Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:11:27.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 79 - 322
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Babbie, E. R. (2013). The Basics of Social Research, 13th edn. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
BBC (2017). Election 2017: Methodology. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40104373Google Scholar
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2002). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Coolican, H. (2017). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Curtice, J., Fisher, S., Kuha, J., & Mellon, J. (2017). On the 2017 exit poll – Another surprise, another success. Discover Society, Focus, Issue 46. Retrieved from https://discoversociety.org/2017/07/05/focus-on-the-2017-exit-poll-another-surprise-another-success/Google Scholar
Danielsiek, H., Toma, L., & Vahrenhold, J. (2017). An instrument to assess self-efficacy in introductory algorithms courses. In ACM International Computing Education Research Conference (pp. 217–225). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Fincher, S., Lister, R., Clear, T., Robins, A., Tenenberg, J., & Petre, M. (2005). Multi-institutional, multi-national studies in CSEd research: Some design considerations and trade-offs. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–121). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Jadud, M. C. (2006). An Exploration of Novice Compilation Behaviour in BlueJ (doctoral dissertation). University of Kent.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, M. J., Bahmani, F., Kwan, I., LaFerte, J., Charters, P., Horvath, A., Luor, F., Cao, J., Law, C., Beswetherick, M., Long, S., Burnett, M. M., & Ko, A. J. (2014). Principles of a debugging-first puzzle game for computing education. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 57–64). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Lehrer, J. (2010). How We Decide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Good, J., & Enbody, R. J. (2016). Learning to program: Gender differences and interactive effects of students’ motivation, goals, and self-efficacy on performance. In ACM International Computing Education Research Conference (pp. 211–220). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., & Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 125–180). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in Education: Evidence-based Inquiry, 7th edn. London, UK: Pearson Higher Education.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1957). Empirical explorations with the logic theory machine. In Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference, Vol. 15 (pp. 218–239). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Parker, M. C., Guzdial, M., & Engleman, S. (2016). Replication, validation, and use of a language independent CS1 knowledge assessment. In ACM International Computing Education Research Conference (pp. 93–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory (Vol. 1). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Tew, A. E., & Guzdial, M. (2011). The FCS1: A language independent assessment of CS1 knowledge. In ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 111–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Utting, I., Tew, A. E., McCracken, M., Thomas, L., Bouvier, D., Frye, R., Paterson, J., Caspersen, M. Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Sorva, J., & Wilusz, T. (2013). A fresh look at novice programmers’ performance and their teachers’ expectations. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 15–32). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

References

Amosu, A. M., & Degun, A. M. (2014). Impact of maternal nutrition on birth weight of babies. Biomedical Research, 25(1), 75–78.Google Scholar
Campbell, S. (1974). Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116.Google Scholar
Coe, R. (2002). Itʹs the effect size, stupid. What effect size is and why it is important. In Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association (pp. 12–14). London, UK: British Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dankel, S. J., Mouser, J. G., Mattocks, K. T., Counts, B. R., Jessee, M. B., Buckner, S. L., Loprinzi, P. D., & Loenneke, J. P. (2017). The widespread misuse of effect sizes. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(5), 446–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeWitt, A., Fay, J., Goldman, M., Nicolson, E., Oyolu, L., Resch, L., Martinez Saldaña, J., Sounalath, S., Williams, T., Yetter, K., Zak, , Brown, E., Rebelsky, N., , S. A. (2017). Arts coding for social good: A pilot project for middle-school outreach. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 159–164). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Edgcomb, A., Vaihd, F., Lyseckky, R., & Lysecky, S. (2017). Getting students to earnestly do reading, studying, and homework in an introductory programming class. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 171–176). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Ericson, B., & McKlin, T. (2012). Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 289–294). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, W. B. (2012). Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 8th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
Haden, P., Parsons, D., Wood, K., & Gasson, J. (2017). Student affect in CS1: Insights from an easy data collection tool. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli Calling ‘17 (pp. 40–49). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Krohn, G. A., & O’Conner, C. M. (2005). Student effort and performance over the semester. Journal of Economic Education, 36(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching. effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.Google Scholar
Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., Morgan, R. L., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2013). Understanding and Interpreting Educational Research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Murray, J. (2013). Ohio Gadfly Daily. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/links-and-broken-links-on-the-relationship-between-proficiency-progress-and-povertyGoogle Scholar
Parker, M. C., Guzdial, M., & Engleman, S. (2016). Replication, validation and use of a language independent CS1 knowledge assessment. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research ICER ‘16 (pp. 93–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. (2011). Stats: We’re Doing It Wrong. Retrieved from https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/107125-stats-were-doing-it-wrong/fulltextGoogle Scholar
Robins, A. (2010). Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education, 20, 37–71.Google Scholar
Rumsey, D. J. (2016). How to interpret a correlation coefficient r. Retrieved from www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/Google Scholar
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Counterbalanced Measures Design. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/counterbalanced-measures-designGoogle Scholar

References

Campbell, S. (1974). Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. L. (2014). Nonparametric Statistics: A Step-by-Step Approach, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70(3), 193–242.Google Scholar
Francis, G. (2017). Equivalent statistics and data interpretation. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1524–1538Google Scholar
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, W. B. (2012). Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 8th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. A., & Taylor, S. R. (2017). Comparing outcomes across different contexts in CS1. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 399–403). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. H (2015). Handbook of Biological Statistics (online edition). Retrieved from www.biostathandbook.com/multiplecomparisons.htmlGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & Haden, P. (2006). Statistical Analysis with the General Linear Model. Retrieved from www.otago.ac.nz/psychology/otago039309.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 241–301.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1992). Introduction to Fisher (1925): Statistical methods for research workers. In Kotz, S. & Johnson, N. L. (Eds.), Breakthroughs in Statistics: Volume 2: Methodology and Distributions (pp. 59–65). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.Google Scholar
Simes, R. J. (1986). An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 73(3), 751–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. (2012) Common Misteaks Mistakes in Using Statistics: Spotting and Avoiding Them. Retrieved from www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/StatisticsMistakes.htmlGoogle Scholar
Van de Schoot, R., Kaplan, D., Denissen, J., Asendorpf, J. B., Neyer, F. J., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2014). A gentle introduction to Bayesian analysis: Applications to developmental research. Child Development, 85, 842–860.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.Google Scholar
Wood, K., Parsons, D., Gasson, J., & Haden, P. (2013). It’s never too early: Pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp.13–21). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Yarkoni, T. (2011). Solving the file drawer problem by making the internet the drawer. Retrieved from www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2009/11/26/solving-the-file-drawer-problem-by-making-the-internet-the-drawer/Google Scholar

References

Atkinson, P., & Hammerseley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Barker, L., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Jackson, M. (2002). Defensive climate in the computer science classroom. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 43–47). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Basso, K. H. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1983). Uncovering principles of novice programming. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ‘83) (pp. 10–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1985). Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. Human–Computer Interaction, 1, 133–161.Google Scholar
Booth, S. A. (1992). Learning to Program: A Phenomenographic Perspective (doctoral thesis). Acta Universitatis Gothobergensis.Google Scholar
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research, 3rd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1992). The practice of reflexive sociology (the Paris Workshop). In Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (Eds.), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (pp. 216–260). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Boustedt, J. (2012). Students’ different understandings of class diagrams. Computer Science Education, 22(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp 1–25). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar
Budgeon, S. (2013). The dynamics of gender hegemony: Femininities, masculinities and social change. Sociology, 48(2), 317–334.Google Scholar
Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Sharif, B., Simon, , Begel, , Hansen, A., , M., … Antropova, M. (2014). Eye tracking in computing education. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Cherrington, S., & Loveridge, J. (2014). Using video to promote early childhood teachers’ thinking and reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 42–51.Google Scholar
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.Google Scholar
Computer History Museum (n.d.). Oral History Collection. Retrieved from www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/Google Scholar
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 19(6), 418–427.Google Scholar
Drescher, J. (2007). From bisexuality to intersexuality: Rethinking gender categories. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 43(1), 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. London, UK: Springer-Verlag London Ltd.Google Scholar
Dziallas, S., & Fincher, S. (2016). Aspects of graduateness in computing students’ narratives. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘16) (pp. 181–190). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Eckerdal, A., & Thuné, M. (2005). Novice Java progammers’ conceptions of “object” and “class”, and variation theory. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 89–93.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised edn.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2018). Introducing Discourse Analysis: From Grammar to Society. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.) (2007). Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.Google Scholar
Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. New York, NY: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. (1987). Working Knowledge: Skill and Community in a Small Shop. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26.Google Scholar
Harreveld, B., Danaker, M., Lawson, C., Knight, B. A., & Busch, G. (Eds.) (2016). Constructing Methodology for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Heath, C. (2010). Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., … Tracer, D. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–855.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.Google Scholar
Hitchens, M., & Lister, R. (2009). A focus group study of student attitudes to lectures. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE ‘09) (pp. 93–100). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jordan, B. (1993). Birth in Four Cultures: A Crosscultural Investigation of Childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden, and the United States, 4th edn. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Knobelsdorf, M. (2011). Biographische Lern- und Bildungsprozesse im Handlungskontext der Computernutzung (Biographical Learning and Educational Processes in the Context of Computer Experiences) (PhD thesis). Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. (2012). The importance of students’ attention to program state: A case study of debugging behavior. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘12) (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Liberman, N., Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Beeri, C. (2009). In-service teachers learning of a new paradigm: A case study. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER ‘09) (pp. 43–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Luria, A. L. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Madley, B. (2016). American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography – Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. E. (2010). Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity and Self-branding in Web 2.0 (PhD thesis). New York University.Google Scholar
McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(3), 267–277.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. P. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (pp. 60–70). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3/4), 245–275.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. (Ed.) (1980). On Narrative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. M., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33, 530–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd edn. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2014). One-in-four Native Americans and Alaska Natives are living in poverty. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/13/1-in-4-native-americans-and-alaska-natives-are-living-in-poverty/Google Scholar
Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography, 3rd edn. London, UK: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Ritchie, D. A. (2015). Doing Oral History, 3rd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Roth, W.-M. (2013). What More in/for Science Education: An Ethnomethodological Perspective. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Samuels, G. M., & Ross-Sheriff, F. (2008). Identity, oppression, and power. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 23(1), 5–9.Google Scholar
Scanniello, G., Romano, S., Fucci, D., Turhan, B., & Juristo, N. (2016). Students’ and professionals’ perceptions of test-driven development: A focus group study. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 1422–1427). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schulte, C., & Knobelsdorf, M. (2007). Attitudes towards computer science–computing experiences as a starting point and barrier to computer science. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘07) (pp. 27–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schutz, A. (1967). Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, R. A. (1969). The Making of Blind Men: A Study of Adult Socialization. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys’ needlework: Understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘15) (pp. 31–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Shinohara, K., & Tenenberg, J. (2009). A blind person’s interactions with technology. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 58–66.Google Scholar
Socha, D., Adams, R., Franznick, K., Roth, W.-M., Sullivan, K., Tenenberg, J., & Walter, S. (2016). Wide-field ethnography: Studying software engineering in 2025 and beyond. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE ‘16) (pp. 797–802). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Socha, D., & Tenenberg, J. (2013). Sketching software in the wild. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013) (pp. 1237–1240). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1989). Novice mistakes: Are the folk wisdoms correct? In Spohrer, J. C. & Soloway, E. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 401–416). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Stannard, D. E. (1992). American Holocaust. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stonich, S. (2002). Knowledge and questions after 15 years of research. In Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., & Weber, E. U. (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons (pp. 445–489). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tenenberg, J., Fincher, S., Blaha, K., Bouvier, D. J., Chen, T.-Y., Chinn, D., … VanDeGrift, T. (2005). Students designing software: A multi-national, multi-institutional study. Informatics in Education, 4(1), 143–162.Google Scholar
Tenenberg, J., Roth, W.-M., Chinn, D., Jornet, A., Socha, D., & Walter, S. (2018). More than the code: Learning rules of rejection in writing programs. Communications of the ACM, 61(5), 66–71.Google Scholar
Toombs, A. L., Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2015). The proper care and feeding of hackerspaces: Care ethics and cultures of making. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘15) (pp. 629–638). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
United States Census Bureau (2016). Facts for Features: American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2016. Retrieved from www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2016/cb16-ff22.htmlGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (n.d.). National School Lunch Program. Retrieved from www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/NSLPFactSheet.pdfGoogle Scholar
US Department of the Interior Indian Affairs (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questionsGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L., edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York, NY: Project for Public Spaces.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., edited by Hacker, P., & Schulte, J. (2009). Philosophical Investigations, 4th edition. (translated by Anscombe G., Hacker P., & Schulte J.) Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

References

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.Google Scholar
Almstrum, V. L., Hazzan, O., Guzdial, M., & Petre, M. (2005). Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355.Google Scholar
Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 151–170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Ben-Ari, M. (2008). Fertile zones of cultural encounter in computer science education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Bender, E., & Gray, D. (1999). The scholarship of teaching. Research and Creative Activity, 12(1). Retrieved from www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v22n1/p03.htmlGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A. F. (2002). First steps in programming: A rationale for attention investment models. In Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (pp. 2–10). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141–178.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. In Anglin, J. M. (Ed.), Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing (pp. 143–175). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In New directions in Educational Technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
Collins, A., & Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive apprenticeship. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 109–127). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, S., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Teaching computer science in context. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
Deitrick, E., O’Connell, B., & Shapiro, R. B. (2014). The discourse of creative problem solving in childhood engineering education. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 591–598). Boulder, CO: ISLS.Google Scholar
Deitrick, E., Shapiro, R. B., Ahrens, M. P., Fiebrink, R., Lehrman, P. D., & Farooq, S. (2015). Using distributed cognition theory to analyze collaborative computer science learning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 51–60). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Deitrick, E., Shapiro, R. B., & Gravel, B. (2016). How do we assess equity in programming pairs? Singapore. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 370–7). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar
DiSessa, A. A. (1991). Local sciences: Viewing the design of human–computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing Interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 162–202). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B. J., & Bruckman, A. (2009). Questioning video games’ influence on CS interest. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 272–278). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B., & Bruckman, A. (2010). Race and gender in play practices: Young African American males. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 56–63). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B. J., Crowley, K., & Norwood, R. (2008). Learning in context: Digital games and young black men. Games and Culture, 3(2), 131–141.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B., Guzdial, M., Meadows, C., Perry, K., McKlin, T., & Bruckman, A. (2013). Workifying games: Successfully engaging African American gamers with computer science. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 317–322). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B., Yardi, S., Guzdial, M., McKlin, T., Meadows, C., Perry, K., & Bruckman, A. (2011). African American men constructing computing identity. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2967–2970). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence, J. T. (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172.Google Scholar
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–21.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Esmonde, I. (2017). Power and sociocultural theories of learning. In Esmonde, I. & Booker, A. (Eds.), Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories of Learning (p. 6). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 128–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 104–108.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2010). Does contextualized computing education help? ACM Inroads, 1(4), 4–6.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M., & Tew, A. E. (2006). Imagineering inauthentic legitimate peripheral participation: An instructional design approach for motivating computing education. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Hermes, M., Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2012). Designing Indigenous language revitalization. Harvard Educational Review, 82(3), 381–402.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.Google Scholar
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.Google Scholar
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in Play. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14, 1.Google Scholar
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 23–31.Google Scholar
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.Google Scholar
Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling Alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1455–1464). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Kelly, A., Finch, L., Bolles, M., & Shapiro, R.B. (2018). BlockyTalky: New programmable tools to enable students learning networks. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 8–18.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, and future. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 44(3), 37–42.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lishinski, A., Good, J., Sands, P., & Yadav, A. (2016). Methodological rigor and theoretical foundations of CS education research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 161–169). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Bednarik, R., Helminen, J., Kinnunen, P., Korhonen, A., … Taherkhani, A. (2014). Theoretical underpinnings of computing education research: what is the evidence? In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 27–34). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004). Scratch: A sneak preview [education]. In Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing. (pp. 104–109). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, J., Estella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J., & Nao, K. 2008. Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Margulieux, L., Morrison, B. B., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Training learners to self-explain: Designing instructions and examples to improve problem solving. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 98–105). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Decker, A., & Margulieux, L. E. (2016). Learning loops: A replication study illuminates impact of HS courses. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 221–330). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 21–29). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., Rummel, N., & Hay, K. E. (2016). Growing the learning sciences: Brand or big tent? Implications for graduate education. In Evans, M. A., Packer, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (Eds.), Reflections on the Learning Sciences (pp. 191–209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In Sawyer, R. Keith (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 21–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. In Proceeding of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 705–712). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–299.Google Scholar
Porter, L., Guzdial, M., McDowell, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Success in introductory programming: What works? Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 34–36.Google Scholar
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1990). LEGO/LOGO – Learning through and about Design. Cambridge, MA: Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory.Google Scholar
Robins, A. (2015). The ongoing challenges of computer science education research. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 115–119.Google Scholar
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.) (2009). Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning science. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.Google Scholar
Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys’ needlework: Understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 31–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Shapiro, R. B., Kelly, A., Ahrens, M., Johnson, B., Politi, H., & Fiebrink, R. (2017) Tangible distributed computer music for youth. The Computer Music Journal, 41(2), 52–68.Google Scholar
Sommerhoff, D., Szameitat, A., Vogel, F., Chernikova, O., Loderer, K., & Fischer, F. (2018). What do we teach when we teach the learning sciences? A document analysis of 75 graduate programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(2), 319–351.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121.Google Scholar
Tan, E., Kang, H. O’Neill, T., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate between their narrated and embodied identities in considering a STEM trajectory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179.Google Scholar
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 128–157.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In Wentzel, K. & Miele, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 55–75). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 167–183.Google Scholar

References

ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013. New York: ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular systems and dysphasia. In Newman, S. K. & Epstein, R. J. (Eds.), Current Perspectives in Dysphasia (pp. 32–60). London, UK: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Almstrum, V. L., Hazzan, O., Guzdial, M., & Petre, M. (2005). Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘05) (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, Memory, and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.Google Scholar
Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & Van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 425–438.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ayres, P.L. (2001). Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 227–248.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(4), 302–309.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of Human Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2015). Memory, 2nd edn. London and New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, L. P., & Macredie, R. D. (1999). Beginners and programming: Insights from second language learning and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 4(2), 167–179.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V., Bhattacharjee, S., Chattopadhyay, R., & Alejandro, J. G. (2017). The Untapped Math Skills of Working Children in India: Evidence, Possible Explanations, and Implications. Retrieved from www.alejandroganimian.com/s/Banerjee-et-al-2017-2017-08-17.pdfGoogle Scholar
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.Google Scholar
Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 245–250). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 522–533.Google Scholar
Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153–166.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. (1985). Toward a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55, 201–226.Google Scholar
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 151–163.Google Scholar
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1989). Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 324–353). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bouton, M. E. (2016). Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis, 2nd edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Brachman, R. J. & Levesque, H. J. (Eds.) (1985). Readings in Knowledge Representation. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119.Google Scholar
Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Sharif, B., Begel, A., Hansen, M., Bednarik, R., Orlov, P., Ihantola, P., Shchekotova, G., & Antropova, M. (2014). Eye tracking in computing education. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Cao, L. (2010). In-depth behavior understanding and use: The behavior informatics approach. Information Sciences, 180(17), 3067–3085.Google Scholar
Cao, L., & Philip, S. Y. (Eds.) (2012). Behavior Computing: Modeling, Analysis, Mining and Decision. London, UK: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
Caspersen, M. E., & Bennedsen, J. (2007). Instructional design of a programming course: a learning theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–122). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V., & Miller, S (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8, 293–332.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 371–399). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Intelligence: A Brief History. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. O. (1982). Applied behavior analysis in education. Theory into Practice, 21(2), 114–118.Google Scholar
Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51–57.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2010) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 3rd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153–176.Google Scholar
Deco, G., & Rolls, E. T. (2005). Attention, short-term memory, and action selection: A unifying theory. Progress in Neurobiology, 76, 236–256.Google Scholar
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 113–124). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
de Winstanley, P. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Generation effects and the lack thereof: The role of transfer-appropriate processing. Memory, 4, 31–48.Google Scholar
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795–805.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.Google Scholar
Eiriksdottir, E., & Catrambone, R. (2011). Procedural instructions, principles, and examples: how to structure instructions for procedural tasks to enhance performance, learning, and transfer. Human Factors, 53(6), 749–770.Google Scholar
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.Google Scholar
Enderton, H. B. (2001). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd edn. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Engel, A. K., Fries, P., & Singer, W. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 704–716.Google Scholar
Eriksen, C. W., & James, J. D. S. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(4), 225–240.Google Scholar
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (2004). Piaget’s stages: The unfinished symphony of cognitive development. New Ideas in Psychology, 22, 175–231.Google Scholar
Feldon, D. F. (2007). The implications of research on expertise for curriculum and pedagogy. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 91–110.Google Scholar
Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2001). How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, R. W. (1994). MAGI: Analogy-based encoding using regularity and symmetry. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 283–288). London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ferman, S., & Karni, A. (2012). Procedural and declarative memory in the acquisition of morphological knowledge: A model for second language acquisition in adults. In Leikin, M., Schwartz, M., & Tobin, Y. (Eds.), Current Issues in Bilingualism. Literacy Studies (Perspectives from Cognitive Neurosciences, Linguistics, Psychology and Education), Vol. 5 (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–77.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–531.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 998–1005.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget’s legacy. Psychological Science, 7(4), 200–203.Google Scholar
Foer, J. (2012). Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fougnie, D. (2008). The relationship between attention and working memory. In Johansen, N. B. (Ed.), New Research on Short-Term Memory (pp. 1–45). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Garner, S. (2002). Reducing the cognitive load on novice programmers. In Barker, P. & Rebelsky, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002 – World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 578–583). Denver, CO: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2002). Mental models, psychology of. In Smelser, N. & Bates, P. B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 9683–9687). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.) (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.Google Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. D., & Sigman, M. (2007). Brain states: Top-down influences in sensory processing. Neuron, 54(5), 677–696.Google Scholar
Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J., & Santa, J. L. (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Goldstein, E. B., & Brockmole, J. (2016). Sensation and Perception, 10th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gray, S., St Clair, C., James, R., & Mead, J. (2007). Suggestions for graduated exposure to programming concepts using fading worked examples. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 99–110). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (1997). Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, 5th edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (2016). Categories, prototypes and exemplars. In Riemer, N. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (pp. 125–141). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hansen, L., Umeda, Y., & McKinney, M. (2002). Savings in the relearning of second language vocabulary: The effects of time and proficiency. Language Learning, 52(4), 653–678.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. E., Lumsdaine, A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). An experiment on the cognitive complexity of code. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from www.indiana.edu/~pcl/papers/hansencode2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-Analyses on Achievement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (2014). Problem-solving strategies. In Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (Eds.), Guide to Teaching Computer Science (pp. 75–93). London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E., & Anderson, J. A. (1989). Parallel Models of Associative Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.) (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 649–667.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.Google Scholar
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kátai, Z., Juhász, K., & Adorjáni, A. K. (2008). On the role of senses in education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1707–1717.Google Scholar
Killian, S. (2016). Hattie Effect Size 2016 Update. Retrieved from www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/hattie-effect-size-2016-update/. Reproduced in Lubelfeld, M., Polyak, N., & Caposey, P. J. (2018). Student Voice: From Invisible to Invaluable (p. 3). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404.Google Scholar
Klaus-Dieter, G. (2018). Eye Movements in Programming Education Workshops. Retrieved from www.mi.fu-berlin.de/en/inf/groups/ag-ddi/Gaze_Workshop/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V., & Repenning, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 59–66). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.Google Scholar
Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C. H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 417–446.Google Scholar
Laird, J. E., & Rosenbloom, P. (1996). The evolution of the Soar cognitive architecture. In Steier, D. M. & Mitchell, T. M. (Eds.), Mind Matters: A tribute to Allen Newell (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.Google Scholar
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1058–1072.Google Scholar
Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.Google Scholar
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology, 2nd edn. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, E. (2017). Associationist Theories of Thought. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), E. N. Zalta, ed. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/associationist-thought/Google Scholar
Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Marr, D., & Poggio, T. (1976). From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural Circuitry. A.I. Memo 357. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in Problem Solving. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, R., & Cooper, G. (2012). Why the bottom 10% just can’t do it: Mental effort measures and implication for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Vol. 123 (pp. 187–196). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Mason, R., Cooper, G., & de Raadt, M. (2012). Trends in introductory programming courses in Australian universities: languages, environments and pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Vol. 123 (pp. 33–42). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Mathan, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2003). Recasting the feedback debate: Benefits of tutoring error detection and correction skills. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 13–20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Mather, G. (2016). Foundations of Sensation and Perception, 3rd edn. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McClamrock, R. (1991). Marr’s three levels: A re-evaluation. Minds and Machines, 1(2), 185–196.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1970). The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Developmental Psycholinguistics. New York & London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.) (2014). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning. Madden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(3), 333–352.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
Minda, J. P., & Smith, J. D. (2002). Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 275–292.Google Scholar
Morris, M. R., Begel, A., & Wiedermann, B. (2015). Understanding the challenges faced by neurodiverse software engineering employees: Towards a more inclusive and productive technical workforce. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (pp. 173–184). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2014). Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 131–138). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 21–29). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., Ericson, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Subgoals help students solve Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 42–47). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (Ed.) (1970). Models of Human Memory. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Novick, L. R., & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 321–349). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.Google Scholar
Paas, F. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.Google Scholar
Pandža, N. B. (2016) Computer programming as a second language. In Nicholson, D. (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 501 (pp. 439–445). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s programming puzzles: A fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education – Volume 52 (ACE ‘06) (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (Ed.) (2016). Attention. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the Cognitive Prerequisites of Learning Computer Programming. Technical Report No. 18. New York: Bank Street College of Education.Google Scholar
Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1971a). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In Green, D. R., Ford, M. P., & Flamer, G. B. (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1971b). Developmental stages and developmental processes. In Green, D. R., Ford, M. P., & Flamer, G. B. (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 172–188). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 235–275.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pohl, R. (Ed.) (2004). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160–174.Google Scholar
Powell, S. R. (2011). Solving word problems using schemas: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 94–108.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969). Natural kinds. In Hempel, C. G., Davidson, D., & Rescher, N. (Eds.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Radvansky, G. (2016). Human Memory, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Recker, M., & Pirolli, P. (1995). Modeling individual differences in students’ learning strategies. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 1–38.Google Scholar
Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6(3), 436–450.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (2017). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: Students relate procedures to principles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(4), 571–584.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., & Grosse, C. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works – A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.Google Scholar
Revlin, R. (2012). Cognition: Theory and Practice. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Rieber, R. W., & Robinson, D. K. (Eds.) (2004). The Essential Vygotsky. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Rist, R. S. (1995). Program structure and design. Cognitive Science, 19, 507–562.Google Scholar
Robertson, S. I. (2016). Problem Solving: Perspectives From Cognition and Neuroscience. New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
Robins, A. (1996). Consolidation in neural networks and in the sleeping brain. Connection Science, 8(2), 259–276.Google Scholar
Robins, A. (2010). Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education, 20, 37–71.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, P. S., Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & McCarl, R. (1991). A preliminary analysis of the Soar architecture as a basis for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3), 289–325.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657–661.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’75) – Volume 1 (pp. 151–157). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (2013). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Schanzer, E., Fisler, K., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2018). Assessing bootstrap: Algebra students on scaffolded and unscaffolded word problems. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘18) (pp. 8–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schanzer, E., Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Felleisen, M. (2015). Transferring skills at solving word problems from computing to algebra through bootstrap. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 616–621). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scholnick, E. K., Nelson, K., Gelman, S. A., & Miller, P. H. (Eds.) (1999). Conceptual Development: Piaget’s Legacy. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417.Google Scholar
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.) (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Singleton, D. M., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The Transfer of Cognitive Skill (No. 9). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Oxford, UK: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Skudder, B., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2014). Worked examples in computer science. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 148 (pp. 59–64). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Smith, T. J. (2007). The ergonomics of learning: Educational design and learning performance. Ergonomics, 50(10), 1530–1546.Google Scholar
Smith, T. A., & Kimball, D. R. (2010). Learning from feedback: Spacing and the delay–retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 80–95.Google Scholar
Soar (2018). Soar Home. Retrieved from https://soar.eecs.umich.edu/Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1982). Handbook of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stickgold, R. (2005). Sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Nature, 437(7063), 1272–1278.Google Scholar
Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement? Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 607–615.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (Vol. 1, No. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2018). The role of independent measures of load in cognitive load theory. In Zheng, R. Z. (Ed.), Cognitive Load Measurement and Application (pp. 17–22). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.Google Scholar
Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Expectation of a final cumulative test enhances long-term retention. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 1007–1013.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, T., Duszkiewicz, A. J., & Morris, R. G. (2014). The synaptic plasticity and memory hypothesis: Encoding, storage and persistence. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1633), 20130288.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. (1911). Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257–287.Google Scholar
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tonegawa, S., Pignatelli, M., Roy, D. S., & Ryan, T. J. (2015). Memory engram storage and retrieval. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 35, 101–109.Google Scholar
Trafton, J. G., & Reiser, B. J. (1993). Studying examples and solving problems: Contributions to skill acquisition. In Proceedings of the 15th conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1017–1022). London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1985). Elements of Episodic Memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, E., & Craik, F. I. (Eds.) (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1974). Cue-dependent forgetting: When we forget something we once knew, it does not necessarily mean that the memory trace has been lost; it may only be inaccessible. American Scientist, 62(1), 74–82.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Twyman, J. S. (2014). Behaviour analysis in education. In McSweeney, F. K. & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning (pp. 553–558). Madden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Review Neuroscience, 2, 717–726.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contribution of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.Google Scholar
van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Cognitive load measurement. In Seel, N. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 599–601). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.Google Scholar
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Krammer, H. P. (1990). The “completion strategy” in programming instruction: Theoretical and empirical support. In Dijkstra, S., van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M., & van der Sijde, P. C. (Eds.), Research on Instruction: Design and Effects (pp. 45–61). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
van Merriënboer, J. J., & De Croock, M. B. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 365–394.Google Scholar
van Merriënboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.Google Scholar
Volder, J. E. (1959). The CORDIC trigonometric computing technique. IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers, 3, 330–334.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., & Chiew, V. (2010). On the cognitive process of human problem solving. Cognitive Systems Research, 11(1), 81–92.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Weiser, M., & Shertz, J. (1983). Programming problem representation in novice and expert programmers. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 19(4), 391–398.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 23, 7–18.Google Scholar
Wertsh, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Science, 249(4969), 684–686.Google Scholar
Whelan, R. R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
Whitney, P. (2001). Schemas, frames, and scripts in cognitive psychology. In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 13522–13526). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the Classroom: Behaviourism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zheng, R. Z. (2018). Cognitive Load Measurement and Application: A Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Research and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

References

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 3rd edn. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on the Formative and Summative Rvaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
Boyer, E. L. (1996). From the scholarship reconsidered to scholarship assessed. Quest, 48(2), 129–139.Google Scholar
Cech, E. A. (2014). Education: Embed social awareness in science curricula. Nature, 505(7484), 477–478.Google Scholar
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Entwistle, N. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 127–134.Google Scholar
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.Google Scholar
Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.Google Scholar
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of higher-education teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.Google Scholar
Havnes, A., & Prøitz, T. S. (2016). Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 205–223.Google Scholar
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10–15.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1988). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: The Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co.Google Scholar
Land, R. (2001). Agency, context and change in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 4–20.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Löfström, , Trotman, E., Furnari, T., M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it? Higher Education, 69(3), 435–448.Google Scholar
O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In O’Neill, G., Moore, S., & McMullin, B. (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching (pp. 27–36). Dublin, Ireland: AISHE.Google Scholar
Ott, C., Robins, A., & Shephard, K. (2016). Translating principles of effective feedback for students into the CS1 context. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 16(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London, UK: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Shephard, K., & Furnari, M. (2013). Exploring what higher-education teachers think about education for sustainability. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1577–1590.Google Scholar
Trigwell, K. (2006). Phenomenography: An approach to research into geography education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(2), 367–372.Google Scholar

References

Adams, R., Aldridge, D., Atman, C., Barker, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Bjorklund, S., & Young, M. (2006). The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 259–261.Google Scholar
Ahn, B., Cox, M. F., London, J., Cekic, O., & Zhu, J. (2014). Creating an instrument to measure leadership, change, and synthesis in engineering undergraduates. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 115–136.Google Scholar
Allen, K., Reed-Rhoads, T., Terry, R. A., Murphy, T. J., & Stone, A. D. (2008). Coefficient alpha: An engineer’s interpretation of test reliability. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 87–94.Google Scholar
Atadero, R. A., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., & Balgopal, M. M. (2015). Using Social Cognitive Career Theory to assess student outcomes of group design projects in statics. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(1), 55–73.Google Scholar
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.Google Scholar
Atman, C. J., Eris, O., McDonnell, J., Cardella, M. E., & Borgford-Parnell, J. L. (2014). Engineering design education: Research, practice, and examples that link the two. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 201–225). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.Google Scholar
Benson, L. C., Becker, K., Cooper, M. M., Griffin, O. H., & Smith, K. A. (2010). Engineering education: Departments, degrees and directions. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(5), 1042–1048.Google Scholar
Benson, L., & Borrego, M. (2015). The role of replication in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 388–392.Google Scholar
Bernhard, J., & Baillie, C. (2016). Standards for quality of research in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 2378–2394.Google Scholar
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Cox, M. F., Borrego, M., Beddoes, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Changing engineering education: Views of U.S. faculty, chairs, and deans. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 193–219.Google Scholar
Borenstein, J., Drake, M. J., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. L. (2010). The Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT): A discipline-specific approach to assessing moral judgment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(2), 387–407.Google Scholar
Borrego, M. (2007). Development of engineering education as a rigorous discipline: A study of the publication patterns of four coalitions. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14–47.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45–76.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2015). What is the state of the art of systematic review in engineering education? Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 212–242.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Froyd, J., & Knight, D. (2007). Accelerating emergence of engineering education via the International Conference on Research in Engineering Education (ICREE). Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 281–282.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L. D., & Beddoes, K. (2013). Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A review. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 472–512.Google Scholar
Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2008). Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 123–134.Google Scholar
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P–12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.Google Scholar
Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304–328.Google Scholar
Canney, N., & Bielefeldt, A. (2015). A framework for the development of social responsibility in engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1B), 414–424.Google Scholar
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.Google Scholar
Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging research methodologies in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 186–210.Google Scholar
Chao, J., Xie, C., Nourian, S., Chen, G., Bailey, S., Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S., Adams, R. S., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2017). Bridging the design-science gap with tools: Science learning and design behaviors in a simulated environment for engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 1049–1096.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar
Clark, M. C., Froyd, J. E., Merton, P., & Richardson, J. (2004). The evolution of curricular change models within the foundation coalition. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 37–47.Google Scholar
Crede, E., & Borrego, M. (2010). A content analysis of the use of mixed methods studies in engineering education. In ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 15.22.1–5.22.18). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.Google Scholar
Davis, M. (1998). Thinking Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. A., & Purzer, S. (2015). Validity: Meaning and relevancy in assessment for engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 108–118.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. A., Rynearson, A., Purzer, S., & Strobel, J. (2016). Reliability, validity, and fairness: A content analysis of assessment development publications in major engineering education journals. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5a), 1960–1971.Google Scholar
Duval-Couetil, N., Reed-Rhoads, T., & Haghighi, S. (2010). Development of an assessment instrument to examine outcomes of entrepreneurship education on engineering students. In Frontiers in Education Conference (p. T4D-1). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Engineering Education Community Resource (2017). Engineering education departments and programs. Retrieved from http://engineeringeducationlist.pbworks.com/w/page/27610307/Engineering%20Education%20Departments%20and%20Programs%20(Graduate)Google Scholar
Eris, O., Chachra, D., Chen, H. L., Sheppard, S., Ludlow, L., Rosca, C., Bailey, T., & Toye, G. (2010). Outcomes of a longitudinal administration of the persistence in engineering survey. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 371–395.Google Scholar
Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130.Google Scholar
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2010). The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of impact and implications for faculty development. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 121–134.Google Scholar
Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.Google Scholar
Fincher, S., Lister, R., Clear, T., Robins, A., Tenenberg, J., & Petre, M. (2005). Multi-institutional, multi-national studies in CSEd research: Some design considerations and trade-offs. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–121). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Finelli, C. J., Borrego, M., & Rasoulifar, G. (2015). Development of a taxonomy of keywords for engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 365–387.Google Scholar
Finelli, C. J., Daly, S. R., & Richardson, K. M. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Designing an institutional change plan using local evidence. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 331–361.Google Scholar
Firetto, C. M., Van Meter, P. N., Turns, S. R., & Litzinger, T. A. (2016). The validation of a conceptual reasoning inventory for introductory thermodynamics. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 2635–2652.Google Scholar
Foor, C. E., Walden, S. E., & Trytten, D. A. (2007). “I wish that I belonged more in this whole engineering group:” Achieving individual diversity. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(2), 103–115.Google Scholar
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E. (2005). The Engineering Education Coalitions program. In Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century (pp. 82–97). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E., & Borrego, M. (2014). Leadership insights from the National Science Foundation Engineering Education Coalitions program and other large curriculum initiatives. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 45–50.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. (2013). Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 393–399.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E., & Lohmann, J. R. (2014). Chronological and ontological development of engineering education as a field of scientific inquiry. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gainsburg, J. (2015). Engineering students’ epistemological views on mathematical methods in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(2), 139–166.Google Scholar
Godfrey, E., & Hadgraft, R. (2009). Engineering education research: Coming of age in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 307–308.Google Scholar
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An affective model for predicting engineering as a career choice. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 312–340.Google Scholar
Goldman, K. J., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2010). Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing subjects. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(2), 1–29.Google Scholar
Gray, G. L., Costanzo, F., Evans, D., Cornwell, P., Self, B., & Lane, J. L. (2005). The Dynamics Concept Inventory Assessment Test: A progress report and some results. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 4819–4833). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.Google Scholar
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.Google Scholar
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.Google Scholar
Henderson, C., Connolly, M., Dolan, E. L., Finkelstein, N., Franklin, S., Malcom, S., Rasmussen, C., Redd, K., & St. John, K. (2017),. Towards the STEM DBER Alliance: Why we need a discipline-based STEM education research community. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 349–355.Google Scholar
Herman, G. L., Zilles, C., & Loui, M. C. (2014). A psychometric evaluation of the digital logic concept inventory. Computer Science Education, 24(4), 277–303.Google Scholar
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.Google Scholar
Holloway, B. M., Reed, T., Imbrie, P. K., & Reid, K. (2014). Research-informed policy change: A retrospective on engineering admissions. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 274–301.Google Scholar
Hutchison-Green, M. A., Follman, D. K., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). Providing a voice: Qualitative investigation of the impact of a first-year engineering experience on students’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 177–190.Google Scholar
Hynes, M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 345–360.Google Scholar
Hynes, M. M., Mathis, C., Purzer, S., Rynearson, A., & Siverling, E. (2017). Systematic review of research in P–12 engineering education from 2000–2015. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1B), 453–462.Google Scholar
Jamison, A., Kolmos, A., & Holgaard, J. E. (2014), Hybrid learning: An integrative approach to engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 253–273.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319–337.Google Scholar
Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (Eds.) (2014). Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kajfez, R. L., & Matusovich, H. M. (2017). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness as motivators of graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 245–272.Google Scholar
Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2017). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398–411.Google Scholar
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.) (2009). Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, B. (2015). The flipped classroom in engineering education: A survey of the research. In International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 815–818). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Klein, S., Benjamin, R., Shavelson, R., & Bolus, R. (2007). The Collegiate Learning Assessment: Facts and fantasies. Evaluation Review, 31(5), 415–439.Google Scholar
Kolmos, A. & de Graaff, E. (2014). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education: Merging models. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 141–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, S., Decker, J. C., & Griffin, R. (2003). Using a Materials Concept Inventory to Assess Conceptual Gain in Introductory Materials Engineering Courses. In Frontiers in Education Conference (p. T3D-7). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5–20.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342.Google Scholar
Leydens, J. A., Moskal, B. M., & Pavelich, M. J. (2004). Qualitative methods used in the assessment of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 65–72.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, G., Chen, H. L., Smith, K. A., & Maldonado, T. A. (2014). Retention and persistence of women and minorities along the engineering pathway in the United States. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 311–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Litzinger, T. A. (2010). Engineering education centers and programs: A critical resource. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 3–4.Google Scholar
Lohmann, J. R. (2003). The editor’s page: Mission, measures, and ManuscriptCentral™. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 1.Google Scholar
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
Loui, M. C. (2017). Wickenden award, thanks, and farewell. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 347–348.Google Scholar
Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S. (2016). Measuring undergraduate students’ engineering self-efficacy: A validation study. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 366–395.Google Scholar
Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2012). Leaving engineering: A multi-year single institution study. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 6–27.Google Scholar
Martin, J. P., Simmons, D. R., & Yu, S. L. (2013). The role of social capital in the experiences of Hispanic women engineering majors. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 227–243.Google Scholar
Matusovich, H. M., Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D. & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty motivation: A gateway to transforming engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 302–330.Google Scholar
Matusovich, H. M., Streveler, R. A., & Miller, R. L. (2010). Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students’ motivational values. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 289–303.Google Scholar
McKenna, A. F. (2014). Adaptive expertise and knowledge fluency in design and innovation. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 227–242). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 346–374.Google Scholar
Montfort, D., Brown, S., & Shinew, D. (2014). The personal epistemologies of civil engineering faculty. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 388–416.Google Scholar
Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141–178.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation (2015). News release #15-066 “NSF awards $12 million to spur an engineering education revolution.” Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=135379Google Scholar
Nelson, K. G., McKenna, A. F., Brem, S. K., Hilpert, J., Husman, J., & Pettinato, E. (2017). Students’ misconceptions about semiconductors and use of knowledge in simulations. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 218–244.Google Scholar
Newstetter, W., & Svinicki, M. (2014). Learning theories for engineering education practice and research. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 29–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Long, R. A., Layton, R. A., Lord, S. M., Orr, M. K., & Brawner, C. E. (2016). Making the Multiple Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD) more accessible to researchers. In Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–3). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Finelli, C. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., & Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609–630.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 259–278.Google Scholar
Ohland, M. W., Zhang, G., Thorndyke, B., & Anderson, T. J. (2004). Grade-point average, changes of major, and majors selected by students leaving engineering. In Frontiers in Education Conference (p. T1G-12). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Passow, H. J., & Passow, C. H. (2017). What competencies should undergraduate engineering programs emphasize? A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 475–526.Google Scholar
Patrick, A., & Borrego, M. (2016). A review of the literature relevant to engineering identity. In ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 26–29). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Peters, D. L., & Daly, S. R. (2013). Returning to graduate school: Expectations of success, values of the degree, and managing the costs. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 244–268.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.Google Scholar
Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 165–184.Google Scholar
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.Google Scholar
Prybutok, A., Patrick, A., Borrego, M., Seepersad, C. C., & Kirisits, M. J. (2016). Cross-sectional survey study of undergraduate engineering identity. In ASEE Annual Conference. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Reid, K., & Ferguson, D. M. (2011). Enhancing the entrepreneurial mindset of freshman engineers. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 22.622.1–22.622.10). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78Google Scholar
Samuelson, C. C., & Litzler, E. (2016). Community cultural wealth: An assets-based approach to persistence of engineering students of color. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 93–117.Google Scholar
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S. D., Antonio, A. L., Brunhaver, S. R., & Gilmartin, S. K. (2014). The early career pathways of engineering students. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 283–309). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shuman, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Litzinger, T. (2013). AEE and JEE: Where are the boundaries? Should there be boundaries? Do we need boundaries? Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 224–226.Google Scholar
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.) (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Sneider, C., & Purzer, S. (2014). The rising profile of STEM literacy through national standards and assessments. In Purzer, S., Strobel, J., & Cardella, M. (Eds.). Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 3–19). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Steif, P. S., & Dantzler, J. A. (2005), A statics concept inventory: Development and psychometric analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 363–371.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., O’Connor, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A., & Amos, D. M. (2008). Becoming an engineer: Toward a three dimensional view of engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 355–368.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Brown, S., Herman, G. L., & Montfort, D. (2014). Conceptual change and misconceptions in engineering education: Curriculum, measurement, and theory-focused approaches. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 83–101). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Miller, R. L., Santiago-Román, A. I., Nelson, M. A., Geist, M. R., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Rigorous methodology for concept inventory development: Using the “assessment triangle” to develop and test the Thermal and Transport Science Concept Inventory (TTCI). International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(5), 968–974.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Conducting rigorous research in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 103–105.Google Scholar
Stice, J. E. (1976). A first step toward improved teaching. Engineering Education, 66(5), 394–398.Google Scholar
Stice, J. E. (1987). Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student learning. Engineering Education, 77(5), 291–296.Google Scholar
Stump, G. S. Husman, J., & Corby, M. (2014). Engineering students’ intelligence beliefs and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 369–387.Google Scholar
Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.Google Scholar
Svinicki, M. D. (2010). A Guidebook on Conceptual Frameworks for Research in Engineering Education. Retrieved from www.dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files1/af66d923fb150b6c895b32655eb9b5ce.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.Google Scholar
Tims, J., Zweben, S., & Timanovsky, Y. (2017). ACM-NDC study 2016–2017: Fifth annual study of non-doctoral-granting departments in computing. ACM Inroads, 8(3), 48–61.Google Scholar
Tonso, K. L. (2007). On the Outskirts of Engineering: Learning Identity, Gender, and Power via Engineering Practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Tonso, K. L. (2014). Engineering identity. In Johri, A. & Olds, B. M. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 267–282). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trenshaw, K. F., Revelo, R. A., Earl, K. A., & Herman, G. L. (2016). Using Self Determination Theory principles to promote engineering students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3A), 1194–1207.Google Scholar
Tseng, T., Chen, H. L., & Sheppard, S. (2011). Early academic experiences of non-persisting engineering undergraduates. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 22.516.1–22.516.23). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
US Department of Education (1988). Secretary’s procedures and criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies, 53 Fed. Reg. 25088–25099 (proposed July 1, 1988) (to be codified at 34 CFR § 602–603).Google Scholar
Walther, J., Miller, S. E., & Sochacka, N. W. (2017). A model of empathy in engineering as a core skill, practice orientation, and professional way of being. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 123–148.Google Scholar
Walther, J., & Sochacka, N. W. (2014). Qualifying Qualitative Research Quality (The Q3 Project): An interactive discourse around research quality in interpretive approaches to engineering education research. In Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–4). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 626–659.Google Scholar
Wankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In Huber, M. T. & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.), Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (pp. 217–237). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.Google Scholar
Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2010). Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 429–443.Google Scholar
Wilson-Lopez, A., Mejia, J. A., Hasbún, I. M., & Kasun, G. S. (2016). Latina/o adolescents’ funds of knowledge related to engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 278–311.Google Scholar
Zhu, Q., Zoltowski, C. B., Feister, M. K., Buzzanell, P. M., Oakes, W. C., & Mead, A. D. (2014). The development of an instrument for assessing individual ethical decisionmaking in project-based design teams: Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. In ASEE Annual Conference (pp. 24.1197.3–24.1197.12). Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Foundations
  • Edited by Sally A. Fincher, University of Kent, Canterbury, Anthony V. Robins, University of Otago, New Zealand
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research
  • Online publication: 15 February 2019
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Foundations
  • Edited by Sally A. Fincher, University of Kent, Canterbury, Anthony V. Robins, University of Otago, New Zealand
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research
  • Online publication: 15 February 2019
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Foundations
  • Edited by Sally A. Fincher, University of Kent, Canterbury, Anthony V. Robins, University of Otago, New Zealand
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research
  • Online publication: 15 February 2019
Available formats
×