4.7 Article

Cognition in Software Engineering: A Taxonomy and Survey of a Half-Century of Research

期刊

ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
卷 54, 期 11S, 页码 -

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3508359

关键词

Cognition; cognitive concepts; psychology of programming; human factors; measurement; taxonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a taxonomy of cognitive concepts and a literature survey in the field of software engineering. The analysis reveals that research in software engineering is developed across different life-cycle stages, but lacks a coherent picture from the perspective of cognition.
Cognition plays a fundamental role in most software engineering activities. This article provides a taxonomy of cognitive concepts and a survey of the literature since the beginning of the Software Engineering discipline. The taxonomy comprises the top-level concepts of perception, attention, memory, cognitive load, reasoning, cognitive biases, knowledge, social cognition, cognitive control, and errors, and procedures to assess them both qualitatively and quantitatively. The taxonomy provides a useful tool to filter existing studies, classify new studies, and support researchers in getting familiar with a (sub) area. In the literature survey, we systematically collected and analysed 311 scientific papers spanning five decades and classified them using the cognitive concepts from the taxonomy. Our analysis shows that the most developed areas of research correspond to the four life-cycle stages, software requirements, design, construction, and maintenance. Most research is quantitative and focuses on knowledge, cognitive load, memory, and reasoning. Overall, the state of the art appears fragmented when viewed from the perspective of cognition. There is a lack of use of cognitive concepts that would represent a coherent picture of the cognitive processes active in specific tasks. Accordingly, we discuss the research gap in each cognitive concept and provide recommendations for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据