How students use generative AI for software testing: An observational study.

IF 3.4 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Empirical Software Engineering Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-20 DOI:10.1007/s10664-026-10898-0
Baris Ardic, Quentin Le Dilavrec, Andy Zaidman
{"title":"How students use generative AI for software testing: An observational study.","authors":"Baris Ardic, Quentin Le Dilavrec, Andy Zaidman","doi":"10.1007/s10664-026-10898-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The integration of generative AI tools like ChatGPT into software engineering workflows opens up new opportunities to boost productivity in tasks such as unit test engineering. However, these AI-assisted workflows can also significantly alter the developer's role, raising concerns about control, output quality, and learning, particularly for novice developers. This study investigates how novice software developers with foundational knowledge in software testing interact with generative AI for engineering unit tests. Our goal is to examine the strategies they use, how heavily they rely on generative AI, and the benefits and challenges they perceive when using generative AI-assisted approaches for test engineering. We conducted an observational study involving 12 undergraduate students who worked with generative AI for unit testing tasks, using ChatGPT running the GPT-3.5 model. We identified four interaction strategies, defined by whether the test idea or the test implementation originated from generative AI or from the participant. Additionally, we singled out prompting styles that focused on one-shot or iterative test generation, which often aligned with the broader interaction strategy. Students reported benefits including time-saving, reduced cognitive load, and support for test ideation, but also noted drawbacks such as diminished trust, test quality concerns, and lack of ownership. While strategy and prompting styles influenced workflow dynamics, they did not significantly affect test effectiveness or test code quality as measured by mutation score or test smells.</p>","PeriodicalId":11525,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Software Engineering","volume":"31 6","pages":"167"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13283165/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-026-10898-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The integration of generative AI tools like ChatGPT into software engineering workflows opens up new opportunities to boost productivity in tasks such as unit test engineering. However, these AI-assisted workflows can also significantly alter the developer's role, raising concerns about control, output quality, and learning, particularly for novice developers. This study investigates how novice software developers with foundational knowledge in software testing interact with generative AI for engineering unit tests. Our goal is to examine the strategies they use, how heavily they rely on generative AI, and the benefits and challenges they perceive when using generative AI-assisted approaches for test engineering. We conducted an observational study involving 12 undergraduate students who worked with generative AI for unit testing tasks, using ChatGPT running the GPT-3.5 model. We identified four interaction strategies, defined by whether the test idea or the test implementation originated from generative AI or from the participant. Additionally, we singled out prompting styles that focused on one-shot or iterative test generation, which often aligned with the broader interaction strategy. Students reported benefits including time-saving, reduced cognitive load, and support for test ideation, but also noted drawbacks such as diminished trust, test quality concerns, and lack of ownership. While strategy and prompting styles influenced workflow dynamics, they did not significantly affect test effectiveness or test code quality as measured by mutation score or test smells.

学生如何在软件测试中使用生成式人工智能:一项观察性研究。
将ChatGPT等生成式人工智能工具集成到软件工程工作流程中,为提高单元测试工程等任务的生产力提供了新的机会。然而,这些人工智能辅助的工作流程也可以显著地改变开发人员的角色,增加对控制、输出质量和学习的关注,特别是对于新手开发人员。本研究探讨了具有软件测试基础知识的新手软件开发人员如何与生成式人工智能进行工程单元测试。我们的目标是研究他们使用的策略,他们对生成人工智能的依赖程度,以及他们在使用生成人工智能辅助方法进行测试工程时所感受到的好处和挑战。我们进行了一项观察性研究,涉及12名本科生,他们使用ChatGPT运行GPT-3.5模型,使用生成式人工智能进行单元测试任务。我们确定了四种交互策略,根据测试想法或测试实施是来自生成式人工智能还是来自参与者来定义。另外,我们挑选出集中于一次性或迭代测试生成的提示样式,这通常与更广泛的交互策略一致。学生们报告的好处包括节省时间、减少认知负荷和支持测试构思,但也指出了诸如信任减少、测试质量问题和缺乏所有权等缺点。当策略和提示风格影响工作流动态时,它们并没有显著地影响通过突变分数或测试气味度量的测试有效性或测试代码质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Empirical Software Engineering
Empirical Software Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
12.20%
发文量
169
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Empirical Software Engineering provides a forum for applied software engineering research with a strong empirical component, and a venue for publishing empirical results relevant to both researchers and practitioners. Empirical studies presented here usually involve the collection and analysis of data and experience that can be used to characterize, evaluate and reveal relationships between software development deliverables, practices, and technologies. Over time, it is expected that such empirical results will form a body of knowledge leading to widely accepted and well-formed theories. The journal also offers industrial experience reports detailing the application of software technologies - processes, methods, or tools - and their effectiveness in industrial settings. Empirical Software Engineering promotes the publication of industry-relevant research, to address the significant gap between research and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书