Testing vs. code inspection vs.... what else? male and female end users' debugging strategies

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 617-626

  Subrahmaniyan, Neeraja ^a,b   Beckwith, Laura ^a,b   Grigoreanu, Valentina ^a,b   Burnett, Margaret ^a,b   Wiedenbeck, Susan ^a,b   Narayanan, Vaishnavi ^a,b   Bucht, Karin ^a,b   Drummond, Russell ^a,b   Fern, Xiaoli ^a,b  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Debugging; End user programming; End user software engineering; Gender; Strategy

Indexed keywords

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

HUMAN ENGINEERING; PROGRAMMING THEORY; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

PROGRAM DEBUGGING;

EID: 57649221703     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1357054.1357153     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Abraham, R., Erwig, M. UCheck: A spreadsheet unit checker for end users, J. Vis. Langs. Comput. 18, 1 (2007), 71-95.
2. Anonymous, H. M. Customs and Excise Computer Audit Service, Methodology for the Audit of Spreadsheet Models, 2001. http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/ channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?-nfpb=true&-pageLabel= pageVAT-ShowContent&id=HMCE-PROD-009443& propertyType=document (downloaded Aug. 28, 2007).
3. Basili, V., Selby, R. Comparing the effectiveness of software testing strategies, IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 13, 12 (1987) 1278-1296.
4. 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.
5. Beckwith, L. Kissinger, C., Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Lawrance, J., Blackwell, A., and Cook, C. Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers' debugging, In Proc. CHI 2006, ACM Press (2006), 231-240.
6. Beckwith, L., Inman, D., Rector, K., and Burnett, M. On to the real world: Gender and self-efficacy in Excel, In Proc. VLHCC, IEEE (2007).
7. Blackwell, A. First steps in programming: a rationale for attention investment models. In Proc. VLHCC, IEEE (2002), 2-10.
8. Burnett, M., Cook, C., and Rothermel G. End-user software engineering. Comm. ACM 47, 9 (2004), 53-58.
9. Byrnes, J., Miller, C., and Schafer D. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bulletin 125 (1999), 367-383.
10. Carroll, J. (Ed.), Minimalism Beyond "The Nurnberg Funnel", MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
11. Cross, N. Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies 25, 5 (2004), 427-441.
12. Fern, X., Komireddy, C., Burnett, M. Mining interpretable human strategies: A case study, In Proc. ICDM, IEEE (2007).
13. Gallagher A., De Lisi R., Hoist P., McGillicuddy-De Lisi A., Morely M., Cahalan C. Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving, J. Experimental Child Psychology 75, 3(2000), 165-190.
14. Halpern, D. Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, 3rd Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2000.
15. Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., and Kiesler, S. Storytelling Alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming, In Proc. CHI 2007, ACM Press (2007), 1455-1464.
16. Ko, A. and Myers, B. Designing the Whyline: A debugging interface for asking questions about program failures. In Proc. CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 151-158.
17. Littman, D., Pinto, J., Letovsky, S., and Soloway, E. Mental models and software maintenance. In E. Soloway and S. Iyengar (Eds), In Proc. ESP. Ablex, Norwood, NJ (1986), 80-98.
18. Meyers-Levy, J. Gender differences in information processing: A selectivity interpretation. In P. Cafferata & A. Tybout, (Eds) Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising. Lexington, Ma, Lexington Books, 1989.
19. Nanja, N. and Cook, C. An analysis of the on-line debugging process. In G. M. Olson, S. Sheppard, and E. Soloway (Eds.), In Proc. ESP. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1987.
20. O'Donnell, E. and Johnson, E. The effects of auditor gender and task complexity on information processing efficiency. Int. J. Auditing 5 (2001), 91-105.
21. Powell, S., Baker, K., Lawson, B. An Auditing Protocol for Spreadsheet Models, Jan. 2007. http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/spreadsheet/product-pubs.html (downloaded Aug. 28, 2007).
22. Rosson, M., Sinha, H., Bhattacharya, M., Zhao, D. Design planning in end-user web development, In Proc. VLHCC, IEEE (2007).
23. Subrahmaniyan N., Kissinger, C., Rector, K., Inman, D., Kaplan, J., Beckwith, L., Burnett, M., Explaining debugging strategies to end-user programmers, In Proc. VLHCC, IEEE (2007).
24. Wagner, E. and Lieberman, H. Supporting user hypotheses in problem diagnosis on the web and elsewhere. In Proc. IUI, ACM Press (2004), 30-37.
25. Weiser, M. Programmers use slices when debugging, Comm. ACM 25, 7 (1982), 446-452.