Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers' debugging

ABSTRACT

Earlier research on gender effects with software features intended to help problem-solvers in end-user debugging environments has shown that females are less likely to use unfamiliar software features. This poses a serious problem because these features may be key to helping them with debugging problems. Contrasting this with research documenting males' inclination for tinkering in unfamiliar environments, the question arises as to whether encouraging tinkering with new features would help females overcome the factors, such as low self-efficacy, that led to the earlier results. In this paper, we present an experiment with males and females in an end-user debugging setting, and investigate how tinkering behavior impacts several measures of their debugging success. Our results show that the factors of tinkering, reflection, and self-efficacy, can combine in multiple ways to impact debugging effectiveness differently for males than for females.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
• 2: Laura Beckwith , Margaret Burnett, Gender: An Important Factor in End-User Programming Environments?, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing (VLHCC'04), p.107-114, September 26-29, 2004 [doi>10.1109/VLHCC.2004.28]
• 3: Laura Beckwith , Margaret Burnett , Susan Wiedenbeck , Curtis Cook , Shraddha Sorte , Michelle Hastings, Effectiveness of end-user debugging software features: are there gender issues?, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 02-07, 2005, Portland, Oregon, USA [doi>10.1145/1054972.1055094]
• 4: Laura Beckwith , Shraddha Sorte , Margaret Burnett , Susan Wiedenbeck , Thippaya Chintakovid , Curtis Cook, Designing Features for Both Genders in End-User Programming Environments, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC'05), p.153-160, September 20-24, 2005 [doi>10.1109/VLHCC.2005.31]
• 5: Ben-Ari, M. Bricolage forever! In Proc. of the 11th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, (1999), 53--57.
• 6: Margaret Burnett , Curtis Cook , Gregg Rothermel, End-user software engineering, Communications of the ACM, v.47 n.9, September 2004 [doi>10.1145/1015864.1015889]
• 7: Deborah R. Compeau , Christopher A. Higgins, Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test, MIS Quarterly, v.19 n.2, p.189-211, June 1995 [doi>10.2307/249688]
• 8: Allan Fisher , Jane Margolis , Faye Miller, Undergraduate women in computer science: experience, motivation and culture, Proceedings of the twenty-eighth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.106-110, February 27-March 01, 1997, San Jose, California, United States
• 9: Chuck Huff, Gender, software design, and occupational equity, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.34 n.2, June 2002 [doi>10.1145/543812.543842]
• 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: Ken Kahn, Drawings on napkins, video-game animation, and other ways to program computers, Communications of the ACM, v.39 n.8, p.49-59, Aug. 1996 [doi>10.1145/232014.232028]
• 12: Caitlin Kelleher , Randy Pausch, Stencils-based tutorials: design and evaluation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 02-07, 2005, Portland, Oregon, USA [doi>10.1145/1054972.1055047]
• 13: Andrew J. Ko , Brad A. Myers, Designing the whyline: a debugging interface for asking questions about program behavior, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.151-158, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985712]
• 14: Lepper, M.R. and Malone, T.W. Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R.E. Snow and M.J. Farr (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/files/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: Raymond R. Panko, What we know about spreadsheet errors, Journal of End User Computing, v.10 n.2, p.15-21, Spring 1998
• 19: Rowe, M.B. Teaching Science as Continuous Inquiry: A Basic (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY 1978.
• 20: Joseph R. Ruthruff , Amit Phalgune , Laura Beckwith , Margaret Burnett , Curtis Cook, Rewarding "Good" Behavior: End-User Debugging and Rewards, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing (VLHCC'04), p.115-122, September 26-29, 2004 [doi>10.1109/VLHCC.2004.44]
• 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. Available online at http://www.papert.org/articles/EpistemologicalPluralism.html
• 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: Earl J. Wagner , Henry Lieberman, Supporting user hypotheses in problem diagnosis, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent user interface, January 13-16, 2004, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal [doi>10.1145/964442.964450]
• 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: Aaron Wilson , Margaret Burnett , Laura Beckwith , Orion Granatir , Ledah Casburn , Curtis Cook , Mike Durham , Gregg Rothermel, Harnessing curiosity to increase correctness in end-user programming, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/642611.642665]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.5 Testing and Debugging

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

Keywords:
debugging, end-user programming, end-user software engineering, gender, self-efficacy, surprise-explain-reward, tinkering