WIP: Chat-Debugging: Large Language Model as a Hardware Debugging Assistant

Andrew Ash; John Hu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

WIP: Chat-Debugging: Large Language Model as a Hardware Debugging Assistant

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An LLM assistant can help students debug physical circuits, not just code.

desk verdict An honest n=1 exploratory WIP on a genuinely new LLM application (physical hardware debugging), worth refereeing if the authors temper the abstract's skill-improvement claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02420 v1 pith:DZCBHEEY submitted 2026-08-03 cs.HC cs.CY

Andrew Ash , John Hu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.CY

keywords hardwaredebugginglargelanguagemodelselectricalengineeringeducationhuman-computerinteractioncircuitGPT-4oqualitativestudyconfidence

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a large language model can act as a useful assistant when engineering students debug physical electronics, not just software. In a qualitative study, a fourth-year electrical engineering student used GPT-4o for three debugging tasks spanning software, software/hardware integration, and hardware. The authors report that the model supplied accurate hardware information, handled informal natural-language circuit descriptions, and boosted the student's debugging confidence, while hardware debugging required multiple prompts and the student's assertive corrections. They argue that, if this interaction holds more broadly, LLM-assisted Chat-Debugging could reduce frustration and improve debugging skills in students.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Chat-Debugging interaction itself, studied through constant comparative analysis of chat logs and a follow-up interview. The paper maps the interaction onto the four-step debugging model from [7]: the LLM supplies accurate component knowledge during the understanding phase, helps draft test plans, proposes multiple potential root causes when tests fail, and helps draft verification tests after a fix. The key role the LLM plays is hypothesis generation, the step where novices and experts alike are known to struggle [9].

What would settle it

Give a group of students identical faulty circuits, let half debug with GPT-4o and half without, and count resolved bugs, time, and self-reported confidence; the claim weakens if assisted students do not resolve more bugs or report more confidence than unassisted students. A second check is to plant a scenario where the LLM's confident root-cause suggestions point to the wrong component and see whether the student still corrects it and succeeds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an LLM can assist physical hardware debugging in a way that previous automated debugging tools, focused on pre-silicon digital circuits, do not. Based on chat logs and interviews with one fourth-year electrical engineering undergraduate, the paper identifies three benefits: the LLM gives accurate pinouts, component details, and safety warnings; it interprets short, informal prompts like "I need to connect an 11.1 V lipo battery to a LED"; and it raises the student's confidence. The same evidence identifies two challenges: hardware debugging takes multiple iterative prompts as root causes are tested and eliminated, and the student must continuously feed context back to keep the model's understanding aligned with the real circuit. The paper proposes an LLM-assisted debugging protocol built on the four-step troubleshooting model of understanding the system, testing it, locating the bug, and fixing it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one self-selected student's experience with GPT-4o represents how electrical and computer engineering students generally would experience LLM-assisted hardware debugging.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, an LLM assistant can be added to hardware lab courses as a low-cost first source of debugging advice, before a student waits for an instructor.
Because the model handles mixed-signal and analog circuits through natural language, Chat-Debugging covers hardware that existing pre-silicon automation tools do not.
The protocol gives instructors a concrete division of labor: the student leads, validates, and fixes; the LLM proposes root causes and test plans.
Students who correct the LLM's misunderstandings are practicing the assertive hypothesis-testing behavior that expert debugging requires.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A controlled study with multiple students and planted bugs could test whether the confidence gain survives when the LLM's root-cause suggestions are frequently wrong, a condition the single student's successful sessions did not exercise.
The same interaction may transfer to other physical troubleshooting settings, such as mechanical or biomedical equipment, where the bottleneck is also generating plausible root-cause hypotheses from informal descriptions.
If a future model tracks circuit context over long conversations more reliably, the 'consistent human feedback' challenge may shrink, making the protocol easier for weaker students who are less able to correct the model.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things upfront. First, the paper is the first empirical study, as far as its own literature review shows, of using an LLM for post-fabrication physical hardware debugging. That is a real new application, not a repackaging of pre-silicon or software debugging work. Second, the central claim in the abstract — that the interaction "can improve students' debugging skills" — is not supported by the data. What the data support is one student's self-reported confidence, and even that rests on a single interview.

What the paper does well: the writing is clear, the constant comparative analysis is methodologically standard for a qualitative case study, and the authors are unusually honest about the limits. Section IV-D explicitly concedes that they relied on self-reported confidence and time spent, and promises a controlled follow-up with quantitative measures. The protocol they propose is a reasonable synthesis of the observed interactions, and the challenges they identify (multiple prompts, drifting context, need for assertive correction) ring true from the chat logs. The citation pattern looks fair, with no obvious self-citation inflation.

The soft spots are real but mostly proportional. The outcome-variable gap is the biggest issue: no objective pre/post measure of debugging skill, no rubric-scored transcript, no transfer test. The stress-test note is right that the only unresolved hardware debugging episode in the logs ended without a fix, and that the paper's own future-work paragraph marks the boundary of what the evidence can carry. I would add that this is not a hidden flaw — the authors flag it — but the abstract overreaches anyway, and that mismatch is the core problem. A second, more minor issue is that the "successful session" protocol is derived from one self-selected student, so the generality of the prescriptions is unknown. Neither of these is fatal for a work-in-progress, but they should be fixed before this is cited as evidence of effectiveness.

Who is this for? Researchers in computing-education and human-AI collaboration who want an early signal that LLM-assisted hardware debugging is worth studying. It is not a proof of efficacy; it is a well-scoped exploratory study that sets up a controlled experiment. I would bring it to a reading group as an example of appropriately framed qualitative HCI work, though I would not cite it as evidence for the skill-improvement claim.

Recommendation: send it to peer review as an exploratory WIP. A serious referee can push the authors to either soften the abstract's skill claim or add a small objective performance measure in the revision. The paper deserves that engagement, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This work-in-progress paper introduces and evaluates Chat-Debugging, a use case in which an LLM (GPT-4o) assists an electrical engineering student with hardware debugging. The authors report an exploratory qualitative study with a single fourth-year undergraduate student, Daniel, analyzing three chat logs and an interview using constant comparative analysis. They identify three benefits: accurate hardware information, robust handling of natural-language prompts, and improved debugging confidence; and two challenges: hardware debugging requires multiple prompts and consistent human feedback to correct the LLM's misunderstandings. Based on these observations, they propose an LLM-assisted hardware debugging protocol following Katz and Anderson's troubleshooting model. The abstract and conclusion claim that this human-computer interaction can improve students' confidence and debugging skills. The paper is framed as a work-in-progress with a future controlled study planned.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, this paper would fill a meaningful gap in the literature by extending LLM-based debugging assistance from pre-silicon design to physical, post-fabrication hardware debugging, an area the authors correctly note is largely unexplored. The qualitative methodology is appropriate for an exploratory study, the description of the data sources is clear, and the authors are commendably transparent about the study's limitations in Section IV-D. The proposed protocol is a plausible synthesis of the observed interactions. However, the current evidence base is too narrow to support the abstract's claim about improving debugging skills: the data consist of one student's self-report, no objective skill measure is reported, and the only true fault-localization episode (Conversation 2) ends unresolved. The contribution is therefore best read as a hypothesis-generating study with a proposed protocol, not as a demonstrated educational intervention.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Section IV-D] The abstract's claim that Chat-Debugging "can improve electrical and computer engineering students' confidence during debugging and improve their debugging skills" is not supported by the data reported in this manuscript. Section IV-D explicitly concedes that the study relied on Daniel's self-reported confidence and self-reported time spent debugging, and no objective measure of debugging skill (e.g., a pre/post debugging task, a rubric-scored transcript, or a transfer test) is presented anywhere in Section III or IV. Because the skills-improvement claim is the central contribution, this is a load-bearing gap. I recommend softening the abstract and conclusion to claim that Chat-Debugging may improve confidence, and reframing the skills-improvement claim as a hypothesis to be tested in the planned controlled study.
[Section III-B and Section IV-C] The proposed protocol in Section IV-C is presented as a synthesis of observed successful patterns, but no conversation in the reported data completes the full arc from understanding the system through fixing the bug and verifying functionality. Conversation 2, the only episode that involves locating a hardware fault, ends with the bug unresolved because Daniel lacked spare cables and a second computer; Conversation 3 is primarily assistance with constructing an LED test circuit rather than diagnosing a fault. The protocol should be explicitly labeled as a proposal derived from partial observations, not as an empirically validated sequence, and the paper should state that no completed successful debugging episode was observed in this dataset.
[Section III-A and Section IV] The abstract and the results section generalize beyond the single participant, stating that Chat-Debugging improves "students'" confidence and skills, while the study is an N=1 case study with a self-selected fourth-year student. Although Section IV-D acknowledges the need for more participants, the language in Section IV (e.g., "Boosts Debugging Confidence," "Daniel consistently found that the LLM provides accurate... descriptions") should be consistently qualified as Daniel's experience, and the conclusions should be framed as preliminary findings from a single individual.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV-A-a] The claim that the LLM provides "accurate hardware information" is based entirely on Daniel's assessment; no independent expert verification of the LLM's technical statements is reported. A sentence acknowledging this verification gap would strengthen the rigor of the theme.
[Table I, row 2] The exemplar quotes for "Handles Natural Language Prompts" show only the user's prompts, not the LLM's responses, so the reader cannot directly verify the claimed handling; including a brief response excerpt would make the evidence more convincing.
[References] The paper cites Charmaz [23] for constant comparative analysis, but this method is more commonly attributed to Glaser and Strauss's 1967 work; adding a citation to Glaser and Strauss (or explaining the specific grounding-theory variant used) would improve the methodological clarity.
[Author affiliation] There is an apparent spacing error in the affiliation line: "Oklahoma State University" should be one contiguous string, and the same line contains a duplicated "State" substring that likely stems from text extraction.
[Section IV-D] The future-work paragraph mentions that the controlled study will analyze the final circuit's performance and time spent debugging, but it would be helpful to also state explicitly that a direct measure of debugging skill (beyond time and self-report) will be used, given that the current paper's central claim concerns skills improvement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: qualitative themes are induced from chat logs and interviews, not derived from the conclusions.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The central claims—accurate hardware information, handling of natural language prompts, and boosted debugging confidence—are themes extracted from chat logs and an interview via constant comparative analysis, as described in Section IV: 'Two researchers independently reviewed the chat logs and interviews using constant comparative analysis to identify central themes.' The proposed protocol in Section IV-C is a synthesis of observed successful patterns from the empirical data, not a premise used to generate that data. There are no equations, no fitted parameters, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The only substantive limitation is that the conclusion 'improve their debugging skills' is supported by self-reported confidence rather than an objective pre/post skill measure, and the one true hardware debugging session (Conversation 2) ended unresolved. However, this is an evidence-validity concern, not circularity: the claim is an interpretation of the data, not a tautology. The authors themselves acknowledge this in Section IV-D: 'This exploratory study used Daniel's self-reported confidence in his debugging results and time spent debugging.' A claim can be weakly supported without being circular. Thus no significant circularity is present, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper is an empirical qualitative study, so it has no free parameters or invented entities. The axioms are the methodological assumptions required to turn one student's self-reported experience into general claims.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The single participant's account of the debugging sessions is an accurate representation of what happened.
Section III.B collects data from Daniel's chat logs and interviews; the analysis treats these as factual records of the debugging process.
domain assumption The two researchers' constant comparative analysis is a valid method for extracting themes.
Section IV states two researchers independently reviewed the data and reconciled findings; this assumes the method yields reliable themes.
ad hoc to paper The LLM's hardware information is assumed to be accurate based on the student's assessment, without independent expert verification.
Section IV.A.1 reports that Daniel found the LLM's hardware details accurate; the paper does not verify this against an expert-validated ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WIP: Chat-Debugging: Large Language Model as a Hardware Debugging Assistant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZCBHEEY

@misc{pith2026260802420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WIP: Chat-Debugging: Large Language Model as a Hardware Debugging Assistant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZCBHEEY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02420}
}

read the original abstract

This work-in-progress research paper explores Chat-Debugging, a novel use case for large language models as an assistant for hardware debugging tasks to improve students' debugging skills. Hardware debugging can be a time-consuming and stressful skill to develop, leading to frustration and other negative emotions. While past work has explored streamlining and automating software-based circuit debugging where digital circuits are dominant, Chat-Debugging aids in physical hardware debugging where circuits may be analog, digital, or mixed-signal. Qualitative data were collected from LLM chat logs and interviews with a fourth-year electrical engineering undergraduate student. Major themes were extracted using a constant comparative analysis. Chat-Debugging incorporates accurate hardware information, properly handles natural language descriptions of circuits, and improves debugging confidence. A successful Chat-Debugging session includes investigating multiple potential root causes proposed by the LLM, the patience and determination to eliminate root causes, and a student who leads the debugging process by assertively correcting the LLM's misunderstandings. This human-computer interaction can improve electrical and computer engineering students' confidence during debugging and improve their debugging skills.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02420 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Debug: The Schedule Killer,

B. Bailey, “Debug: The Schedule Killer,” Jun. 2021. [Onl ine]. Available: https://semiengineering.com/debug-the-schedule-killer/

2021
[2]

Debug Tops V eriﬁcation Tasks,

A. Mutschler, “Debug Tops V eriﬁcation Tasks,” Dec. 2018 . [Online]. Available: https://semiengineering.com/debug-tops-veriﬁcation-tasks/

work page 2018
[3]

BYO E: Teaching and Assessing Troubleshooting Strategies in Circuits Cour ses,

C. Crockett, A. Barnes, G. Prpich, and A. McAlister, “BYO E: Teaching and Assessing Troubleshooting Strategies in Circuits Cour ses,” in 2025 ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Proc. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: ASEE Conferences, Jun. 2025, p. 56049

work page 2025
[4]

D eﬁn- ing and Supporting a Debugging Mindset in Computer Engineer ing Courses,

H. Duwe, D. T. Rover, P . H. Jones, N. D. Fila, and M. Mina, “D eﬁn- ing and Supporting a Debugging Mindset in Computer Engineer ing Courses,” in 2022 IEEE Frontiers Educ. Conf. (FIE) , Oct. 2022, pp. 1–9

work page 2022
[5]

Electronics la b instructors’ approaches to troubleshooting instruction,

D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. Lewandowski, “Electronics la b instructors’ approaches to troubleshooting instruction,” Physical Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 010102, Jan. 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Design-for-Debug: A Vital A spect in Ed- ucation,

P . Nagvajara and B. Taskin, “Design-for-Debug: A Vital A spect in Ed- ucation,” in 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. Microelectron. Syst. Educ. (MSE’07) . San Diego, CA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2007, pp. 65–66

work page 2007
[7]

Debugging: An Analysis of B ug- Location Strategies,

I. R. Katz and J. R. Anderson, “Debugging: An Analysis of B ug- Location Strategies,” Human–Comput. Interact., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 351– 399, 1987

work page 1987
[8]

Learning to Troubleshoot: A N ew Theory-Based Design Architecture,

D. H. Jonassen and W. Hung, “Learning to Troubleshoot: A N ew Theory-Based Design Architecture,” Educational Psychol. Rev. , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 77–114, Mar. 2006

work page 2006

Show all 23 references

[9]

Using Hypotheses as a Debug ging Aid,

A. Alaboudi and T. D. LaToza, “Using Hypotheses as a Debug ging Aid,” in 2020 IEEE Symp. Vis. Lang. Human-Centric Comput. (VL/HCC) , Aug. 2020, pp. 1–9

2020
[10]

Cognit ive Task Analy- sis and Innovation of Training: The Case of Structured Troub leshooting,

A. Schaafstal, J. M. Schraagen, and M. van Berl, “Cognit ive Task Analy- sis and Innovation of Training: The Case of Structured Troub leshooting,” Human Factors, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 75–86, Mar. 2000

2000
[11]

V eriDebug: A Uniﬁed LLM for V erilog Debugging via Contrast ive Embedding and Guided Correction,

N. Wang, B. Y ao, J. Zhou, Y . Hu, X. Wang, Z. Jiang, and N. Gu an, “V eriDebug: A Uniﬁed LLM for V erilog Debugging via Contrast ive Embedding and Guided Correction,” in 2025 IEEE Int. Conf. LLM-Aided Des. (ICLAD) , Jun. 2025, pp. 61–67

2025
[12]

EDA-D ebugger: An LLM-Based Framework for Automated EDA Runtime Issue Reso lu- tion,

J. Li, S.-Z. Wong, G.-W. Wan, X. Wang, and J. Y ang, “EDA-D ebugger: An LLM-Based Framework for Automated EDA Runtime Issue Reso lu- tion,” in 2025 26th Int. Symp. Qual. Electron. Des. (ISQED) , Apr. 2025, pp. 1–7

2025
[13]

C2HLSC: Leveraging L arge Language Models to Bridge the Software-to-Hardware Design Gap,

L. Collini, S. Garg, and R. Karri, “C2HLSC: Leveraging L arge Language Models to Bridge the Software-to-Hardware Design Gap,” ACM Trans. Des. Automat. Electron. Syst. , May 2025, just Accepted

2025
[14]

On H ardware Security Bug Code Fixes by Prompting Large Language Models,

B. Ahmad, S. Thakur, B. Tan, R. Karri, and H. Pearce, “On H ardware Security Bug Code Fixes by Prompting Large Language Models, ” IEEE Trans. Inf. F orensics Secur ., vol. 19, pp. 4043–4057, 2024

2024
[15]

ChatCPU: An Agile CPU Design and V eriﬁcation Platform with LLM,

X. Wang, G.-W. Wan, S.-Z. Wong, L. Zhang, T. Liu, Q. Tian, and J. Y e, “ChatCPU: An Agile CPU Design and V eriﬁcation Platform with LLM,” in Proc. 61st ACM/IEEE Des. Automat. Conf. , ser. DAC ’24. New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Nov. 2024, pp . 1–6

2024
[16]

Image2Net: Datas ets, Benchmark and Hybrid Framework to Convert Analog Circuit Di agrams into Netlists,

H. Xu, C. Liu, Q. Wang, W. Huang, Y . Xu, W. Chen, A. Peng, Z. Li, B. Li, L. Qi, J. Y ang, Y . Du, and L. Du, “Image2Net: Datas ets, Benchmark and Hybrid Framework to Convert Analog Circuit Di agrams into Netlists,” in 2025 Int. Symp. Electron. Des. Automat. (ISEDA) , May 2025...

2025
[17]

Assessing t he Capabilities of Large Language Models to Comprehend Analog Integrated Ci rcuits via Netlist Analysis,

A. D˘ aescu, A. Guzu, G. Nicolae, and C. Dan, “Assessing t he Capabilities of Large Language Models to Comprehend Analog Integrated Ci rcuits via Netlist Analysis,” in 2025 3rd Cogn. Models Artif. Intell. Conf. (AICCONF), Jun. 2025, pp. 1–7

2025
[18]

GENIE-ASI: Generative Instruction and Executable Code fo r Analog Subcircuit Identiﬁcation,

P . Pham, A. V enkitaraman, C.-Y . Hsieh, A. Bonetti, S. Uh lich, M. Leibl, S. Hofmann, E. Ohbuchi, L. Servadei, U. Schlichtmann, and R. Wille, “GENIE-ASI: Generative Instruction and Executable Code fo r Analog Subcircuit Identiﬁcation,” Aug. 2025, arXiv:2508.19393 [ cs]

2025 arXiv
[19]

AnalogCoder: Analog Circuit Design via Training-Free Cod e Genera- tion,

Y . Lai, S. Lee, G. Chen, S. Poddar, M. Hu, D. Z. Pan, and P . L uo, “AnalogCoder: Analog Circuit Design via Training-Free Cod e Genera- tion,” Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 379–387, Apr. 2025

2025
[20]

AnalogCoder-Pro: Unifying Analog Circuit Gener ation and Optimization via Multi-modal LLMs,

Y . Lai, S. Poddar, S. Lee, G. Chen, M. Hu, B. Y u, P . Luo, and D. Z. Pan, “AnalogCoder-Pro: Unifying Analog Circuit Gener ation and Optimization via Multi-modal LLMs,” Aug. 2025, arXiv:2508 .02518 [cs]

2025
[21]

Post-silicon v alidation oppor- tunities, challenges and recent advances,

S. Mitra, S. A. Seshia, and N. Nicolici, “Post-silicon v alidation oppor- tunities, challenges and recent advances,” in Proc. 47th Des. Automat. Conf., ser. DAC ’10. New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jun. 2010, pp. 12–17
[22]

Atomic model learning: A machine learning paradigm for post silico n debug of RF/analog circuits,

S. Deyati, B. J. Muldrey, A. Banerjee, and A. Chatterjee , “Atomic model learning: A machine learning paradigm for post silico n debug of RF/analog circuits,” in 2014 IEEE 32nd VLSI Test Symp. (VTS) , Apr. 2014, pp. 1–6

2014
[23]

Charmaz, Constructing grounded theory

K. Charmaz, Constructing grounded theory . London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2006

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Debug: The Schedule Killer,

B. Bailey, “Debug: The Schedule Killer,” Jun. 2021. [Onl ine]. Available: https://semiengineering.com/debug-the-schedule-killer/

2021

[2] [2]

Debug Tops V eriﬁcation Tasks,

A. Mutschler, “Debug Tops V eriﬁcation Tasks,” Dec. 2018 . [Online]. Available: https://semiengineering.com/debug-tops-veriﬁcation-tasks/

work page 2018

[3] [3]

BYO E: Teaching and Assessing Troubleshooting Strategies in Circuits Cour ses,

C. Crockett, A. Barnes, G. Prpich, and A. McAlister, “BYO E: Teaching and Assessing Troubleshooting Strategies in Circuits Cour ses,” in 2025 ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Proc. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: ASEE Conferences, Jun. 2025, p. 56049

work page 2025

[4] [4]

D eﬁn- ing and Supporting a Debugging Mindset in Computer Engineer ing Courses,

H. Duwe, D. T. Rover, P . H. Jones, N. D. Fila, and M. Mina, “D eﬁn- ing and Supporting a Debugging Mindset in Computer Engineer ing Courses,” in 2022 IEEE Frontiers Educ. Conf. (FIE) , Oct. 2022, pp. 1–9

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Electronics la b instructors’ approaches to troubleshooting instruction,

D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. Lewandowski, “Electronics la b instructors’ approaches to troubleshooting instruction,” Physical Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 010102, Jan. 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Design-for-Debug: A Vital A spect in Ed- ucation,

P . Nagvajara and B. Taskin, “Design-for-Debug: A Vital A spect in Ed- ucation,” in 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. Microelectron. Syst. Educ. (MSE’07) . San Diego, CA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2007, pp. 65–66

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Debugging: An Analysis of B ug- Location Strategies,

I. R. Katz and J. R. Anderson, “Debugging: An Analysis of B ug- Location Strategies,” Human–Comput. Interact., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 351– 399, 1987

work page 1987

[8] [8]

Learning to Troubleshoot: A N ew Theory-Based Design Architecture,

D. H. Jonassen and W. Hung, “Learning to Troubleshoot: A N ew Theory-Based Design Architecture,” Educational Psychol. Rev. , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 77–114, Mar. 2006

work page 2006