Co-ordination of multiple external representations during Java program debugging

Java program debugging was investigated in computer science students who used a software debugging environment (SDE) that provided concurrently displayed, adjacent, multiple and linked representations consisting of the program code, a visualisation of the program, and its output. The aim of this investigation was to address questions such as 'To what extent do programmers use each type of representation?', 'Are particular patterns of representation use associated with superior debugging performance?', 'Are graphical representations more helpful to Java programmers than textual ones?' and 'Are representations that highlight data structure more useful than those that highlight control-flow for Java debugging?.

[1]  Pablo Romero,et al.  Visual Attention and Representation Switching During Java Program Debugging: A Study Using the Restricted Focus Viewer , 2002, Diagrams.

[2]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  Mental representations of expert procedural and object-oriented programmers in a software maintenance task , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Chris Taylor,et al.  Comparison of contrasting Prolog trace output formats , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Making Process Visible: Scaffolding Learning with Reasoning-Congruent Representations , 1992, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[5]  Pablo Romero.  Focal structures and information types in Prolog , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  Novice comprehension of small programs written in the procedural and object-oriented styles , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Nancy Pennington,et al.  Comprehension strategies in programming , 1987 .

[8]  Judith Good.  Programming paradigms, information types and graphical representations : empirical investigations of novice program comprehension , 1999 .

[9]  Paul Mulholland,et al.  Using a fine-grained comparative evaluation technique to understand and design software visualization tools , 1997, ESP '97.

[10]  N. Pennington.  Stimulus structures and mental representations in expert comprehension of computer programs , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Marc Eisenstadt,et al.  The Transparent Prolog machine , 1991 .

[12]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Evaluating animations as student aids in learning computer algorithms , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[13]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  A comparison of the comprehension of object-oriented and procedural programs by novice programmers , 1999, Interact. Comput..

[14]  Pablo Romero,et al.  A survey of external representations employed in object-oriented programming environments , 2003, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[15]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  Models of Debugging , 1991, PPIG.

[16]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  Programming Plans and Programming Expertise , 1988 .

[17]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  Comprehension and Recall of Miniature Programs , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[18]  IRIS VESSEY,et al.  Toward a Theory of Computer Program Bugs: An Empirical Test , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[19]  Marc Eisenstadt,et al.  The transparent Prolog machine - visualizing logic programs , 1991 .

[20]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  Restricted Focus Viewer: A Tool for Tracking Visual Attention , 2000, Diagrams.

[21]  Hans Spada,et al.  Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics : the use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments , 1998 .