skip to main content
10.1145/1357054.1357153acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

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

Published:06 April 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the strategies end-user programmers use in debugging their programs, and even less is known about gender differences that may exist in these strategies. Without this type of information, designers of end-user programming systems cannot know the "target" at which to aim, if they are to support male and female end-user programmers. We present a study investigating this issue. We asked end-user programmers to debug spreadsheets and to describe their debugging strategies. Using mixed methods, we analyzed their strategies and looked for relationships among participants' strategy choices, gender, and debugging success. Our results indicate that males and females debug in quite different ways, that opportunities for improving support for end-user debugging strategies for both genders are abundant, and that tools currently available to end-user debuggers may be especially deficient in supporting debugging strategies used by females.

References

  1. Abraham, R., Erwig, M. UCheck: A spreadsheet unit checker for end users, J. Vis. Langs. Comput. 18, 1 (2007), 71--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Anonymous, H. M. Customs and Excise Computer Audit Ser-vice, 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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Basili, V., Selby, R. Comparing the effectiveness of software testing strategies, IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 13, 12 (1987) 1278--1296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Blackwell, A. First steps in programming: a rationale for attention investment models. In Proc. VLHCC, IEEE (2002), 2--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Burnett, M., Cook, C., and Rothermel G. End-user software engineering. Comm. ACM 47, 9 (2004), 53--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Byrnes, J., Miller, C., and Schafer D. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bulletin 125 (1999), 367--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Carroll, J. (Ed.), "Minimalism Beyond "The Nurnberg Funnel", MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, N. Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies 25, 5 (2004), 427--441.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Fern, X., Komireddy, C., Burnett, M. Mining interpretable human strategies: A case study, In Proc. ICDM, IEEE (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Gallagher A., De Lisi R., Holst 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Halpern, D. Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, 3rd Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Powell, S., Baker, K., Lawson, B. An Auditing Protocol for Spreadsheet Models, Jan. 2007. http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. spreadsheet/product_pubs.html (downloaded Aug. 28, 2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosson, M., Sinha, H., Bhattacharya, M., Zhao, D. Design planning in end-user web development, In Proc. VLHCC, IEEE (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Subrahmaniyan N., Kissinger, C., Rector, K., Inman, D., Kap-lan, J., Beckwith, L., Burnett, M., Explaining debugging strate-gies to end-user programmers, In Proc. VLHCC, IEEE (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Wagner, E. and Lieberman, H. Supporting user hypotheses in problem diagnosis on the web and elsewhere. In Proc. IUI, ACM Press (2004), 30--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Weiser, M. Programmers use slices when debugging, Comm. ACM 25, 7 (1982), 446--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

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

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2008
        1870 pages
        ISBN:9781605580111
        DOI:10.1145/1357054

        Copyright © 2008 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 April 2008

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '08 Paper Acceptance Rate157of714submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader