Jeffrey Carver

Gabrielle O'Brien, Alexis Parker, Nasir Eisty et al.

Programming is essential to modern scientific research, yet most scientists report inadequate training for the software development their work demands. Generative AI tools capable of code generation may support scientific programmers, but user studies indicate risks of over-reliance, particularly among inexperienced users. We surveyed 868 scientists who program, examining adoption patterns, tool preferences, and factors associated with perceived productivity. Adoption is highest among students and less experienced programmers, with variation across fields. Scientific programmers overwhelmingly prefer general-purpose conversational interfaces like ChatGPT over developer-specific tools. Both inexperience and limited use of development practices (like testing, code review, and version control) are associated with greater perceived productivity -- but these factors interact, suggesting formal practices may partially compensate for inexperience. The strongest predictor of perceived productivity is the number of lines of generated code typically accepted at once. These findings suggest scientific programmers using generative AI may gauge productivity by code generation rather than validation.

Lucas Cordova, Jeffrey Carver, Gursimran Walia et al.

The feedback provided by current testing education tools about the deficiencies in a student's test suite either mimics industry code coverage tools or lists specific instructor test cases that are missing from the student's test suite. While useful in some sense, these types of feedback are akin to revealing the solution to the problem, which can inadvertently encourage students to pursue a trial-and-error approach to testing, rather than using a more systematic approach that encourages learning. In addition to not teaching students why their test suite is inadequate, this type of feedback may motivate students to become dependent on the feedback rather than thinking for themselves. To address this deficiency, there is an opportunity to investigate alternative feedback mechanisms that include a positive reinforcement of testing concepts. We argue that using an inquiry-based learning approach is better than simply providing the answers. To facilitate this type of learning, we present Testing Tutor, a web-based assignment submission platform that supports different levels of testing pedagogy via a customizable feedback engine. We evaluated the impact of the different types of feedback through an empirical study in two sophomore-level courses. We use Testing Tutor to provide students with different types of feedback, either traditional detailed code coverage feedback or inquiry-based learning conceptual feedback, and compare the effects. The results show that students that receive conceptual feedback had higher code coverage (by different measures), fewer redundant test cases, and higher programming grades than the students who receive traditional code coverage feedback.

Caroline Jay, Robert Haines, Daniel S. Katz et al.

The Theory-Software Translation Workshop, held in New Orleans in February 2019, explored in depth the process of both instantiating theory in software - for example, implementing a mathematical model in code as part of a simulation - and using the outputs of software - such as the behavior of a simulation - to advance knowledge. As computation within research is now ubiquitous, the workshop provided a timely opportunity to reflect on the particular challenges of research software engineering - the process of developing and maintaining software for scientific discovery. In addition to the general challenges common to all software development projects, research software additionally must represent, manipulate, and provide data for complex theoretical constructs. Ensuring this process is robust is essential to maintaining the integrity of the science resulting from it, and the workshop highlighted a number of areas where the current approach to research software engineering would benefit from an evidence base that could be used to inform best practice. The workshop brought together expert research software engineers and academics to discuss the challenges of Theory-Software Translation over a two-day period. This report provides an overview of the workshop activities, and a synthesises of the discussion that was recorded. The body of the report presents a thematic analysis of the challenges of Theory-Software Translation as identified by workshop participants, summarises these into a set of research areas, and provides recommendations for the future direction of this work.