LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Romero, Pablo; Cox, Richard; duBoulay, Benedict; Lutz, Rudi; Freudenberg, Sallyann (2007)
Publisher: Springer Verlag
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: QA75
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
    • 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.
    • Bergantz, D., & Hassell, J. (1991). Information relationships in PROLOG programs: How do programmers comprehend functionality? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 313-328.
    • 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.
    • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Davies, S. P. (1994). Knowledge restructuring and the acquisition of programming expertise. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 703-726.
    • 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 technologybased 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.
    • 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.
    • Détienne, F. (1997). Assessing the cognitive consequences of the object-oriented approach: A survey of empirical research on objectoriented design by individuals and teams. Interacting With Computers, 9, 47-72.
    • 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.
    • Friedrich, G., Stumptner, M., & Wotawa, F. (1999). Model-based diagnosis of hardware designs. Artificial Intelligence, 111, 3-39.
    • 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.
    • Gilmore, D. J. (1991). Models of debugging. Acta Psychologica, 78, 151-172.
    • Gilmore, D. J., & Green, T. R. G. (1988). Programming plans and programming expertise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 423-442.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Kranzlmüller, D., Grabner, S., & Volkert, J. (1997). Debugging with the MAD environment. Parallel Computing, 23, 199-217.
    • Marzi, R., & John, P. (2002). Supporting fault diagnosis through a multi-agent architecture. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 216, 627-631.
    • 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.
    • Papadopoulos, Y. (2003). Model-based system monitoring and diagnosis of failures using state charts and fault trees. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81, 325-341.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Vessey, I. (1985). Expertise in debugging computer programs: A process analysis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 459-494.
    • Vessey, I. (1989). Toward a theory of computer program bugs: An empirical test. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 30, 23-46.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article