Skip to main content

A Comparative Study of High and Low Performing Students’ Visual Effort and Attention When Identifying Syntax Errors

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Augmented Cognition (HCII 2024)

Abstract

Debugging is an important skill to learn for novice programmers and since compiler error messages are instrumental to the debugging process, investigating how novice programmers read and process these messages has become a subject of interest among computer science education researchers. Prior studies were valuable because they identified differences in the visual attention patterns of high and low performers and of experts and novices. They were, however, subject to certain limitations. In this study, we attempted to bridge these gaps by continuing the study of Rodrigo and Tablatin [18] and Tablatin and Rodrigo [21]. Using the methodology detailed in Rodrigo & Tablatin [18], we investigated how student programmers process literal and non-literal syntax errors embedded in Java and C++ programs. The analysis of eye tracking data collected from participants of two schools revealed a variation in visual effort and attention patterns of high and low performers. We conclude that low performance is not always associated with low visual attention. The novice programmer code comprehension errors may be rooted in other causes such as tracing and debugging strategies that students use, cognitive skills, individual preference of learning and programming experience. These factors are out of scope for this paper but may be the subject of future work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andrzejewska, M., et al.: Eye-tracking verification of the strategy used to analyse algorithms expressed in a flowchart and pseudocode. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24(8), 1981–1995 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker, B.A., et al.: Compiler error messages considered unhelpful: the landscape of text-based programming error message research. In: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 177–210 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, B.A.: An effective approach to enhancing compiler error messages. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 126–131 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bylinskii, Z., Borkin, M.A., Kim, N.W., Pfisher, H., Oliva, A.: Eye fixation metrics for large-scale evaluation and comparison of information visualizations. In: Burch, M., Chuang, L., Fisher, B., Schmidt, A., Weiskopf, D. (eds.) Eye Tracking and Visualization, pp. 235–255, Springer, Cham (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Castro, L.M.C., Cifuentes, J.P.Q., Kumar, A.: Preference for debugging strategies and debugging tools and their relationship with course achievement: preliminary results of a study involving novice programmers. In: 2023 Annual Conference & Exposition. Baltimore Convention Center (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chandrika. K.R., Amudha, J.: An eye tracking study to understand the visual perception behavior while source code comprehension. Int. J. Control Theor. Appl. 10(19), 169–175 (2017). International Science Press

    Google Scholar 

  7. Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., Tempero, E., Hendrickx, J.: Understanding the syntax barrier for novices. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 208–212 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dy, T., Rodrigo, M.M.: A detector for non-literal java errors. In: Koli Calling ‘10, Koli, Finland (2010). ACM

    Google Scholar 

  9. Javier, B.S.: Understanding their voices from within: difficulties and code comprehension of life-long novice programmers. Int. J. Arts Sci. Educ. 1(1), 53–76 (2021). ISSN: 1234–5678

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jessup, S., Willis, S., Alarcon, G.M.: Using eye-tracking data to compare differences in code comprehension and code perceptions between expert and novice programmers. In: Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2021 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ko, A.J., Uttl, B.: Individual differences in program comprehension strategies in unfamiliar programming systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC’03) (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lin, Y.T., Wu, C.C., Hou, T.Y., Lin, Y.C., Yang, F.Y., Chang, C.H.: Tracking Students’ cognitive processes during program debugging—an eye-movement approach. IEEE Trans. Educ. 59(3), 175–186 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Llego, M.A.: Student Learning Groups: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous. TeacherPH (2022). Retrieved December 5, 2023. https://www.teacherph.com/student-learning-groups-homogeneous-heterogeneous/

  14. McCall, D., Kölling, M.: A new look at novice programmer errors. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 19(4), 1–30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3335814

  15. Nazeri, S., Suliman, A.: Factors influencing the teaching and learning of programming. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 11(4), 1–6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i4/121087

  16. OPEN GAZE API BY GAZEPOINT (2013). Retrieved from https://www.gazept.com/dl/Gazepoint_API_v2.0.pdf on October 31, 2023

  17. Raptis, G.E., Katsini, K., Belk, M., Fidas, C., Samaras, G., Avouris, N.: Using eye gaze data and visual activities to infer human cognitive styles: method and feasibility studies. In: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ‘17). (Bratislava Slovakia, 2017), ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 164–173 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rodrigo, M., Tablatin, C.L.S.: How do programming students read and act upon compiler error messages?”. In: Augmented Cognition: 17th International Conference, AC 2023, Held as Part of the 25th HCI International Conference, HCII 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 23–28, 2023, Proceedings July 2023, pp. 153–168 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schorsch, T.: CAP: an automated self-assessment tool to check pascal programs for syntax, logic and style errors. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘95). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 168–172 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sharif, B., Falcone, M., Maletic, J.I.: An eye-tracking study on the role of scan time in finding source code defects. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA’12), ACM, pp. 381–384 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tablatin, C.L.S., Rodrigo, M.: Visual attention patterns in processing compiler error messages. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computers in Education. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tablatin, C.L.S., Rodrigo, M.: Identifying code reading strategies in debugging using STA with a tolerance algorithm. APSIPA Trans. Sig. Inf. Process. 2022(11), e6 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Turner, R., Falcone, M., Sharif, B., Lazar, A.: An eye-tracking study assessing the comprehension of C++ and Python source code. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, ACM, New York, ETRA ‘14, pp. 231–234 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Villamor, M., Rodrigo, M., Mercedes, T.: Characterizing individual gaze patterns of pair programming participants. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2018), APSCE, Taiwan, 2018, pp. 193–198 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vosskühler, A.: OGAMA description (for Version 2.5). Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Physik (2009). Retrieved April 23, 2023 from http://www.ogama.net/sites/default/files/pdf/OGAMA-DescriptionV25.pdf

  26. Whalley, J., Settle, A., Luxton-Reilly, A.: A think-aloud study of novice debugging. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 23(2), 1–38 (2023). Article No.: 28, https://doi.org/10.1145/3589004

  27. Yen, C.Z., Wu, P.H., Lin, C.F.: Analysis of experts’ and novices’ thinking process in program debugging. In: Engaging Learners Through Emerging Technologies, pp. 122–134 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caren A. Pacol .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Pacol, C.A., Rodrigo, M.M.T., Tablatin, C.L.S. (2024). A Comparative Study of High and Low Performing Students’ Visual Effort and Attention When Identifying Syntax Errors. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds) Augmented Cognition. HCII 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14694. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61569-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61569-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-61568-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-61569-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics