Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers' debugging

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn 1, Issue , 2006, Pages 231-240

  Beckwith, Laura ^a   Kissinger, Cory ^a   Burnett, Margaret ^a   Wiedenbeck, Susan ^b   Lawrance, Joseph ^a   Blackwell, Alan ^c   Cook, Curtis ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Debugging; End user programming; End user software engineering; Gender; Self efficacy; Surprise Explain Reward; Tinkering

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; PROBLEM SOLVING; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

DEBUGGING; END-USER PROGRAMMING; END-USER SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; GENDER; TINKERING;

PROGRAM DEBUGGING;

EID: 33745814439     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1124772.1124808     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
2. Beckwith, L. and Burnett M. Gender: An important factor in end-user programming environments? In Proc. Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, IEEE (2004), 107-114.
3. Beckwith, L. Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Cook, C., Sorte, S., and Hastings, M. Effectiveness of end-user debugging software features: Are there gender issues? In Proc. CHI 2005, ACM Press (2005), 869-878.
4. Beckwith, L., Sorte, S., Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Chintakovid, T. and Cook, C. Designing features for both genders in end-user programming environments. In Proc. Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, IEEE (2005), 153-160.
5. th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, (1999), 53-57.
6. Burnett, M., Cook, C. and Rothermel G. End-user software engineering. Comm. of the ACM 47, 9 (2004), 53-58.
7. Compeau, D. and Higgins, C. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 19, 2 (1995), 189-211.
8. Fisher, A., Margolis, J. and Miller, F. Undergraduate women in computer science: Experience, motivation, and culture. In Proc. SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM Press (1997), 106-110.
9. Huff, C. Gender, software design, and occupational equity. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 34, 2 (2002), 112-115.
10. Jones, M. G., Brader-Araje, L., Carboni, L. W., Carter, G., Rua, M. J., Banilower, E. and Hatch, H. Tool time: Gender and students' use of tools, control, and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37, 8 (2000), 760-783.
11. Kahn, K. Drawings on napkins, video-game animation, and other ways to program computers. Comm. of the ACM 39, 8 (1996), 49-59.
12. Kelleher, C. and Pausch, R. Stencils-based tutorials: Design and evaluation. In Proc. CHI 2005, ACM Press (2005), 541-550.
13. Ko, A.J. and Myers, B.A. Designing the Whyline: A debugging interface for asking questions about program failures. In Proc. CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 151-158.
14. Lepper, M.R. and Malone, T.W. Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R.E. Snow and M.J. Fair (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction: Vol. 3. Conative and Affective process Analyses, 255-286. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987.
15. Malone, T.W. and Lepper, M.R. Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R.E. Snow and M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning and Instruction. Volume 3: Conative and Affective Process Analysis, 223-253. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987.
16. Martinson, A.M. Playing with technology: Designing gender sensitive games to close the gender gap. Working Paper SLISWP-03-05, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, http://www.slis.indiana.edu/research/working_papers/fi les/SLISWP-03-05.pdf, accessed Sept., 12, 2005.
17. Martocchio, J.J. and Webster, J. Effects of feedback and playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology 45, (1992), 553-578.
18. Panko, R. What we know about spreadsheet errors. Journal of End User Computing 10, 2 (1998), 15-21.
19. Rowe, M.B. Teaching Science as Continuous Inquiry: A Basic (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY 1978.
20. Ruthruff, J., Phalgune, A., Beckwith, L., Burnett, M. and Cook, C. Rewarding 'good' behavior: End-user debugging and rewards. In Proc. Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, IEEE (2004), 115-122.
21. Tillberg, H.K. and Cohoon, J.M. Attracting women to the CS major. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 26, 1 (2005), 126-140.
22. Turkle, S. and Papert, S. Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 11, 1 (1992), 3-33.
23. Van Den Heuvel-Panheizen, M. Girls' and boys' problems: Gender differences in solving problems in primary school mathematics in the Netherlands. In T. Nunes and P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and Teaching Mathematics: An International Perspective, 223-253. Psychology Press, UK, 1999.
24. Wagner, E.J. and Lieberman, H. Supporting user hypotheses in problem diagnosis on the web and elsewhere. In Proc. of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM Press (2004), 30-37.
25. Washington Post. Tapping Into Tinkering: Some Makers of Electronics Benefit From Users' Modifications. July 12, 2005.
26. Webster, J. and Martocchio, J.J. Turning work into play: implications for microcomputer software training. Journal of Management 19, 1 (1993), 127-146.
27. Whitworth, J.E., Price, B.A. and Randall, C.H. Factors that affect college of business student opinion of teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Business 77, 5 (2002), 282-289.
28. Wilson, A., Burnett, M., Beckwith, L., Granatir, O., Casburn, L., Cook, C., Durham, M. and Rothermel, G. Harnessing curiosity to increase correctness in end-user programming. In Proc. CHI 2003, ACM Press (2003), 305-312.