Trends in the use of verbal protocol analysis in software engineering research

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 127-140

  Hughes, Janet ^a   Parkes, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; ENCODING (SYMBOLS); NETWORK PROTOCOLS; RESEARCH;

VERBAL PROTOCOLS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0037364595     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0144929031000081341     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (58)

1. ADELSON, B. and SOLOWAY, E. 1985, The role of domain experience in software design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 11(11), 1351 - 1360.
2. ADAMS, R. S. and ATMAN, C. J. 2000, Characterising engineering student design processes: an illustration of iteration. Annual conference proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. American Society for Engineering Education: St Louis, MO, session 2330.
3. ALTMANN, E., LARKIN, J. H. and JOHN, B. E. 1995, Display navigation by an expert programmer: a preliminary model of memory. ACM CHI '95 conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (NY: ACM Press), pp. 3 - 10.
4. ARUNACHALAM, V. and SASSO, W. 1996, Cognitive processes in program comprehension: an empirical analysis in the context of software reengineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 34, 177 - 189.
5. ATMAN, C. J., BURSIC, K. M. and LOZITO, S. L. 1996, An application of protocol analysis to the engineering design process. Annual conference proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. American Society for Engineering Education: Washington DC, session 2530.
6. BAINBRIDGE, L. 1999, Verbal reports as evidence of the process operator's knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 213 - 238.
7. BIELACZYC, K., PIROLLI, P. L. and BROWN, A. L. 1995, Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221 - 252.
8. BOREN, M. T. and RAMEY, J. 2000, Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(3), 261 - 278.
9. BOWDIDGE, R. W. and GRISWOLD, W. G. 1997, How software engineering tools organize programmer behaviour during the task of data encapsulation. Empirical Software Engineering, 2, 221 - 268.
10. BROOKS, F. 1987, No silver bullet. IEEE Computer, 20, 10-19.
11. BURKHARDT, J.-M. and DETIENNE, F. 1995, An empirical study of software reuse by experts in object-oriented design. Proceedings of INTERACT '95 Lillehammer, Norway. (Chapman and Hall), pp. 133-138.
12. CHI, M. T. H. 1997, Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
13. CHI, M. T. H., BASSOK, M., LEWIS, M. W., REIMANN, P. and GLASER, R. 1989, Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
14. CONATI, C. and VANLEHN, K. 2000, Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: a computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 398-415.
15. D'ASTOUS, P., ROBILLARD, P. N., DETIENNE, F. and VISSER, W. 1998, A coding scheme to analyse activities in technical review meetings. In J. DOMINGUE and P. MULHULLAND (eds). Proceedings of the tenth annual workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG '98) (Milton Keynes, UK), pp. 43-49.
16. D'ASTOUS, P., DETIENNE, F., VISSER, W. and ROBILLARD, P. N. 2000. On the use of functional and interactional approaches for the analysis of technical review meetings. In A. F. BLACKWELL and E. BILOTTA (eds), Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG 12) (Cozena, Italy), pp. 155-170.
17. D'ASTOUS, P., ROBILLARD, P. N., DETIENNE, F. and VISSER, W. 2001. Quantitative measurements of the influence of participant roles during peer review meetings. Empirical Software Engineering, 6, 143-159.
18. DETIENNE, F. and SOLOWAY, E. 1990, An empirically-derived control structure for the process of program understanding. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33(3), 323-342.
19. DURKIN, J. 1994, Expert Systems: Design and Development (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall).
20. ERICSSON, K. A. and SIMON, H. A. 1993, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data Rev. edn (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
21. FISHER, C. 1987, Advancing the study of programming with computer-aided protocol analysis. Empirical studies of programmers, second workshop. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), pp. 198-216.
22. FISHER, C. and SANDERSON, P. 1996, Exploratory sequential data analysis: exploring continuous observational data. Interactions, 3(2), 25-34.
23. GAMA, C. 2001, Helping students to help themselves: a pilot experiment on the ways of increasing metacognitive awareness in problem solving. Proceedings of CINTEC International Conference, Aveiro, Portugal, http: //www.mat.ua.pt/cintec/eproceed.htm vol. II, pp. 175-182.
24. HAHN, J. and KIM, J. 1999, Why are some diagrams easier to work with? Effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive integration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 6(3), 181-213.
25. HALE, J. E., SHARPE, S. and HALE, D. P. 1999, An evaluation of the cognitive processes of programmers engaged in software debugging. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, 11, 73-91.
26. HERBSLEB, K. D., KLEIN, H., OLSON, G. M., BRUNER, H., OLSON, J. S. and HARDING, J. 1995, Object-oriented analysis and design in software project teams. Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 249-292.
27. HERBSLEB, J. D. and KUWANA, E. 1993, Preserving knowledge in design projects: what designers need to know. Proceedings of INTERCHI '93 (New York: ACM), pp. 7-14.
28. HOWARD, S. 1997, Trade-off decision making in user interface design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 16(2), 98-109.
29. HUGHES, J. M. 2002, Object-oriented analysis and design: improving novice performance by emulating expert behaviour. Thesis in preparation, University of Dundee.
30. IRWIN, G. and WASALATHANTRY, C. K. 1998, Expert-novice differences in object-oriented modelling. Proceedings of the Information Resources Management Association International Conference (Boston: Idea Group Publishing), pp. 719-720.
31. KEHOE, C., STASKO, J. and TAYLOR, A. 2001, Rethinking the evaluation of algorithm animations as learning aids: an observational study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 265-284.
32. KIM, J. and HAHN, J. 1997, Reasoning with multiple diagrams: focusing on the cognitive integration process. Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 376-381.
33. LEE, A. and PENNINGTON, N. 1994, The effects of paradigm on cognitive activities in design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 577-601.
34. LETOVSKY, S. 1986, Cognitive processes in program comprehension. In: E. SOLOWAY and S. IYENGAR (eds) Empirical Studies of Programmers (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), pp. 58-79.
35. LETOVSKY, S., PINTO, J., LAMPERT, R. and SOLOWAY, E. 1987, A cognitive analysis of a code inspection. In G. OLSON, S. SHEPPARD and E. SOLOWAY (eds) Empirical Studies of Programmers, Second Workshop (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), pp. 231-247.
36. MASTAGLIO, T. and RIEMAN, J. 1991, How experts infer novice programmer expertise: a protocol analysis of LISP code evaluation. In J. KOENEMANN-BELLIVEAU, T.G. MOHER and S.P. ROBERTSON (eds) Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), pp. 147-155.
37. NARAYANAN, N. H., SUWA, M. and MOTODA, H. 1995, Diagram-based problem solving: the case of an impossible problem. Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Hillsdak, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 206-211.
38. OLSON, G. M., OLSON, J. S., STORRØSTEN, M., CARTER, M., HERBSLEB, J. and RUETER, H. 1996, The structure of activity during design meetings. In T. P. Moran and J. M. Carroll (eds) Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use (NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 217-239.
39. PENNINGTON, N. 1987, Comprehension strategies in programming. In G. M. Olson, S. Sheppard and E. Soloway (eds) Empirical Studies of Programmers, Second Workshop (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), pp. 100-113.
40. PENNINGTON, N., NICOLICH, R. and RAHM, J. 1995, Transfer of training between cognitive subskills: is knowledge use specific? Cognitive Psychology, 28, 175-224.
41. RENKL, A. 1997, Learning from worked-out examples: a study of individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 1-29.
42. ROBILLARD, P. N., D'ASTOUS, P., DETIENNE, F. and VISSER, W. 1998, Measuring cognitive activities in software engineering. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '98) (Kyoto, Japan: IEEE CS Press), pp. 292-300.
43. SCHENK, K. D., VITALARI, N. P. and DAVIS, K. S. 1998, Differences between novice and expert systems analysts: what do we know and what do we do? Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1), 9-50.
44. SEN, A. 1997, The role of opportunism in the software design reuse process. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(7), 418-435.
45. SHAFT, T. M. and VESSEY, I. 1996, Computer program comprehension processes: the effect of application domain knowledge. In W. Gray and D. Boehm-Davis (eds) Empirical Studies of Programmers: Sixth Workshop (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing), pp. 277-278.
46. SONNENTAG, S. 1996, Planning and knowledge about strategies: their relationship to work characteristics in software design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 15(4), 213-225.
47. SONNENTAG, S. 1998, Expertise in professional software design: a process study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 703-715.
48. SUTCLIFFE, A. G. and MAIDEN, N. A. M. 1992, Analysing the novice analyst: cognitive models in software engineering. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 719-740.
49. TRUDEL, C.-I. and PAYNE, S. J. 1995, Reflection and goal management in exploratory learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42, 307-339.
50. VAN DER VEER, G. C. 1993, Mental representations of computer languages - a lesson from practice. In E. Lemut, B. du Boulay and G. Dettori (eds) Cognitive models and intelligent environments for learning programming (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), pp. 21-33.
51. VANS, A. M., VON MAYRHAUSER, A. and SOMLO, G. 1999, Program understanding behaviour during corrective maintenance of large-scale software. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 31-70.
52. VESSEY, I. 1985, Expertise in debugging computer programs: a process analysis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 459-494.
53. VITALARI, N. P. and DICKSON, G. W. 1983, Problem solving for effective systems analysis: an experimental exploration. Communications of the ACM, 26(11), 948-956.
54. VON MAYRHAUSER, A. and LANG, S. 1999, A coding scheme to support systematic analysis of software comprehension. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), 526-540.
55. WALZ, D. B., ELAM, J. J., KRASNER, H. and CURTIS, B. 1987, A methodology for studying software design teams: an investigation of conflict behaviours in the requirements definition phase. In G. M. OLSON, S. SHEPPARD and E. SOLOWAY (eds). Empirical Studies of Programmers, Second Workshop (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), pp. 83-99.
56. WILLIAMS, L., KESSLER, R. R., CUNNINGHAM, W. and JEFFRIES, R. 2000, Strengthening the case for pair-programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19-25.
57. YOURDON, E. 1992, Decline and Fall of the American Programmer (Englewood Cliffs, NY: Yourdon Press).
58. ZENDLER, A. 2001, A preliminary software engineering theory as investigated by published experiments. Empirical Software Engineering, 6, 161-180.