José Júnior Silva da Costa

arXiv2026

Comprehending Python Repetition Structures: An Eye-Tracking Study with Novice Developers

Code comprehension is central to software maintenance and evolution, yet different Python repetition structures may impose distinct cognitive demands. We conducted a controlled eye-tracking experiment with 32 undergraduate students with prior Python experience to compare comprehension of for loops, while loops, recursion, and list comprehensions (LCs). Participants solved six comprehension tasks in a Latin Square design while we measured completion behavior and eye-tracking metrics over full snippets and construct-specific Areas of Interest (AOIs). for loops showed the lowest visual effort. Relative to for, while loops increased AOI fixation duration by up to 97% and regression count by 114%, with regressions concentrated around counter management. Recursion showed a descriptive 50% increase in regressions, mainly between the base case and recursive call. LCs increased AOI time by 62.5% and fixation duration by 80.9%, with horizontal regressions suggesting dense token-by-token parsing. LC comparisons yielded the clearest statistically significant pairwise differences, while the combined comparison of all non-for structures was significant across all eye-tracking metrics. These findings provide process-level evidence that Python repetition structures induce distinct visual-effort patterns, with implications for readability, code review, refactoring, onboarding, and maintainability.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Refactoring for Novices in Java: An Eye Tracking Study on the Extract vs. Inline Methods

Developers often extract methods to improve readability, understanding, and reuse, while inlining keeps logic in one block. Prior work based on static metrics has not shown clear differences between these practices, and the human side of comprehension and navigation remains underexplored. We investigate Inline Method vs. Extract Method refactorings using a dynamic approach: eye tracking while participants read and solve tasks. We analyze key code areas and compare visual effort and reading behavior (fixation duration and count, regressions, revisits), alongside time and attempts. We ran a controlled experiment with 32 Java novices, followed by short interviews. Each participant solved eight simple tasks across four programs presented in an inlined version and four in an extracted version. We also surveyed 58 additional novices for complementary quantitative and qualitative data. Results show that effects depend on task difficulty. In two tasks, method extraction improved performance and reduced visual effort, with time decreasing by up to 78.8% and regressions by 84.6%. For simpler tasks (e.g., square area), extraction hurt performance: time increased by up to 166.9% and regressions by 200%. Even with meaningful method names, novices often switched back and forth between call sites and extracted methods, increasing navigation and cognitive load. Preferences frequently favored extraction for readability and reuse, but did not always match measured performance. These findings suggest educators should be cautious about premature modularization for novices and highlight eye tracking as a useful complement to static metrics.

cs.SE↗