A methodology for the capture and analysis of hybrid data: A case study of program debugging

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 309-317

  Romero, Pablo ^a   Cox, Richard ^a   Du Boulay, Benedict ^a   Lutz, Rudi ^a   Bryant, Sallyann ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547838161     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193162     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. AINSWORTH, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
2. BEDNARIK, R., & TUKIAINEN, M. (2004). Visual attention and representation switching in Java program debugging: A study using eye movement tracking. In E. Dunican & T. R. G. Green (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (pp. 159-169). Available at www.ppig.org/workshops/16th-programme.html.
3. BERGANTZ, D., & HASSELL, J. (1991). Information relationships in PROLOG programs: How do programmers comprehend functionality? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 313-328.
4. BLACKWELL, A. F., JANSEN, A. R., & MARRIOTT, K. (2000). Restricted Focus Viewer: A tool for tracking visual attention. In M. Anderson, P. Cheng, & V. Haarslev (Eds.), Theory and application of diagrams: First International Conference, Diagrams 2000 (pp. 162-177). Berlin: Springer.
5. CHI, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
6. COX, R. (1997). Representation interpretation versus representation construction: A controlled study using switchERII. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Knowledge and media in learning systems. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society (pp. 434-441). Amsterdam: IOS.
7. COX, R., & LUM, C. (2004). Case-based teaching and clinical reasoning: Seeing how students think with PATSy. In S. Brumfitt (Ed.), Innovations in professional education for speech and language therapists. London: Whurr.
8. COX, R., O'DONNELL, M., & OBERLANDER, J. (1999). Dynamic versus static hypermedia in museum education: An evaluation of ILEX, the intelligent labelling explorer. In S. P. Lajoie & M. Vivet (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED99) Conference, Le Mans, France, July, 1999 (pp. 181-188). Amsterdam: IOS.
9. CROSBY, M., & STELOVSKY, J. (1989). Subject differences in the reading of computer algorithms. In G. Salvendy & M. J. Smith (Eds.), Designing and using human-computer interfaces and knowledge based systems (pp. 137-144). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
10. DAVIES, S. P. (1994). Knowledge restructuring and the acquisition of programming expertise. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 703-726.
11. DE JONG, T., AINSWORTH, S., DOBSON, M., VAN DER HULST, A., LEVONEN, J., REIMANN, P., ET AL. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
12. DENZIN, N. K. (1997). Triangulation in educational research. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (2nd ed., pp. 318-322). New York: Pergamon.
13. DÉTIENNE, F. (1997). Assessing the cognitive consequences of the object-oriented approach: A survey of empirical research on object-oriented design by individuals and teams. Interacting With Computers, 9, 47-72.
14. DU BOULAY, B., ROMERO, P., COX, R., & LUTZ, R. (2003). Towards a debugging tutor for object-oriented environments. In V. Aleven, U. Hoppe, J. Kay, R. Mizoguchi, H. Pain, F. Verdejo, & K. Yacef (Eds.), Supplementary Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education Conference (AIED2003), Sydney, Australia (pp. 399-407). Sydney: University of Sydney.
15. FRIEDRICH, G., STUMPTNER, M., & WOTAWA, F. (1999). Model-based diagnosis of hardware designs. Artificial Intelligence, 111, 3-39.
16. GABBAY, F., & MENDELSON, A. (1999). The "smart" simulation environment - A tool-set to develop new cache coherency protocols. Journal of Systems Architecture, 45, 619-632.
17. GILMORE, D. J. (1991). Models of debugging. Acta Psychologica, 78, 151-172.
18. GILMORE, D. J., & GREEN, T. R. G. (1988). Programming plans and programming expertise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 423-442.
19. HOUNTALAS, D. T., & KOUREMENOS, A. D. (1999). Development and application of a fully automatic troubleshooting method for large marine diesel engines. Applied Thermal Engineering, 19, 299-324.
20. JANSEN, A. R., BLACKWELL, A. F., & MARRIOTT, K. (2003). A tool for tracking visual attention: The Restricted Focus Viewer. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 57-69.
21. KRANZLMÜLLER, D., GRABNER, S-, & VOLKERT, J. (1997). Debugging with the MAD environment Parallel Computing, 23, 199-217.
22. MARZI, R., & JOHN, P. (2002). Supporting fault diagnosis through a multi-agent architecture. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 216, 627-631.
23. MULHOLLAND, P. (1997). Using a fine-grained comparative evaluation technique to understand and design software visualization tools. In S. Wiedenbeck & J. Scholtz (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers, Seventh Workshop (pp. 91-108). New York: ACM.
24. PAPADOPOULOS, Y. (2003). Model-based system monitoring and diagnosis of failures using state charts and fault trees. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81, 325-341.
25. PATEL, M. J., DU BOULAY, B., & TAYLOR, C. (1997). Comparison of contrasting Prolog trace output formats. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 289-322.
26. PENNINGTON, N. (1987). Comprehension strategies in programming. In G. M. Olson, S. Sheppard, & E. Soloway (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers, Second Workshop (pp. 100-113). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
27. PENNINGTON, N., LEE, A. Y., & REHDER, B. (1995). Cognitive activities and levels of abstraction in procedural and object-oriented design. Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 171-226.
28. ROBERTSON, S. P., DAVIS, E. F., OKABE, K., & FITZ-RANDOLF, D. (1990). Program comprehension beyond the line. In D. Diaper, D. J. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), INTERACT '90: Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 959-963). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
29. ROMERO, P., COX, R., DU BOULAY, B., & LUTZ, R. (2002). Visual attention and representation switching during Java program debugging: A study using the Restricted Focus Viewer. In M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, & N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference: Second International Conference, Diagrams 2002 (pp. 221-235). Berlin: Springer.
30. ROMERO, P., DU BOULAY, B., LUTZ, R., & COX, R. (2003). The effects of graphical and textual visualisations in multi-representational debugging environments. In J. Hosking & P. Cox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (pp. 236-238). Auckland, New Zealand: IEEE Computer Society.
31. ROMERO, P., LUTZ, R., COX, R., & DU BOULAY, B. (2002). Co-ordination of multiple external representations during Java program debugging. In S. Wiedenbeck & M. Petre (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposia on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (pp. 207-214). Arlington, VA: IEEE Press.
32. STENNING, K., COX, R., & OBERLANDER, J. (1995). Contrasting the cognitive effects of graphical and sentential logic teaching: Reasoning, representation and individual differences. Language & Cognitive Processes, 10, 333-354.
33. VESSEY, I. (1985). Expertise in debugging computer programs: A process analysis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 459-494.
34. VESSEY, I. (1989). Toward a theory of computer program bugs: An empirical test. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 30, 23-46.