Cited by 29Teaching and Learning ProgrammingStatistics Education and MethodologiesEducational Robotics and Engineering

Decoding Debugging Instruction: A Systematic Literature Review of Debugging Interventions

Yang, Stephanie, Baird, Miles, O’Rourke, Eleanor, Brennan, Karen, Schneider, Bertrand·2024·ACM Transactions on Computing Education

Abstract

Students learning computer science frequently struggle with debugging errors in their code. These struggles can have significant downstream effects—negatively influencing how students assess their programming ability and contributing to their decision to drop out of CS courses. However, debugging instruction is often an overlooked topic, and instructors report feeling unaware of effective approaches to teach debugging. Within the literature, research on the topic is sporadic, and though there are rigorous and insightful studies to be found, there is a need to synthesize instructional approaches for debugging. In this article, we review research from 2010 to 2022 on debugging interventions. We summarize the common pedagogical approaches for learning and categorize how these target specific cognitive and non-cognitive debugging skills, such as self-efficacy and emotion regulation. We also present a summary of assessment methods and their outcomes in order to discuss intervention efficacy and directions for further research. Our sample displays a diverse variety of debugging interventions and pedagogical approaches, ranging from games to unplugged activities. An evaluation of article results also presents encouraging findings, revealing several interventions that improved debugging accuracy and learning. Still, we notice gaps in interventions addressing non-cognitive debugging skills and observe limited success in guiding students toward adopting systematic debugging strategies. The review concludes with a discussion of future directions and implications for researchers and instructors in the field.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3690652

Cites

179 of 179 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 182 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 10.1037//0003-066x.37.2.122 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Albert Bandura. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  3. Karen Brennan and Mitchel Resnick. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vol. 1, 25.
  4. 10.5555/54968.54978 · DOI
  5. 10.5555/55823.55841 · DOI
  6. 10.5555/21842.28895 · DOI
  7. 10.5555/21842.28896 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/1467-9620.00181 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Daniel L. Schwartz, Jessica M. Tsang, and Kristen P. Blair. 2016. The ABCs of How We Learn: 26 Scientifically Proven Approaches, How They Work, and When to Use Them. W. W. Norton & Company.
  10. Chrysanthos Socratous and Andri Ioannou. 2020. Common errors, successful debugging, and engagement during block-based programming using educational robotics in elementary education (June 2020). In 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2 (2020), 991–998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, S., Baird, M., O’Rourke, E., Brennan, K., & Schneider, B.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
Published
2024-11-15
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
1-44
ISSN
1946-6226 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402273575
Cited by
29
References
182
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 12
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on Computing Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
Keywords
computer science education, programming education, teaching methods, self-efficacy, emotion regulation, non-cognitive skills, unplugged activities, game-based learning, intervention efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review