2019 IEEE/ACM 6th International Workshop on Eye Movements in Programming (EMIP) 2019
DOI: 10.1109/emip.2019.00011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visually Analyzing Students' Gaze on C++ Code Snippets

Abstract: The paper presents an eye tracking study with 17 students (12 novices, 5 non-novices) reading C++ methods. The novices were students who participated in the study during the last week of their semester learning C++. The non-novices were senior students who had been exposed to programming before. We report on the reading behavior of three C++ methods that use different language constructs. We analyze fixations at the line level of the code using visualizations to derive insights into code reading. Results show … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 14 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The obtained findings suggest that FDA and SAA are parameters sensitive to the development of program code understanding. This observation is consistent with reports from the studies where patterns of reading of the program code by novice and non-novice programmers were compared and it has been found out that non-novices have more transitions that span multiple lines, so their patterns are characterized by longer saccades (Peterson et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The obtained findings suggest that FDA and SAA are parameters sensitive to the development of program code understanding. This observation is consistent with reports from the studies where patterns of reading of the program code by novice and non-novice programmers were compared and it has been found out that non-novices have more transitions that span multiple lines, so their patterns are characterized by longer saccades (Peterson et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%