创建编程任务难度的认知度量

B. D. Alwis, G. Murphy, S. Minto
{"title":"创建编程任务难度的认知度量","authors":"B. D. Alwis, G. Murphy, S. Minto","doi":"10.1145/1370114.1370122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conducting controlled experiments about programming activities often requires the use of multiple tasks of similar difficulty. In previously reported work about a controlled experiment investigating software exploration tools, we tried to select two change tasks of equivalent difficulty to be performed on a medium-sized code base. Despite careful effort in the selection and confirmation from our pilot subjects finding the two tasks to be of equivalent difficulty, the data from the experiment suggest the subjects found one of the tasks more difficult than the other. In this paper, we report on early work to create a metric to estimate the cognitive difficulty for a software change task. Such a metric would help in comparing between studies of different tools, and in designing future studies. Our particular approach uses a graph-theoretic statistic to measure the complexity of the task solution by the connectedness of the solution elements. The metric predicts the perceived difficulty for the tasks of our experiment, but fails to predict the perceived difficulty for other tasks to a small program. We discuss these differences and suggest future approaches.","PeriodicalId":107901,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and human aspects of software engineering","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creating a cognitive metric of programming task difficulty\",\"authors\":\"B. D. Alwis, G. Murphy, S. Minto\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1370114.1370122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Conducting controlled experiments about programming activities often requires the use of multiple tasks of similar difficulty. In previously reported work about a controlled experiment investigating software exploration tools, we tried to select two change tasks of equivalent difficulty to be performed on a medium-sized code base. Despite careful effort in the selection and confirmation from our pilot subjects finding the two tasks to be of equivalent difficulty, the data from the experiment suggest the subjects found one of the tasks more difficult than the other. In this paper, we report on early work to create a metric to estimate the cognitive difficulty for a software change task. Such a metric would help in comparing between studies of different tools, and in designing future studies. Our particular approach uses a graph-theoretic statistic to measure the complexity of the task solution by the connectedness of the solution elements. The metric predicts the perceived difficulty for the tasks of our experiment, but fails to predict the perceived difficulty for other tasks to a small program. We discuss these differences and suggest future approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":107901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and human aspects of software engineering\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and human aspects of software engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1370114.1370122\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and human aspects of software engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1370114.1370122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

对编程活动进行控制实验通常需要使用难度相似的多个任务。在先前报道的关于调查软件探索工具的受控实验中,我们试图选择两个难度相等的更改任务,在中等大小的代码库上执行。尽管我们的实验对象经过仔细的选择和确认,发现这两个任务的难度相当,但实验数据表明,受试者发现其中一个任务比另一个任务更难。在本文中,我们报告了创建度量来估计软件变更任务的认知难度的早期工作。这样的指标将有助于比较不同工具的研究,并设计未来的研究。我们的特殊方法使用图论统计来通过解决方案元素的连通性来度量任务解决方案的复杂性。该指标预测了我们实验中任务的感知难度,但无法预测小程序中其他任务的感知难度。我们将讨论这些差异并提出未来的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Creating a cognitive metric of programming task difficulty
Conducting controlled experiments about programming activities often requires the use of multiple tasks of similar difficulty. In previously reported work about a controlled experiment investigating software exploration tools, we tried to select two change tasks of equivalent difficulty to be performed on a medium-sized code base. Despite careful effort in the selection and confirmation from our pilot subjects finding the two tasks to be of equivalent difficulty, the data from the experiment suggest the subjects found one of the tasks more difficult than the other. In this paper, we report on early work to create a metric to estimate the cognitive difficulty for a software change task. Such a metric would help in comparing between studies of different tools, and in designing future studies. Our particular approach uses a graph-theoretic statistic to measure the complexity of the task solution by the connectedness of the solution elements. The metric predicts the perceived difficulty for the tasks of our experiment, but fails to predict the perceived difficulty for other tasks to a small program. We discuss these differences and suggest future approaches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信