to teach BASIC computer programming. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, pp. 291-298.
Bhat, T., & Nagappan, N. (2006, September). Evaluating the efficacy of test-driven development: industrial case studies. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering (pp. 356-363). ACM.
Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos : Principles and Guidelines for Maximizing Student Learning from Video Content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(es6), pp. 1-6.
Buffardi, K., & Edwards, S. H. (2013, March). Impacts of adaptive feedback on teaching test-driven development. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 293-298). ACM.
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Education Psychologist, 31(2), 105-113.
Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children’s counting and concepts of number. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos. Proceeding L@S '14 Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference, (pp. 41-50).
Hammond, S., & Umphress, D. (2012, March). Test driven development: the state of the practice. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (pp. 158-163). ACM.
Hilton, M., & Janzen, D. S. (2012, July). On teaching arrays with test-driven learning in WebIDE. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 93-98). ACM.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 28, pp. 95-105.
Kent Beck (2002). Test-Driven Development: By Example. Prentice Hall.
Martin, R. C. (2011). The Clean Coder: A Code of Conduct for Professional Programmers. Pearson Education.
Martin, R. C., & Martin, M. (2006). Agile principles, patterns, and practices in C#. Pearson Education.
Mary, M. C. and Heather, J. (2006). Algebraic equations: Can middle- school students meaningfully translate from words to mathematical symbols? Reading Psychology, 27:147-164.
Oliver. (1993). Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Base of the Satisfaction Response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, pp. 418-430.
Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J., . . . Paterson, J. (2007). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), pp. 204-223.
Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = Learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), pp. 850-858.
van der Meij, H., & van der Meij, J. (2014). A comparison of paper-based and video tutorials for software learning. Computers & education, 78, 150-159.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Singapore: Allyn dan Bacon.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin , 28 (3), pp. 7-22.