Topics

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

Alaoutinen, S., & Smolander, K. (2010). Student self-assessment in a programming course using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘10) (pp. 155–159). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Alexandron, G., Armoni, M., Gordon, M., & Harel, D. (2014). Scenario-based programming: Reducing the cognitive load, fostering abstract thinking. In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 311–320). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Allan, V. H., & Kolesar, M. V. (1997). Teaching computer science: A problem solving approach that works. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 25(1–2), 2–10.Google Scholar

Altadmri, A., & Brown, N. C. (2015). 37 million compilations: Investigating novice programming mistakes in large-scale student data. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 522–527). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning and Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar

Assessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barker, R. J., & Unger, E. A. (1983). A predictor for success in an introductory programming class based upon abstract reasoning development. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(1), 154–158.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bateman, C. R. (1973). Predicting performance in a basic computer course. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences (pp. 130–133). Atlanta, GO: AIDS Press.Google Scholar

Bau, D., Gray, J., Kelleher, C., Sheldon, J., & Turbak, F. (2017). Learnable programming: Blocks and beyond. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 72–80.Google Scholar

Bauer, R., Mehrens, W. A., & Vinsonhaler, J. F. (1968). Predicting performance in a computer programming course. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 1159–1164.Google Scholar

Beaubouef, T. B., & Mason, J. (2005). Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: Some thoughts and observations. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2), 103–106.Google Scholar

Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Failure rates in introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2), 32–36.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2005). An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘05) (pp. 155–163). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2006). Abstraction ability as an indicator of success for learning object-oriented programming? SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(2), 39–43.Google Scholar

Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2006). Predicting introductory programming performance: A multi-institutional multivariate study. Computer Science Education, 16(4), 303–323.Google Scholar

Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Petrick Smith, C., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564–599.Google Scholar

Berry, M., & Kölling, M. (2014). The state of play: A notional machine for learning programming. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 21–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bhuiyan, S., Greer, J. E., & McCalla, G. I. (1992). Learning recursion through the use of a mental model-based programming environment. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 50–57). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.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

Bornat, R. (2014). Camels and humps: A retraction. Retrieved from: http://eis.sla.mdx.ac.uk/staffpages/r_bornat/papers/camel_hump_retraction.pdf Google Scholar

Bornat, R., Dehnadi, S., & Simon, (2008). Mental models, consistency and programming aptitude. In Proceedings of the Tenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2008) (pp. 53–62). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Ratcliffe, M., Sanders, K., & Zander, C. (2007). Threshold concepts in computer science: Do they exist and are they useful? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 504–508.Google Scholar

Bower, M. (2008). A taxonomy of task types in computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 281–285.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531–549.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brooks, F. P. (1975). The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Brooks, R. E. (1977). Towards a theory of the cognitive processes in computer programming. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 9, 737–751.Google Scholar

Brooks, R. E. (1983). Towards a theory of the comprehension of computer programs. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 18, 543–554.Google Scholar

Brooks, R. E. (1990). Categories of programming knowledge and their application. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 33(3), 241–246.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bruce, K. B. (2004). Controversy on how to teach CS 1: A discussion on the SIGCSE-members mailing list. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 29–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Buck, D., & Stucki, D. J. (2000). Design early considered harmful: Graduated exposure to complexity and structure based on levels of cognitive development. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 75–79.CrossRef Google Scholar

Burkhardt, J. M., Détienne, F., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2002). Object-oriented program comprehension: Effect of expertise, task and phase. Empirical Software Engineering, 7(2), 115–156.Google Scholar

Burkhardt, J. M., Détienne, F., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1997). Mental representations constructed by experts and novices in object-oriented program comprehension. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction (INTERACT ‘97) (pp. 339–346). London, UK: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

Busjahn, T., & Schulte, C. (2013). The use of code reading in teaching programming. In Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 3–11). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cañas, J. J., Bajo, M. T., & Gonzalvo, P. (1994). Mental models and computer programming. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 40(5), 795–811.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., Hundhausen, C. D., & Adesope, O. (2017). Blending measures of programming and social behavior into predictive models of student achievement in early computing courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(3), 12.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: ACM.Google Scholar

Caspersen, M. E., Larsen, K. D., & Bennedsen, J. (2007). Mental models and programming aptitude. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(3), 206–210.Google Scholar

Castro, F. E. V., & Fisler, K. (2017). Designing a multi-faceted SOLO taxonomy to track program design skills through an entire course. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘17) (pp. 10–19). New York: ACM.CrossRef Google Scholar

Clancy, M. J., & Linn, M. C. (1999). Patterns and pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 31(1), 37–42.Google Scholar

Clear, T., Whalley, J., Lister, R. F., Carbone, A., Hu, M., Sheard, J., Simon, B., & Thompson, E. (2008). Reliably classifying novice programmer exam responses using the SOLO taxonomy. In 21st Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ 2008) (pp. 23–30). Auckland, New Zealand: National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications.Google Scholar

Corney, M., Teague, D., & Thomas, R. N. (2010). Engaging students in programming. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education Volume 103 (pp. 63–72). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society,Google Scholar

Corney, M., Teague, D., Ahadi, A., & Lister, R. (2012). Some empirical results for neo-Piagetian reasoning in novice programmers and the relationship to code explanation questions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Volume 123 (pp. 77–86). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Corritore, C. L., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1991). What do novices learn during program comprehension? International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 3, 199–222.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

Cronan, T. P., Embry, P. R., & White, S. D. (1989). Identifying factors that influence performance of non-computing majors in the business computer information systems course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21 (4), 431–441.CrossRef Google Scholar

CSTA (2017). About the CSTA K–12 Computer Science Standards. Retrieved from www.csteachers.org/page/standards Google Scholar

Curtis, B. (1984). Fifteen years of psychology in software engineering: Individual differences and cognitive science. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 97–106). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Dauw, D. (1967). Vocational interests of highly creative computer personnel. Personnel Journal, 46(10), 653–659.Google Scholar

Davies, S. P. (1993). Models and theories of programming strategy. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 39, 237–267.Google Scholar

Davies, S. P. (2008). The effects of emphasizing computational thinking in an introductory programming course. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE 2008) (p. T2C-3). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Dehnadi, S. (2006). Abstract for Dehnadi & Bornat (2006). Retrieved from www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed Google Scholar

Dehnadi, S., & Bornat, R. (2006). The camel has two humps (working title). Retrieved from www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf Google Scholar

Dijkstra, E. W. (1989). On the cruelty of really teaching computer science. Communications of the ACM, 32(12), 1398–1404.Google Scholar

du Boulay, B., O’Shea, T., & Monk, J. (1989). The black box inside the glass box: Presenting computing concepts to novices. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 431–446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 57–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

du Boulay, B. (1989). Some difficulties of learning to program. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 283–299). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ebrahimi, A. (1994). Novice programmer errors: Language constructs and plan composition. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 41(4), 457–480.Google Scholar

Eckerdal, A. (2009). Novice Programming Students’ Learning of Concepts and Practice (doctoral dissertation). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Eckerdal, A., Thuné, M., & Berglund, A. (2005). What does it take to learn “programming thinking”? In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 135–142). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Elarde, J. (2016). Toward improving introductory programming student course success rates: experiences with a modified cohort model to student success sessions. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 32(2), 113–119.Google Scholar

Ensmenger, N. L. (2010). The Computer Boys Take Over: Computers, Programmers, and the Politics of Technical Expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Evans, G. E., & Simkin, M. G. (1989). What best predicts computer proficiency? Communications of the ACM, 32(11), 1322–1327.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. J. (2013). Neo-Piagetian forms of reasoning in software development process construction. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE) (pp. 31–38). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Feldman, D. H. (2004). Piaget’s stages: The unfinished symphony of cognitive development. New Ideas in Psychology, 22, 175–231.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

Fincher, S. (1999). What are we doing when we teach programming? In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’99) Volume 1 (pp. 12A4-1–12A4-5). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Findler, R. B., Clements, J., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Steckler, P., & Felleisen, M. (2002). DrScheme: A programming environment for Scheme. Journal of Functional Programming, 12(2), 159–182.Google Scholar

Fisler, K. (2014). The recurring Rainfall Problem. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 35–42). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Freeman, E., Robson, E., Bates, B., & Sierra, K. (2004). Head First Design Patterns: A Brain-Friendly Guide. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar

Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., Hernán-Losada, I., Jackova, , Lahtinen, J., Lewis, E., Thompson, T. L., Riedesel, D. M., , C., & Thompson, E. (2007). Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 152–170.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Garcia, R. A. (1987). Identifying the Academic Factors that Predict the Success of Entering Freshmen in a Beginning Computer Science Course (doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University.Google Scholar

Garner, S. (2002). Reducing the cognitive load on novice programmers. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 578–583). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar

Garner, S., Haden, P., & Robins, A. (2005). My program is correct but it doesn’t run: A preliminary investigation of novice programmers’ problems. In Proceedings of the Seventh Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2005) CRPIT 42 (pp. 173–180). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.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., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.) (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gibbs, W. W. (1994). Software’s chronic crisis. Scientific American, 271(3), 86–95.Google Scholar

Ginat, D., & Menashe, E. (2015). SOLO taxonomy for assessing novices’ algorithmic design. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 452–457). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Gluga, R., Kay, J., Lister, R., Kleitman, S., & Lever, T. (2012). Coming to terms with Bloom: an online tutorial for teachers of programming fundamentals. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Volume 123 (pp. 147–156). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society,Google Scholar

Gray, W. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1987). Change-episodes in coding: When and how do programmers change their code? In Olson, G. M., Sheppard, S., & Soloway, E. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop (pp. 185–197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.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

Green, T. R. G. (1990). Programming languages as information structures. In Hoc, J. M., Green, T. R. G., Samurçay, R., & Gillmore, D. J. (Eds.), Psychology of Programming (pp. 117–137). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2007) What makes programming so hard? Retrieved from http://home.cc.gatech.edu/csl/uploads/6/Guzdial-blog-pieces-on-what-is-CSEd.pdf Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2010). Why is it so hard to learn to program? In Oram, A. & Wilson, G. (Eds.), Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It (pp. 111–124). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M., & Soloway, E. (2002). Teaching the Nintendo generation to program. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 17–21.Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, 2 (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hill, G. J. (2016). Review of a problems-first approach to first year undergraduate programming. In Kassel, S. & Wu, B. (Eds.), Software Engineering Education Going Agile (pp. 73–80). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Hoc, J. M., & Nguyen-Xuan, A. (1990). Language semantics, mental models and analogy. In Hoc, J. M., Green, T. R. G., Samurçay, R., & Gillmore, D. J. (Eds.), Psychology of Programming (pp. 139–156). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hoda, R., & Andreae, P. (2014). It’s not them, it’s us! Why computer science fails to impress many first years. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Volume 148 (pp. 159–162). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Höök, L. J., & Eckerdal, A. (2015). On the bimodality in an introductory programming course: An analysis of student performance factors. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE 2015) (pp. 79–86). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Howles, T. (2009). A study of attrition and the use of student learning communities in the computer science introductory programming sequence. Computer Science Education, 19(1), 1–13.Google Scholar

Hudak, M. A., & Anderson, D. E. (1990). Formal operations and learning style predict success in statistics and computer science courses. Teaching of Psychology, 17(4), 231–234.Google Scholar

Hundley, J. (2008). A review of using design patterns in CS1. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM SE’08) (pp. 30–33). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Izu, C., Weerasinghe, A., & Pope, C. (2016). A study of code design skills in novice programmers using the SOLO taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 251–259). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jadud, M. C. (2006). Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 73–84). New York: ACM.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jimoyiannis, A. (2013). Using SOLO taxonomy to explore students’ mental models of the programming variable and the assignment statement. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 4(2), 53–74.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

Johnson, C. G., & Fuller, U. (2006). Is Bloom’s taxonomy appropriate for computer science? In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli Calling (pp. 120–123). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kay, J., Barg, M., Fekete, A., Greening, T., Hollands, O., Kingston, J., & Crawford, K. (2000). Problem-based learning for foundation computer science courses. Computer Science Education, 10, 109–128.Google Scholar

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137.Google Scholar

Kim, J., & Lerch, F. J. (1997). Why is programming (sometimes) so difficult? Programming as scientific discovery in multiple problem spaces. Information Systems Research, 8(1), 25–50.Google Scholar

Kinnunen, P., & Malmi, L. (2006). Why students drop out CS1 course? In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 97–108). New York: ACM.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kölling, M. (2009). Quality-oriented teaching of programming. Retrieved from: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/proged/2009/09/04/quality-oriented-teaching-of-programming Google Scholar

Kölling, M. (2010). The Greenfoot programming environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 14.Google Scholar

Kölling, M., Quig, , Patterson, B., , A., & Rosenberg, J. (2003). The BlueJ system and its pedagogy. Computer Science Education, 13(4), 249–268.Google Scholar

Koulouri, T., Lauria, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2014). Teaching introductory programming: A quantitative evaluation of different approaches. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 26.Google Scholar

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.Google Scholar

Kunkle, W. M., & Allen, R. B. (2016). The impact of different teaching approaches and languages on student learning of introductory programming concepts. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 16(1), 3.Google Scholar

Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1989). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 83–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kurland, D. M., & Pea, R. D. (1985). Children’s mental models of recursive LOGO programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 235–243.Google Scholar

Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K. & Järvinen, H. M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 14–18.Google Scholar

Lau, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1202–1213.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawson, C. (1962). A survey of computer facility management. Datamation, 8(7), 29–32.Google Scholar

Lewis, T. L., Rosson, M. B., & Pérez-Quiñones, M. A. (2004). What do the experts say?: Teaching introductory design from an expert’s perspective. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 296–300.CrossRef Google Scholar

Linn, M. C., & Dalbey, J. (1989). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 57–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Linn, M. C., & Clancy, M. J. (1992). The case for case studies of programming problems. Communications of the ACM, 35(3), 121–132.Google Scholar

Lister, R. (2000). On blooming first year programming, and its blooming assessment. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACSE ‘00) (pp. 158–162). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Lister, R. (2010). Geek genes and bimodal grades. ACM Inroads, 1(3), 16–17.Google Scholar

Lister, R. (2011). Concrete and other neo-Piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Volume 114 (pp. 9–18). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003a). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and Bloom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 143–147.Google Scholar

Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003b). First year programming: Let all the flowers bloom. In Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2003) Volume 20 (pp. 221–230). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., Fone, W., Hamer, J., Lindholm, M., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Seppälä, O., & Simon, B. (2004). A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 119–150.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Clear, T., Bouvier, D. J., Carter, P., Eckerdal, A., Jacková, J., Lopez, , McCartney, M., Robbins, R., Seppälä, P., O., & Thompson, E. (2010). Naturally occurring data as research instrument: Analyzing examination responses to study the novice programmer. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(4), 156–173.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J. L., & Prasad, C. (2006). Not seeing the forest for the trees: Novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 118–122.Google Scholar

Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008). Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 101–112). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Luxton-Reilly, A. (2016). Learning to program is easy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 284–289). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ma, L., Ferguson, J., Roper, M., & Wood, M. (2007). Investigating the viability of mental models held by novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 499–503.Google Scholar

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 16.Google Scholar

Mannila, L., Peltomäki, M., & Salakoski, T. (2006). What about a simple language? Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program. Computer Science Education, 16(3), 211–227.Google Scholar

Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Schaeffer, L. M. (2018). Varying effects of subgoal labeled expository text in programming, chemistry, and statistics. Instructional Science, 46(5), 707–722.Google Scholar

Mason, R., & Cooper, G. (2013). Distractions in programming environments. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Volume 136 (pp. 23–30). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1989). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 129–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mayer, D. B., & Stalnaker, A. W. (1968). Selection and evaluation of computer personnel – The research history of SIG/CPR. In The Proceedings of the 1968 ACM National Conference (23rd ACM National Conference) (pp. 657–670). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1985). Learning in complex domains: A cognitive analysis of computer programming. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 19, 89–130.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Teaching for transfer of problem-solving skills to computer programming. In De Corte, E., Linn, M. C., Mandl, H., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.), Computer-Based Learning Environments and Problem Solving. NATO ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences), Vol. 84 (pp. 193–206). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

McCall, D., & Kölling, M. (2014). Meaningful categorisation of novice programmer errors. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

McCane, B., Ott, C., Meek, N., & Robins, A. (2017). Mastery learning in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 1–10). 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. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33, 125–180.Google Scholar

McNamara, W. J. (1967). The selection of computer personnel: Past, present, future. In Proceedings of the Fifth SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (SIGCPR ‘67) (pp. 52–56). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Mead, J., Gray, S., Hamer, J., James, R., Sorva, J., Clair, C. S., & Thomas, L. (2006). A cognitive approach to identifying measurable milestones for programming skill acquisition. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(4), 182–194.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2010). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘10) (pp. 69–76). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mendes, A. J., Paquete, L., Cardoso, A., & Gomes, A. (2012). Increasing student commitment in introductory programming learning. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–6). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (Eds.) (2006). Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines (ETL Project: Occasional Report No. 4). Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2012). Research Design Explained, 8th edn. Wadsworth, CA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Morra, S., Gobbo, C., Marini, Z., & Sheese, R. (2007). Cognitive Development: Neo-Piagetian Perspectives. New York: Psychology Press.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 (pp. 131–138). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Newman, R., Gatward, R., & Poppleton, M. (1970). Paradigms for teaching computer programming in higher education. WIT Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies, 7, 299–305.Google Scholar

Newstead, P. R. (1975). Grade and ability predictions in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 7, 87–91.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, R. (2009). Threshold concepts and their relevance to economics. In 14th Annual Australasian Teaching Economics Conference (ATEC 2009) (pp. 190–200). Brisbane, Australia: School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar

Oliver, D., Dobele, T., Greber, M., & Roberts, T. (2004). This course has a Bloom rating of 3.9. In Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE ‘04) (pp. 227–231). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Ormerod, T. (1990). Human cognition and programming. In Hoc, J. M., Green, T. R. G., Samurçay, R., & Gillmore, D. J. (Eds.), Psychology of Programming (pp. 63–82). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.Google Scholar

Palumbo, D. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65–89.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 (ACE ‘06) Volume 52 (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Patitsas, E., Berlin, J., Craig, M., & Easterbrook, S. (2016). Evidence that computer science grades are not bimodal. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 113–121). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D. (1986). Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 25–36.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

Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J., Devlin, M., & Paterson, J. (2007). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 204–223.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. N., & Martin, F (1986). Fragile knowledge and neglected strategies in novice programmers. In Soloway, E. & Iyengar, S. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers, First Workshop (pp. 213–229). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. N., Hancock, C., Hobbs, R., Martin, F., & Simmons, R. (1989). Conditions of learning in novice programmers. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 261–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.) (2010). Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Porter, L., & Zingaro, D. (2014). Importance of early performance in CS1: Two conflicting assessment stories. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 295–300). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Zingaro, D., & Lister, R. (2014). Predicting student success using fine grain clicker data. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Price, T. W., & Barnes, T. (2015). Comparing textual and block interfaces in a novice programming environment. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 91–99). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Rist, R. S. (1995). Program structure and design. Cognitive Science, 19, 507–562.Google Scholar

Rist, R. S. (1986). Plans in programming: Definition, demonstration, and development. In Soloway, E. & Iyengar, S. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers (pp. 28–47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar

Rist, R. S. (1989). Schema creation in programming. Cognitive Science, 13, 389–414.Google Scholar

Rist, R. S. (2004). Learning to program: Schema creation, application, and evaluation. In Fincher, S. & Petre, M. (Eds.), Computer Science Education Research (pp. 175–195). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Robins, A. V. (2010). Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education, 20, 37–71.Google Scholar

Robins, A. V. (2018). Outcomes in introductory programming. Computer Science Technical Report, OUCS-2018-02, The University of Otago. Retrieved from www.otago.ac.nz/computer-science/otago685184.pdf Google Scholar

Robins, A. V., Haden, P., & Garner, S. (2006). Problem distributions in a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the Eighth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2006), CRPIT, 52 (pp. 165–173). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Robins, A. V., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.Google Scholar

Rogalski, J., & Samurçay, R. (1990). Acquisition of programming knowledge and skills. In Hoc, J. M., Green, T. R. G., Samurçay, R., & Gillmore, D. J. (Eds.), Psychology of Programming (pp. 157–174). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Rountree, J., Robins, A., & Rountree, N. (2013). Elaborating on threshold concepts, Computer Science Education, 23(3), 265–289.Google Scholar

Rountree, N., Rountree, J., Robins, A., & Hannah, R. (2004). Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 101–104.Google Scholar

Rowbottom, D. P. (2007). Demystifying threshold concepts. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41, 263–270.Google Scholar

Sackman, H., Erickson, W. J., & Grant, E. E. (1968). Exploratory experimental studies comparing online and offline programming performance. Communications of the ACM, 11(1), 3–11.Google Scholar

Sarawagi, N. (2014). A flipped CS0 classroom: Applying Bloom’s taxonomy to algorithmic thinking. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(6), 21–28.Google Scholar

Schneider, G. M. (1978). The introductory programming course in computer science: Ten principles. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 10(1), 107–114.Google Scholar

Schulte, C., & Bennedsen, J. (2006). What do teachers teach in introductory programming? In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 17–28). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Schwill, A. (1997). Computer science education based on fundamental ideas. In Passey, D. & Samways, B. (Eds.), Information Technology. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (pp. 285–291). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar

Schwill, A. (1994). Fundamental ideas of computer science. EATCS-Bulletin, 53, 274–295.Google Scholar

Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s Taxonomy applied to testing in computer science classes. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 19(1), 267–274.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., & Hagan, D. (1998). Our failing students: A study of a repeat group. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(3), 223–227.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Carbone, A., Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., & Whalley, J. L. (2008). Going SOLO to assess novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 209–213.Google Scholar

Sheil, B. A. (1981). The psychological study of programming. Computing Surveys, 13, 101–120.Google Scholar

Shih, Y. F., & Alessi, S. M. (1993). Mental models and transfer of learning in computer programming. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 154–175.Google Scholar

Shinners-Kennedy, D., & Fincher, S. A. (2013). Identifying threshold concepts: From dead end to a new direction. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 9–18). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, , Fincher, S., Robins, A., Baker, B., Box, I., Cutts, Q., de Raadt, M., Haden, P., Hamer, J., Hamilton, M., Lister, R., Petre, M., Sutton, K., Tolhurst, D., & Tutty, J. (2006). Predictors of success in a first programming course. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education Volume 52 (pp. 189–196). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society,Google Scholar

Soloway, E., Ehrlich, K., Bonar, J., & Greenspan, J. (1983). What do novices know about programming? In Shneiderman, B. & Badre, A. (Eds.), Directions in Human–Computer Interactions (pp. 27–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850–858.Google Scholar

Soloway, E., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Empirical studies of programming knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 5, 595–609.Google Scholar

Soloway, E., & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.) (1989). Studying the Novice Programmer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2010). Reflections on threshold concepts in computer programming and beyond. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli Calling ‘10 (pp. 21–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2012). Visual Program Simulation in Introductory Programming Education (doctoral dissertation 61/2012). Aalto University.Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2013). Notional machines and introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(2), 8.Google Scholar

Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1989). Novice mistakes: Are the folk wisdoms correct? In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 401–416). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Spohrer, J. C., Soloway, E., & Pope, E. (1989). A goal/plan analysis of buggy Pascal programs. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 355–399). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Stachel, J., Marghitu, D., Brahim, T. B., Sims, R., Reynolds, L., & Czelusniak, V. (2013). Managing cognitive load in introductory programming courses: A cognitive aware scaffolding tool. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 17(1), 37–54.Google Scholar

Starr, C. W., Manaris, B., & Stalvey, R. H. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy revisited: Specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 261–265.Google Scholar

Storey, M. A., Fracchia, F. D., & Müller, H. A. (1999). Cognitive design elements to support the construction of a mental model during software exploration. Journal of Systems and Software, 44(3), 171–185.Google Scholar

Subramanian, A., & Joshi, K. (1996). Computer aptitude tests as predictors of novice computer programmer performance. Journal of Information Technology Management, 7, 31–41.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.Google Scholar

Teague, D. (2015) Neo-Piagetian Theory and the Novice Programmer (doctoral thesis). Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar

Teague, M. M. (2011). Pedagogy of Introductory Computer Programming: A People-First Approach (master’s thesis). Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar

Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L., Hu, M., & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy for CS assessment. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education (ACE ‘08) (pp. 155–161). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Utting, I., Tew, A. E., McCracken, M., Thomas, L., Bouvier, D., Frye, R., Paterson, J., Caspersen, M., Kolikant, Y., Sorva, J., & Wilusz, T. (2013). A fresh look at novice programmers’ performance and their teachers’ expectations. In Proceedings of the ITICSE Working Group Reports Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 15–32). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 265–285.Google Scholar

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & de Croock, M. B. M. (1992). Strategies for computer–based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 365–394.Google Scholar

van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1990). Automation and schema acquisition in learning elementary computer programming: Implications for the design of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 6(3), 273–289.Google Scholar

Venables, A., Tan, G., & Lister, R. (2009). A closer look at tracing, explaining and code writing skills in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 117–128). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ventura, P. (2005). Identifying predictors of success for an objects-first CS1. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 223–243.Google Scholar

Vihavainen, A., Airaksinen, J., & Watson, C. (2014). A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Watson, C., & Li, F. W. (2014). Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 39–44). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Webster, B. F. (1996). The real software crisis: The shortage of top-notch programmers threatens to become the limiting factor in software development. Byte Magazine, 21, 218.Google Scholar

Weinberg, G. M. (1971). The Psychology of Computer Programming. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). To block or not to block, that is the question: Students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 199–208). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., Killen, H., & Franke, B. (2018). Blocks or Text? How Programming Language Modality Makes a Difference in Assessing Underrepresented Populations. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS2018) (pp. 328–335). London, UK: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Werth, L. H. (1986). Predicting student performance in a beginning computer science class. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 18(1), 138–143.Google Scholar

Whalley, J. L., Lister, R., Thompson, E., Clear, T., Robbins, P., Ajith Kumar, P. K., & Prasad, C. (2006). An Austalasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the Bloom and SOLO taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Conference on Computing Education (ACE ‘06) (pp. 243–252). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

White, G., & Sivitanides, M. (2002). A theory of the relationships between cognitive requirements of computer programming languages and programmers’ cognitive characteristics. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(1), 59–66.Google Scholar

Wick, M. R. (2005). Teaching design patterns in CS1: A closed laboratory sequence based on the game of life. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 487–491.Google Scholar

Widowski, D., & Eyferth, K. (1986). Comprehending and recalling computer programs of different structural and semantic complexity by experts and novices. In Willumeit, H. P. (Ed.), Human Decision Making and Manual Control (pp. 267–275). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North–Holland, Elsevier.Google Scholar

Wiedenbeck, S., Fix, V., & Scholtz, J. (1993). Characteristics of the mental representations of novice and expert programmers: An empirical study. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 25, 697–709.Google Scholar

Wiedenbeck, S., & Ramalingam, V. (1999). Novice comprehension of small programs written in the procedural and object-oriented styles. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 51(1), 71–87.Google Scholar

Wiedenbeck, S., Ramalingam, V., Sarasamma, S., & Corritore, C. L. (1999). A comparison of the comprehension of object-oriented and procedural programs by novice programmers. Interacting with Computers, 11(3), 255–282.Google Scholar

Wileman, S. A., Konvalina, J., & Stephens, L. J. (1981). Factors influencing success in beginning computer science courses. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 223–226.Google Scholar

Wilson, B. C., & Shrock, S. (2001). Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 184–188.Google Scholar

Winslow, L. E. (1996) Programming pedagogy – A psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17–22.Google Scholar

Woszczynski, A., Haddad, H., & Zgambo, A. (2005). Towards a model of student success in programming courses. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Southeast Regional Conference – Volume 1 (ACM-SE 43) (pp. 301–302). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Yadin, A. (2011). Reducing the dropout rate in an introductory programming course. ACM Inroads, 2(4), 71–76.Google Scholar

Yadin, A. (2013). Using unique assignments for reducing the bimodal grade distribution. ACM Inroads, 4(1), 38–42.Google Scholar

Abelson, H., & Sussman, G. J. (1985). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Altadmri, A., & Brown, N. C. (2015). 37 million compilations: Investigating novice programming mistakes in large-scale student data. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 522–527). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). From Scratch to “real” programming. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 25:1–25:15.Google Scholar

Bailie, F., Courtney, M., Murray, K., Schiaffino, R., & Tuohy, S. (2003). Objects first – Does it work? Journal of Computing Sciences in Small Colleges, 19(2), 303–305.Google Scholar

Bainomugisha, E., Carreton, A. L., van Cutsem, T., Mostinckx, S., & de Meuter, W. (2013). A survey on reactive programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 45(4), 52:1–52:34.Google Scholar

Baker, C. M., Milne, L. R., & Ladner, R. E. (2015). StructJumper: A Tool to Help Blind Programmers Navigate and Understand the Structure of Code. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3043–3052). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Barik, T., Witschey, J., Johnson, B., & Murphy-Hill, E. (2014). Compiler error notifications revisited: An interaction-first approach for helping developers more effectively comprehend and resolve error notifications. In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE Companion) (pp. 536–539). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Barik, T., Smith, J., Lubick, K., Holmes, E., Feng, J., Murphy-Hill, E., & Parnin, C. (2017). Do developers read compiler error messages? In International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (pp. 575–585). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Bau, D., Bau, D. A., Dawson, M., & Pickens, C. S. (2015). Pencil code: Block code for a text world. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 445–448). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Begel, A., & Graham, S. L. (2005). Spoken programs. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VLHCC) (pp. 99–106). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Bennedsen, J., & Schulte, C. (2007). What does “objects-first” mean?: An international study of teachers’ perceptions of objects-first. In Proceedings of the Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education (pp. 21–29). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Bootstrap (2017). The Bootstrap Blog–Accessibility (Part 2): Images. Retrieved from www.bootstrapworld.org/blog/accessibility/Describing-Images-Screenreaders.shtml Google Scholar

Bootstrap (2018). Data Science Curriculum (Spring 2018 edition). Retrieved from www.bootstrapworld.org/materials/spring2018/courses/data-science/english/Google Scholar

Brilliant, S. S., & Wiseman, T. R. (1996). The first programming paradigm and language dilemma. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 338–342). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bruce, K. B. (2005). Controversy on how to teach CS 1: A discussion on the SIGCSE-members mailing list. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2), 111–117.Google Scholar

Cartwright, M. (1998). An empirical view of inheritance. Information and Software Technology, 40(14), 795–799.Google Scholar

Code.org (n.d.). Computer Science in Algebra. Retrieved from https://code.org/curriculum/algebra Google Scholar

Cooper, G. H., Guha, A., Krishnamurthi, S., McCarthy, J., & Findler, R. B. (2013). Teaching garbage collection without implementing compilers or interpreters. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 385–390). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cooper, K. D., Hall, M. W., Hood, R. T., Kennedy, K., McKinley, K. S., Mellor-Crummey, J. M., Torczon, L., & Warren, S. K. (1993). The ParaScope parallel programming environment. Proceedings of the IEEE, 81(2), 244–263.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003). Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 191–195). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dann, W., Cosgrove, D., Slater, D. Culyba, D., & Cooper, S. (2012). Mediated transfer: Alice 3 to Java. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 141–146). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

de Raadt, M., Watson, R., & Toleman, M. (2002). Language trends in introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of Informing Science (pp. 329–337). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Institute.Google Scholar

de Raadt, M., Watson, R., & Toleman, M. (2009). Teaching and assessing programming strategies explicitly. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE) (pp. 45–54). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Dean, J., & Ghemawat, S. (2008). MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. In Communications of the ACM, 51(1), 107–113.Google Scholar

Decker, R., & Hirshfield, S. (1994). The top 10 reasons why object-oriented programming can’t be taught in CS 1. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 51–55). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Carpenter, D. (2014). Enhancing syntax error messages appears ineffectual. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) (pp. 273–278). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B. (2012). Glitch game testers: the design and study of a learning environment for computational production with young African American males (PhD thesis). Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 859–868.Google Scholar

Dix, A. J. (2013). Formal methods. In The Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation, Article 29.Google Scholar

du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 57–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

du Boulay, B., O’Shea, T., & Monk, J. (1999). The black box inside the glass box. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 51(2), 265–277.Google Scholar

Ebrahimi, A. (1994). Novice programmer errors: language constructs and plan composition. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 41, 457–480.Google Scholar

Eckerdal, A., & Thune, M. (2005). Novice Java programmers conceptions of object and class, and variation theory. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 89–93.Google Scholar

Ehlert, A., & Schulte, C. (2009). Empirical comparison of objects-first and objects-later. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 15–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., & Hieb, R. (1992). The revised report on the syntactic theories of sequential control and state. Theoretical Computer Science, 102, 235–271.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2001). How to Design Programs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M. & Krishnamurthi, S. (2009). A functional I/O system or, fun for freshman kids. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP ‘09) (pp. 47–58). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2014). How to Design Programs, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Findler, R. B., Clements, J., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Steckler, P., & Felleisen, M. (2002). DrScheme: A programming environment for Scheme. Journal of Functional Programming, 12(2), 159–182.Google Scholar

Fisler, K. (2014). The recurring Rainfall Problem. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 35–42). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Siegmund, J. (2016). Modernizing plan-composition studies. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 211–216). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Tunnell Wilson, P. (2017). Assessing and teaching scope, mutation, and aliasing in upper-level undergraduates. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 213–218). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fitter, M. (1979). Towards more natural interactive systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11(3), 339–350.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, S., Lewandowski, G., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., Simon, B., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2008). Debugging: finding, fixing and flailing, a multi-institutional study of novice debuggers. Computer Science Education, 18(2), 93–116.Google Scholar

Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., & Felleisen, M. (1998). Classes and mixins. In ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (pp. 171–183). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fleury, A. E. (1991). Parameter passing: The rules the students construct. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 283–286). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderotha, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415.Google Scholar

Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G. L., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2010). Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing subjects. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(2), 5:1–5:29.Google Scholar

Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, Jr., G. L., Bracha, G., & Buckley, A. (2015). The Java Language Specification, Java SE 8 Edition. Redwood Shores, CA: Oracle America, Inc.Google Scholar

Green, C. C. (1969). Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 219–239). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar

Greening, T. (1999). Emerging constructivist forces in computer science education: Shaping a new future. In Greening, T. (Ed.), Computer Science Education in the 21st Century (pp. 47–80). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and Boolean logic. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 267–272). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guha, A., Saftoiu, C., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2010). The essence of JavaScript. In European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP) (pp. 126–150). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Gulwani, S., Polozov, O., & Singh, R. (2017). Program synthesis. Foundations and Trends in Programming Languages, 4(1–2), 1–119.Google Scholar

Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 285–321.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.Google Scholar

Haarslev, V. (1995). Formal semantics of visual languages using spatial reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (pp. 156–163). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Harvey, B. (1993. Discussion forum comment on comp. lang. scheme. Retrieved from https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.scheme/zZRSDcZdV2M/MZJLiU6gE64J Google Scholar

Harvey, B., & Wright, M. (1999). Simply Scheme: Introducing Computer Science, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Holt, R. C., & Wortman, D. B. (1974). A sequence of structured subsets of PL/I. SIGCSE Bulletin, 6(1), 129–132.Google Scholar

Homer, M., & Noble, J. (2014). Combining tiled and textual views of code. In IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT) (pp. 1–10). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Hristova, M., Misra, A., Rutter, M., & Mercuri, R. (2003). Identifying and correcting Java programming errors for introductory computer science students. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hu, C. (2004). Rethinking of teaching objects-first. Education and Information Technologies, 9(3), 209–218.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar

Jackson, J., Cobb, M., & Carver, C. (2005). Identifying top Java errors for novice programmers. In Frontiers in Education (FIE ‘05) (pp. T4C:24-T4C:27). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar

Jadud, M. C. (2006). Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 73–84). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Johnson, L. F. (1995). C in the first course considered harmful. Communications of the ACM, 38(5), 99–101.Google Scholar

Kahn, K. M., & Saraswat, V. A. (1990). Complete Visualizations of Concurrent Programs and Their Executions. Tech. Rept. SSL-90-38 [P90-00099]. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar

Kay, A. C. (1993). The early history of Smalltalk. In ACM SIGPLAN Conference on History of Programming Languages (pp. 69–95). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83–137.Google Scholar

Kessel, C. J., & Wickens, C. D. (1982). The transfer of failure-detection skills between monitoring and controlling dynamic systems. Human Factors, 24(1), 49–60.Google Scholar

Ko, A. J., Myers, B. A., & Aung, H. (2004). Six learning barriers in end-user programming systems. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VLHCC) (pp. 199–206). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Kölling, M., Brown, , , N. C. C., & Altadmri, A. (2015). Frame-based editing: Easing the transition from blocks to text-based programming. In Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 29–38). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Krishnamurthi, S. (2006). Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation. Retrieved from www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/Google Scholar

Krishnamurthi, S. (2008). Teaching programming languages in a post-Linnaean age. In SIGPLAN Notices, 43(11), 81–83.Google Scholar

Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2011). Personifying programming tool feedback improves novice programmers’ learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 109–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lewis, C., Esper, S., Bhattacharyya, V., Fa-Kaji, N., Dominguez, N., & Schlesinger, A. (2014). Children’s perceptions of what counts as a programming language. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(4), 123–133.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M. (2010). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. Scratch. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 346–350). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Berglund, A., Clear, T., Bergin, J., Garvin-Doxas, K., Hanks, B., Hitchner, L., Luxton-Reilly, A., Sanders, K., Schulte, C., & Whalley, J. L. (2006). Research perspectives on the objects-early debate. In Working Group Reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 146–165). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ma, L. (2007). Investigating and Improving Novice Programmers Mental Models of Programming Concepts (PhD thesis). University of Strathclyde, Department of Computer & Information Sciences.Google Scholar

Mace, R. L., Hardie, G. J., & Place, J. P. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In Preiser, W. E., Vischer, J. C., & White, E. T. (Eds.), Design Intervention: Toward a More Humane Architecture (pp. 155–176). Reinhold, NY: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar

Malan, D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007). Scratch for budding computer scientists. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 223–227.Google Scholar

Marceau, G., Fisler, K., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2011). Measuring the effectiveness of error messages designed for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 499–504). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.Google Scholar

McCauley, R., Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., & Murphy, L. (2015). Recursion vs. iteration: An empirical study of comprehension revisited. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 350–355). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2011). Habits of programming in Scratch. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) (pp. 168–172). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Miller, L. A. (1974). Programming by non-programmers. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 6, 237–260.Google Scholar

Miller, L. A. (1975). Naive programmer problems with specification of transfer-of-control. In Proceedings of the National Computer Conference and Exposition (pp. 657–663). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Miller, L. A. (1981). Natural language programming: Styles, strategies, and contrasts. IBM Systems Journal, 20, 184–215.Google Scholar

Miller, M. S., Von Dincklage, D., Ercegovac, V., & Chin, B. (2017). Uncanny valleys in declarative language design. In LIPIcs-Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Vol. 71 (pp. 9:1–9:12). Wadern, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar

Mönig, J., Ohshima, , , Y., & Maloney, J. (2015). Blocks at your fingertips: Blurring the line between blocks and text in GP. In Proceedings of the Blocks and Beyond Workshop (pp. 51–53). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar

Muller, O., Ginat, D., & Haberman, B. (2007). Pattern-oriented instruction and its inuence on problem decomposition and solution construction. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) (pp. 151–155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Myers, B. A. (1991). Separating application code from toolkits: Eliminating the spaghetti of call-backs. In ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 211–220). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Naps, T. L., Rössling, G., Almstrum, , Dann, V., Fleischer, W., Hundhausen, R., Korhonen, C., Malmi, A., McNally, L., Rodger, M., S., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. A. (2003). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 131–152.Google Scholar

Nelson, G. L., Xie, B., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Comprehension first: Evaluating a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 2–11). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Nordström, M., & Börstler, J. (2011). Improving OO Example Programs. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(10), 1–5.Google Scholar

Pane, J. F. (2002). A Programming System for Children That Is Designed for Usability (PhD thesis). Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science Department.Google Scholar

Pane, J. F., Ratanamahatana, C., & Myers, B. A. (2001). Studying the language and structure in non-programmers’ solutions to programming problems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(2), 237–264.Google 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) (pp. 93–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D. (1986). Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 25–36.Google Scholar

Pettit, R. S., Homer, J., & Gee, R. (2017). Do enhanced compiler error messages help students?: Results inconclusive. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 465–470). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pirolli, P. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The role of learning from examples in the acquisition of recursive programming skills. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 39(2), 240–272.Google Scholar

Plotkin, G. D. (1975). Call-by-name, call-by-value, and the λ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 1(2), 125–159.Google Scholar

Plum, T. (1977). Fooling the user of a programming language. Software Practice and Experience, 7, 215–221.Google Scholar

Powers, K., Ecott, S., & Hirshfield, L. M. (2007). Through the looking glass: Teaching CS0 with Alice. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 213–217.Google Scholar

Price, T. W., Brown, N. C. C., Lipovac, D., Barnes, T., & Kölling, M. (2016). Evaluation of a frame-based programming editor. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 32–42). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Reges, S. (2006). Back to basics in CS1 and CS2. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 293–297). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 80–87.Google Scholar

Rist, R. S. (1991). Knowledge creation and retrieval in program design: A comparison of novice and intermediate student programmers. Human–Computer Interaction, 6(1), 1–46.Google Scholar

Rivers, K., & Koedinger, K. R. (2015). Data-driven hint generation in vast solution spaces: A self-improving Python programming tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Sajaniemi, J., & Kuittinen, M. (2008). From procedures to objects: A research agenda for the psychology of object-oriented programming education. Human Technology, 4(1), 75–91.Google Scholar

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework. Tech. Rept. 16-01. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Research on Learning and Technology.Google Scholar

Schanzer, E., Krishnamurthi, S., & Fisler, K. (2015). Blocks versus text: Ongoing lessons from Bootstrap. In Proceedings of the Blocks and Beyond Workshop (pp. 125–126). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar

Scholtz, J., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1990). Learning second and subsequent programming languages: A problem of transfer. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 51–72.Google Scholar

Schumacher, R. M., & Czerwinski, M. P. (1992). Mental models and the acquisition of expert knowledge. In Hoffman, R. R. (Ed.), The Psychology of Expertise: Cognitive Research and Empirical AI (pp. 61–79). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Schwill, A. (1994). Fundamental ideas of computer science. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 53, 274–274.Google Scholar

Seppälä, O., Ihantola, , Isohanni, P., Sorva, E., , J., & Vihavainen, A. (2015). Do we know how difficult the rainfall problem is? In Proceedings of the Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education (pp. 87–96). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shinners-Kennedy, D. (2008). The everydayness of threshold concepts: State as an example from computer science. In Land, R. & Meyer, J. H. F. (Eds.), Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines (pp. 119–128). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Simon, (2013). Soloway’s Rainfall Problem has become harder. In LATICE '13 Proceedings of the 2013 Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (pp. 130–135). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T., & Sorva, J. (2012). Exploring programming misconceptions: An analysis of student mistakes in visual program simulation exercises. In Proceedings of the Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education (pp. 19–28). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). The impact of ontology training on conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261–289.Google Scholar

Smaragdakis, Y., & Balatsouras, G. (2015). Pointer analysis. Foundations and Trends in Programming Languages, 2(1), 1–69.Google Scholar

Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850–858.Google Scholar

Soloway, E., Bonar, J., & Ehrlich, K. (1983). Cognitive strategies and looping constructs: An empirical study. Communications of the ACM, 26(11), 853–860.Google Scholar

Somers, J. (2017). The coming software apocalypse. The Atlantic, Sept. Retrieved from www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/saving-the-world-from-code/540393/Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2012). Visual Program Simulation in Introductory Programming Education (PhD thesis). Aalto University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2013). Notional machines and introductory programming education. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(2), 8:1–8:31.Google Scholar

Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1989). Simulating Student Programmers (pp. 543–549). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar

Stanton, J., Goldsmith, L., Adrion, W. R., Dunton, S., Hendrickson, K. A., Peterfreund, A., Youngpradit, P., Zarch, R., & Zinth, J. D. (2017). State of the States Landscape Report: State-Level Policies Supporting Equitable K12 Computer Science Education. Retrieved from www.edc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/State-States-Landscape-Report.pdf Google Scholar

Stefik, A., & Gellenbeck, E. (2009). Using spoken text to aid debugging: An empirical study. In IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (pp. 110–119). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Stefik, A., & Gellenbeck, E. (2011). Empirical studies on programming language stimuli. Software Quality Journal, 19(1), 65–99.Google Scholar

Stefik, A., & Siebert, S. (2013). An empirical investigation into programming language syntax. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(4), 19:1–19:40.Google Scholar

Stefik, A., Hundhausen, C., & Patterson, R. (2011). An empirical investigation into the design of auditory cues to enhance computer program comprehension. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 69(12), 820–838.Google Scholar

Stefik, A. M. (2008). On the Design of Program Execution Environments for Non-Sighted Computer Programmers (PhD thesis). Washington State University.Google Scholar

Sudol, L. A. (2011). Deepening Students Understanding of Algorithms: Effects of Problem Context and Feedback Regarding Algorithmic Abstraction (PhD thesis). Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

Tessler, J., Beth, B., & Lin, C. (2013). Using Cargo-bot to provide contextualized learning of recursion. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 161–168). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Tew, A. E., McCracken, W. M., & Guzdial, M. (2005). Impact of alternative introductory courses on programming concept understanding. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (pp. 25–35). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

The College Board (n.d.). AP Computer Science Principles: Course Overview. Retrieved from https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-computer-science-principles Google Scholar

Tichy, W. F., & Prechelt, L. (1998). A controlled experiment to assess the benefits of procedure argument type checking. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(4), 302–312.Google Scholar

Tirronen, V., Uusi-Mäakelä, S., & Isomöttönen, V. (2015). Understanding beginners’ mistakes with Haskell. Journal of Functional Programming, 25, e11.Google Scholar

Traver, V. J. (2010). On compiler error messages: What they say and what they mean. Advances in Human–Computer Interaction, 2010, 602570.Google Scholar

Tunnell Wilson, P., Pombrio, J., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2017). Can we crowdsource language design? In Proceedings of SPLASH Onward (Onward! ‘17) (17 pages). Vancouver, Canada: Onward.Google Scholar

Tunnell Wilson, P., Fisler, K., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2017). Student understanding of aliasing and procedure calls. In SPLASH Education Symposium (SPLASH-E ‘17) (6 Pages). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Tunnell Wilson, P., Krishnamurthi, S., & Fisler, K. (2018). Evaluating the tracing of recursion in the substitution notional machine. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (pp. 1023–1028). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Vasek, M. (2012). Representing Expressive Types in Blocks Programming Languages. Retrieved from https://repository.wellesley.edu/thesiscollection/24/Google Scholar

Vickers, P., & Alty, J. L. (2002). When bugs sing. Interacting with Computers, 14(6), 793–819.Google Scholar

Victor, B. (2012). Learnable Programming: Designing a Programming System for Understanding Programs. Retrieved from http://worrydream.com/#!/LearnableProgramming Google Scholar

Vilner, T., Zur, E., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2007). Fundamental concepts of CS1: Procedural vs. object oriented paradigm – A case study. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(3), 171–175.Google Scholar

Wand, M. (1986). Finding the source of type errors. In ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (pp. 38–43). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015a). To block or not to block, that is the question: Students perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 199–208). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015b). Using commutative assessments to compare conceptual understanding in blocks-based and text-based programs. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017a). Comparing blocks-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 3:1–3:25.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017b). Between a block and a typeface: Designing and evaluating hybrid programming environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 183–192). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Wiedenbeck, S., & Ramalingam, V. (1999). Novice comprehension of small programs written in the procedural and object-oriented styles. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 51(1), 71–87.Google Scholar

Wiedenbeck, S., Ramalingam, V., Sarasamma, S., & Corritore, C. L. (1999). A comparison of the comprehension of object-oriented and procedural programs by novice programmers. Interacting with Computers, 11(3), 255–282.Google Scholar

Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83–102.Google Scholar

Alam, L. (2004). Is plagiarism more prevalent in some forms of assessment than others. In Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 48–57). Tugun, Australia: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.Google Scholar

Amelung, M., Piotrowski, M., & Rösner, D. (2006). EduComponents: Experiences in e-assessment in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE ‘06) (pp. 88–92). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning and Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar

Assessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Astrachan, O., Walker, H., Stephenson, C., Diaz, L., & Cuny, J. (2009). Advanced placement computer science: the future of tracking the first year of instruction. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 397–398.Google Scholar

Attwood, R. (2008). Institutions limit access to anti-cheat software. Times Higher Education, June 26, 2008. Retrieved from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402540&c=2 Google Scholar

Austin, M., & Brown, L. (1999). Internet plagiarism: Developing strategies to curb student academic dishonesty. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(1), 21–33.Google Scholar

Baugh, J., Kovacs, P., & Davis, G. (2012). Does the computer programming student understand what constitutes plagiarism. Issues in Information Systems, 13(2), 138–145.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

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V., Looney, A., Smith, K., Timperley, H., Volant, L., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2015). International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13(1), 117–140.Google Scholar

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.Google Scholar

Bloom, B. S., 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

Bloom, B. S., Hasting, T., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook of Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Boywer, K., & Hall, L. (1999). Experience using “MOSS” to detect cheating on programming assignments. In 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 18–22). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Brookhart, S., & Durkin, D. (2003). Classroom assessment, student motivation, and achievement in high school social studies classes. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 27–54.Google Scholar

Brown, N., & Janssen, R. (2017). Preventing plagiarism and fostering academic integrity: A practical approach. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 5(3), 102–109.Google Scholar

Brown, S., & Knight, P. (2012). Assessing Learners in Higher Education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Buffum, P. S., Lobene, E. V., Frankosky, M. H., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., & Lester, J. C. (2015). A practical guide to developing and validating computer science knowledge assessments with application to middle school. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 622–627). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Caceffo, R., Wolfman, S., Booth, K. S., & Azevedo, R. (2016). Developing a computer science concept inventory for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 364–369). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cadmus (2017). What is Cadmus? Retrieved from http://cadmus.io Google Scholar

Cardell-Oliver, R. (2011). How can software metrics help novice programmers? In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Volume 114 (pp. 55–62). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Carter, J., Ala-Mutka, K., Fuller, U., Dick, M., English, J., Fone, W., & Sheard, J. (2003). How shall we assess this? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(4), 107–123.Google Scholar

Clare, J., Walker, S., & Hobson, J. (2017). Can we detect contract cheating using existing assessment data? Applying crime prevention theory to an academic integrity issue. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13, 4.Google Scholar

Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. In 2nd Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy Conference 2006. Newcastle, UK. Retrieved from www.plagiarism.org/paper/eliminating-the-successor-to-plagiarism Google Scholar

Clear, T., Whalley, J., Lister, R. F., Carbone, A., Hu, M., Sheard, J., Simon, B., & Thompson, E. (2008). Reliably classifying novice programmer exam responses using the SOLO taxonomy. In 21st Annual conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ 2008) (pp. 23–30). Auckland, New Zealand: National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications.Google Scholar

College Board (2018). AP Computer Science A. Retrieved from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-computer-science-a/course Google Scholar

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Culwin, F. (2009). The efficacy of Turnitin and Google. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Higher Education Academy Conference in Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 65–69). Newtownabbey, UK: HE Academy Subject Centre for ICS.Google Scholar

Culwin, F., MacLeod, A., & Lancaster, T. (2001). Source code plagiarism in UK HE computing schools. In 2nd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. London, UK: LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.Google Scholar

Curtis, G., & Clare, J. (2017). How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 115–124.Google Scholar

Cutts, Q., Connor, R., Michaelson, G., & Donaldson, P. (2014). Code or (not code). In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE ‘14) (pp. 20–28). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Daly, C., & Waldron, J. (2004). Assessing the assessment of programming ability. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 210–213.Google Scholar

Davis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2), 58–70.Google Scholar

Denny, P., Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Purchase, H. (2008). PeerWise: Students sharing their multiple choice questions. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM.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 (ICER ‘08) (pp. 113–124). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C. (2003). Addressing student cheating: Definitions and solutions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 172–184.Google Scholar

Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 5(1), 36 pages.Google Scholar

Doctupus (2017). Contract Cheating Detection. Retrieved from https://angel.co/doctupus Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J. (2013). Strengthening the student toolbox: Study strategies to boost learning. American Educator, 37(3), 12–21.Google Scholar

Ďuračík, M., Kršák, E., & Hrkút, P. (2017). Current trends in source code analysis, plagiarism detection and issues of analysis big datasets. Procedia Engineering, 192, 136–141.Google Scholar

Earl, L. M. (2012). Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar

Ebel, R., & Frisbie, D. (1986). Essentials of Educational Measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Engels, S., Lakshmanan, V., & Craig, M. (2007). Plagiarism detection using feature-based neural networks. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 34–38.Google Scholar

Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.Google Scholar

Evans, C. (2016). Enhancing assessment feedback practice in higher education: The EAT framework. Retrieved from https://eatframework.org.uk/Google Scholar

Ferrero, J., Agnès, F., Besacier, , , L., & Schwab, D. (2017). Using word embedding for cross-language plagiarism detection. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers (pp. 415–421). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., & Finlay, J. (2016). Computing graduate employability: Sharing practice. Project report. Council of Professors and Heads of Computing, Kent, UK. Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/53848/Google Scholar

Fincher, S., & Knox, D. (2013). The porous classroom: Professional practices in the computing curriculum. Computer, 9, 44–51.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., Kölling, M., Utting, , Brown, I., , N., & Stevens, P. (2010). Repositories of teaching material and communities of use: nifty assignments and the greenroom. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 107–114). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., Petre, M., & Clark, M. (Eds.) (2001). Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics. London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, S., Hanks, B., McCauley, R., Lister, R., & Murphy, L. (2013). What are we thinking when we grade programs? In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13) (pp. 471–476). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fraser, R. (2014). Collaboration, collusion and plagiarism in computer science coursework. Informatics in Education – An International Journal, 13(2), 179–195.Google Scholar

Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., Hernán–Losada, I., Jackova, , Lahtinen, J., Lewis, E., Thompson, T. L., Riedesel, D. M., , C., & Thompson, E. (2007). Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 152–170.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. (2009). Software reuse and plagiarism: a code of practice. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 55–59.Google Scholar

Gillam, L., Marinuzzi, J., & Ioannou, P. (2010). Turnitoff – Defeating plagiarism detection systems. In 11th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 84–88). Heslington, UK: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar

Gilliver-Brown, K., & Ballinger, D. (2017). The integrity games: Using interactive comics to teach academic integrity concepts. ATLAANZ Journal, 2(1), 68–81.Google Scholar

Giordano, D., Maiorana, F., Csizmadia, A. P., Marsden, S., Riedesel, C., Mishra, S., & Vinikienė, L. (2015). New horizons in the assessment of computer science at school and beyond: Leveraging on the viva platform. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 117–147). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G. L., 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), 5.Google Scholar

Gouws, L. A., Bradshaw, K., & Wentworth, P. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘13) (pp. 10–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Grieve, A., & Ross, B. (2016). Plagiarism by contract writing: Insights from forensic linguistics. In Learning and Teaching Conference. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/26115664/Plagiarism_by_contract_writing_Insights_from_forensic_linguistics Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2010). How computing and physics learning differ. Retrieved from https://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/how-computing-and-physics-learning-differ/Google Scholar

Hahn, J. H., Mentz, E., & Meyer, L. (2009). Assessment strategies for pair programming. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 8, 273–284.Google Scholar

Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). The effect of achievement badges on students’ behavior: An empirical study in a university-level computer science course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(1), 18–29.Google Scholar

Halgamuge, M. (2017). The use and analysis of anti-plagiarism software: Turnitin tool for formative assessment and feedback. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(6), 895–909.Google Scholar

Hendrick, C., & MacPherson, R. (2017) What Does This Look Like in the Classroom?: Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice. Woodbridge, UK: John Catt Educational.Google Scholar

Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 291–301.Google Scholar

ICAI (2014). Fundamental values of academic integrity. Retrieved from https://academicintegrity.org/fundamental-values Google Scholar

Ihantola, P., Ahoniemi, T., Karavirta, V., & Seppälä, O. (2010). Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 86–93). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jenkins, T., & Helmore, S. (2006). Coursework for cash: The threat from online plagiarism. In Proceedings of 7th Annual Higher Education Academy Conference in Information & Computer Sciences (pp. 121–126). Newtownabbey, UK: HE Academy Subject Centre for ICS.Google Scholar

Jones, M., & Sheridan, L. (2015). Back translation: An emerging sophisticated cyber strategy to subvert advances in “digital age” plagiarism detection and prevention. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 712–724.Google Scholar

Joy, M., & Luck, M. (1999). Plagiarism in programming assignments. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(2), 129–133.Google Scholar

Joy, M., Cosma, G., Yau, J., & Sinclair, J. (2011). Source code plagiarism – A student perspective. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 125–132.Google Scholar

Juola, P. (2017). Detecting contract cheating via stylometric methods. In Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017 (pp. 187–198). Brno, Czech Republic: European Network for Academic Integrity.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

Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Nickerson, H., & Repenning, A. (2014). Real time assessment of computational thinking. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 49–52). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T. (2013a). The application of intelligent context-aware systems to the detection of student cheating. In Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS) (pp. 517–522). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T. (2013b). The use of text matching tools for the prevention and detection of student plagiarism. In Plagiarism Phenomenon In Europe: Research Contributes To Prevention (pp. 37–49). Braga, Portugal: Aletheia – Associação Científica e Cultural da Faculdade de Filosofia da Universidade Católica Portuguesa.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T. (2017). Plagiarism and assessment. Retrieved from http://thomaslancaster.co.uk/blog/plagiarism-and-assessment Google Scholar

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2007). Assessing contract cheating through auction sites – A computing perspective. In 8th Annual Higher Education Academy Conference in Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 91–95). Newtownabbey, UK: HE Academy Subject Centre for ICS.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2014). An initial analysis of the contextual information available within auction posts on contract cheating agency websites. In Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA) (pp. 548–553). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2015). The implications of plagiarism and contract cheating for the assessment of database modules. In 13th International Workshop on Teaching, Learning and Assessment of Databases (TLAD 2015) (pp. 55–66). York, UK: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2016). Contract cheating – The outsourcing of assessed student work. In Bretag, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 639–654). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T., & Culwin, F. (2004). A comparison of source code plagiarism detection engines. Journal of Computer Science Education, 14(2), 101–112.Google Scholar

Linn, R., & Gronlund, N. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Lister, R. (2000). On blooming first year programming, and its blooming assessment. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education (pp. 158–162). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Clear, T., Bouvier, D. J., Carter, P., Eckerdal, A., Jacková, J., Lopez, , McCartney, M., Robbins, R., P., Seppälä, O., & Thompson, E. (2010). Naturally occurring data as research instrument: Analyzing examination responses to study the novice programmer. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(4), 156–173.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J. L., & Prasad, C. (2006). Not seeing the forest for the trees: Novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 118–122.Google Scholar

Lukashenko, R., Graudina, V., & Grundspenkis, J. (2007). Computer-based plagiarism detection methods and tools: an overview. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (p. 40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Luxton-Reilly, A., & Petersen, A. (2017). The compound nature of novice programming assessments. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 26–35). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, H., 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. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4), 125–180.Google Scholar

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., & Dai, J. (2015). A hierarchical classification approach to automated essay scoring. Assessing Writing, 23, 35–59.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2010). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘10) (pp. 69–76). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Milligan, S., & Kennedy, G. (2017). To what degree? Alternative micro-credentialing in a digital age. In James, R., French, S. & Kelly, P. (Eds.), Visions for Australian Tertiary Education (pp. 41–54). Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar

O’Malley, M., & Roberts, T. (2012). Plagiarism on the rise? Combating contract cheating in science courses. International Journal of Innovation in Science & Mathematics Education, 20(4), 16–24.Google Scholar

Ottenstein, K. (1976). An algorithmic approach to the detection and prevention of plagiarism. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 8(4), 30–41.Google Scholar

Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Parker, A., & Hamblen, J. (1989). Computer algorithms for plagiarism detection. IEEE Transactions on Education, 32(2), 94–99.Google 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 (pp. 93–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Parlante, N. (2018) Nifty Assignments. Retrieved from http://nifty.stanford.edu/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 (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Parsons, D., Wood, K., & Haden, P. (2015). What are we doing when we assess programming? In Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference, CPIT 160 (pp. 119–127). Sydney, Australia: ACS.Google Scholar

Patterson, B. F., & Ewing, M. (2013). Validating the use of AP exam scores for college course placement. College Board Research Report 2013-2. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558108.pdf Google Scholar

Petersen, A., Craig, M., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Reviewing CS1 exam question content. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘11) (pp. 631–636). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Prechelt, L., Malpohl, G., & Philippsen, M. (2002). Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs with JPlag. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 8(11), 1016–1038.Google Scholar

Project Quantum (2016). Project Quantum: Tests worth teaching. Retrieved from http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/resources/4382/single Google Scholar

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edn. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar

Riedesel, C., Clear, A., Cross, G., Hughes, J., Simon, , & Walker, H. (2012). Academic integrity policies in a computing education context. In Proceedings of the Final Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education 2012 Working Groups (pp. 1–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Roberts, E. (2002). Strategies for promoting academic integrity in CS courses. In Frontiers in Education (FIE 2002) (pp. F3G-14–F3G-19). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Rogerson, A., & McCarthy, G. (2017). Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13, 2.Google Scholar

Rowntree, D. (1977). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them. London, UK: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Sanders, K., Ahmadzadeh, M., Clear, T., Edwards, S. H., Goldweber, M., Johnson, C., Lister, L., McCartney, R., Patitsas, E., & Spacco, J. (2013). The Canterbury questionbank: Building a repository of multiplechoice CS1 and CS2 questions. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) – Working Group Reports (pp. 33–52). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Schleimer, S., Wilkerson, D. S., & Aiken, A. (2003). Winnowing: Local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (pp. 76–85). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Stake, R. E. (Ed.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation Vol. 1 (pp. 39–55). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar

Sheard, J. (2012). Exams in computer programming: What do they examine and how complex are they? In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (pp. 283–291). Barton, Australia: Engineers Australia.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2011). Computing student practices of cheating and plagiarism: A decade of change. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 233–237). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2012). Directions and dimensions in managing cheating and plagiarism of IT students. In Proceedings of the 14th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 177–185). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Carbone, A., D’Souza, D. & Hamilton, M. (2013). Assessment of programming: pedagogical foundations of exams. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 141–146). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Carbone, A., Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., & Whalley, J. L. (2008). Going SOLO to assess novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 209–213.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Markham, S., & Dick, M. (2003). Investigating differences in cheating behaviours of IT undergraduate and graduate students: The maturity and motivation factors. Journal of Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 91–108.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Simon, , Butler, M., Falkner, K., Morgan, M., & Weerasinghe, A. (2017). Strategies for maintaining academic integrity in first-year computing courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 244–249). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Simon, , Carbone, A., Chinn, D., Laakso, M. J., Clear, T., De Raadt, M., D’Souza, D., Harland, J., Lister, R., Philpott, A., & Warburton, G. (2011). Exploring programming assessment instruments: A classification scheme for examination questions. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 33–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Si, A., Leong, H., & Lau, R. (1997). Check: a document plagiarism detection system. In Proceedings of the 1997 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 70–77). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, , Cook, B., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Johnson, C. (2014). Student perceptions of the acceptability of various code-writing practices. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 105–110). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, , Sheard, J. Carbone, , A., Chinn, D., Laakso, M., Clear, T., de Raadt, M., D’Souza, D., Lister, R., Philpott, A., Skene, A., & Warburton, G. (2012). Introductory programming: Examining the exams. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 61–70). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Simon, , Sheard, J., Morgan, M., Petersen, A., Settle, A., Sinclair, J., Cross, G., & Riedesel, C. (2016). Negotiating the maze of academic integrity in computing education. In Proceedings of the 2016 ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 57–80). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Singh, A. (2013). Detecting plagiarism in MS Access assignments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(3), 177–180.Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2012). Visual Program Simulation in Introductory Programming Education (doctoral dissertation). Aalto University.Google Scholar

Šprajc, P., Urh, , Jerebic, M., Trivan, J., , D., & Jereb, E. (2017). Reasons for plagiarism in higher education. Organizacija, 50(1), 33–45.Google Scholar

Staubitz, T., Klement, H., Renz, J., Teusner, R., & Meinel, C. (2015). Towards practical programming exercises and automated assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. In Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE 2015) (pp. 23–30). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Taylor, C., Zingaro, D., Porter, L., Webb, K. C., Lee, C. B., & Clancy, M. (2014). Computer science concept inventories: past and future. Computer Science Education, 24(4), 253–276.Google Scholar

Tew, A. E., & Dorn, B. (2013). The case for validated tools in computer science education research. Computer, 46(9), 60–66.Google Scholar

Tew, A. E., & Guzdial, M. (2010). Developing a validated assessment of fundamental CS1 concepts. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 97–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Tew, A. E., & Guzdial, M. (2011). The FCS1: A language independent assessment of CS1 knowledge. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 111–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Thompson, E., Luxton–Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L., Hu, M., & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy for CS assessment. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education (ACE ‘08) (pp. 155–161). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Utting, I., Tew, A. E., McCracken, M., Thomas, L., Bouvier, D., Frye, R., Paterson, J., Caspersen, M., Kolikant, Y., Sorva, J., & Wilusz, T. (2013). A fresh look at novice programmers’ performance and their teachers’ expectations. In Proceedings of the ITICSE Working Group Reports Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 15–32). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Vasilevskaya, M., Broman, D., & Sandahl, K. (2014). An assessment model for large project courses. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 253–258). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wallace, M., & Newton, P. (2014). Turnaround time and market capacity in contract cheating. Educational Studies, 40(2), 233–236.Google Scholar

Whalley, J. L., Lister, R., Thompson, E., Clear, T., Robbins, P., Ajith Kumar, P. K., & Prasad, C. (2006). An Austalasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the Bloom and SOLO taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Conference on Computing Education (ACE ‘06) (pp. 243–252). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 2(2), 6.Google Scholar

Wittie, L., Kurdia, A., & Huggard, M. (2017). Developing a concept inventory for computer science 2. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–4). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.Google Scholar

Zhang, Y., Lo, D., Kochhar, P., Xia, X., Li, Q., & Sun, J. (2017). Detecting similar repositories on GitHub. In IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) (pp. 13–23). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Abad, C. L. (2008). Learning through creating learning objects: Experiences with a class project in a distributed systems course. In 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘08) (pp. 255–259). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Armellini, A., & Padilla Rodriguez, B. C. (2016). Are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) pedagogically innovative? In Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 14(1), 17–28.Google Scholar

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephen, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Atkins, M. J. (1993). Theories of learning and multimedia: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8(2), 251–271.Google Scholar

Atapattu, T., & Falkner, K. (2016). A framework for topic generation and labeling from MOOC discussions. In 3rd ACM Conference on Learning@Scale (L@S’2016) (pp. 201–204). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Atapattu, T., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2017). A comprehensive text analysis of lecture slides to generate concept maps. Computers & Education, 115, 96–113.Google Scholar

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.Google Scholar

Batista, A. L. F., Connolly, T., & Angotti, J. A. P. (2016). A framework for games-based construction learning: A text-based programming languages approach. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 815–823). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences International Ltd.Google Scholar

Battistella, P., & Gresse von Wangenheim, C. (2016). Games for teaching computing in higher education – A systematic review. IEEE Technology and Engineering Education, 1(3), 8–30.Google Scholar

Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The Pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: The UK view. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar

Beck, K. (2002). Test-Driven Development: By Example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Beck, L., & Chizhik, A. (2013). Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(3), 10.Google Scholar

Ben-Ari, M. (1998). Constructivism in computer science education. In Joyce, D., , D. & Impagliazzo, J. (Eds.), 29th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘98) (pp. 257–261). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE National Conference, 30(9), 1–18.Google Scholar

Blanc, R., DeBuhr, L., & Martin, D. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 80–90.Google Scholar

Blank, D. (2006). Robots make computer science personal. Communications of the ACM, 9(12), 5–27.Google Scholar

Brady, C., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Anton, G., Rodriguez, S., & Wilensky, U. (2017). All roads lead to computing: making, participatory simulations, and social computing as pathways to computer science. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60(1), 59–66.Google Scholar

Buckley, M., Nordlinger, J., & Subramanian, D. (2008). Socially relevant computing. In 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘08) (pp. 347–351). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Buffardi, K., & Edwards, S. H. (2012). Impacts of teaching test-driven development to novice programmers. International Journal of Information and Computer Science, 1(6), 135–143.Google Scholar

Carbone, A., & Sheard, J. (2002). A studio-based teaching and learning model in IT: What do first year students think? In 7th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘02) (pp. 213–217) New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ching, E., Chen, C. T., Chou, C. Y., Deng, Y. C., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A pilot study of computer supported learning by constructing instruction notes and peer expository instruction. In Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (CSCL) (pp. 63–67). Taipei, Taiwan: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Clarke, D., Clear, T., Fisler, K., Hauswirth, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Politz, J. G., Tirronen, V., & Wrigstad, T. (2014). In-flow peer review. In Clear, A. & Lister, R. (Eds.), Working Group Reports of the 2014 Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (ITiCSE-WGR ‘14) (pp. 59–79). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2005). An On-Going Journey: Technology as a Learning Workbench. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar

Computing Research Association (2017). Generation CS: Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments Surge Since 2006. Retrieved from https://cra.org/data/Generation-CS/Google Scholar

Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003). Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. In 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘03) (pp. 191–195). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Corral, J. M. R., Balcells, A. C., Estévez, A. M., Moreno, G. J., & Ramos, M. J. F. (2014). A game-based approach to the teaching of object-oriented programming languages. Computers & Education, 73, 83–92.Google Scholar

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.Google Scholar

Crescenzi, P., & Nocentini, C. (2007). Fully integrating algorithm visualization into a CS2 course: A two-year experience. In 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘07) (pp. 296–300). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

CSER (2017). A look at IT and Engineering Enrolments in Australia – Updated. Retrieved from: https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/cser/2017/02/15/a-look-at-it-and-engineering-enrolments-in-australia-updated/Google Scholar

Cunningham, K., Blanchard, S., Ericson, B., & Guzdial, G. (2017). Using tracing and sketching to solve programming problems: Replicating and extending an analysis of what students draw. In 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 164–172). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human–computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431.Google Scholar

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Hamer, J. (2008). The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions. In Simon, & Hamilton, M. (Eds.), 10th conference on Australasian computing education – Volume 78 (ACE ‘08), Vol. 78 (pp. 69–74). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

DesPortes, K., Anupam, A., Pathak, N., & DiSalvo, B. (2016). BitBlox: A redesign of the breadboard. In 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ‘16) (pp. 255–261). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dragon, T., & Dickson, P. E. (2016). Memory diagrams: A consistent approach across concepts and languages. In 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 546–551). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 57–73.Google Scholar

du Boulay, B., O’Shea, T., & Monk, J. (1981). The black box inside the glass box: Presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 14(3), 237–249.Google Scholar

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Earl, S. E. (1986). Staff and peer assessment – Measuring an individual’s contribution to group performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(1), 60–69.Google Scholar

Ebert, M., & Ring, M. (2016). A presentation framework for programming in programing lectures. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON ‘16) (pp. 369–374). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar

Edwards, S. H. (2004). Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action. In 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘04) (pp. 26–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Elgort, I., Smith, A., & Toland, J. (2008). Is Wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195–210.Google Scholar

Ernest, E. (1995). The one and the many. In Steffe, L. & Gale, J. (Eds.), Constructivism in Education (pp. 459–486). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ewing, J. M., Dowling, J. D., & Coutts, N. (1998). Learning using the World Wide Web: A collaborative learning event. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 3–22.Google Scholar

Falkner, N. J. G., & Falkner, K. (2014). “Whither, badges?” or “wither, badges!”: A metastudy of badges in computer science education to clarify effects, significance and influence. In 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘14) (pp. 127–135). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Falkner, N., Szabo, C., & Vivian, R. (2016). Applying validated pedagogy to MOOCs: An introductory programming course with media computation. In 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 326–331). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., & Palmer, E. (2009). Developing authentic problem solving skills in introductory computing classes. In 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘09) (pp. 4–8). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Vivian, R., Falkner, N., & Williams, S. (2017). Reflecting on three offerings of a community-centric MOOC for k-6 computer science teachers. In 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 195–200). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Findler, R. B., Clements, J., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Steckler, P., & Felleisen, M. (2002). DrScheme: A programming environment for Scheme. Journal of. Functional Programming, 12(2), 159–182.Google Scholar

Firmin, S., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Hurst, J. (2012). An exploration of factors influencing tertiary IT educators’ pedagogies. In de Raadt, M. & Carbone, A. (Eds.), 14th Australasian Computing Education Conference – Volume 123 (ACE ‘12), Vol. 123 (pp. 157–166). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: The Carnegie Mellon experience. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 79–83.Google Scholar

Geer, U., & Rudge, D. (2002). A review of research on constructivist-based strategies for large lecture science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(2). Retrieved from www.scholarlyexchange.org/ojs/index.php/EJSE/article/view/7701 Google Scholar

Gehringer, E. F., & Miller, C. S. (2009). Student-generated active-learning exercises. In 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘09) (pp. 81–85). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Giannakos, M. N., Krogstie, J., & Chrisochoides, N. (2014). Reviewing the flipped classroom research: Reflections for computer science education. In Barendsen, E. & Dagiené, V. (Eds.), Computer Science Education Research Conference (CSERC ‘14) (pp. 23–29). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Glance, D., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday, 18(5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4350/3673 Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2014). Promoting active learning & leveraging dashboards for curriculum assessment in an OpenEdX introductory CS course for middle school. In 1st ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference (L@S ‘14) (pp. 205–206). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J. (2013). Online python tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for cs education. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 579–584). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2013). Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘13) (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hamer, J., Cutts, Q., Jackova, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., McCartney, R., Purchase, H., Riedesel, C., Saeli, M., Sanders, K., & Sheard, J. (2008). Contributing student pedagogy. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), 194–212.Google Scholar

Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Purchase, H. C., & Sheard, J. (2011). Tools for “contributing student learning”. ACM Inroads, 2(2), 78–91.Google Scholar

Hativa, N. (2000). Active learning during lectures. In Teaching for Effective Learning in Higher Education (pp. 87–110). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Hertz, M., & Jump, M. (2013). Trace-based teaching in early programming courses. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 561–566). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Higher Education Commission (2016). From Bricks to Clicks: The Potential of Data and Analytics in Higher Education. London, UK: Higher Education Commission.Google Scholar

Horton, D., & Craig, M. (2015). Drop, fail, pass, continue: Persistence in CS1 and beyond in traditional and inverted delivery. In 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 235–240). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Agrawal, A., & Agarwal, P. (2013). Talking about code: Integrating pedagogical code reviews into early computing courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 13(3), 14.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Narayanan, N. H., & Crosby, M. E. (2008). Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. In 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘08) (pp. 392–396). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jonas, M. (2013). Group note taking in Mediawiki, a collaborative approach. In 14th Annual ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ‘13) (pp. 131–132). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 5–14.Google Scholar

Kaczmarczyk, L., Boutell, M., & Last, M. (2007). Challenging the advanced first-year student’s learning process through student presentations. In 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘07) (pp. 17–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kandiko, C. B., & Mawer, M. (2013). Student Expectations and Perceptions of Higher Education. London, UK: King’s Learning Institute.Google Scholar

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.Google Scholar

Khan, N. Z., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2016). Is computing for social good the solution to closing the gender gap in computer science? In Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW ‘16) (p. 17). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design Thinking for Education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar

Kölling, M., & Barnes, D. J. (2004). Enhancing apprentice-based learning of Java. In 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘04) (pp. 286–290). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kurtz, B. L., Fenwick, J. B., Tashakkori, R., Esmail, A., & Tate, S. R. (2014). Active learning during lecture using tablets. In 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 121–126). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lacher, L. L., & Lewis, M. C. (2015). The effectiveness of video quizzes in a flipped class. In 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 224–228). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 4th edn. London, UK: The Architectural Press.Google Scholar

Lee, E., Shan, V., Beth, B., & Lin, C. (2014). A structured approach to teaching recursion using cargo-bot. In 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 59–66). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Leutenegger, S., & Edgington, J. (2007). A games first approach to teaching introductory programming. In 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘07) (pp. 115–118). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lui, D., Anderson, E., Kafai, Y. B., & Jayathirtha, G. (2017). Learning by fixing and designing problems: A reconstruction kit for debugging e-textiles. In 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (FabLearn ‘17) (p. 6). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lui, A. K., Ng, S. C., Cheung, Y. H. Y., & Gurung, P. (2010). Facilitating independent learning with Lego Mindstorms robots. ACM Inroads, 1(4), 49–53.Google Scholar

Lockwood, K., & Esselstein, R. (2013). The inverted classroom and the CS curriculum. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 113–118). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (1993). Transitions in the theoretical foundation of instructional design. In Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.), Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 213–229). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Lutteroth, C., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2008). Flexible learning in CS2: A case study. In 21st Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (pp. 77–83). New Zealand: Computing and Information Technology Research and Education New Zealand (CITRENZ).Google Scholar

Luxton-Reilly, A., Bertinshaw, D., Denny, P., Plimmer, B., & Sheehan, R. (2012). The impact of question generation activities on performance. In 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘12) (pp. 391–396). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Luxton-Reilly, A., Plimmer, B., & Sheehan, R. (2010). StudySieve: A tool that supports constructive evaluation for free-response questions. In 11th International Conference of the NZ Chapter of the ACM Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction (CHINZ ‘10) (pp. 65–68). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Maher, M. L., Latulipe, C., Lipford, H., & Rorrer, A. (2015). Flipped classroom strategies for CS education. In 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 218–223). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1975). Different problem-solving competencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 725–734.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1976). Some conditions of meaningful learning for computer programming: Advance organizers and subject control of frame order. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 143–150.Google Scholar

Medel, P., & Pournaghshband, V. (2017). Eliminating gender bias in computer science education materials. In 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 411–416). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Milligan, S. (2015). Crowd-sourced learning in MOOCs: learning analytics meets measurement theory. In 5th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK ‘15) (pp. 151–155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Milligan, S., He, J., Bailey, J., Zhang, R., & Rubinstein, B. I. P. (2016). Validity: A framework for cross-disciplinary collaboration in mining indicators of learning from MOOC forums. In 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK ‘16) (pp. 546–547). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Moog, R. S. & Spencer, J. N. (Eds.) (2008). Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar

Morgan, M., Butler, M., Sinclair, J., Cross, G., Fraser, J., Jackova, J., & Thota, N. (2017). Understanding international benchmarks on student engagement: Awareness, research alignment and response from a computer science perspective. In 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 383–384). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Moritz, S. H., & Blank, G. D. (2005). A design-first curriculum for teaching Java in a CS1 course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2), 89–93.Google Scholar

Nelson, G. L., Xie, B., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Comprehension first: Evaluating a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 2–11). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Nortcliffe, A. (2005). Student-driven module: promoting independent learning. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 42(3), 247–512.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s programming puzzles: a fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Tolhurst, D. & Mann, S. (Eds.), 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education – Volume 52 (ACE ‘06) (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Pask, G. (1976). Conversation Theory, Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Patitsas, E., Craig, M., & Easterbrook, S. (2016). How CS departments are managing the enrolment boom: Troubling implications for diversity. In Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing and Technology (RESPECT) (pp. 1–2). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar

Paul, J. (2016). Test-driven approach in programming pedagogy. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 32(2), 53–60.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. N., Schwartz, S., & Simmons, R. (1990). Instructional strategies for the problems of novice programmers. In Meyer, R. E. (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: Multiple Research Perspectives (pp. 153–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Phillips, D., & Soltis, J. F. (2015). Perspectives on Learning, 5th edn. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge (Vol. 105). London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar

Piccioni, M., Estler, C., & Meyer, B. (2014). SPOC-supported introduction to programming. In 19th Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 3–8). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pirker, J., Riffnaller-Schiefer, M., & Gütl, C. (2014). Motivational active learning: engaging university students in computer science education. In 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 297–302). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Politz, J. G., Krishnamurthi, S., & Fisler, K. (2014). In-flow peer-review of tests in test-first programming. In 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 11–18). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pollock, L., & Harvey, T. (2011). Combining multiple pedagogies to boost learning and enthusiasm. In 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘11) (pp. 258–262). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Porter, L., & Simon, B. (2013). Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 165–170). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Portillo, J. A. P., & Campos, P. G. (2009). The jigsaw technique: Experiences teaching analysis class diagrams. In Mexican International Conference on Computer Science (pp. 289–293). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Pulimood, S. M., & Wolz, U. (2008). Problem solving in community: A necessary shift in cs pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 210–214.Google Scholar

Purchase, H. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 341–352.Google Scholar

Preston, G., Phillips, R., Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Woo, K., & Green, D. (2010). Web-based lecture technologies: Highlighting the changing nature of teaching and learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 717–728.Google Scholar

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.Google Scholar

Ragonis, N., & Ben-Ari, M. (2005). A long-term investigation of the comprehension of OOP concepts by novices. Computational Science Education, 15(3), 203–221.Google Scholar

Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In Khan, B. H. (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar

Reilly, M., Shen, H., Calder, P., & Duh, H. (2014). Towards a collaborative classroom through shared workspaces on mobile devices. In 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference on HCI 2014 – Sand, Sea and Sky – Holiday HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 335–340). London, UK: BCS.Google Scholar

Reza, S., & Baig, M. (2015). A study of inverted classroom pedagogy in computer science teaching. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(2). Retrieved from www.learntechlib.org/p/151048/Google Scholar

Rich, L., Perry, H., & Guzdial, M. (2004). A CS1 course designed to address interests of women. SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 190–194.Google Scholar

Rizzardini, R. H., & Amado-Salvatierra, H. R. (2017). Full engagement educational framework: A practical experience for a MicroMaster. In 4th ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ‘17) (pp. 145–146). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Rubin, M. J. (2013). The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 651–656). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & De Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409–420.Google Scholar

Rudestam, K., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2010). The flourishing of adult online education: an overview. In Rudestam, K. & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Online Learning, 2nd edn (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

Rudman, P. (2002). Investigating Domain Information as Dynamic Support for the Learner During Spoken Conversations (PhD thesis). University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Salmon, G. (2004). E-Tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning, 2nd edn. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis e-Library.Google Scholar

Sanders, K., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., & Zander, C. (2017). Folk pedagogy: Nobody doesn’t like active learning. In 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 145–154). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2016). Flipping the flipped classroom: A study of the effectiveness of video lectures versus constructivist exploration using tangible user interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 5–17.Google Scholar

Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C-K., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M. & Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. The Open University.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. (2005). Pedagogies. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18–25.Google Scholar

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. In International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar

Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. ELearnspace. Retrieved from www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/Google Scholar

Simon, B., & Cutts, Q. (2012). Peer instruction: A teaching method to foster deep understanding. Communications of the ACM, 55(2), 27–29.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T. (2016). Combining parson’s problems with program visualization in CS1 context. In 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘16) (pp. 155–159). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T., & Sorva, J. (2015). Tailoring animations of example programs. In 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘15) (pp. 147–151). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71–82.Google Scholar

Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647–663.Google Scholar

Smith, P. A., & Webb, G. I. (1995). Reinforcing a generic computer model for novice programmers. In 7th Australian Society for Computer in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference (ASCILITE ’95). Retrieved from www.ascilite.org/conferences/melbourne95/smtu_bak/papers/smith.pdf Google Scholar

Smith, J., Tessler, J., Kramer, E., & Lin, C. (2012). Using peer review to teach software testing. In 9th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘12) (pp. 93–98). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sonnentag, S. (1998). Expertise in professional software design: A process study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 703–715.Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2013). Notional machines and introductory programming education. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(2), 8.Google Scholar

Sorva, J., Karavirta, V., & Malmi, L. (2013). A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(4), 15.Google Scholar

Sorva, J., & Sirkiä, T. (2010). UUhistle: A software tool for visual program simulation. In 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘10) (pp. 49–54). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Srinivasan, V., Butler-Purry, K. & Pedersen, S. (2008). Using video games to enhance learning in digital systems. In 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share (Future Play ‘08) (pp. 196–199). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Summet, J., Kumar, D., O’Hara, K., Walker, D., Ni, L., Blank, D., & Balch, T. (2009). Personalizing CS1 with robots. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 433–437.Google Scholar

Swan, K., Day, S., & Bogle, L. (2016). Metaphors for learning and MOOC pedagogies. In 3rd ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 125–128). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Tarimo, W. T., Deeb, F. A., & Hickey, T. J. (2015). A flipped classroom with and without computers. In International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 333–347). New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Titterton, N., Lewis, C. M., & Clancy, M. J. (2010). Experiences with lab-centric instruction. Computer Science Education, 20(2), 79–102.Google Scholar

Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1–12.Google Scholar

Umapathy, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of pair-programming in computer programming courses: Implications for educational practice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(4), 16.Google Scholar

Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, , , J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch – A discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 17.Google Scholar

Vassiliadis, B., Kameas, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2016). A closer look at MOOC’s adoption from a qualitative perspective. In 20th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI ‘16) (p. 17). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Vickers, R., Cooper, G., Field, J., Thayne, M., Adams, R., & Lochrie, M. (2014). Social media and collaborative learning: Hello Scholr. In 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Media Business, Management, Content & Services (AcademicMindTrek ‘14) (pp. 103–109). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Vozniuk, A., Holzer, A., & Gillet, D. (2014). Peer assessment based on ratings in a social media course. In 4th International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (LAK ‘14) (pp. 133–137). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wakeling, D. (2008). A robot in every classroom: Robots and functional programming across the curriculum. In 2008 International Workshop on Functional and Declarative Programming in Education (FDPE ‘08) (pp. 51–60). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and space: Empirical research on new learning environments. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 34(4). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ958727 Google Scholar

Watson, C., & Li, F. W. B. (2014). Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 39–44). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker. 9(5). Retrieved from https://thesystemsthinker.com/communities-of-practice-learning-as-a-social-system/Google Scholar

Williams, L. (2000). The Collaborative Software Process (PhD dissertation). University of Utah.Google Scholar

Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair Programming Illuminated. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar

Williams, L., McCrickard, D. S., Layman, L., & Hussein, K. (2008). Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom. In Melnik, G. & Poppendieck, M. (Eds.), Agile Conference (pp. 445–452). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Alvarado, C., Dodds, Z., & Libeskind-Hadas, R. (2012). Increasing women’s participation in computing at Harvey Mudd College. ACM Inroads, 3(4), 55–64.Google Scholar

Amodio, D. M. (2014). The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(10), 670–682.Google Scholar

Andrews, D. J. (2012). Black achievers’ experiences with racial spotlighting and ignoring in a predominantly White high school. In Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–46.Google Scholar

Apple, M. W. (1992). Do the standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(5), 412–431.Google Scholar

Barker, L. (2010). Avoiding Unintended Gender Bias in Letters of Recommendation (Case Study 1). Reducing Unconscious Bias to Increase Women’s Success in IT. Promising Practices, National Center for Women and Information Technology. Retrived from www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/avoidingunintendedgenderbiaslettersrecommendation.pdf Google Scholar

Barker, L. J. Garvin-Doxas, K., & Jackson, M. (2002). Defensive climate in the computer science classroom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), 43–47.Google Scholar

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013.Google Scholar

Bobb, K. (2016). Why teaching computer science to students of color is vital to the future of our nation. The Root. Retrieved from www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/03/why_teaching_computer_science_to_students_of_color_is_vital_to_the_future/Google Scholar

Bobo, L. D., Charles, C. Z., Krysan, M., Simmons, A. D., & Fredrickson, G. M. (2012). The real record on racial attitudes. In Social Trends in American Life: Findings from the General Social Survey since 1972 (pp. 38–83). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). “New racism,” color-blind racism, and the future of whiteness in America. In Doane, A. W. & Bonlilla-Silva, E. (Eds.), White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism (pp. 271–284). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brady, C., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Anton, G., Rodriguez, S., & Wilensky, U. (2017). All roads lead to computing: Making, participatory simulations, and social computing as pathways to computer science. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60(1), 59–66.Google Scholar

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.Google Scholar

Chinn, D., Martin, K., & Spencer, C. (2007). Treisman workshops and student performance in CS. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 203–207.Google Scholar

Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247.Google Scholar

Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: Providing critical feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1302–1318.Google Scholar

Cohoon, J. M., Wu, Z., & Chao, J. (2009). Sexism: Toxic to women’s persistence in CSE doctoral programs. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 158–162.Google Scholar

College Board (2017). AP program participation and performance data 2017 [Data file]. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/archived/ap-2017 Google Scholar

Cvencek, D., Nasir, N. I. S., O’Connor, K., Wischnia, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). The development of math–race stereotypes: “They say Chinese people are the best at math”. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(4), 630–637.Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Eglash, R. (2002). Race, sex, and nerds: From black geeks to Asian American hipsters. Social Text, 20(2), 49–64.Google Scholar

Eglash, R., Gilbert, J. E., Taylor, V., & Geier, S. R. (2013). Culturally responsive computing in urban, after-school contexts: Two approaches. Urban Education, 48(5), 629–656.Google Scholar

Ensmenger, N. (2010). Making programming masculine. In Misa, T. J. (Ed.), Gender Codes: Why Women Are Leaving Computing (pp. 115–141). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Ensmenger, N. L. (2012). The Computer Boys Take Over: Computers, Programmers, and the Politics of Technical Expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Essed, P. (2002). Cloning cultural homogeneity while talking diversity: Old wine in new bottles in Dutch organizations. Transforming Anthropology, 11(1), 2–12.Google Scholar

Fairchild, H. H. (1991). Scientific racism: The cloak of objectivity. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 101–115.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Falkner, N., Szabo, C., & Vivian, R. (2016). Applying validated pedagogy to MOOCs: An introductory programming course with media computation. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘16) (pp. 326–331). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fiarman, S. E. (2016). Unconscious bias: When good intentions aren’t enough. Educational Leadership, 74(3), 10–15.Google Scholar

Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., Nakajima, T., & Goode, J. (2017). Teaching practices for making e-textiles in high school computing classrooms. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (FabLearn ‘17) (p. 5). New York: ACM.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), 8410–8415.Google Scholar

Goode, J. (2008). Increasing diversity in K–12 computer science: Strategies from the field. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 362–366.Google Scholar

Goode, J., Chapman, G., & Margolis, J. (2012). Beyond curriculum: The exploring computer science program. ACM Inroads, 3(2), 47–53.Google Scholar

Google Inc. (2014). Women who choose computer science – What really matters: The critical role of exposure and encouragement. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-E2rcvhnlQ_a1Q4VUxWQ2dtTHM/edit Google Scholar

Google Inc., & Gallup Inc. (2015). Searching for computer science: Access and barriers in U.S. K–12 education. Retrieved from http://g.co/cseduresearch Google Scholar

Google Inc., & Gallup Inc. (2016). Diversity Gaps in Computer Science: Exploring the Underrepresentation of Girls, Blacks and Hispanics. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/PG34aH Google Scholar

Google Inc., & Gallup Inc. (2017). Encouraging Students Toward Computer Science Learning. Results From the 2015–2016 Google–Gallup Study of Computer Science in U.S. K–12 Schools (Issue Brief No. 5). Retrieved from https://goo.gl/iM5g3A Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. B. (1989). Funds of knowledge: Historical constitution, social distribution, and transmission. Presented at Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez, R. (2008). A “gap-gazing” fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 357–364.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2013). Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.Google Scholar

Harrell, D. F. (2013). Phantasmal Media: An Approach to Imagination, Computation, and Expression. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hunt, V., Yee, L., Prince, S., & Dixon-Fyle, S. (2018). Delivering through Diversity. McKinsey & Company Report. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity Google Scholar

Hyde, J. S., & Jaffee, S. (1998). Perspectives from social and feminist psychology. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 14–16.Google Scholar

Information is Beautiful (2016). Diversity in tech: Employee breakdown of key technology companies. Retrieved from www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/diversity-in-tech/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), 1–20.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboy, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 241–246). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Keller, C. (2001). Effect of teachers’ stereotyping on students’ stereotyping of mathematics as a male domain. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 165–173.Google Scholar

Kendi, I. X. (2016). Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar

Kumar, A. N. (2012). A study of stereotype threat in computer science. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 273–278). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ladner, R., & Israel, M. (2016). “For all” in “computer science for all.” Communications of the ACM, 59(9), 26–28.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leonard, J., & Martin, D. B. (Eds.) (2013). The Brilliance of Black Children in Mathematics. Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., Anderson, R. E., & Yasuhara, K. (2016). I don’t code all day: Fitting in computer science when the stereotypes don’t fit. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 23–32). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., Yasuhara, K., & Anderson, R. E. (2011a). Deciding to major in computer science: A grounded theory of students’ self-assessment of ability. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., Titterton, N., & Clancy, M. (2012). Using collaboration to overcome disparities in Java experience. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 79–86). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M. (2017). Twelve tips for creating a culture that supports all students in computing. ACM Inroads, 8(4), 17–20.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2015). How equity and inequity can emerge in pair programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135.Google Scholar

Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1591–1599.Google Scholar

Malcom, S. M., Hall, P. Q., & Brown, J. W. (1976). The Double Bind: The Price of Being a Minority Woman in Science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar

Malouff, J. M., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2016). Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings. Australian Journal of Education, 60(3), 245–256.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Jellison-Holme, J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2003). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., Goode, J., & Chapman, G. (2015). An equity lens for scaling: A critical juncture for exploring computer science. ACM Inroads, 6(3), 58–66.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., Goode, J., Chapman, G., & Ryoo, J. J. (2014). That classroom “magic”. Communications of the ACM, 57(7), 31–33.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., Ryoo, J., Sandoval, C., Lee, C., Goode, J., & Chapman, G. (2012). Beyond access: Broadening participation in high school computer science. ACM Inroads, 3(4), 72–78.Google Scholar

Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male–female differences: A computer simulation. Retrieved from www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/papers/male_female.pdf Google Scholar

Martin, D. B. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in mathematics for all rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7–21.Google Scholar

McAfee, M. (2014). The kinesiology of race. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 468–491.Google Scholar

McGee, E. O., & Martin, D. B. (2011). “You would not believe what I have to go through to prove my intellectual value!” Stereotype management among academically successful Black mathematics and engineering students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1347–1389.Google Scholar

Medel, P., & Pournaghshband, V. (2017). Eliminating gender bias in computer science education materials. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 411–416). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Miller, D. I., Nolla, K. M., Eagly, A. H., & Uttal, D. H. (2018). The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades of US draw-a-scientist studies. Child Development, doi:10.1111/cdev.13039.Google Scholar

Milner IV, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718.Google Scholar

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2006). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.), Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms (pp. 71–87). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Moreno, S. E., & Muller, C. (1999). Success and diversity: The transition through first-year calculus in the university. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 30–57.Google Scholar

Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140.Google Scholar

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479.Google Scholar

Mulkey, L. M., Catsambis, S., Steelman, L. C., & Crain, R. L. (2005). The long-term effects of ability grouping in mathematics: A national investigation. Social Psychology of Education, 8(2), 137–177.Google Scholar

Nasir, N. I. S., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61.Google Scholar

Nasir, N. S., Atukpawu, G., O’Connor, K., Davis, M., Wischnia, S., & Tsang, J. (2009). Wrestling with the legacy of stereotypes: Being African American in math class. In Martin, D. B. (Ed.), Mathematics Teaching, Learning, and Liberation in the Lives of Black Children (pp. 231–248). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nasir, N. S., & Shah, N. (2011). On defense: African American males making sense of racialized narratives in mathematics education. Journal of African American Males in Education, 2(1), 24–45.Google Scholar

National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2017). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2017. Special Report NSF 17-310. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/Google Scholar

National Center for Women and Information Technology (2017). By the Numbers. Retrieved from www.ncwit.org/bythenumbers Google Scholar

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.Google Scholar

Ong, M. (2011). The status of women of color in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 32–34.Google Scholar

Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–209.Google Scholar

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2015). Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. E. (1996). Dismantling Desegregation. The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar

Paek, H. J., & Shah, H. (2003). Racial ideology, model minorities, and the “not-so-silent partner”: Stereotyping of Asian Americans in US magazine advertising. Howard Journal of Communication, 14(4), 225–243.Google Scholar

Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(1), 937–975.Google Scholar

Patitsas, E., Berlin, J., Craig, M., & Easterbrook, S. (2016). Evidence that computer science grades are not bimodal. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 113–121). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pollock, M. (2004). Race wrestling: Struggling strategically with race in educational practice and research. American Journal of Education, 111(1), 25–67.Google Scholar

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.Google Scholar

Reich, D. (2018). Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reinholz, D., & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(2), 140–177.Google Scholar

Robins, A. (2010). Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education, 20(1), 37–71.Google Scholar

Rose, A. (2010). Are face-detection cameras racist? TIME. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954643,00.html Google Scholar

Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & Angel, P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82(1), 409–420.Google Scholar

Sadker, D., Sadker, M., & Zittleman, K. (2009). Still Failing at Fairness: How Gender Bias Cheats Girls and Boys in School and What We Can Do about It. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar

Schaffer, R., & Skinner, D. G. (2009). Performing race in four culturally diverse fourth grade classrooms: Silence, race talk, and the negotiation of social boundaries. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(3), 277–296.Google Scholar

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356.Google Scholar

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.Google Scholar

Scott, K. A., & White, M. A. (2013). COMPUGIRLS’ standpoint: Culturally responsive computing and its effect on girls of color. Urban Education, 48(5), 657–681.Google Scholar

Scott, A., & Martin, A. (2014). Perceived barriers to higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(3), 235–256.Google Scholar

Shah, N., & Lewis, C.M. (in press). Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: Toward an analytical framework. Cognition and Instruction.Google Scholar

Shah, N. (2013). Racial Discourse in Mathematics and its Impact on Student Learning, Identity, and Participation (PhD thesis). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Shah, N., Lewis, C. M., Caires, R., Khan, N., Qureshi, A., Ehsanipour, D., & Gupta, N. (2013). Building equitable computer science classrooms: Elements of a teaching approach. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 263–268). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shah, N. (2017). Race, ideology, and academic ability: A relational analysis of racial narratives in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–42.Google Scholar

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83.Google Scholar

Smith, D. G. (2015). Diversity’s Promise for Higher Education: Making it Work. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.Google Scholar

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.Google Scholar

Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. New York: WW Norton & Co.Google Scholar

Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7–8), 509–528.Google Scholar

Stinson, D. W. (2008). Negotiating sociocultural discourses: The counter-storytelling of academically (and mathematically) successful African American male students. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 975–1010.Google Scholar

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271.Google Scholar

Tabuchi, H., & Ewing, J. (2016). Volkswagen to pay $14.7 billion to settle diesel claims in U.S. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/business/volkswagen-settlement-diesel-scandal.html Google Scholar

Tapia, J. (1991). Cultural Reproduction: Funds of Knowledge as Survival Strategies in the Mexican American Community (doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona.Google Scholar

Tatman, R. (2016). Google’s speech recognition has a gender bias. Making noise and hearing things. Retrieved from https://makingnoiseandhearingthings.com/2016/07/12/googles-speech-recognition-has-a-gender-bias/Google Scholar

Telles, E. E. (2004). Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 144–151.Google Scholar

Toyama, K. (2015). Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar

Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23(5), 362–372.Google Scholar

Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191–220.Google Scholar

Trytten, D. A., Lowe, A. W., & Walden, S. E. (2012). “Asians are good at math. What an awful stereotype.” The model minority stereotype’s impact on asian american engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 439–468.Google Scholar

Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474–480.Google Scholar

Vakil, S. (2014). A critical pedagogy approach for engaging urban youth in mobile app development in an after-school program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 31–45.Google Scholar

Vélez-Ibáñez, C. G. (1988). Networks of exchange among Mexicans in the U.S. and Mexico: Local level mediating responses to national and international transformations. Urban Anthropology, 17, 27–51.Google Scholar

Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206–232.Google Scholar

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451.Google Scholar

Wang, J. Hejazi Moghadam, S., & Tiffany-Morales, J. (2017). Social perceptions in computer science and implications for diverse students. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 47–55). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2014). Double Jeopardy: Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science. Retrieved from https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1278 Google Scholar

Winkelmes, M. A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success. Peer Review, 18(1/2), 31.Google Scholar

Wortham, S. (2006). Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and Academic Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aharoni, D. (2000). Cogito, ergo sum! Cognitive processes of students dealing with data structures. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 26–30.Google Scholar

Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.Google Scholar

al-Khwārizmī, M. (c. 825). On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals.Google Scholar

Armoni, M. (2013). On teaching abstraction in computer science to novices. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(3) 265–284.Google Scholar

Barefoot (2014a). Barefoot Computing. Retrieved from http://barefootcas.org.uk/Google Scholar

Barefoot (2014b). Computational thinking: What does computational thinking look like in the primary curriculum? Retrieved from https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/concepts/computational-thinking/Google Scholar

Bebras (n.d.). Bebras International Challenge on Informatics and Computational Thinking. Retrieved from www.bebras.org Google Scholar

Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 13(1), 20–29.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012). Computer Science Unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In Bodlaender, H. L., Downey, R., Fomin, F. V, & Marx, D. (Eds.), The Multivariate Algorithmic Revolution and Beyond: Essays Dedicated to Michael R. Fellows on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 398–456). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Berry, M. (2014). Computational Thinking in Primary Schools. Retrieved from http://milesberry.net/2014/03/computational-thinking-in-primary-schools/Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2017). Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Böhm, C., & Jacopini, G. (1966). Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two formation rules. Communications of the ACM, 9(5), 366–371.Google Scholar

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Vancouver, Canada: Educational Research Association. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/kbrennan/publications/new-frameworks-studying-and-assessing-development-computational-thinking Google Scholar

Computing at School (2012). Computer science: A curriculum for schools. Computing at School Working Group. Retrieved from www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/ComputingCurric.pdf Google Scholar

CSE (2017). Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, July, Hong Kong. Retrieved from www.eduhk.hk/cte2017/Google Scholar

Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. Retrieved from http://computingatschool.org.uk/computationalthinking Google Scholar

Curzon, P. (2002). Computing without Computers: A Gentle Introduction to Computer Programming, Data Structures and Algorithms. Retrieved from https://teachinglondoncomputing.org/resources/inspiring-computing-stories/computingwithoutcomputers/Google Scholar

Curzon, P. (2014). Unplugged computational thinking for fun. In Brinda, T., Reynolds, N., & Romeike, R. (Eds.), KEYCIT – Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT, Commentarii Informaticae Didacticae (pp. 15–28). Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar

Curzon, P., & McOwan, P. W. (2017). The Power of Computational Thinking: Games, Magic and Puzzles to Help You Become a Computational Thinker. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Donohue, J., Wright, S., & Marsh, D. W. R. (2018). Teaching of concepts. In Sentance, S., Barendsen, E., & Schulte, C. (Eds.), Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Learning and Teaching in School (pp. 91–108). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Cutts, Q., Esper, S., Fecho, M., Foster, S., & Simon, B. (2012). The abstraction transition taxonomy: developing desired learning outcomes through the lens of situated cognition. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 63–70). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dagienė, V., & Sentance, S. (2016). It’s computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In Brodnik, A. & Tort, F. (Eds.), Informatics in Schools: Improvement of Informatics Knowledge and Perception (ISSEP 2016). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp 28–39). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Dagienė, V., Sentance, S., & Stupienė, G. (2017). Developing a two-dimensional categorization system for educational tasks in informatics. Informatica 28(1), 23–44.Google Scholar

Dagiene, V., & Futschek, G. (2008). Bebras international contest on informatics and computer literacy: Criteria for good tasks. In Mittermeir, R. T. & Sysło, M. M. (Eds.), Informatics Education – Supporting Computational Thinking. ISSEP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 19–30). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Denning, P. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39.Google Scholar

Denning, P., & Tedre, M. (2019). Computational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Department for Education (2013). National Curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study Google Scholar

Dorling, M., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Evidence of assessing computational thinking. In Brodnik, A. & Lewin, C. (Eds.), IFIP 2015: A New Culture of Learning: Computing and Next Generations (pp. 1–11). Laxenburg, Austria: IFIP.Google Scholar

Dorling, M., & Walker, M. (2014). Computing Progression Pathways. Retrieved from http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/5098/original.xlsx Google Scholar

Dorling, M., & Stephens, T. (2016). Computational Thinking Rubric: Dispositions, Attitudes and Perspectives, Retrieved from https://community.computingatschool.org.uk/resources/4793/Google Scholar

Euclid, (1997). Elements [c. 300 BCE]. Joyce, D. E. (Ed.). Retrieved from http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/toc.html Google Scholar

Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., Hernán-Losada, I., Jackova, , Lahtinen, J., Lewis, E., Thompson, T. L., Riedesel, D. M., , C., & Thompson, E. (2007). Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. In Proceedings of the ITiCSE-WGR ‘07 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 152–170). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Google (n.d.). Exploring Computational Thinking, Google for Education. Retrieved from https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/Google Scholar

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Using a discourse-intensive pedagogy and Android’s App inventor for introducing computational concepts to middle school students. In Proceedings of the 44th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 723–728). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2008). Education: Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25–27.Google Scholar

Harel, D. (2003). Computers Ltd: What They REALLY Can’t Do. Oxford, UK: Oxford Paperbacks.Google Scholar

Hazzan, O. (2003). How students attempt to reduce abstraction in the learning of mathematics and in the learning of computer science. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 95–122.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., & Mühling, A. (2014). Playing PISA with Bebras. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 128–129). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., Pal, J., Jackova, J., & Jasute, E.(2015) A global snapshot of computer science education in K–12 schools. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 65–83). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

ISTE/CSTA (2014). Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K–12 Education. Retrieved from www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12 education, Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27.Google Scholar

Kalelioglu, K., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.Google Scholar

Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569.Google Scholar

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2016). Reclaiming the roots of CT. CSTA Voice: The Voice of K–12 Computer Science Education and Its Educators, 12(1), 3–4.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., Fone, W., Hamer, J., Lindholm, M., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Seppälä, O., & Simon, B. (2004). A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 119–150.Google Scholar

Lister, R. (2011). Concrete and other neo-Piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 9–18). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008). Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 101–112). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260–264.Google Scholar

Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22.Google Scholar

Macnaught, L., Maton, K., Martin, J. R., & Matruglio, E. (2013). Jointly constructing semantic waves: implications for teacher training. Linguistics and Education, 24, 50–63.Google Scholar

McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagen, 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 Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’01) (pp. 125–180). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Meagher, L. (2017). Teaching London Computing Follow-up Evaluation through Interviews with Teachers, Technology Development Group, Summer. Retrieved from https://teachinglondoncomputing.org/evaluation/Google Scholar

Millican, P., & Clark, A. (Eds.) (1996). The Legacy of Alan Turing, Volume 1: Machines and Thought. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Millican, P. (n.d.). A New Paradigm of Explanation? Retrieved from www.philocomp.net/home/paradigm.htm Google Scholar

Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate Scratch projects. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 132–133). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 46(10), 1–23.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2011). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a Workshop of Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

NZ Ministry of Education (2017). The New Zealand Curriculum Online: Technology: Learning area structure. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Technology/Learning-area-structure Google Scholar

Oates, T., Coe, R., Peyton-Jones, S., Scratcherd, T., & Woodhead, S. (2016). Quantum: Tests worth teaching. White Paper, March, Computing at School. Retrieved from http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/7256/original.pdf Google Scholar

OED (1993). The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (2001). Studies in Reflecting Abstraction. Edited and translated by Campbell, R. L.. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, M. (2013). Learn to Code, Code to Learn. Edsurge, May 8. Retrieved from www.edsurge.com/news/2013-05-08-learn-to-code-code-to-learn Google Scholar

Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A, Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2017). K–8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’17) (pp. 182–190). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Román-González, M. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN 2015) (pp. 2436–2444). Valencia, Spain: IATED Academy.Google Scholar

Román-Gonzáles, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (CTE2017) (pp. 154–159). Ting Kok, Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Royal Society (2012). Shut Down or Restart? The Way Forward for Computing in UK Schools. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Royal Society (2017a). After the Reboot: Computing Education in UK Schools. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Royal Society (2017b). Machine Learning: The Power and Promise of Computers That Learn by Example. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Schocken, S., & Nisan, N. (2004). From NAND to Tetris in 12 easy steps. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference on Frontiers in Education (p. 1461). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’13) (pp. 59–66). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Seiter, L. (2015). Using SOLO to classify the programming responses of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 540–545). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481 Google Scholar

Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.Google Scholar

Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2016). Teaching abstract thinking in introduction to computer science for 7th graders. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 80–83). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Susskind, R. (2017). Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sykora, C. (2014). Computational thinking for all. Arlington: ISTE. Retrieved from www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=152&category=Solutions&article=Computational-thinking-for-all Google Scholar

Tedre, M., & Denning, P. J. (2016). The long quest for computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 120–129). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Thimbleby, H. (2018). Misunderstanding IT: Hospital cybersecurity and IT problems reach the courts. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 15, 11–32.Google Scholar

Turing, A. M. (1936) (published 1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2(42), 230–265.Google Scholar

Waite, J., Curzon, P., Marsh, D. W., & Sentance, S. (2016). Abstraction and common classroom activities. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 112–113). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Waite, J., Curzon, P., Marsh, W., & Sentance, S. (2017). Teachers’ uses of levels of abstraction focusing on design. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 115–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Google Scholar

Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(2), 9.Google Scholar

Aggarwal, A., Touretzky, D. S., & Gardner-McCune, C. (2018). Demonstrating the ability of elementary school students to reason about programs. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 735–740). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Al Sabbagh, A., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H., & Razak, S. (2017). Computing curriculum in middle schools: An experience report. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 230–235). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Alexandron, G., Armoni, M., Gordon, M., & Harel, D. (2013). On teaching programming with nondeterminism. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2013) (pp. 71–74). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Araujo, L. G. J., Bittencourt, R. A., & Santos, D. M. B. (2018). An analysis of a media-based approach to teach programming to middle school students. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 1005–1010). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). From Scratch to “real” programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 25.1–25.15.Google Scholar

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015). Australian Curriculum: Digital Technologies. Retrieved from www.australiancurriculum.edu.au Google Scholar

Basawapatna, A. R., Koh, K. H., & Repenning, A. (2010). Using scalable game design to teach computer science from middle school to graduate school. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘10) (pp. 224–228). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Andreae, P., & Robins, A. (2014). A case study of the introduction of computer science in NZ schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 10.1–10.31.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Newton, H., Andreae, P., & Robins, A. (2012a). The introduction of computer science to NZ high schools – An analysis of student work. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 5–15). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012b) Computer science unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In Bodlaender, H. L., Downey, R., Fomin, F. V., & Marx, D. (Eds.), The Multivariate Algorithmic Revolution and Beyond. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7370 (pp. 398–456). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Benacka, J., & Reichel, J. (2013). Computer modeling with Delphi – Constructionism and IBL in practice and motivation for studying STEM. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7780 (pp. 136–46). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Ben-Bassat Levry, R., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). Robotics – Is the investment worthwhile? In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 22–31). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Ben-David Kolikant, Y. (2001). Gardeners and cinema tickets: High school students’ preconceptions of concurrency. Computer Science Education, 11(3), 221–245.Google Scholar

Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Pollack, S. (2004). Establishing computer science professional norms among high-school students. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 21–35.Google Scholar

Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Sadler, S. (2016). Parental involvement and adolescent’s educational success: The roles of prior achievement and socioeconomic status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1053–1064.Google Scholar

Benotti, L., Martínez, M. C., & Schapachnik, F. (2014). Engaging high school students using chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 63–68). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Bischof, E., & Sabitzer, B. (2011). Computer science in primary schools – Not possible, but necessary?! In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2011), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7013 (pp. 95–105). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, , , A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 65–72). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brinda, T., Puhlmann, H., & Schulte, C. (2009). Bridging ICT and CS: Educational standards for computer science in lower secondary education. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2009) (pp. 289–292). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brinda, T., & Terjung, Th. (2017). A database is like a dresser with lots of sorted drawers: Secondary school learners’ conceptions of relational databases. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 39–48). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brinkmeier, M., & Kalbreyer, D. (2016). A case study of physical computing in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2016) (pp. 54–59). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brown, N. C. C., Sentance, S., Crick, T., & Humphreys, S. (2014). Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 9.1–9.22.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Buffum, P. S., Frankorsky, M. H., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Empowering all Sstudents: Closing the CS confidence gap with an in-school initiative for middle school students. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 382–387). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. (2012). The writers’ workshop for youth programmers: Digital storytelling with scratch in middle school classrooms. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 433–438). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Carruthers, S., Milford, T., Pelton, T., & Stege, U. (2011). Draw a social network. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘11) (pp. 178–182). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Carter, E., Blank, G., & Walz, J. (2012). Bringing the breadth of computer science to middle schools. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 203–208). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Castro, B., Diaz, T., Gee, M., Justice, R., Kwan, D., Seshadri, P., & Dodds, Z. (2016). MyCS at 5: Assessing a middle-years CS curriculum. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 558–563). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Cateté, V., Snider, , , E., & Barnes, T. (2016). Developing a rubric for a creative CS principles lab. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 290–295). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 355–376.Google Scholar

Cheong, Y. F., Pajares, F., & Oberman, P. S. (2004). Motivation and academic help-seeking in high school computer science. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 3–19.Google Scholar

Chiprianov, V., & Gallon, L. (2016). Introducing computational thinking to K–5 in a French context. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 112–117). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Chun, S. Y., & Ryoo, J. (2010). Development and application of a web-based programming learning system with LED display kits. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2010) (pp. 310–314). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Corradini, I., Lodi, M., & Nardelli, E. (2017). Computational thinking in Italian schools: Quantitative data and teachers’ sentiment analysis after two years of “Programma il Futuro”. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 224–229). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Cutts, Q., Connor, R., Donaldson, P., & Michaelson, G. (2014). Code or (not code) – Separating formal and natural language in CS education. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 20–28). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Deitrick, E., Wilkerson, M., & Simoneau, E. (2017). Understanding student collaboration in interdisciplinary computing activities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2017) (pp. 118–126). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

DeLyser, L. A. (2014). Software engineering students in the city. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 37–42). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2015) (pp. 39–48). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Dwyer, H. A., Hill, C., Hansen, A., Iveland, A., Franklin, D., & Harlow, D. (2015). Fourth grade students reading block-based programs: Predictions, visual cues, and affordances. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2015) (pp. 111–119). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Dwyer, H. A., Hill, C., Carpenter, S., Harlow, D., & Franklin, D. (2014). Identifying elementary students’ pre-instructional ability to develop algorithms and step-by-step instructions. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 511–516). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Eglash, R., Krishnamoorthy, M., Sanchez, J., & Woodbridge, A. (2011). Fractal simulations of African design in pre-college computing education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(3), 17.1–17.14.Google Scholar

Epstein, R. G., Aiken, R. M., Snelbecker, G., & Potosky, J. (1987). Retraining high school teachers to teach computer science – Observations on the first course. In Proceedings of the 18th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 1987) (pp. 136–140). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Esterhues, J. (Ed.) (1984) Johann Friedrich Herbart. Band I. Umriß pädagogischer Vorlesungen. Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh. In German.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. (2014). The Australian digital technologies curriculum: Challenge and opportunity. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2014) (pp. 3–12). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Feaster, Y., Ali, F., Zhai, J., & Hallstrom, J. O. (2014). Serious toys: Three years of teaching computer science concepts in K–12 classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 69–74). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Feaster, Y., Segars, L., Wahba, S. K., & Hallstrom, J. O. (2011). Teaching CS Unplugged in the high school (with limited success). In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2011) (pp. 248–252). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2000). How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2004). The TeachScheme! Project: Computing and programming for every student. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 55–77.Google Scholar

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for Life in a Digital Age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Franklin, D., Hill, C., Dwyer, H. A., Hansen, A. K., Iveland, A., & Harlow, D. B. (2016). Initialization in Scratch: Seeking Knowledge transfer. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 217–222). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Franklin, D., Skifstad, G., Rolock, R., Mehrotra, I., Ding, V., Hansen, A., Weintrop, D., & Harlow, D. (2017). Using upper-elementary student performance to understand conceptual sequencing in a blocks-based curriculum. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 231–236). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Fronza, I., El Ioini, N., & Corral, L. (2017). Teaching computational thinking using agile software engineering methods: A framework for middle schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(4), 19.1–19.28.Google Scholar

Frost, D. (2007). Fourth grade computer science. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2007) (pp. 302–306). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Funke, A., & Geldreich, K. (2017). Gender differences in Scratch programs of primary school children. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 57–64). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2014). A tale of two countries: Successes and challenges in K–12 computer science education in Israel and the United States. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 8.1–8.18.Google Scholar

Gander, W., Petit, A., Berry, G., Demo, B., Vahrenhold, J., McGettrick, A., Boyle, R., Drechsler, M., Stephenson, C., Ghezzi, C., & Meyer, B. (2013). Informatics Education: Europe Cannot Afford to Miss the Boat. Informatics Europe & Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from www.informatics-europe.org/images/documents/informatics-education-acm-ie.pdf Google Scholar

Gärtig-Daugs, A., Weitz, , Wolking, K., , M., & Schmid, U. (2016). Computer science experimenter’s kit for use in preschool and primary school. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2016) (pp. 66–71). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Giannakos, M. N., Hubwieser, P., & Ruf, A. (2012). Is self-efficacy in programming decreasing with the level of programming skills? In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 16–21). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. P. (2012). Teaching graph algorithms to children of all ages. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 34–39). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ginat, D., & Alankry, R. (2012). Pseudo abstract composition: The case of language concatenation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 28–33). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ginat, D., Menashe, E., & Taya, A. (2013). Novice difficulties with interleaved pattern composition. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7780 (pp. 56–67). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Goode, J., Chapman, G., & Margolis, J. (2012). Beyond curriculum: The Exploring Computer Science Program. ACM Inroads, 3(2), 47–53.Google Scholar

Gordon, M., Marron, A., & Meerbaum-Salant, O. (2012) Spaghetti for the main course?: Observations on the naturalness of scenario-based programming. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 198–203). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 267–272). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Basu, S., & Schank, P. (2018) What we can learn about student learning from open-ended programming projects in middle school computer science. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 999–1004). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014a). Assessing computational learning in K–12. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 57–62). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2014b). Remedying misperceptions of computer science among middle school students. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 343–348). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2016a). Factors influencing computer science learning in middle school. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 552–557). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Rutstein, D., & Snow, E. (2016b). “What is a computer”: What do secondary school students think? In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 564–569). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Gujberova, M., & Kalas, I. (2013). Designing productive gradations of tasks in primary programming education. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2013) (pp. 108–117). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2003) (pp. 104–108). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Haberman, B. (2004). How learning logic programming affects recursion comprehension. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 37–53.Google Scholar

Hansen, A. K., Hansen, E. R., Dwyer, H. A., Harlow, D. B., & Franklin, D. (2016). Differentiating for diversity: Using universal design for learning in elementary computer science education. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 376–381). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Education Studies in Mathematics, 44, 71–90.Google Scholar

Heimann, P. (1962). Didaktik als Theorie und Lehre. Die Deutsche Schule, 54(9), 407–427. In German.Google Scholar

Heiner, C. (2018). A robotics experience for all the students in an elementary school. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 729–34). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Heintz, F., Mannila, L., Nygårds, K., Parnes, , , P., & Regnell, B. (2015). Computing at school in Sweden – Experiences from introducing computer science within existing subjects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 118–130). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Hermans, F., & Aivaloglo, E. (2017). To Scratch or not to Scratch?: A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 49–56). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hildebrandt, C., & Diethelm, I. (2012). The school experiment InTech: How to influence interest, self-concept of ability in informatics and vocational orientation. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 30–39). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P. (2013). The Darmstadt Model: A first step towards a research framework for computer science education in schools. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7780 (pp. 1–14). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., Brinda, T., Dagiene, V., Diethelm, I., Giannakos, M. N., Knobelsdorf, M., Magenheim, J., Mittermeir, R. T., & Schubert, S. (2011). Computer science/informatics in secondary schools. In ITICSE-WGR ‘11: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education – Working Group Reports (pp. 18–38). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., & Giannakos, M. N. (2015a). How to implement rigorous computer science education in K–12 schools? Some answers and many questions. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(2), 5.1–5.12.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., Giannakos, M. N., & Mittermeir, R.T. (2014). Perspectives and visions of computer science education in primary and secondary (K–12) schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 7.1–7.9.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., Pal, Y., Jackova, J., & Jasute, E. (2015b). A global snapshot of computer science education in K–12 schools. In ITICSE-WGR ‘15: Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 65–83). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hug, S., Guenther, R., & Wenk, M. (2013). Cultivating a K12 computer science community: A case study. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2013) (pp. 275–280). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ioannou, I., & Angeli, C. (2014). Examining the effects of an instructional intervention on destabilizing learners’ misconceptions about the central processing unit. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 93–99). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Isayama, D., Ishiyama, M., Relator, R., & Yamazaki, K. (2017). Computer science education for primary and lower secondary school students: Teaching the concept of automata. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(1), 2.1–2.28.Google Scholar

Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Shehab, S., Melvin, O., & Lash, T. (2017). Describing elementary students’ interactions in K–5 puzzle-based computer science environments using the Collaborative Computing Observation Instrument (C-COI). InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2017) (pp. 110–117). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Joentausta, J., & Hellas, A. (2018). Subgoal labeled worked examples in K–3 education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 616–621). New York: ACM 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), 1.1–1.20.Google Scholar

Kaila, E., Lindén, R., Lokkila, , , E., & Laakso, M. (2017). About programming maturity in Finnish high schools: A comparison between high school and university students’ programming skills. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 122–127). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kallia, M. (2017). Assessment in Computer Science Courses: A Literature Review. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Kastl, P., KIesmüller, U., & Romeike, R. (2016). Starting out with projects – Experiences with agile software development in high schools. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2016) (pp. 60–65). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kiesmüller, U. (2009). Diagnosing learners’ problem-solving strategies using learning environments with algorithmic problems in secondary education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(3), 17.1–17.26.Google Scholar

King-Sears, P. (2014). Introduction to Learning Disability Quarterly special series on universal design for learning: Part one of two. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 68–70.Google Scholar

Knobelsdorf, M., Magenheim, J., Brinda, T., Engbring, D., Humbert, L., Pasternak, A., Schroeder, U., Thomas, M., & Vahrenhold, J. (2015). Computer science education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany – A case study. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(2), 9.1–9.22.Google Scholar

Kohn, T. (2017). Variable evaluation: An exploration of novice programmers’ understanding and common misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 345–350). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lamprou, A., Repenning, A., & Escherle, N. A. (2017). The Solothurn Project: Bringing computer science education to primary schools in Switzerland. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 218–223). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lang, C., Craig, A., & Casey, G. (2014). Unblocking the pipeline by providing a compelling computing experience in secondary schools: Are the teachers ready? In Proceedings of the Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2014) (pp. 149–158). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Lemov, D. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Lemov, D., Hernandez, J., & Kim, J. (2016). Teach Like a Champion Field Guide 2.0: A Practical Resource to Make the 62 Techniques Your Own, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., Khayarallah, H., & Tsai, A. (2013). Mining data from the AP CS A exam: Patterns, non-patterns, and replication failure. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2013) (pp. 115–122). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. W., Kohne, L., Mechlinski, T., & Schmalstig, M. (2015). The exploring computer science course, attendance and math achievement. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘15) (pp. 147–152). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Liebenberg, J., Mentz, E., & Breed, B. (2012). Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject information technology (IT). Computer Science Education, 22(3), 219–236.Google Scholar

Liu, A., Schunn, C., Flot, J., & Shoop, R. (2013). The role of physicality in rich programming environments. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 315–331.Google Scholar

Magerko, B., Freeman, J., McKlin, T., Reilly, M., Livingston, E., McCoid, S., & Crews-Brown, A. (2016). EarSketch: A STEAM-based approach for underrepresented populations in high school computer science education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 16(4), 14.1–14.25.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2001). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Martinez, C., Gomez, M. J., & Benotti, L. (2015). A comparison of preschool and elementary school children learning computer science concepts through a multilanguage robot programming platform. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘15) (pp. 159–164). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

McCabe, T. J. (1976). A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-2(4), 308–320.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Hazzan, O. (2010). An agile constructionist mentoring methodology for software projects in the high school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(4), 21.1–21.29.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Challenges in mentoring software development projects in the high school: Analysis according to Shulman’s teacher knowledge base model. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(1), 23–43.Google Scholar

Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K., & Kameas, A. (2017). Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(2), 9.1–9.22.Google Scholar

Montessori, M. (1909). Il Metodo della Pedagogia Scientifica Applicato All’educazione Infantile Nelle Case dei Bambini. Città di Castello, Italy: S. Lafi.Google Scholar

Mühling, A., Ruf, , , A., & Hubwieser, P. (2015). Design and first results of a psychometric test for measuring basic programming abilities. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2015) (pp. 2–10). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Musicant, D., & Selcen Guzey, S. (2015). Engaging high school students in modeling and simulation through educational media. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2015) (pp. 464–469). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Nishida, T., Idosaka, Y., Hofuku, Y., Kanemune, S., & Kuno, Y. (2008). New methodology of information education with “computer science unplugged”. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5090 (pp. 241–252). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Pasternak, A. (2016). Contextualized teaching in the lower secondary education: Long-term evaluation of a CS course from Grade 6 to 10. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 657–662). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Pasternak, A., & Vahrenhold, J. (2012). Design and evaluation of a braided teaching course in sixth grade computer science education. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 45–50). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Peters, A. K., & Rick, D. (2014). Identity development in computing education: Theoretical perspectives and an implementation in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 70–79). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Poirot, J. L. (1979). Computer education in the secondary school: Problems and solutions. In Proceedings of the Tenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 1979) (pp. 101–104). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Reges, S. (2008). The mystery of “b:= (b = false)”. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2008) (pp. 21–25). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Robertson, J. (2013). The influence of a game-making project on male and female learners’ attitudes to computing. Computer Science Education, 23(1), 58–83.Google Scholar

Rodriguez, B., Kennicutt, S., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2017). Assessing computational thinking in CS Unplugged activities. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 501–506). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Rodriguez, B., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2016). Using student performance to assess CS Unplugged activities in a classroom environment. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 95–100). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ruf, A., Mühling, A., & Hubwieser, P. (2014). Scratch vs. Karel – Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 50–59). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Sahami, M., Danyluk, A., Fincher, S., Fisher, K., Grossman, D., Hawthorne, E., Katz, R., LeBlanc, R., Reed, D., Roach, S., Cuadros-Vargas, E., Dodge, R., France, R., Kumar, A., Robinson, B., Seker, R., & Thompson, A. (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013 – Final Report. Association for Computing Machinery & IEEE-Computer Society. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2534860 Google Scholar

Sakhnini, V., & Hazzan, O. (2008). Reducing abstraction in high school computer science education: The case of definition, implementation, and use of abstract data types. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 8(2), 5.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 2018) (pp. 8–13). New York: ACM Press.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 (SIGCSE 2015) (pp. 616–621). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Schofield, E., Erlinger, M., & Dodds, Z. (2014). MyCS: CS for middle-year students and their teachers. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 337–342). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Schollmeyer, M. (1996). Computer programming in high school vs. college. In Proceedings of the 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 1996) (pp. 378–382). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Schulte, C., & Magenheim, J. (2005). Novices’ expectations and prior knowledge of software development: Results of a study with high school students. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER 2005) (pp. 143–153). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Searle, K. A., Fields, D. A., Lui, D. A., & Kafai, Y. (2014). Diversifying high school students’ views about computing with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2014) (pp. 75–82). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O’Grady-Cunniff, D., Boucher Owens, B., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2011). K–12 Computer Science Standards – Revised 2011. New York: Computer Science Teachers Association & Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., & Kobarg, M. (Eds.) (2005). How to Run a Video Study. Technical Report of the IPN Video Study. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar

Seiter, L. (2015). Using SOLO to classify the programming responses of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2015) (pp. 540–545). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2013) (pp. 59–66). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Sentance, S., & Czismadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.Google Scholar

Sentance, S., Waite, J., Hodges, S., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. (2017). “Creating cool stuff”: Pupils’ experience of the BBC micro:bit. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 531–536). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Serafini, G. (2011). Teaching programming at primary schools: Visions, experiences, and long-term research prospects. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2011), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7013 (pp. 143–154). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Settle, A., Franke, B., Hansen, R., Spaltro, F., Jurisson, C., Rennert-May, C., & Wildeman, B. (2012). Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and high-school curriculum. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 22–27). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Siegel, A. A., & Zarb, M. (2016). Student concerns regarding transition into higher education CS. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 23–28). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Shah, P., Capovilla, D., & Hubwieser, P. (2015). Searching for barriers to learning iteration and runtime in computer science. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2015) (pp. 73–75). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. E. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Smetsers-Weeda, R., & Smetsers, S. (2017). Problem solving and algorithmic development with flowcharts. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 25–34). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Snow, E., Rutstein, D., Bienkowski, M., & Xu, Y. (2017). Principled assessment of student learning in high school computer science. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2017) (pp. 209–216). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2016). Teaching abstract thinking in introduction to computer science for 7th graders. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2016) (pp. 80–83). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2017). Learning abstraction in computer science: A gender perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 5–14). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Steiner, R. (1984). Erziehungskunst. Seminarbesprechungen und Lehrplanvorträge. Dornach, Germany: Rudolf Steiner Verlag. In German.Google Scholar

Sysło, M. M. (2014) The first 25 years of computers in education in Poland: 1965–1990. In Tatnall, A. & Davey, B. (Eds.), Reflections on the History of Computers in Education. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 424 (pp. 266–290). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Sysło, M. M., & Kwiatkowska, A. B. (2015). Introducing a new computer science curriculum for all school levels in Poland. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 141–154). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Tabet, N., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H., & Razak, S. (2016). From Alice to Python. Introducing text-based programming in middle schools. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 124–129). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Taub, R., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2012). CS Unplugged and middle-school students’ views, attitudes, and intentions regarding CS. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(2), 8.1–8.29.Google Scholar

Tessler, J., Beth, B., & Lin, C. (2013). Using Cargo-Bot to provide contextualized learning of recursion. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2013) (pp. 161–168). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

The Royal Society (2012). Shut Down or Restart – The Way Forward for Computing in UK Schools. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-computing-in-schools.pdf Google Scholar

Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2013). On plugging “Unplugged” into CS classes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2013) (pp. 365–370). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2016). Back to school: Computer science unplugged in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 118–123). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Tsan, J., Boyer, K. E., & Lynch, C. F. (2016). How early does the CS gender gap emerge?: A study of collaborative problem solving in 5th grade computer science. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 288–293). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Tsan, J., Rodriguez, F. J., Boyer, K. E., & Lynch, C. (2018). “I think we should…”: Analyzing elementary students’ collaborative processes for giving and taking suggestions. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 622–627). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Vahrenhold, J. (2012). On the importance of being earnest: Challenges in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 3–4). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Vahrenhold, J., Nardelli, E., Pereira, C., Berry, G., Caspersen, M. E., Gal-Ezer, J., Kölling, M., McGettrick, , , A., & Westermeier, M. (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are We All in The Same Boat? Association for Computing Machinery & Informatics Europe. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3106077 Google Scholar

Vaníček, J. (2015). Programming in Scratch using inquiry-based approach. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 82–93). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Waite, J. (2017). Pedagogy in Teaching Computer Science in Schools: A Literature Review. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y.J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., & Sysło, M. M. (2017). Computer science in K–12 school curricula of the 21st century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445–468.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 3.1–3.20.Google Scholar

Werner, L., Campe, S., & Denner, J. (2012a). Children learning computer science concepts via Alice game-programming. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 427–432). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012b). The Fairy Performance Assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 215–220). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

White House Office of the Press Secretary (2016). FACT SHEET: President Obama Announces Computer Science For All Initiative. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-computer-science-all-initiative-0 Google Scholar

Whitherspoon, E. B., Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., Baehr, E. C., & Shoop, R. (2018). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 4.1–4.20.Google Scholar

Wilson, C., Sudol, L.A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K–12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. New York: Association for Computing Machinery & Computer Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar

Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(2), 9.1–9.22.Google Scholar

Wong-Villacres, M., Ehsan, U., Solomon, A., Pozo Buil, M., & DiSalvo, B. (2017). Design guidelines for parent-school technologies to support the ecology of parental engagement. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 73–83). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Woszczynski, A. B. (2006). CyberTech I: Online introduction to computer science course for high school students. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2006) (pp. 153–157). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Wood, Z. J., Muhl, P., & Hicks, K. (2016). Computational art: Introducing high school students to computing via art. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 261–266). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Wu, C.-C., Tseng, I.-C., & Huang, S.-L. (2008). Visualization of program behaviors: Physical robots versus robot simulators. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5090 (pp. 53–62). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Xu, D., Cadle, A., Thompson, D., Wolz, U., Greenberg, I., & Kumar, D. (2016). Creative computation in high school. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 273–278). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Zur-Bargury, I., Pârv, B., & Lanzberg, D. (2013). A nationwide exam as a tool for improving a new curriculum. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘13) (pp. 267–272). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., Conrad, F., Corbett, A. T., Fincham, J. M., Hoffman, D., & Wu, Q. (1993). Computer programming and transfer. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Rules of the Mind (pp. 205–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Antoniu, T., Steckler, P. A., Krishnamurthi, S., Neuwirth, E., & Felleisen, M. (2004). Validating the unit correctness of spreadsheet programs. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 439–448). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 81–119.Google Scholar

Brennan, K., Hernández, A. M., & Resnick, M. (2009). Scratch: Creating and sharing interactive media. In CSCL’09: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (p. 217). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Carver, S. M. (1986). Transfer of LOGO Debugging Skill: Analysis, Instruction, and Assessment (PhD thesis). Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

Carver, S. M., & Klahr, D. (1986). Assessing children’s LOGO debugging skills with a formal model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 487–525.Google Scholar

Diethelm, I., Hubwieser, P., & Klaus, R. (2012). Students, teachers and phenomena: educational reconstruction for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 164–173). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Disessa, A. (2001). Changing Minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Disessa, A. A. (1985). A principled design for an integrated computational environment. Human–Computer Interaction, 1, 1–47.Google Scholar

Disessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29, 859–868.Google Scholar

Dorn, B. (2011). ScriptABLE: Supporting informal learning with cases. In ICER ‘11: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 69–76). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Graphic designers who program as informal computer science learners. In ICER ‘06: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2010). Discovering computing: Perspectives of web designers. In ICER ‘10: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 23–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B. J. (2012). A Case-based Approach for Supporting the Informal Computing Education of End-user Programmers (PhD thesis). College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Eisenstadt, M. (1979). A friendly software environment for psychology students. Communications of the ACM, 26, 1058–1064.Google Scholar

Ensmenger, N. L. (2010). The Computer Boys Take Over: Computers, Programmers, and the Politics of Technical Expertise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., & Biggers, M. (2005). A model for improving secondary CS education. In SIGCSE ‘05: Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 332–336). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., & Biggers, M. (2007). Improving secondary CS education: Progress and problems. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39, 298–301.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2009). Viewpoint: Why computer science doesn’t matter. Communications of the ACM, 52, 37–40.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., & Maloney, J. (2010). Comparing Alice, Greenfoot, & Scratch. In SIGCSE ‘10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 192–193). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Flanagan, D. (2006). JavaScript: The Definitive Guide. Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar

Forte, A., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Computers for communication, not calculation: Media as a motivation and context for learning. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04) – Track 4 – Volume 4 (p. 10) Hoboken, NJ: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Forte, A., & Guzdial, M. (2005). Motivation and non-majors in computer science: Identifying discrete audiences for introductory courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48, 248–253.Google Scholar

Green, T. R. G., & Petre, M. 1992. When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. In Veer, G. C. V. D., Tauber, M. J., Bagnarola, S., & Antavolits, M. (Eds.), Human–Computer Interaction: Tasks and Organisation, Proceedings EECE-6 (6th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics) (pp. 167–180) Rome, Italy: CUD.Google Scholar

Green, T. R. G., & Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A “cognitive dimensions” framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7, 131–174.Google Scholar

Green, T. R. G., Petre, M., & Bellamy, R. K. E. 1991. Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of “superlativism” against the “match–mismatch” conjecture. In Koenemann-Belliveau, J., Moher, T., & Robertson, S. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop (pp. 121–146). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Guo, Y., Wagh, A., Brady, C., Levy, S. T., Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Frogs to think with: Improving students’ computational thinking and understanding of evolution in a code-first learning environment. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 246–254). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (1995). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1–44.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35, 104–108.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2009). Education: Teaching computing to everyone. Communications of the ACM, 52, 31–33.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2013). Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M., & Forte, A. (2005). Design process for a non-majors computing course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37, 361–365.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

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar

Hewner, M., & Guzdial, M. (2008). Attitudes about computing in postsecondary graduates. In ICER ‘08: Proceeding of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P. (2012). Computer science education in secondary schools – The introduction of a new compulsory subject. Transactions on Computing Education, 12, 16:1–16:41.Google Scholar

Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Farley, S., & Brown, J. L. (2006). Can direct manipulation lower the barriers to programming and promote positive transfer to textual programming? An experimental study. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 2006. VL/HCC 2006 (pp. 157–164). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in Play: Computer Game Design As a Context for Children’s Learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B. (1998). Video game designs by girls and boys: Variability and consistency of gender differences. In From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games (pp. 90–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 321–363.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. Transactions on Computing Education, 14, 1–20.Google Scholar

Katz, E. E., & Porter, H. S. (1991). HyperTalk as an overture to CS1. SIGCSE Bulletin, 23, 48–54.Google Scholar

Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. Computer, 10(3), 31–41.Google Scholar

Kay, A. C. (1972). A personal computer for children of all ages. In Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference – Volume 1. New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kay, A. C. (1993). The early history of Smalltalk. In The Second ACM SIGPLAN Conference on History of Programming Languages (pp. 69–95). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1980). Basic Programming. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1985). Back to Basic: The History, Corruption, and Future of the Language. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar

Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 362–404.Google Scholar

Ko, A. J., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Blackwell, A., Burnett, M., Erwig, M., Scaffidi, C., Lawrance, J., Lieberman, H., & Myers, B. (2011). The state of the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 43(3), 21.Google Scholar

Koushik, V., & Lewis, C. (2016). An accessible blocks language: Work in progress. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 317–318). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 429–458.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, C. B. (2013). Experience report: CS1 in MATLAB for non-majors, with media computation and peer instruction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 35–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008a). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. In SIGCSE ‘08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 367–371). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008b). Media designs with Scratch: What urban youth can learn about programming in a computer clubhouse. In ICLS’08: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 81–82). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. Transactions on Computing Education, 10, 16:1–16:15.Google Scholar

Miller, L. A. (1974). Programming by non-programmers. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 6, 237–260.Google Scholar

Miller, L. A. (1981). Natural language programming: Styles, strategies, and contrasts. IBM Systems Journal, 29, 184–215.Google Scholar

Myers, B. A., Pane, J. F., & Ko, A. (2004). Natural programming languages and environments. Communications of the ACM, 47, 47–52.Google Scholar

Ni, L. (2009). What makes CS teachers change?: Factors influencing CS teachers’ adoption of curriculum innovations. In SIGCSE ‘09: Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 544–548). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ni, L. (2011). Building Professional Identity as Computer Science Teachers: Supporting High School Computer Science Teachers Through Reflection and Community Building (PhD thesis). Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Ni, L., & Guzdial, M. (2011). Prepare and support computer science (CS) teachers: Understanding CS teachers’ professional identity. In American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA: AERA.Google Scholar

Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and Computers. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Olson, G. M., Catrambone, R., & Soloway, E. (1987). Programming and algebra word problems: a failure to transfer. In Empirical Studies of Programmers Workshop (pp. 1–13). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar

Palumbo, D. J. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65–89.Google Scholar

Pane, J. F., Ratanamahatana, C., & Myers, B. (2001). Studying the language and structure in non-programmers’ solutions to programming problems. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 54(2), 237–264.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 3(3), 249–262.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1987). Information technology and education: Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16, 22–30.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 417–427.Google Scholar

Papert, S. A., & Solomon, C. (1971). Twenty Things to Do with a Computer. Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5836 Google Scholar

Pasternak, A., & Vahrenhold, J. (2010). Braided teaching in secondary CS education: Contexts, continuity, and the role of programming. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 204–208). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D. (1987). The aims of software criticism: Reply to Professor Papert. Educational Researcher, 16, 4–8.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D., Kurland, D. M., & Hawkins, J. (1985). Logo programming and the development of thinking skills. Technical Report 16. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED249930 Google Scholar

Perlis, A. J. (1962). The computer in the iniversity. In Greenberger, M. (Ed.), Computers and the World of the Future (pp. 180–217). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 235–275.Google Scholar

Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Herández, A., Rusk, , Eastmond, N., Brennan, E., Millner, K., Rosenbaum, A., Silver, E., Silverman, J., , B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In CHI ‘98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 281–287). Los Angeles, CA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Rich, L., Perry, H., & Guzdial, M. (2004). A CS1 course designed to address interests of women. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 190–194). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Scaffidi, C. (2017). Workers who use spreadsheets and who program earn more than similar works who do neither. In VL/HCC 2017 (pp. 233–237). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar

Scaffidi, C., Shaw, M., & Myers, B. (2005). An approach for categorizing end user programmers to guide software engineering research. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 30, 1–5.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

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 (pp. 8–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys’ needlework: Understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In ICER ‘15: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 31–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick’’ authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10, 195–215.Google Scholar

Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 1–61.Google Scholar

Simon, B., Chen, T.-Y., Lewandowski, G., McCartney, R., & Sanders, K. (2006). Commonsense computing: What students know before we teach (Episode 1: Sorting). In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 29–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, B., Kinnunen, P., Porter, L., & Zazkis, D. (2010). Experience report: CS1 for majors with media computation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 214–218). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sloan, R. H., & Troy, P. (2008). CS 0.5: A better approach to introductory computer science for majors. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 271–275). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Schmucker, K. (1996). Making programming easier for children. Interactions, 3, 58–67.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Clark, R., & Kirschner, P. (2010). Teaching general problem-solving skills is not a substitute for, or a viable addition to, teaching mathematics. Notices of the AMS, 57, 1303–1304.Google Scholar

Taylor, R. (Ed.) (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Vasudevan, V., Kafai, Y., & Yang, L. (2015). Make, wear, play: Remix designs of wearable controllers for scratch games by middle school youth. In IDC ‘15: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 339–342). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127–147.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015a). Using commutative assessments to compare conceptual understanding in blocks-based and text-based programs. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Snnual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 101–110). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015b). To block or not to block, that is the question: Students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 199–208). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Whitehead, C., Ray, L., Khan, S., Summers, W., & Obando, R. (2011). Implementing a computer science endorsement program for secondary school teachers. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 547–552). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57, 24–28.Google Scholar

Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wilkerson-Jerde, M., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. R. I. (2015). Balancing curricular and pedagogical needs in computational construction kits: Lessons From the DeltaTick Project. Science Education, 99(3), 465–499.Google Scholar

Wilson, G. (2016). Software Carpentry: Lessons learned. F1000Research. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3976103/Google Scholar

Wing, J. (2010). Computational Thinking: What and Why. The Link. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why Google Scholar

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49, 33–35.Google Scholar

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Aaronson, S. (2002). Quantum Computing for High School Students. Retrieved from www.scottaaronson.com/writings/highschool.html Google Scholar

Abelson, H., Sussman, G. J., & Sussman, J. (1996). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

ACM/IEEE–CS Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013. USA: ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar

Aho, A. V. (2011). Ubiquity symposium: Computation and computational thinking. Ubiquity, January 2011, Article 1 (8 pages). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.Google Scholar

Arlot, S., & Celisse, A. (2010). A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Statistics Surveys, 4, 40–79.Google Scholar

Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., & Yasmin, K. (Eds.) (2013). Textile messages: Dispatches from the world of e-textiles and education. In New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2013). Imagining, creating, playing, sharing, reflecting: How online community supports young people as designers of interactive media. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for the Classroom (pp. 253–268). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Brewer, E. A. (2000). Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC ‘00) (p. 7). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (Eds.) (2005). Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chong, F. T., Franklin, D., & Martonosi, M. (2017). Programming languages and compiler design for realistic quantum hardware. Nature, 549, 180–187.Google Scholar

Computer Science Teachers Association (2017). K–12 Computer Science Standards. Retrieved from www.csteachers.org/page/standards Google Scholar

Computing at School Working Group (2012). Computer science: A curriculum for schools. sCurric.pdf Google Scholar

Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to Algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, S. (2013). From surveys to collaborative art: Enabling children to program with online data. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 28–35). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39.Google Scholar

Denning, P. J. (1989). A debate on teaching computing science. Communications of the ACM, 32(12), 1397–1414.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 859–868.Google Scholar

Fails, J. A., & OlsenJr., D. R. (2003). Interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 39–45). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2014). How to Design Programs, Second Edition. Retrieved from www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/HtDP2e/Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2009). A functional I/O system or, fun for freshman kids. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 44(9), 47–58.Google Scholar

Feynman, R. P. (1982). Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6), 467–488.Google Scholar

Feynman, R. P. (1986). Quantum mechanical computers. Foundations of Physics, 16(6), 507–531.Google Scholar

Fiebrink, R., Trueman, D., & Cook, P. R. (2009). A meta-instrument for interactive, on-the-fly machine learning. In Proceedings of NIME 2009 (pp. 280–285). International: NIME.Google Scholar

Fiebrink, R., Cook, P. R., & Trueman, D. (2011). Human model evaluation in interactive supervised learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 147–156). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N. A., & Paterson, M. S. (1985). Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2), 374–382.Google Scholar

Flegg, J., Mallet, D., & Lupton, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of the relevance of mathematics in engineering. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(6), 717–732.Google Scholar

Gilbert, S. & Lynch, N. (2002). Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. ACM SIGACT News, 33(2), 51–59.Google Scholar

Gruber, H., Holzer, M., & Ruepp, O. (2007). Sorting the slow way: An analysis of perversely awful randomized sorting algorithms. In International Conference on Fun with Algorithms (pp. 183–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Harrow, A. W., & Montanaro, A. (2017). Quantum computational supremacy. Nature, 549, 203–209.Google Scholar

Hoare, C. A. R. (1978). Communicating sequential processes. In P. B. Hansen (Ed.), The Origin of Concurrent Programming (pp. 413–443). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

K–12 Computer Science Framework (2016). K–12 Computer Science Framework. Retrieved from https://k12cs.org Google Scholar

Kay, A. (1993). The early history of smalltalk. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 28(3), 511–598.Google Scholar

Kelly, A., Finch, L., Bolles, M. & Shapiro, R. B. (in press). BlockyTalky: New programmable tools to enable students’ learning networks. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.03.004 Google Scholar

Kleppmann, M. (2015). A Critique of the CAP Theorem. Computing Research Repository. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.05393.pdf Google Scholar

Klopfer, E. (2008) Augmented Learning: Research and Design of Mobile Educational Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Knuth, D. E. (1998). The Art of Computer Programming: Sorting and Searching (Vol. 3). London, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Kohavi, R. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. IJCAI, 14(2), 1137–1145.Google Scholar

Laboratory for Playful Computation (2017). BlockyTalkyBLE. Retrieved from www.playfulcomputation.group/blockytalkyble.html Google Scholar

Lamport, L. (1978). Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM, 21(7), 558–565.Google Scholar

Lamport, L. (1998). The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 16(2), 133–169.Google Scholar

Lamport, L. (2001). Paxos made simple. ACM SIGACT News, 32(4), 18–25.Google Scholar

Lewis-Kraus, G. (2016). The great AI awakening. The New York Times Magazine, December 14, 2016. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html Google Scholar

Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 243–254.Google Scholar

Mahendran, A., & Vedaldi, A. (2015). Understanding deep image representations by inverting them. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 5188–5196). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Metodi, T. S., Faruque, A. I., & Chong, F. T. (2011). Quantum computing for computer architects, second edition. In M. D. Hill (Ed.), Synthesis Lectures on Computer Architecture (pp. 1–203). San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar

Mohseni, M., Read, P., Neven, H., Boixo, S., Denchev, V., Babbush, R., Fowler, A., Smelyanskiy, V., & Martinis, J. (2017). Commercialize quantum technologies in five years. Nature News, 543(7644), 171–175.Google Scholar

Morazán, M. (2018). Infusing an HtDP-based CS1 with distributed programming using functional video games. Journal of Functional Programming, 28, e5.Google Scholar

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Google Scholar

Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3–4), 720–729.Google Scholar

Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 265–269). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.Google Scholar

Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 1.5–2.6.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

Shor, P. W. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. In Foundations of Computer Science, 1994 Proceedings (pp. 124–134). Chicago, IL: IEEE.Google Scholar

Sipser, M. (2012). Introduction to the Theory of Computation. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry – Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.Google Scholar

Tanenbaum, A. S., & Van Steen, M. (2007). Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

The College Board (2014). Computer Science A: Course Description. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar

The College Board (2017). AP Computer Science Principles. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar

The Royal Society (2017). Machine learning: The power and promise of computers that learn by example. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/machine-learning Google Scholar

Tichy, W. (2017). Is quantum computing for real? An interview with Catherine McGeoch of D-Wave Systems. Ubiquity, 2007, 2.Google Scholar

Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., Seop, L., Lee, C. H., & Lao, N. (2017). Critical computational empowerment: Engaging youth as shapers of the digital future. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017 IEEE (pp. 1705–1708). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., & Abelson, H. (in press). From Computational Thinking to Computational Action. To appear in Communications of the ACM.Google Scholar

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.Google Scholar

Reader, R. (2015). Code Girl documentary perfectly sums up why more girls don’t code. VentureBeat. Retrieved from https://venturebeat.com/2015/11/04/code-girl-documentary-perfectly-sums-up-why-more-girls-dont-code/Google Scholar

Vandin, F., Upfal, E., & Raphael, B. J. (2011). Algorithms for detecting significantly mutated pathways in cancer. Journal of Computational Biology, 18(3), 507–522.Google Scholar

Vogels, W. (2009). Eventually consistent. Communications of the ACM, 52(1), 40–44.Google Scholar

Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.Google Scholar

Wilkerson-Jerde, M., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Balancing curricular and pedagogical needs in computational construction kits: Lessons from the DeltaTick project. Science Education, 99(3), 465–499.Google Scholar

Williams, C., Stanisstreet, M., Spall, K., Boyes, E., & Dickson, D. (2003). Why aren’t secondary students interested in physics? Physics Education, 38(4), 324.Google Scholar

Williamson, D. P., & Shmoys, D. B. (2011). The Design of Approximation Algorithms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Google Scholar

Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.Google Scholar

Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Retrieved from www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why.Google Scholar

Allen, E., Cartwright, R., & Stoler, B. (2002). DrJava: A lightweight pedagogic environment for Java. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), 137–141.Google Scholar

Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83–102.Google Scholar

Ala-Mutka, K., & Jarvinen, H. M. (2004). Assessment process for programming assignments. In Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004 (pp. 181–185). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Aleven, V., Myers, E., Easterday, M., & Ogan, A. (2010). Toward a framework for the analysis and design of educational games. In Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL) (pp. 69–76). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Ali, N. H., Shukur, Z., & Idris, S. (2007). Assessment system for UML class diagram using notations extraction. International Journal on Computer Science Network Security, 7, 181–187.Google Scholar

Alvarado, C., Morrison, B., Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., Miller, B., & Ranum, D. (2012). Performance and use evaluation of an electronic book for introductory Python programming. Computer Science Faculty Publications. 62. University of Nebraska at Omaha. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/compscifacpub/62 Google Scholar

Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). Increasing students’ awareness of their behavior in online learning environments with visualizations and achievement badges. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(3), 261–273.Google Scholar

Baecker, R. M., & Sherman, D. (1983). Sorting Out Sorting: Narrated colour videotape, 30 minutes, presented at ACM SIGGRAPH ‘81 and excerpted in ACM SIGGRAPH Video Review #7.Google Scholar

Benford, S., Burke, E., Foxley, E., Gutteridge, N., & Zin, A. M. (1994). Ceilidh as a course management support system. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22(3), 235–250.Google Scholar

Ben-Ari, M., Bednarik, R., Levy, R. B. B., Ebel, G., Moreno, A., Myller, N., & Sutinen, E. (2011). A decade of research and development on program animation: The Jeliot experience. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 22(5), 375–384.Google Scholar

Brown, M. H., & Sedgewick, R. (1984). A system for algorithm animation. SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 18(3), 177–186.Google Scholar

Bruce, K. B., Danyluk, A., & Murtagh, T. (2001). A library to support a graphics-based object-first approach to CS 1. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 6–10.Google Scholar

Brusilovsky, P., Edwards, S., Kumar, A., Malmi, L., Benotti, L., Buck, D., Ihantola, P., Prince, R., Sirkiä, T., Sosnovsky, , , S., & Urquiza, J. (2014). Increasing adoption of smart learning content for computer science education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (pp. 31–57). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cardell-Oliver, R., & Doran Wu, P. (2011). UWA Java tools: Harnessing software metrics to support novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 341–341). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Charters, P., Lee, M. J., Ko, A. J., & Loksa, D. (2014). Challenging stereotypes and changing attitudes: the effect of a brief programming encounter on adults’ attitudes toward programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 653–658). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Connolly, T. M., & Stansfield, M. H. (2006). Enhancing eLearning: Using computer games to teach requirements collection and analysis. Presented at Second Symposium of the Working Group on Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 15(5), 107–116.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003). Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 191–195.Google Scholar

Crescenzi, P. (2010). AlViE 3.0. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/alviehomepage/alvie3 Google Scholar

Davies, S., Polack-Wahl, J. A., & Anewalt, K. (2011). A snapshot of current practices in teaching the introductory programming sequence. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 625–630). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dekeyser, S., de Raadt, M., & Lee, T. Y. (2007). Computer assisted assessment of SQL query skills. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Australasian Database – Volume 63 (pp. 53–62). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Diehl, S. (2007). Software Visualization: Visualizing the Structure, Behaviour, and Evolution of Software. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Douce, C., Livingstone, D., & Orwell, J. (2005). Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 5(3), 4.Google Scholar

du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 57–73.Google Scholar

Eckerdal, A., Kinnunen, P., Thota, N., Nylén, A., Sheard, , , J., & Malmi, L. (2014). Teaching and learning with MOOCs: Computing academics’ perspectives and engagement. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 9–14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Edwards, S. H. (2003). Rethinking computer science education from a test-first perspective. In Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (pp. 148–155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Edwards, S. H., Kandru, N., & Rajagopal, M. (2017). Investigating static analysis errors in student Java programs. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 65–73). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Eisenstadt, M. (1997). My hairiest bug war stories. Communications of the ACM, 40(4), 30–37.Google Scholar

Ericson, B. J., Guzdial, M. J., & Morrison, B. B. (2015). Analysis of interactive features designed to enhance learning in an ebook. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 169–178). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericson, B. J., Rogers, K., Parker, M., Morrison, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Identifying design principles for CS teacher ebooks through design-based research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 191–200). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (1998). The DrScheme project: An overview. ACM Sigplan Notices, 33(6), 17–23.Google Scholar

Findler, R. B., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., & Felleisen, M. (1997). DrScheme: A pedagogic programming environment for Scheme. In International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (pp. 369–388). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Findler, R. B., Clements, J., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Steckler, P., & Felleisen, M. (2002). DrScheme: A programming environment for Scheme. Journal of Functional Programming, 12(2), 159–182.Google Scholar

Fisker, K., McCall, D., Kölling, M., & Quig, B. (2008). Group work support for the BlueJ IDE. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 163–168.Google Scholar

Fouh, E., Karavirta, V., Breakiron, D. A., Hamouda, S., Hall, S., Naps, T. L., & Shaffer, C. A. (2014). Design and architecture of an interactive eTextbook – The OpenDSA system. Science of Computer Programming, 88, 22–40.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2014). What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Gómez-Albarrán, M. (2005). The teaching and learning of programming: A survey of supporting software tools. The Computer Journal, 48(2), 130–144.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J. (2013). Online Python tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for CS education. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 579–584). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Haaranen, L. (2017). Programming as a performance: Live-streaming and its implications for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 353–358). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Haaranen, L., & Duran, R. (2017). Link between gaming communities in YouTube and computer science. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 17–24). Setúbal, Portugal: ScitePress.Google Scholar

Helminen, J., Ihantola, P., Karavirta, V., & Malmi, L. (2012). How do students solve parsons programming problems?: An analysis of interaction traces. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 119–126). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Higgins, C., Symeonidis, P., & Tsintsifas, A. (2002). The marking system for CourseMaster. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(3), 46–50.Google Scholar

Hollingsworth, J. (1960). Automatic graders for programming classes. Communications of the ACM, 3(10), 528–529.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar

Ibrahim, R., Yusoff, R. C. M., Omar, H. M., & Jaafar, A. (2010). Students perceptions of using educational games to learn introductory programming. Computer and Information Science, 4(1), 205.Google Scholar

Ihantola, P., Ahoniemi, T., Karavirta, V., & Seppälä, O. (2010). Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 86–93). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jackson, D., & Usher, M. (1997). Grading student programs using ASSYST. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 29(1), 335–339.Google Scholar

Joy, M., Griffiths, N., & Boyatt, R. (2005). The BOSS online submission and assessment system. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 5(3), 2.Google Scholar

Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., & Malmi, L. (2006). On the use of resubmissions in automatic assessment systems. Computer Science Education, 16(3), 229–240.Google Scholar

Karavirta, V., & Shaffer, C. A. (2013). JSAV: The JavaScript algorithm visualization library. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 159–164). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1964). BASIC: A Manual for BASIC, the Elementary Algebraic Language Designed for Use with the Dartmouth Time Sharing System, 1st edn. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Computation Center.Google Scholar

Kim, A. S., & Ko, A. J. (2017). A pedagogical analysis of online coding tutorials. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 321–326). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ko, A. J., Latoza, T. D., & Burnett, M. M. (2015). A practical guide to controlled experiments of software engineering tools with human participants. Empirical Software Engineering, 20(1), 110–141.Google Scholar

Kölling, M., Quig, , Patterson, B., , A., & Rosenberg, J. (2003). The BlueJ system and its pedagogy. Computer Science Education, 13(4), 249–268.Google Scholar

Lancaster, T., & Culwin, F. (2004). A comparison of source code plagiarism detection engines. Computer Science Education, 14(2), 101–112.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. (2014). Principles of a debugging-first puzzle game for computing education. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 57–64). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2015). Comparing the effectiveness of online learning approaches on CS1 learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 237–246). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Malmi, L., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., Nikander, J., Seppälä, O., & Silvasti, P. (2004). Visual algorithm simulation exercise system with automatic assessment: TRAKLA2. Informatics in Education, 3(2), 267.Google Scholar

Malmi, L., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., & Nikander, J. (2005). Experiences on automatically assessed algorithm simulation exercises with different resubmission policies. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 5(3), 7.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 – Volume 123 (pp. 33–42). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

McIver, L. (2002). Evaluating languages and environments for novice programmers. In Fourteenth Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG 2002) (pp. 100–110). London, UK: Brunel University.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264.Google Scholar

Miller, B. N., & Ranum, D. L. (2012). Beyond PDF and ePub: Toward an interactive textbook. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 150–155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Miljanovic, M. A., & Bradbury, J. S. (2017). RoboBUG: A serious game for learning debugging techniques. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 93–100). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mitrovic, A., Martin, B., & Mayo, M. (2002). Using evaluation to shape ITS design: Results and experiences with SQL-Tutor. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(2), 243–279.Google Scholar

Myller, N., Bednarik, R., Sutinen, E., & Ben-Ari, M. (2009). Extending the engagement taxonomy: Software visualization and collaborative learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(1), 7.Google Scholar

Naps, T. L., Eagan, J. R., & Norton, L. L. (2000). JHAVÉ – An environment to actively engage students in web-based algorithm visualizations. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 109–113.Google Scholar

Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, , Dann, V., Fleischer, W., Hundhausen, R., Korhonen, C., Malmi, A., McNally, L., Rodger, M., S., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2002). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 35(2), 131–152.Google Scholar

Nelson, G. L., Xie, B., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Comprehension first: Evaluating a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 2–11). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Parker, M. C., Rogers, K., Ericson, B. J., & Guzdial, M. (2017). Students and teachers use an online AP CS principles ebook differently: Teacher behavior consistent with expert learners. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 101–109). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, , Eastmond, N., Brennan, E., Millner, K., Rosenbaum, A., Silver, E., Silverman, J., , B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.Google Scholar

Redish, K. A., & Smyth, W. F. (1986). Program style analysis: A natural by-product of program compilation. Communications of the ACM, 29(2), 126–133.Google Scholar

Robinett, W., & Grimm, L. (1982). Rocky’s Boots/Robot Odyssey. San Francisco, CA: The Learning Company.Google Scholar

Rodger, S. H. (2002). Using hands-on visualizations to teach computer science from beginning courses to advanced courses. Presented at Second Program Visualization Workshop. Retrieved from www2.cs.duke.edu/csed/rodger/papers/pviswk02.pdf Google Scholar

Rodger, S. H., & Finley, T. W. (2006). JFLAP: An Interactive Formal Languages and Automata Package. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar

Rosales, F., García, A., Rodríguez, S., Pedraza, J. L., Méndez, R., & Nieto, M. M. (2008). Detection of plagiarism in programming assignments. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(2), 174–183.Google Scholar

Rößling, G., & Vellaramkalayil, T. (2009). A visualization-based computer science hypertextbook prototype. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(2), 11.Google Scholar

Rößling, G., & Freisleben, B. (2002). ANIMAL: A system for supporting multiple roles in algorithm animation. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 13(3), 341–354.Google Scholar

Roque, R., Kafai, Y., & Fields, D. (2012). From tools to communities: Designs to support online creative collaboration in Scratch. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 220–223). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Saikkonen, R., Malmi, L., & Korhonen, A. (2001). Fully automatic assessment of programming exercises. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 133–136.Google Scholar

Shaffer, C. A., Cooper, M. L., Alon, A. J. D., Akbar, M., Stewart, M., Ponce, S., & Edwards, S. H. (2010). Algorithm visualization: The state of the field. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(3), 9.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Eckerdal, A., Kinnunen, P., Malmi, L., Nylén, A., & Thota, N. (2014). MOOCs and their impact on academics. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 137–145). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Simon, S., Hamilton, M., & Lönnberg, J. (2009). Analysis of research into the teaching and learning of programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 93–104). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shukur, Z., Burke, E., & Foxley, E. (1999). The automatic assessment of formal specification coursework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 86–119.Google Scholar

Simon, A. (2007). classification of recent Australasian computing education publications. Computer Science Education, 17(3), 155–169.Google Scholar

Simon, S. (2009). Informatics in education and Koli Calling: A comparative analysis. Informatics in Education, 8(1), 101.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T. (2016). Jsvee & Kelmu: Creating and tailoring program animations for computing education. In 2016 IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT) (pp. 36–45). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T., & Haaranen, L. (2017). Improving online learning activity interoperability with ACOS server. Software: Practice and Experience, 47(11), 1657–1676.Google Scholar

Soflano, M., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2015). An application of adaptive games-based learning based on learning style to teach SQL. Computers & Education, 86, 192–211.Google Scholar

Sorva, J., & Sirkiä, T. (2010). UUhistle: A software tool for visual program simulation. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 49–54). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sorva, J., Karavirta, V., & Malmi, L. (2013). A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(4), 15.Google Scholar

Spacco, J., Hovemeyer, D., Pugh, W., Emad, F., Hollingsworth, J. K., & Padua-Perez, N. (2006). Experiences with Marmoset: Designing and using an advanced submission and testing system for programming courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 13–17.Google Scholar

Stasko, J. T. (1990). Tango: A framework and system for algorithm animation. Computer, 23(9), 27–39.Google Scholar

Stasko, J. (Ed.) (1998). Software Visualization: Programming as a Multimedia Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Thorburn, G., & Rowe, G. (1997). PASS: An automated system for program assessment. Computers & Education, 29(4), 195–206.Google Scholar

Tillmann, N., Bishop, J., Horspool, N., Perelman, D., & Xie, T. (2014). Code hunt: Searching for secret code for fun. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Search-Based Software Testing (pp. 23–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Uysal, M. P. (2016). Evaluation of learning environments for object-oriented programming: Measuring cognitive load with a novel measurement technique. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1590–1609.Google Scholar

Valentine, D. W. (2004). CS educational research: A meta-analysis of SIGCSE technical symposium proceedings. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 255–259.Google Scholar

Wirth, N. (1973). The Programming Language Pascal (Revised Report). ETH Zürich. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-000814158 Google Scholar

Wolz, U., & Koffman, E. (1999). simpleIO: A Java package for novice interactive and graphics programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 31(3), 139–142.Google Scholar

Yan, A., Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Predicting abandonment in online coding tutorials. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centered Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 191–199). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Albo-Canals, J., Barco, A., Relkin, E., Hannon, D., Heerink, M., Heinemann, M., Leidl, K., & Bers, M. (2018). The use case of KIBO robot to positively impact social and emotional development in children with ASD. International Journal of Social Robots, 10, 371–383.Google Scholar

American Academy of Pediatrics (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591.Google Scholar

Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing Digital Experiences for Positive Youth Development: From Playpen to Playground. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2018a). Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2018b). Coding, playgrounds and literacy in early childhood education: The development of KIBO robotics and ScratchJr. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2094–2102). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood. In Berson, I. R. & Berson, M. J. (Eds.), HighTech Tots: Childhood in a Digital World (pp. 49–70). Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar

Blackwell, A. F., & Hague, R. (2001). AutoHAN: An architecture for programming the home. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposia on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments, 2001 (pp. 150–157). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Blackwell, A., McLean, A., Noble, J., & Rohrhuber, J. (2014). Collaboration and learning through live coding (Dagstuhl Seminar 13382). In Dagstuhl Reports (Vol. 3, No. 9). Wadern, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P. (2013). Gears of our childhood: Constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 173–182). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Buechley, L., & Eisenberg, M. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Toward wearable engineering for everyone. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7(2), 12–15.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 859–868.Google Scholar

Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Erwin, B., Cyr, M., & Rogers, C. (2000). Lego engineer and robolab: Teaching engineering with labview from kindergarten to graduate school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 16(3), 181–192.Google Scholar

Fernaeus, Y., & Tholander, J. (2006). Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 447–456). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). Curlybot: Designing a new class of computational toys. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129–136). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Horn, M. S., AlSulaiman, S., & Koh, J. (2013). Translating Roberto to Omar: Computational literacy, stickerbooks, and cultural forms. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 120–127). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.Google Scholar

Horn, M. S., & Jacob, R. J. (2007). Designing tangible programming languages for classroom use. In Proceedings of Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 159–162). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 437–446). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hu, F., Zekelman, A., Horn, M., & Judd, F. (2015). Strawbies: Explorations in tangible programming. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 410–413). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hurtienne, J., & Israel, J. H. (2007). Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 234–241). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboy, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities. In Proceedings of the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 241–246). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371–391.Google Scholar

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Macaranas, A., Antle, A. N., & Riecke, B. E. (2012). Bridging the gap: Attribute and spatial metaphors for tangible interface design. In Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (pp. 161–168). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to tangible programming bricks: Explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326–337.Google Scholar

Mellis, D., Banzi, M., Cuartielles, D., & Igoe, T. (2007). Arduino: An open electronic prototyping platform. In Proceedings SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Extended Abstracts). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.Google Scholar

Myers, B. A., Ko, A. J., & Burnett, M. M. (2006). Invited research overview: end-user programming. In Proceedings SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Extended Abstracts). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

O’Malley, C., & Fraser, D. S. (2004). Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies. A NESTA Futurelab Research report – Report 12. Bristol, UK: FutureLab.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017) The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 172–193.Google Scholar

Pattis, R. E. (1981). Karel the Robot: A Gentle Introduction to the Art of Programming. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Raffle, H. S., Parkes, A. J., & Ishii, H. (2004). Topobo: A constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 647–654). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets: A tool for building domain-oriented visual programming environments. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 142–143). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, , Eastmond, N., Brennan, E., , K., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 281–287). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Ocko, S., & Papert, S. (1988). LEGO, Logo, and design. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(4), 14–18.Google Scholar

Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69.Google Scholar

Schweikardt, E., & Gross, M. D. (2006). roBlocks: A robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In Proceedings of Multimodal Interfaces (pp. 72–75). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Searle, K. A., Fields, D. A., Lui, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2014). Diversifying high school students’ views about computing with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of International Computing Education Research (pp. 75–82). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: Past, present, and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, 3(1–2), 1–137.Google Scholar

Sherman, L., Druin, A., Montemayor, J., Farber, A., Platner, M., Simms, S., …, Kruskal, A. (2001). StoryKit: Tools for children to build room-sized interactive experiences. In SIGCHI Conferene on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 197–198). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Smith, A. C. (2007). Using magnets in physical blocks that behave as programming objects. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 147–150). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Smith, A. C., & Kotzé, P. (2010). Indigenous African artefacts: Can they serve as tangible programming objects? In IST-Africa, 2010 (pp. 1–11). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing children’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319.Google Scholar

Strawhacker, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the sum of its parts? In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 309–312). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Computational thinking and young children: Understanding the potential of tangible and graphical interfaces. In Ozcinar, H., Wong, G., & Ozturk, T. (Eds.), Teaching Computational Thinking in Primary Education (pp. 123–137). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325–346.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A. A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, playing, and coding with KIBO: Using robotics to foster computational thinking in young children. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (pp. 110–115). Ting Kok, Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (1995). Interaction-level support for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock – An open programming language. In The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 349–355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Thieme, A., Morrison, C., Villar, N., Grayson, M., & Lindley, S. (2017). Enabling collaboration in learning computer programing inclusive of children with vision impairments. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 739–752). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 37–54.Google Scholar

Weiser, M., Gold, R., & Brown, J. S. (1999). The origins of ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4), 693–696.Google Scholar

Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550.Google Scholar

Xambó, A., Drozda, , Weisling, B., Magerko, A., Huet, B., Gasque, M., , T., & Freeman, J. (2017). Experience and ownership with a tangible computational music installation for informal learning. In Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 351–360), New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., & Resnick, M. (2005). Extending tangible interfaces for education: Digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 859–868). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Zweben, S., & Bizot, B. (2016). Taulbee survey. Computing Research News, 29(5), 3–51.Google Scholar

Ahadi, A., Lister, R., Haapala, H., & Vihavainen, A. (2015). Exploring machine learning methods to automatically identify students in need of assistance. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 121–130). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ahonen, L., Cowley, B., Torniainen, J., Ukkonen, A., Vihavainen, A., & Puolamaki, K. (2016). S1: Analysis of Electrodermal Activity Recordings in Pair Programming from 2 Dyads, PLoS One. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0159178.s001 Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., Conrad, F. G., & Corbett, A. T. (1989). Skill acquisition and the LISP tutor. Cognitive Science, 13(1), 467–506.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., & Skwarecki, E. (1986). The automated tutoring of introductory computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 842–849.Google Scholar

Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self efficacy for Java programming among engineering students. Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), 26–32.Google Scholar

Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). Increasing students’ awareness of their behavior in online learning environments with visualizations and achievement badges. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(3), 261–273.Google Scholar

Baker, R. S. J., & Siemens, G. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 253–274). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Banovic, N., Buzali, T., Chevalier, F., Mankoff, J., & Dey, A. K. (2016). Modeling and understanding human routine behavior. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 248–260). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Barr, A., Beard, M., & Atkinson, R. C. (1976). The computer as a tutorial laboratory: The Stanford BIP Project. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 8(1), 567–596.Google Scholar

Bednarik, R., & Tukiainen, M. (2004). Visual attention tracking during program debugging. In Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction (pp. 331–334). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Begel, A. (2016). Fun with software developers and biometrics: Invited talk. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emotion Awareness in Software Engineering (pp. 1–2). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Braught, G., & Midkiff, J. (2016). Tool design and student testing behavior in an introductory Java course. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 449–454). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bosch, N., & D’Mello, S. K. (2013). Sequential patterns of affective states of novice programmers. Presented at The First Workshop on AI-Supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS 2013), Memphis, TN.Google Scholar

Brown, N. C. C., Kölling, M., McCall, , , D., & Utting, I. (2014). Blackbox: A large scale repository of novice programmers’ activity. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 223–228). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Buffardi, K., & Edwards, S. H. (2013). Impacts of adaptive feedback on teaching test-driven development. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 293–298). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bulling, A., Blanke, U., & Schiele, B. (2014). A tutorial on human activity recognition using body-worn inertial sensors. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(3), 33:1–33:33.Google Scholar

Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Sharif, B., & Antropova, M. (2014). Eye tracking in computing education. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, Glasgow (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human–Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Cardell-Oliver, R. (2011). How can software metrics help novice programmers? In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference – Volume 114 (pp. 55–62). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S. (2013). OSBIDE. Retrieved from http://osbide.codeplex.com Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2015). The design of a programming environment to support greater social awareness and participation in early computing courses. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 31(1), 143–153.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2016). With a little help from my friends: An empirical study of the interplay of students’ social activities, programming activities, and course success. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 201–209), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2017). Using programming process data to detect differences in students’ patterns of programming. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 105–110), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., Hundhausen, C. D., & Adesope, O. (2015). The normalized programming state model: Predicting student performance in computing courses based on programming behavior. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 141–150), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Carter, J., & Dewan, P. (2010). Are you having difficulty? In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 211–214). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1992). The LISP intelligent tutoring system: Research in skill acquisition. In J. Larkin, R. Chabay & C. Scheftic (Eds.), Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Establishing Communication and Collaboration (pp. 73–110), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Carpenter, D. (2014). Enhancing syntax error messages appears ineffectual. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 273–278), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dominguez, A. K., Yacef, K., & Curran, J. R. (2010). Data mining for individualized hints in e-learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 91–100). International: International Educational Data Mining Society.Google Scholar

Eclipse.org (2016). Usage Data Collector User Guide. Retrieved from https://eclipse.org/org/usagedata/userguide.php Google Scholar

Edwards, S. H., & Perez-Quinones, M. A. (2008). Web-CAT: Automatically grading programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 328–328), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Feliciano, J., Storey, M., & Zagalsky, A. (2016). Student experiences using GitHub in software engineering courses: A case study. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (pp. 422–431), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1–44.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M., Hohmann, L., Konneman, M., Walton, C., & Soloway, E. (1998). Supporting programming and learning-to-program with an integrated CAD and scaffolding workbench. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1–2), 143–179.Google Scholar

Haaranen, L., Ihantola, P., Hakulinen, L., & Korhonen, A. (2014). How (not) to introduce badges to online exercises. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 33–38), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hartmann, B., MacDougall, D., Brandt, J., & Klemmer, S. R. (2010). What would other programmers do: Suggesting solutions to error messages. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1019–1028), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Herold, B. (2014). “Landmark” student-data-privacy law enacted in California. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2014/09/_landmark_student-data-privacy.html Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., & Adesope, O. (2017). Leveraging Programming and Social Analytics to Improve Computing Education Workshop, Tacoma, WA. Retrieved from https://icer.acm.org/icer-2017/leveraging-programming-and-social-analytics-to-improve-computing-education/Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D., & Trevisan, M. (2010). Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: An empirical comparison with a traditional approach. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 500–504), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar

Ihantola, P., Sorva, J., & Vihavainen, A. (2014). Automatically detectable indicators of programming assignment difficulty. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (pp. 33–38), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ihantola, P., Vihavainen, A., Ahadi, A., & Toll, D. (2015). Educational data mining and learning analytics in programming: literature review and case studies. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 41–63), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jadud, M. C. (2006). Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 73–84), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jin, W., Barnes, T., Eagle, M., Johnson, M. W., & Lehmann, L. (2012). Program representation for automatic hint generation for a data-driven novice programming tutor. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 304–309), Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. (2010). Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to Understanding User Interface Design Rules. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar

Johnson, P. (2010). Hackystat – A framework for collection, analysis, visualization, interpretation, annotation, and dissemination of software development process and product data. Retrieved from https://code.google.com/p/hackystat/Google Scholar

Kevic, K., Walters, B. M., Shaffer, T. R., Sharif, B., Shepherd, D. C., & Fritz, T. (2015). Tracing software developers’ eyes and interactions for change tasks. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 202–213), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kim, E., Helal, S., & Cook, D. (2010). Human activity recognition and pattern discovery. Pervasive Computing, 9(1), 48–53.Google Scholar

Kölling, M., Quig, , Patterson, B., , A., & Rosenberg, J. (2003). The BlueJ system and its pedagogy. Journal of Computer Science Education, 13(4), 249–268.Google Scholar

Leinonen, J., Longi, K., Klami, A., & Vihavainen, A. (2016). Automatic inference of programming performance and experience from typing patterns. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 132–137), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Luke, J. A. (2015). Continuously Collecting Software Development Event Data As Students Program (MSc thesis). Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar

Müller, S. C. (2015). Measuring software developers’ perceived difficulty with biometric sensors. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering – Volume 2 (pp. 887–890). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Müller, S. C., & Fritz, T. (2015). Stuck and Frustrated or in Flow and Happy: Sensing Developers’ Emotions and Progress. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering – Volume 1 (pp. 688–699). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Müller, S. C., & Fritz, T. (2016). Using (bio)metrics to predict code quality online. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 452–463), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

NetBeans.org (2016). NetBeans Usage Data Tracking. Retrieved from http://netbeans.org/about/usage-tracking.html Google Scholar

Nguyen, L. N. N., Rodriguez-Martin, D., Catala, A., Perez-Lopez, C., Sama, A., & Cavallaro, A. (2015). Basketball activity recognition using wearable inertial measurement units. In Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 60:1–60:6). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Norris, C., Barry, F., FenwickJr., J. B., Reid, K., & Rountree, J. (2008). ClockIt: Collecting quantitative data on how beginning software developers really work. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 37–41.Google Scholar

Olivares, D. (2015). Exploring learning analytics for computing education. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 271–272), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Papancea, A., Spacco, J., & Hovemeyer, D. (2013). An open platform for managing short programming exercises. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 47–52), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Parker, M. C., Rogers, K., Ericson, B. J., & Guzdial, M. (2017). Students and Teachers use an online AP CS Principles eBook differently: Teacher behavior consistent with expert learners. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 101–109), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Piech, C., Sahami, M., Huang, J., & Guibas, L. (2015). Autonomously generating hints by inferring problem solving policies. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 195–204), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pintrich, D., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (Technical report No. NCRIPTAL-91-B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/23/3c/44.pdf Google Scholar

Rivers, K., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Automatic generation of programming feedback: A data-driven approach. Presented at The First Workshop on AI-Supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS 2013), Memphis, TN.Google Scholar

Robinson, D. (2017). How Do Students Use Stack Overflow? Retrieved from https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/02/15/how-do-students-use-stack-overflow/Google Scholar

Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Baker, R. S. J. D. (2009). Coarse-grained detection of student frustration in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (pp. 75–80), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Rodrigo, M. M. T., Baker, R. S., Jadud, M. C., & Tabanao, E. S. (2009). Affective and behavioral predictors of novice programmer achievement. SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 156–160.Google Scholar

Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., & Sinha, H. (2011). Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(3), 1–23.Google Scholar

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197–211.Google Scholar

Scacchi, W. (2002). Process models in software engineering. In Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471028959.sof250 Google Scholar

Shaw, T. (2004). The emotions of systems developers: An empirical study of affective events theory. In Proceedings of the 2004 SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personnel Research: Careers, Culture, and Ethics in a Networked Environment (pp. 124–126). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Ruiz, N., Taib, R., Choi, E., & Chen, F. (2007). Galvanic skin response (GSR) as an index of cognitive load. In CHI ‘07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2651–2656), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shneiderman, B. (1976). Exploratory experiments in programmer behavior. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 5(2), 123–143.Google Scholar

Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 252–254), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Soloway, E., Bonar, J., & Ehrlich, K. (1983). Cognitive strategies and looping constructs: an empirical study. Communications of the ACM, 26, 853–860.Google Scholar

Spacco, J., Fossati, D., Stamper, J., & Rivers, K. (2013). Towards improving programming habits to create better computer science course outcomes. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 243–248), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Spacco, J., Hovemeyer, D., & Pugh, W. (2004). An Eclipse-based course project snapshot and submission system. In Proceedings of the 2004 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (pp. 52–56), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Spacco, J., Hovemeyer, D., Pugh, W., Emad, F., Hollingsworth, J. K., & Padua-Perez, N. (2006). Experiences with Marmoset: Designing and using an advanced submission and testing system for programming courses. SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 13–17.Google Scholar

Stack Overflow (2012). Stack Overflow. Retrieved from http://stackoverflow.com Google Scholar

Stamper, J., Eagle, M., Barnes, T., & Croy, M. (2013). Experimental evaluation of automatic hint generation for a logic tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 22(1–2), 3–17.Google Scholar

Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2012). Learning analytics. Learning and Education, 1(8), Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-5-33367 Google Scholar

Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., & Klerkx, J. (2014). Learning dashboards: An overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1499–1514.Google Scholar

Vihavainen, A., Vikberg, T., Luukkainen, M., & Pärtel, M. (2013). Scaffolding students’ learning using test my code. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 117–122), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Watson, C., Li, F. W. B., & Godwin, J. L. (2013). Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 319–323). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K–6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47–57.Google Scholar

Astrachan, O., & Briggs, A. (2012). The CS principles project. ACM Inroads, 3(2), 38–42.Google Scholar

Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449–466.Google Scholar

Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.Google Scholar

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.Google Scholar

Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K–12: What is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.Google Scholar

Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical Variables in Mathematics Education: Findings from a Survey of the Empirical Literature. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., & Donovan, M. S. (2005). Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom (pp. 397–420). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Brown, N. C., & Altadmri, A. (2017). Novice Java programming mistakes: Large-scale data vs. educator beliefs. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(2), 7.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1977). The Process of Education (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Byrne, C. J. (1983). Teacher knowledge and teacher effectiveness: A literature review, theoretical analysis and discussion of research strategy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Northwestern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.Google Scholar

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 493–522.Google Scholar

Cole, M. (2006). The Fifth Dimension: An After-School Program Built on Diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (2007). Cultural–historical approaches to designing for development. In Valsiner, J. & Rosa, A. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology (pp. 484–506). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Computer Science Teachers Association (2017). K–12 Computer Science Standards. Retrieved from www.csteachers.org/page/standards Google Scholar

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–42.Google Scholar

Denton, J. J., & Lacina, L. J. (1984). Quantity of professional education coursework linked with process measures of student teaching. Teacher Education and Practice, 1, 39–64.Google Scholar

Eglash, R., Gilbert, J. E., & Foster, E. (2013). Toward culturally responsive computing education. Communications of the ACM, 56(7), 33–36.Google Scholar

Eglash, R., Gilbert, J. E., Taylor, V., & Geier, S. R. (2013). Culturally responsive computing in urban, after-school contexts: Two approaches. Urban Education, 48(5), 629–656.Google Scholar

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434.Google Scholar

Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 55–63.Google Scholar

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Granor, N., DeLyser, L. A., & Wang, K. (2016). Teals: Teacher professional development using industry volunteers. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 60–65). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.Google Scholar

Guyton, E., & Farokhi, E. (1987). Relationships among academic performance, basic skills, subject matter knowledge, and teaching skills of teacher education graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 37–42.Google Scholar

Hristova, M., Misra, A., Rutter, M., & Mercuri, R. (2003). Identifying and correcting Java programming errors for introductory computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 153–156.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.Google Scholar

K–12 Computer Science Framework (2016). K–12 Computer Science Framework. Retrieved from www.k12cs.org Google Scholar

Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboy, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American Indian youth and communities. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 241–246). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.Google Scholar

Leont’ev, A. N. (1932). Studies in the cultural development of the child, 3: The development of voluntary attention in the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 37, 52–81.Google Scholar

Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 37–71). White Plains, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar

Luria, A. R. (1928). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 35, 506.Google Scholar

Luria, A. R. (1932). The Nature of Human Conflicts. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Jellison Holme, J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the Shallow end: Education, Race, and Computing. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., Goode, J., Chapman, G., & Ryoo, J. J. (2014). That classroom “magic”. Communications of the ACM, 57(7), 31–33.Google Scholar

Martin, A., McAlear, F., & Scott, A. (2015). Path Not Found: Disparities in Access to Computer Science Courses in California High Schools. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561181.pdf Google Scholar

Milner IV, H. R. (2015). Rac(e)ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and Race in Schools and Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: Committee on How People Learn.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2010). Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2011). Report of a Workshop on the Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Perkes, V. A. (1967). Junior high school science teacher preparation, teaching behavior, and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 121–126.Google Scholar

Ryoo, J., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2015). It takes a village: Supporting inquiry- and equity-oriented computer science pedagogy through a professional learning community. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 351–370.Google Scholar

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.Google Scholar

Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2015). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 412–436.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar

Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., & Ueno, K. (2005). “Highly qualified” to do what? The relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-oriented instruction in middle school mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 75–109.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

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child, II. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 415–34.Google Scholar

Vygotksy, L. S. (1960). The Development of Higher Psychological Functions. Moscow, Russia: Izdael’stov Akademii Pedagogicheskikh Nauk, in Russian.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333–341.Google Scholar

Abell, S. K., Rogers, M., Park, A., Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Gagnon, M. J. (2009). Preparing the next generation of science teacher educators: A model for developing PCK for teaching science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–93.Google Scholar

Anderson, G. L., & Page, B. (1995). Narrative knowledge and educational adminstration: The stories that guide our practice. In Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. & Scheurich, J. J. (Eds.), The Knowledge Base in Educational Administration: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 124–135). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher Development: A Model from Science Education. London, UK: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Benner, P. A. (1996). Impediments to the development of clinical knowledge and ethical judgement in critical nursing care. In Tanner, C. A. & Chesla, C. A. (Eds.), Expertise in Nursing Practice: Caring, Clinical Judgement, and Ethics (pp. 171–198). New York: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Ben-Peretz, M. (2011). Teacher knowledge: What is it? how do we uncover it? what are its implications for schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 3–9.Google Scholar

Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.Google Scholar

Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482.Google Scholar

Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P. J., & Loughran, J. (Eds.) (2015). Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, 1st edn. (pp. 1–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Buchholz, M., Saeli, M., & Schulte, C. (2013). PCK and reflection in computer science teacher education. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 8–16). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bullough, R. V. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge circa 1907 and 1987: A study in the history of an idea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 655–666.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. J. (2016). The Effectiveness of a Learning Community in Bringing About Changes to Instructional Practices in the Area of Assessment for Learning (PhD thesis). University of Calgary.Google Scholar

CAS (2018). Computing at school. Retrieved from www.computingatschool.org.uk Google Scholar

Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., … Coe, R. (2015). Developing Great Teaching: Lessons from the International Reviews into Effective Professional Development. London, UK: Teacher Development Trust.Google Scholar

Cranston, J., & Kusanovich, K. (2015). Learning to lead against the grain: Dramatizing the emotional toll of teacher leadership. Issues in Teacher Education, 24(2), 63–78.Google Scholar

Crehan, L. (2016). Cleverlands: The Secrets Behind the Success of the World’s Most Celebrated Education Systems. New York: Unbound/Random House.Google Scholar

Cutts, Q., Robertson, J., Donaldson, P., & O’Donnell, L. (2017). An evaluation of a professional learning network for computer science teachers. Computer Science Education, 27(1), 30–53.Google Scholar

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309.Google Scholar

Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.Google Scholar

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25.Google Scholar

Dogan, S., Pringle, R., & Mesa, J. (2016). The impacts of professional learning communities on science teachers’ knowledge, practice and student learning: A review. Professional Development in Education, 42(4), 569–588.Google Scholar

Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., … Department of Education, Science and Training (2001). Making Better Connections: Models of Teacher Professional Development for the Integration of Information and Communication Technology into Classroom Practice. Canberra, Australia: Australian Curriculum Studies Association, Australian Council for Computers in Education, Technology Education Federation of Australia, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.Google Scholar

European Commission – Education and Training (2013). Education and Training Monitor. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/library/publications/monitor13_en.pdf Google Scholar

Even, R. (1999). The development of teacher leaders and inservice teacher educators. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(1), 3–24.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Vivian, R., Falkner, N., & Williams, S. (2017). Reflecting on three offerings of a community-centric MOOC for K–6 computer science teachers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 195–200). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Feiler, R., Heritage, M., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Teachers leading teachers. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 66–69.Google Scholar

Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ; London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Fincher, S. (2008). Sharing practice. Retrieved from www.sharingpractice.ac.uk Google Scholar

Fincher, S. (2012). Using narrative methodology. University of Kent at Canterbury. Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/32059/Google Scholar

Fincher, S., & Tenenberg, J. (2005). Disciplinary commons, overview page. Retrieved from www.disciplinarycommons.org Google Scholar

Fincher, S., & Tenenberg, J. (2007). Warren’s question. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 51–60). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.) (1999). Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Go, S., & Dorn, B. (2016). Thanks for sharing: CS pedagogical content knowledge sharing in online environments. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 27–36). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Goode, J., Margolis, J., & Chapman, G. (2014). Curriculum is not enough: The educational theory and research foundation of the exploring computer science professional development model. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 493–498). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Curriculum stories. In Day, C., Pope, M. L., & Denicolo, P. (Eds.), Insights into Teachers’ Thinking and Practice (pp. 107–118). London, UK: Falmer.Google Scholar

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Story-maker, story-teller: Narrative structures in curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(3), 207–218.Google Scholar

Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., & Chua, C. S. K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in professional learning community contexts: Towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 163–182.Google Scholar

Harvard (2015). ScratchEd. Retrieved from http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91.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

Hill, H. C., Loewenberg Ball, D., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar

Hofstein, A., Carmi, M., & Ben-Zvi, R. (2003). The development of leadership among chemistry teachers in israel. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 39–65.Google Scholar

Hollins, E. R., McIntyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S., & Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: Investigating an internal model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 247–264.Google Scholar

House, E. R. (1974). The Politics of Educational Innovation. Richmond, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar

Howey, K. R., & Grossman, P. L. (1989). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary english. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 24–31.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Magenheim, J., Mühling, A., & Ruf, A. (2013). Towards a conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge for computer science. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Humphreys, S. (2017). Computing at school: 10 years on. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (p. 3). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Google Scholar

Lapidot, T. (2007). Supporting the growth of CS leading teachers. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (p. 327). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lapidot, T., & Aharoni, D. (2007). The Israeli summer seminars for CS leading teachers. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (p. 318). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lehane, L., & Bertram, A. (2016). Getting to the CoRe of it: A review of a specific PCK conceptual lens in science educational research. Educación Química, 27(1), 52–58.Google Scholar

Lenning, O. T., Hill, D. M., Saunders, K. P., Solan, A., & Stokes, A. (2013). Powerful Learning Communities: A Guide to Developing Student, Faculty, and Professional Learning Communities to Improve Student Success and Organizational Effectiveness. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar

Liberman, N., Kolikant, Y. B., & Beeri, C. (2012). “Regressed experts” as a new state in teachers’ professional development: Lessons from computer science teachers’ adjustments to substantial changes in the curriculum. Computer Science Education, 22(3), 257–283.Google Scholar

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M., & Cochrane, J. (2006). Celtic knots: Interweaving the elements of effective teacher professional development in ICT. Australian Educational Computing, 21(2), 16–19.Google Scholar

Loewenberg Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.Google Scholar

Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 271–283.Google Scholar

Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.Google Scholar

Macià, M., & García, I. (2016). Informal online communities and networks as a source of teacher professional development: A review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 291–307.Google Scholar

Michaeli, N., & Sommer, O. (Eds.) (2014). Activity Report by the Steering Committee Chaired by Prof. Miriam Ben-Peretz and Prof. Lee Shulman: Leading Teachers As Agents of Improvement in the Education System. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar

Morrison, B., Ni, L., & Guzdial, M. (2012). Adapting the disciplinary commons model for high school teachers: Improving recruitment, creating community. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 47–54). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ni, L., Guzdial, M., Tew, A. E., Morrison, B., & Galanos, R. (2011). Building a community to support HS CS teachers: The disciplinary commons for computing educators. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 553–558). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Artifactual literacies: Every object tells a story. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar

Park, M., & Sung, Y. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the recent curriculum reforms and their implementation: What can we learn from the case of korean elementary teachers? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 15–33.Google Scholar

Perry, R. R., & Lewis, C. C. (2009). What is successful adaptation of lesson study in the US? Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 365–391.Google Scholar

Poekert, P. E. (2012). Teacher leadership and professional development: Examining links between two concepts central to school improvement. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 169–188.Google Scholar

Roberts, E. (2004). The dream of a common language: The search for simplicity and stability in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 115–119). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Rose, M. (1995). Possible Lives: The Promise of Public Education in America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar

Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Wim, M. G. J., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73–88.Google Scholar

Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Wim, M. G. J., & Zwaneveld, B. (2012a). Pedagogical content knowledge in teaching material. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 267–293.Google Scholar

Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Wim, M. G. J., & Zwaneveld, B. (2012b). Programming: Teachers and pedagogical content knowledge in The Netherlands. Informatics in Education, 11(1), 81–114.Google Scholar

Salmon, G. (2002). E-Tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. London, UK: Kogan Page.Google Scholar

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London, UK: Temple Smith.Google Scholar

Sentance, S., Dorling, M., McNicol, A., & Crick, T. (2012). Grand challenges for the UK: Upskilling teachers to teach computer science within the secondary curriculum. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 82–85). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sentance, S., Humphreys, S., & Dorling, M. (2014). The network of teaching excellence in computer science and master teachers. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 80–88). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shinners-Kennedy, D., & Fincher, S. (2015). Scaffolded autoethnography: A method for examining practice-to-research. In 6th Research in Engineering Education Symposium (pp. 504–512). Melbourne, Australia: Curran Associates.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. S. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P. J., & Loughran, J. (Eds.), Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (p. 3). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smith, K. (2005). Teacher educators’ expertise: What do novice teachers and teacher educators say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 177–192.Google Scholar

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.Google Scholar

Tenenberg, J., & Fincher, S. (2007). Opening the door of the computer science classroom: The disciplinary commons. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 514–518). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

The Royal Society (2017). After the Reboot – Computing Education in UK Schools. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15–34.Google Scholar

van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching, 1(1), 33–50.Google Scholar

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja, R. N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.Google Scholar

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional Development in the United States: Trends and Challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar

Aritajati, C., Rosson, M. B., Pena, J., Cinque, D., & Segura, A. (2015). A socio-cognitive analysis of summer camp outcomes and experiences. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 581–586). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Begel, A., Bosch, J., & Storey, M. A. (2013). Social networking meets software development: Perspectives from GitHub, MSDN, Stack Exchange, and TopCoder. IEEE Software, 30(1) 52–66.Google Scholar

Bishop, J., Horspool, R. N., Xie, T., Tillmann, N. & de Halleux, J. (2015). Code Hunt: Experience with coding contests at scale. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 398–407). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, A., Sherriff, M., & Williams, K. (2014). A service learning practicum capstone. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 265–270). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Booth, S. E., & Kellogg, S. B. (2015). Value creation in online communities for educators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 684–698.Google Scholar

Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Sanders, K., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of the differences between formal and informal learning. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘11) (pp. 61–68). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bower, M. (2008). The “instructed-teacher”: A computer science online learning pedagogical pattern. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘08) (pp. 189–193). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Brandt, J., Guo, P. J., Lewenstein, J., Dontcheva, M., & Klemmer, S. R. (2009). Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘09) (pp. 1589–1598). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Brown, N. C. C., & Kölling, M. (2013). A tale of three sites: Resource and knowledge sharing amongst computer science educators. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘13) (pp. 27–34). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cao, J., Fleming, S. D., & Burnett, M. (2011). An exploration of design opportunities for “gardening” end-user programmers’ ideas. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 35–42). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Carswell, L. (1997). Teaching via the Internet: The impact of the Internet as a communication medium on distance learning introductory computing students. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘97) (pp. 1–5). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Carswell, L. (1998). The “Virtual University”: Toward an Internet paradigm? In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Computing and the 3rd Annual Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education: Changing the Delivery of Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘98) (pp. 46–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Chambers, C., Chen, S., Le, D., & Scaffidi, C. (2012). The function, and dysfunction, of information sources in learning functional programming. Journal of Computing Sciences in College, 28(1), 220–226.Google Scholar

Charters, P., Lee, M. J., Ko, A. J., & Loksa, D. (2014). Challenging stereotypes and changing attitudes: The effect of a brief programming encounter on adults’ attitudes toward programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 653–658). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cho, M. H., Demei, S., & Laffey, J. (2010). Relationships between self-regulation and social experiences in asynchronous online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(3), 297–316.Google Scholar

Cicirello, V. A. (2013). Experiences with a real projects for real clients course on software engineering at a liberal arts institution. Journal of Computing Sciences in College, 28(6), 50–56.Google Scholar

Clements, K., Pawlowski, J., & Manouselis, N. (2015). Open educational resources repositories literature review – Towards a comprehensive quality approaches framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(B), 1098–1106.Google Scholar

Connelly, C., Biermann, A. W., Pennock, D., & Wu, P. (1996). Home study software: Complementary systems for computer science courses. Computer Science Education, 7(1), 53–71.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., & Sahami, M. (2013). Reflections on Stanford’s MOOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(2), 28–30.Google Scholar

Crellin, J., Duke-Williams, E., Chandler, J., & Collinson, T. (2009). Virtual worlds in computing education. Computer Science Education, 19(4), 315–334.Google Scholar

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.Google Scholar

Dahotre, A., Krishnamoorthy, V., Corley, M., & Scaffidi, C. (2011). Using intelligent tutors to enhance student learning of application programming interfaces. Journal of Computing Sciences in College, 27(1). 195–201.Google Scholar

Dankell, II, D. D., & Hearn, J. (1997). The use of the WWW to support distance learning through NTU. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘97) (pp. 8–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, S., Hale, W., Monroy-Hernández, A., & Hill, B. M. (2016). Remixing as a pathway to computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1438–1449). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Decker, A., McGill, M. M., & Settle, A. (2016). Towards a common framework for evaluating computing outreach activities. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 627–632). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

DeWitt, A., Fay, J., Goldman, M., Nicolson, E., Oyolu, L., Resch, L., Saldaña, J. M., Sounalath, S., Williams, T., Yetter, K., Zak, E., Brown, N., & Rebelsky, S. A. (2017). What we say vs. what they do: A comparison of middle-school coding camps in the cs education literature and mainstream coding camps (abstract only). In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (p. 707). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B., Reid, C., & Roshan, P. K. (2014). They can’t find us: The search for informal CS education. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 487–492). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B. (2011). ScriptABLE: Supporting informal learning with cases. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘11) (pp. 69–76). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Graphic designers who program as informal computer science learners. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER '06) (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2010). Learning on the job: Characterizing the programming knowledge and learning strategies of web designers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘10) (pp. 703–712). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B., Stankiewicz, A., & Roggi, C. (2013). Lost while searching: Difficulties in information seeking among end-user programmers. In Proceedings of the 76th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Beyond the Cloud: Rethinking Information Boundaries (ASIST ‘13) (pp. 21:1–21:11). Silver Springs, MD: Association for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar

Ellis, H. J. C., Hislop, G. W., Jackson, S., & Postner, L. (2015). Team project experiences in humanitarian free and open source software (HFOSS). Transactions on Computing Education. 15(4), 1–23.Google Scholar

Ericson, B. J., & McKlin, T. (2012). Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘12) (pp. 289–294). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericson, B. J., Guzdial, M. J., & Morrison, B. B. (2015). Analysis of interactive features designed to enhance learning in an ebook. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘15) (pp. 169–178). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericson, B. J., Rogers, K., Parker, M. Morrison, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Identifying design principles for CS teacher ebooks through design-based research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘16) (pp. 191–200). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fields, D. A., Giang, M., & Kafai, Y. (2014). Programming in the wild: Trends in youth computational participation in the online Scratch community. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE ‘14) (pp. 2–11). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., & Knox, D. (2013). The porous classroom: Professional practices in the computing curriculum. Computer, 46(9), 44–51.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., Kölling, M., Utting, , Brown, I., , N., & Stevens, P. (2010). Repositories of teaching material and communities of use: nifty assignments and the greenroom. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘10) (pp. 107–114). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fitzpatrick, J. M., Lédeczi, Á., Narasimham, G., Lafferty, L., Labrie, R., Mielke, P. T., Kumar, A., & Brady, K. A. (2017). Lessons learned in the design and delivery of an introductory programming MOOC. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 219–224). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Gal-Ezer, J., Vilner, T., & Zur, E. (2009). The professor on your PC: A virtual CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘09) (pp. 191–195). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Gersting, J. L. (2000). Computer science distance education experience in Hawaii. Computer Science Education, 10(1), 95–106.Google Scholar

Gordon, M. & Guo, P. J. (2015). Codepourri: Creating visual coding tutorials using a volunteer crowd of learners. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 13–21). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J. (2013). Online Python tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for CS education. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 579–584). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J. (2015). Codeopticon: Real-time, one-to-many human tutoring for computer programming. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. (pp. 13–21). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J. (2017). Older adults learning computer programming: Motivations, frustrations, and design opportunities. In ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (pp. 7070–7083). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J., & Reinecke, K. (2014). Demographic differences in how students navigate through MOOCs. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 21–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J., White, J., & Zanelatto, R. (2015). Codechella: Multi-user program visualizations for real-time tutoring and collaborative learning. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 79–87). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M., Ericson, B., Mcklin, T., & Engelman, S. (2014). Georgia Computes! An intervention in a US State, with formal and informal education in a policy context. Transactions on Computing Education, 14(2), 13.Google Scholar

Hao, Q., Wright, E., Barnes, B., & Branch, R. M. (2016). What are the most important predictors of computer science students’ online help-seeking behaviors? Computers in Human Behavior, 62(C), 467–474.Google Scholar

Harms, K. J., Cosgrove, D., Gray, S., & Kelleher, C. (2013). Automatically generating tutorials to enable middle school children to learn programming independently. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ‘13) (pp. 11–19). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hislop, G. W., Ellis, H. J. C., Pulimood, S. M., Morgan, B., Mello-Stark, S., Coleman, B., & Macdonell, C. (2015). A multi-institutional study of learning via student involvement in humanitarian free and open source software projects. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘15) (pp. 199–206). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hitz, M., & Kögeler, S. (1997). Teaching C++ on the WWW. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘97) (pp. 11–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Howard, L., Johnson, J., & Neitzel, C. (2010). Reflecting on online learning designs using observed behavior. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘10) (pp. 179–183). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Howard, S., & McKeown, J. (2011). Online Practice & Offline Roles: A Cultural View of Teachers’ Low Engagement in Online Communities. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Jin, W., & Corbett, A. (2011). Effectiveness of cognitive apprenticeship learning (CAL) and cognitive tutors (CT) for problem solving using fundamental programming concepts. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘11) (pp. 305–310). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jones, M. C., & Churchill, E. F. (2009). Conversations in developer communities: a preliminary analysis of the yahoo! pipes community. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and technologies (C&T ‘09) (pp. 195–204). New York: ACM.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 (CHI ‘07) (pp. 1455–1464). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kim, A. S., & Ko, A. J. (2017). A pedagogical analysis of online coding tutorials. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17) (pp. 321–326). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks in online lecture videos. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 31–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Klomsri, T., Grebäck, L., & Tedre, M. (2013). Social media in everyday learning: How Facebook supports informal learning among young adults in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘13) (pp. 135–144). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Knox, D., & Fincher, S. (2013). Where students go for knowledge and what they find there. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘13) (pp. 35–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. New York: Associated Press.Google Scholar

Ko, A. J., Myers, B. A., & Aung, H. H. (2004). Six learning barriers in end-user programming systems. In 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing (pp. 199–206). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Ko, A. J., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Blackwell, A., Burnett, M., Erwig, M., Scaffidi, C., Lawrance, J., Lieberman, H., Myers, B., Rosson, M. B., Rothermel, G., Shaw, M., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2011). The state of the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys, 43(3), 21.Google Scholar

Ko, A. J. & Davis, K. (2017). Computing mentorship in a software boomtown: Relationships to adolescent interest and beliefs. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 236–244). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Koppelman, H., & Vranken, H. (2008). Experiences with a synchronous virtual classroom in distance education. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘08) (pp. 194–198). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kulkarni, C. E., Socher, R., Bernstein, M.S., & Klemmer, S.R. (2014). Scaling short-answer grading by combining peer assessment with algorithmic scoring. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 99–108). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leake, M., & Lewis, C. (2016). Designing a new system for sharing computer science teaching resources. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW ‘16 Companion) (pp. 321–324). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Leake, M., & Lewis, C. M. (2017). Recommendations for designing CS resource sharing sites for all teachers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 357–362). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329–394.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., & Ko, A. J. (2014). Principles of a debugging-first puzzle game for computing education. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 57–64). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2011). Personifying programming tool feedback improves novice programmers’ learning. In International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER) (pp. 109–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2012). Investigating the role of purposeful goals on novices’ engagement in a programming game. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 163–166). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Lee, M. J., Ko, A. J., & Kwan, I. (2013). In-game assessments increase novice programmers’ engagement and level completion speed. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 153–160). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2015). Comparing the effectiveness of online learning approaches on CS1 learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 237–246). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lehtonen, T., Aho, T., Isohanni, E., & Mikkonen, T. (2015). On the role of gamification and localization in an open online learning environment: Javala experiences. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘15) (pp. 50–59). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Loksa, D., Ko, A. J., Jernigan, W., Oleson, A., Mendez, C. J., & Burnett, M. M. (2016). Programming, problem solving, and self-awareness: Effects of explicit guidance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘16) (pp. 1449–1461). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Malan, D. J. (2009). Virtualizing office hours in CS 50. In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘09) (pp. 303–307). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mamykina, L., Manoim, B., Mittal, M., Hripcsak, G., & Hartmann, B. (2011). Design lessons from the fastest Q&A site in the west. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2857–2866). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 25–34.Google Scholar

Marsick, V. J., & Volpe, M. (1999). The nature of and need for informal learning. In Marsick, V. J. & Volpe, M. (Eds.), Informal Learning on the Job, Advances in Developing Human Resources, No. 3 (pp. 1–9). San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler.Google Scholar

McCartney, R., Eckerdal, A., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2010). Computing students learning computing informally. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘10) (pp. 43–48). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

McGill, M. M., Decker, A., & Settle, A. (2015). Does outreach impact choices of major for underrepresented undergraduate students? In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘15) (pp. 71–80). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Menard, S. A. W. (1993). Critical Learning Incidents of Female Army Nurse Vietnam Veterans and Their Perceptions of Organizational Culture in a Combat Area. (Women Vetersans, Nurses) (PhD dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar

Miljanovic, M. A., & Bradbury, J. S. (2017). RoboBUG: A serious game for learning debugging techniques. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 93–100). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mitchell, S. M., & Lutters, W. G. (2006). Assessing the value of computer science course material repositories. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training Workshops (CSEETW ‘06) (p. 2). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Moraveji, N., Morris, M., Morris, D., Czerwinski, M., & Riche, N. H. (2011). ClassSearch: Facilitating the development of web search skills through social learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘11) (pp. 1797–1806). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Nandi, A., & Mandernach, M. (2016). Hackathons as an informal learning platform. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 346–351). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Nelson, G. L., Xie, B., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Comprehension first: Evaluating a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 2–11). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar

Park, T. H., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2011). Learning web development: Challenges at an earlier stage of computing education. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘11) (pp. 125–132). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pullen, J. M. (2006). Scaling up a distance education program in computer science. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE ‘06) (pp. 33–37). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, , Eastmond, N., Brennan, E., Milner, K., Rosenbaum, A., Silver, E., Silverman, J., , B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.Google Scholar

Rosbottom, J. (2001). Hybrid learning – A safe route into web-based open and distance learning for the computer science teacher. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘01) (pp. 89–92). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sadowski, C., Stolee, K. T., & Elbaum, S. (2015). How developers search for code: a case study. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2015) (pp. 191–201). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19(3), 203–220.Google Scholar

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T., & Sorva, J. (2015). How do students use program visualizations within an interactive ebook? In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘15) (pp. 179–188). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Stone, J. A., & Madigan, E. (2011). Experiences with community-based projects for computing majors. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 26(6), 64–70.Google Scholar

Stone, J. A., MacKellar, B., Madigan, E. M., & Pearce, J. L. (2012). Community-based projects for computing majors: opportunities, challenges and best practices. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘12) (pp. 85–86). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Tillmann, N., De Halleux, J., Xie, T., & Bishop, J. (2012). Pex4Fun: Teaching and learning computer science via social gaming. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 25th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET ‘12) (pp. 90–91). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Truong, N., Bancroft, P., & Roe, P. (2005). Learning to program through the web. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘05) (pp. 9–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Venkatagiri, S. (2006). Engineering the software requirements of nonprofits: A service-learning approach. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software engineering (ICSE ‘06) (pp. 643–648). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

von Wright, J. (2000). Distance tutorials in a systems design course. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘00) (pp. 105–107). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wagner, A., Gray, J., Corley, J., & Wolber, D. 2013. Using App Inventor in a K–12 summer camp. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 621–626). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Warner, J., Doorenbos, J., Miller, B., & Guo, P. J. (2015). How high school, college, and online students differentially engage with an interactive digital textbook. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 528–531). International: International Educational Data Mining Society.Google Scholar

Warner, J., & Guo, P. J. (2017). Hack.edu: Examining how college hackathons are perceived by student attendees and non-attendees. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 254–262). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Warren, J., Rixner, S., Greiner, J., & Wong, S. (2014). Facilitating human interaction in an online programming course. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 665–670). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Webb, H. C., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). Exploring careers while learning Alice 3D: A summer camp for middle school girls. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘11) (pp. 377–382). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Zander, C., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Sanders, K., Moström, J. E., & Thomas, L. (2012). Self-directed learning: Stories from industry. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘12) (pp. 111–117). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ‘15) (pp. 1882–1895). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Zhu, J., Warner, J., Gordon, M., White, J., Zanelatto, R., & Guo, P. J. (2015). Toward a domain-specific visual discussion forum for learning computer programming: An empirical study of a popular MOOC forum. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 101–109). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289–1312.Google Scholar

Almstrum, V. L., Henderson, P. B., Harvey, V. J., Heeren, C., Marion, W. A., Riedesel, C., Soh, K.-L., & Tew, A. E. (2006). Concept inventories in computer science for the topic discrete mathematics. SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(4), 132–145.Google Scholar

Barker, L. J., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Jackson, M. (2002). Defensive climate in the computer science classroom. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2002) (pp. 43–47). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.Google Scholar

Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37–45.Google Scholar

Beck, K. (2003). Test-Driven Development by Example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Buswell, G. T. (1930). Summary of arithmetic investigations (1929). The Elementary School Journal, 30(10), 766–775.Google Scholar

Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1989). Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. Human–Computer Interaction, 1(2), 133–161.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

Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.Google Scholar

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of students’ problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 385–401.Google Scholar

Chan, W. W. L., Au, T. K., & Tang, J. (2014). Strategic counting: A novel assessment of place-value understanding. Learning and Instruction, 29, 78–94.Google Scholar

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.Google Scholar

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81.Google Scholar

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69(1–2), 58–71.Google Scholar

Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 656–664.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), 121–52.Google Scholar

Chung, A., Shao, P., & Vasquez, A. (2017). Students’ misconceptions about the types of values data structures can store. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 32(4), 72–78.Google Scholar

Clancy, M. (2004). Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In Fincher, S. & Petre, M. (Eds.), Computer Science Education Research (pp. 85–100). Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3–56.Google Scholar

Danielsiek, H., Paul, W., & Vahrenhold, J. (2012). Detecting and understanding students’ misconceptions related to algorithms and data structures. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 21–26). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Davis, E. A., Linn, M. C., Mann, L. M., & Clancy, M. J. (1993). Mind your P’s and Q’s: Using parentheses and quotes in LISP. In Cook, C. R., Scholtz, J. C., & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop (pp. 63–85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Davis, E. A., Linn, M. C., & Clancy, M. J. (1995). Learning to use parentheses and quotes in LISP. Computer Science Education, 6(1), 15–31.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 (ICER ‘08) (pp. 113–124). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. A. (2014a). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 88–108). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. A. (2014b). The construction of causal schemes: Learning mechanisms at the knowledge level. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 795–850.Google Scholar

Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10(4), 343–358.Google Scholar

Eckerdal, A., & Thuné, M. (2005). Novice Java programmers’ conceptions of “object” and “class”, and variation theory. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘05) (pp. 89–93). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2000). How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fisler, K. (2014). The Recurring Rainfall Problem. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2014) (pp. 35–42). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Tunnell Wilson, P. (2017). Assessing and teaching scope, mutation, and aliasing in upper-level undergraduates. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 21–26). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Fuson, K. C. (1998). Pedagogical, mathematical, and real-world conceptual-support nets: A model for building children’s multidigit domain knowledge. Mathematical Cognition, 4(2), 147–186.Google Scholar

Gal-Ezer, J., & Trakhtenbrot, M. (2016). Identification and addressing reduction-related misconceptions. Computer Science Education, 26(2–3), 89–103.Google Scholar

Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Ginat, D., & Blau, Y. (2017). Multiple levels of abstraction in algorithmic problem solving. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 237–242). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C.-H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 236–243.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

Hamouda, S., Edwards, S. H., Elmongui, H. G., Ernst, J. V., & Shaffer, C. A. (2017). A basic recursion concept inventory. Computer Science Education, 27(2), 121–148.Google Scholar

Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829.Google Scholar

Herman, G. L., Loui, M. C., Kaczmarczyk, L. C., & Zilles, C. B. (2012). Describing the what and why of students’ difficulties in Boolean logic. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1), Article 3, 28 pages.Google Scholar

Holland, S., Griffiths, R., & Woodman, M. (1997). Avoiding object misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGSCE 1997) (pp. 131–134). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hughes, E. M., Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., Fries, K. M., & Kanyongo, G. Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36–47.Google Scholar

Kahney, H. (1989). What do novice programmers know about recursion? In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 209–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Karpierz, K., & Wolfman, S. A. (2014). Misconceptions and concept inventory questions for binary search trees and hash tables. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 109–114). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Uncovering Student Ideas in Science, Vol. 1: 25 Formative Assessment Probes. Arlington, VA: National Science Teacher Association Press.Google Scholar

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The Psychology of Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kölling, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2001). Guidelines for teaching object orientation with Java. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘01) (pp. 33–36). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21.Google Scholar

Ladd, H. F., & Sorensen, L. C. (2017). Returns to teacher experience: Student achievement and motivation in middle school. Education Finance and Policy, 12(2), 241–279.Google Scholar

Lane, P. C., Cheng, P. C. H., & Gobet, F. (2000). CHREST+: A simulation of how humans learn to solve problems using diagrams. AISB Quarterly, 103, 24–30.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levin, J. R., Levin, M. E., Glasman, L. D., & Nordwall, M. B. (1992). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: Additional effectiveness evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(2), 156–174.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M. (2012). Applications of Out-of-Domain Knowledge in Students’ Reasoning about Computer Program State (PhD dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

McCauley, R., Grissom, S., Fitzgerald, S., & Murphy, L. (2015). Teaching and learning recursive programming: A review of the research literature. Computer Science Education, 25(1), 37–66.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(2), 81–97.Google Scholar

Miller, S. P., Butler, F. M., & Lee, K.-H. (1998). Validated practices for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities: A review of literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Murphy, L., Fitzgerald, S., Lister, R., & McCauley, R. (2012). Ability to “explain in plain English” linked to proficiency in computer-based programming. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER ‘12) (pp. 111–118). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179.Google Scholar

Nasir, N. S., & Shah, N. (2011). On defense: African American males making sense of racialized narratives in mathematics education. Journal of African American Males in Education, 2(1), 24–45.Google Scholar

Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905–928.Google Scholar

O’Brien, D., Dias, M. G., Roazzi, A., & Cantor, J. B. (1998). Pinocchio’s nose knows: Preschool children recognize that a pragmatic rule can be violated, an indicative conditional can be falsified, and that a broken promise is a false promise. In Braine, M. D. S. & O’Brien, D. P. (Eds.), Mental Logic (pp. 447–457). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

O’Brien, D. P., Roazzi, A., Dias, M. G., Cantor, J. B., & Brooks, P. J. (2004). Violations, lies, broken promises, and just plain mistakes: The pragmatics of counterexamples, logical semantics, and the evaluation of conditional assertions, regulations, and promises in variants of Wason’s selection task. In Manktelow, K. & Chung, M. C. (Eds.), Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives (pp. 95–126). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.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 (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D. (1986). Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 25–36.Google Scholar

Pedroni, M. & Meyer, B. (2010). Object-oriented modeling of object-oriented concepts: A case study in structuring an educational domain. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2010), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5941 (pp. 155–169). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Pollack, I. (1953). Assimilation of sequentially encoded information. The American Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 421–435.Google Scholar

Pollard, S., & Duvall, R. C. (2006). Everything I needed to know about teaching I learned in kindergarten: Bringing elementary education techniques to undergraduate computer science classes. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2006) (pp. 224–228). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Qian, Y. & Lehman, J. (2017). Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), Article 1, 24 pages.Google Scholar

Ragonis, N., & Ben-Ari, M. (2005). A long-term investigation of the comprehension of OOP concepts by novices. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 203–221.Google Scholar

Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2017). K–8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 182–190). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Rivera, D., & Smith, D. D. (1988). Using a demonstration strategy to teach midschool students with learning disabilities how to compute long division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(2), 77–81.Google Scholar

Rinderknecht, C. (2014). A survey on teaching and learning recursive programming. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 87–119.Google Scholar

Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.Google Scholar

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.Google Scholar

Sajaniemi, J., & Kuittinen, M. (2005). An experiment on using roles of variables in teaching introductory programming. Computer Science Education, 15(1), 59–82.Google Scholar

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408.Google Scholar

Sanders, K., & Thomas, L. (2007). Checklists for grading object-oriented CS1 programs: Concepts and misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘07) (pp. 166–170). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Introduction: The new science of learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Seppälä, O., Malmi, , , L., & Korhonen, A. (2006). Observations on student misconceptions – A case study of the build-heap algorithm. Computer Science Education, 16(3), 241–255.Google Scholar

Sfard, A. (1995). The development of algebra: Confronting historical and psychological perspectives. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(1), 15–39.Google Scholar

Shah, N. (2017). Race, ideology, and academic ability: A relational analysis of racial narratives in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–42.Google Scholar

Smagorinsky, P., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Learning to be literate. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 605–625). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, III, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.Google Scholar

Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850–858.Google Scholar

Spohrer, J. G., & Soloway, E. (1986). Analyzing the high frequency bugs in novice programs. In Papers Presented at the First Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers (pp. 230–251). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1), 25–60.Google Scholar

Stephens-Martinez, K., Ju, A., Parashar, K., Ongowarsito, R., Jain, N., Venkat, S., & Fox, A. (2017). Taking advantage of scale by analyzing frequent constructed-response, code tracing wrong answers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 56–64). New York: ACM Press.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

Vahrenhold, J., & Paul, W. (2014). Developing and validating test items for first-year computer science courses. Computer Science Education, 24(4), 304–333.Google Scholar

von Sydow, M. (2006). Towards a Flexible Bayesian and Deontic Logic of Testing Descriptive and Prescriptive Rules: Explaining Content Effects in the Wason Selection Task (PhD dissertation). University of Göttingen.Google Scholar

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Webb, K. C., & Taylor, C. (2014). Developing a pre- and post-course concept inventory to gauge operating systems learning. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 103–108). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266–271.Google Scholar

Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy – A psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17–22.Google Scholar

Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., & Schneider, E. (2008). Implementing CRA with secondary students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5), 270–276.Google Scholar

Wortham, S. (2006). Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and Academic Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Young, R. M., & O’Shea, T. (1981). Errors in children’s subtraction. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 153–177.Google Scholar

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 219–245.Google Scholar

Almstrum, V. L. et al. (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

Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(3), 596–603.Google Scholar

Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change (January/February), 38–43.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.Google Scholar

Barker, R. J., & Unger, E. A. (1983). A predictor for success in an introductory programming class based upon abstract reasoning development. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(1), 154–8.Google Scholar

Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2005). An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘05) (pp. 155–163). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2005). Programming: Factors that influence success. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 411–5.Google Scholar

Bernstein, D. R. (1991). Comfort and experience with computing: Are they the same for women and men? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 23(3), 57–61.Google Scholar

Beyer, S. (2008). Predictors of female and male computer science students’ grades. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 14(4), 377–409.Google Scholar

Bhardwaj, J. (2017). In search of self-efficacy: Development of a new instrument for first year Computer Science students. Computer Science Education, 27(2), 79–99.Google Scholar

Blaney, J. M., Hall, M., Plaza, P., & Stout, J. G. (2017). Examining the relationship between introductory computing course experiences, self-efficacy, and belonging among first-generation college women. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 69–74). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317–329.Google Scholar

Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.Google Scholar

Brunello, G., & Schlotter, M. (2011). Non Cognitive Skills and Personality Traits: Labour Market Relevance and their Development in Education and Training Systems. IZA Discussion paper 5743. Bonn, Germany: The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar

Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 147–158.Google Scholar

Carter, L. (2006). Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1), 27–31.Google Scholar

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.Google Scholar

Choi, K. S., Deek, F. P., & Im, I. (2008). Exploring the underlying aspects of pair programming: The impact of personality. Information and Software Technology, 50(11), 1114–1126.Google Scholar

Cohoon, J. M. (2003). Must there be so few? Including women in CS. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 668–674). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 333–346.Google Scholar

Danielsiek, H., Toma, L., & Vahrenhold, J. (2017). An instrument to assess self-efficacy in introductory algorithms courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 217–225). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, , Frenzel, T., , A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 25–35.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2007). From limen to lumen: Computing students in liminal spaces. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘07) (pp. 123–132). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Edwards, S. H., Back, G. V., & Woods, M. J. (2011). Experiences evaluating student attitudes in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (pp. 477–482). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. (2014). Identifying computer science self-regulated learning strategies. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 291–296). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 218–233.Google Scholar

Goetz, T., Nett, U. E., Martiny, S. E., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., Dettmers, S., & Trautwein, U. (2012). Students’ emotions during homework: Structures, self-concept antecedents, and achievement outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 225–34.Google Scholar

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.Google Scholar

Goode, J., Estrella, R., & Margolis, J. (2006). Lost in translation: Gender and High School Computer Science. In Cohoon, J. & Aspray, W. (Eds.), Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation (pp. 89–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.Google Scholar

Hannay, J. E., Arisholm, E., Engvik, H., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2010). Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(1), 61–80.Google Scholar

Hannula, M. S. (2015). Emotions in problem solving. In Cho, S. J. (Ed.), Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 269–288). Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Havenga, M. (2015). The role of metacognitive skills in solving object-oriented programming problems: A case study. Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 11(1), 133–147.Google Scholar

Hildebrandt, C., & Diethelm, I. (2012). The school experiment InTech – How to influence interest, self-concept of ability in Informatics and vocational orientation. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WIPCSE ‘12) (pp. 30–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hostetler, T. R. (1983). Predicting student success in an introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(3), 40–44.Google Scholar

Jacob, B. A. (2002). Where the boys aren’t: Non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 21, 589–598.Google Scholar

Kanaparan, G., Cullen, R., & Mason, D. D. M. (2017). Self-efficacy and behavioural engagement in introductory programming courses self-efficacy and behavioural engagement. In PACIS 2017 Proceedings (p. 209). Atlanta, GA: AIS.Google Scholar

Kappe, R., & Van Der Flier, H. (2012). Predicting academic success in higher education: What’s more important than being smart? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(4), 605–619.Google Scholar

Katz, L. G. (1993). Dispositions as Educational Goals. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED363454.pdf Google Scholar

Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2011). CS majors’ self-efficacy perceptions in CS1: Results in light of social cognitive theory. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘11) (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2010). Experiencing programming assignments in CS: The emotional toll. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘10) (pp. 77–85). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2012). My program is ok – Am I? Computing freshmen’s experiences of doing programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 22(1), 1–28.Google Scholar

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 47–52.Google Scholar

Kurtz, B. L. (1980). Investigating the relationship between the development of abstract reasoning and performance in an introductory programming class. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 12(1), 110–117.Google Scholar

Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1994). Sociocognitive mechanisms of personal agency in career development: Pantheoretical prospects. In Savikas, M. L. & Lent, R. W. (Eds.), Convergence in Career Development Theories: Implications for Science and Practice (pp. 77–101). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.Google Scholar

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions and academic engagement: Introduction to the special issue. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 1–3.Google Scholar

Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., & Enbody, R. (2017). Students’ emotional reactions to programming projects in introduction to programming: Measurement approach and influence on learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 30–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Good, J., & Enbody, R. (2016). Learning to program: Gender differences and interactive effects of students’ motivation, goals and self-efficacy on performance. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘16) (pp. 211–220). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2012). New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory. In Maddux, J. (Ed.), Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment (pp. 3–33). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar

Maio, G., & Haddock, G. (2009). The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar

Miller, J. (2015). Predictors of Student Persistence in the STEM Pipeline: Activities Outside the Classroom, Parent Aspirations, and Student Self-beliefs Using NELS:88 Data (doctoral dissertation). Notre Dame of Maryland University.Google Scholar

Mischel, W. (2013). Personality and Assessment. London, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Miura, I. T. (1987). The relationship of computer self-efficacy expectations to computer interest and course enrollment in college. Sex Roles, 16(5/6), 303–311.Google Scholar

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.Google Scholar

Nasim, A., Roberts, A., Harrell, J. P., Young, H., Roberts, A., & Harrell, J. P. (2005). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement for African Americans across cultural contexts. Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 344–358.Google Scholar

Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big Five Correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 116–130.Google Scholar

O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.Google Scholar

Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 124–139.Google Scholar

Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203.Google Scholar

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90(6), 353–360.Google Scholar

Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115–24.Google Scholar

Perloff, R. M. (2017). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century, 6th edn. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792–802.Google Scholar

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., 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

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451–529). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science & Technology.Google Scholar

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.Google Scholar

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1995). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–38.Google Scholar

Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.) (2014). Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ramalingam, V., LaBelle, D., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2004). Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘04) (pp. 171–175). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ramalingam, V., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1999). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 367–381.Google Scholar

Robins, A. (2015). The ongoing challenges of computer science education research. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 115–119.Google Scholar

Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Swan, A. K., & Creager, M. F. (2012). Social cognitive factors, support, and engagement: Early adolescents’ math interests as precursors to choice of career. The Career Development Quarterly, 60, 2–15.Google Scholar

Salleh, N., Mendes, E., Grundy, J., & Burch, G. (2009). An empirical study of the effects of personality in pair programming using the five-factor model. In Third International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2009) (pp. 214–225). New York: ACM.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

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In Maddux, J. (Ed.), Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory Research and Application (pp. 281–303). New York: Springer US.Google Scholar

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 631–649). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science & Technology.Google Scholar

Schwarzer, R., & Fuchs, R. (1995). Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In Bandura, A. (Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies (pp. 259–288). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sfetsos, P., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., & Deligiannis, I. (2009). An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 187–226.Google Scholar

Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 929–960.Google Scholar

Shell, D. F., & Husman, J. (2008). Control, motivation, affect, and strategic self-regulation in the college classroom: A multidimensional phenomenon. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 443–459.Google Scholar

Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–332.Google Scholar

Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1984). Noncognitive variables in predicting academic success by race. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 171–178.Google Scholar

Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Achievement goal orientations and academic well-being across the transition to upper secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 290–305.Google Scholar

Valentine, J. C., Dubois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133.Google Scholar

Watson, C., Li, F. W. B., & Godwin, J. L. (2014). No tests required: Comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 469–474). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weber, H. S., Lu, L., Shi, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2013). The roles of cognitive and motivational predictors in explaining school achievement in elementary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 85–92.Google Scholar

Wiedenbeck, S. (2005). Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘05) (pp. 13–24). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Williams, T., & Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 453–66.Google Scholar

Wilson, B. C. (2010). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Computer Science Education, 12(1–2), 141–164.Google Scholar

Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 327–353.Google Scholar

Wolters, C., & Yu, S. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning & Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Zingaro, D. (2015). Examining interest and grades in Computer Science 1. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(3), 1–18.Google Scholar

Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2016). Impact of student achievement goals on CS1 outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 279–284). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187–206.Google Scholar

Barker, L., & Cohoon, J. M. (2017). Pair Programming (Case Study 1). Retrieved from: www.ncwit.org/resources/how-do-you-retain-women-through-collaborative-learning/pair-programming-case-study-1 Google Scholar

Basili, V. R., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Sørumgård, S., & Zelkowitz, M. V. (1996). The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empirical Software Engineering, 1(2), 133–164.Google Scholar

Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice: A Special Report. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2015). The design of a programming environment to support greater social awareness and participation in early computing courses. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 31(1), 143–153.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, 1 (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2000). The costs and benefits of pair programming. Extreme Programming Examined, 8, 223–247.Google Scholar

Code.org (2014). Pair Programming. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgkahOzFH2Q Google Scholar

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.Google Scholar

Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18–28.Google Scholar

Cutts, Q., Cutts, E., Draper, S., O’Donnell, P., & Saffrey, P. (2010). Manipulating mindset to positively influence introductory programming performance. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 431–435). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Docherty, M., Sutton, P., Brereton, M., & Kaplan, S. (2001). An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 233–237.Google Scholar

Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. (2003). Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA) (pp. 171–178). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Fagan, M. E. (1986). Advances in Software Inspections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 12(7): 744–751.Google Scholar

Faro, S., & Swan, K. (2006). An investigation into the efficacy of the studio model at the high school level. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(1), 45–59.Google Scholar

Flor, N. V., & Hutchins, E. L. (1991). A case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance. In Koenemann-Belliveau, J., Moher, T. G., & Robertson, S. P. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop (pp. 36–59). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.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), 8410–8415.Google Scholar

Gilb, T., & Graham, D. (1993). Software Inspection. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 21(2), 135–173.Google Scholar

Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor’s Guide to Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.Google Scholar

Hendrix, D., Myneni, L., Narayanan, H., & Ross, M. (2010). Implementing studio-based learning in CS2. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 505–509). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 33(8), 502–506.Google Scholar

Horn, E. M., Collier, W. G., Oxford, J. A., BondJr., C. F., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Individual differences in dyadic cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 153–161.Google Scholar

Hu, H. H., & Campbell, P. B. (2017). A framework for Levels of student participation and stages of relevant curriculum. Computing in Science & Engineering, 19(3), 20–29.Google Scholar

Hu, H. H., Kussmaul, C., Knaeble, B., Mayfield, C., & Yadav, A. (2016). Results from a survey of faculty adoption of process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in computer science. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 186–191). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Agrawal, A., & Agarwal, P. (2013). Talking about code: Integrating pedagogical code reviews into early computing courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(3), 14.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2008). Designing, visualizing, and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 50(1), 301–326.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D., & Trevisan, M. (2010). Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: An empirical comparison with a traditional approach. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 500–504). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Fairbrother, D., & Petre, M. (2012). An empirical study of the “prototype walkthrough”: A studio-based activity for HCI education. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19(4), 26.Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar

Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A New Look at Elementary School Science: Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Chicago, IL, and New York: Rand McNally.Google Scholar

Kehoe, C. M. (2001). Bringing design dialog to HCI education. In CHI’01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 473–474). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lackney, J. (1999). A history of the studio-based learning model. Retrieved from: http://edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/history_studio_based_learning.pdf Google Scholar

Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1999). Legitimate peripheral participation. In P. Murphy, (Ed.), Learners, Learning and Assessment (pp. 83–89), London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

Lee, C. B., Garcia, S., & Porter, L. (2013). Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division computer science courses? ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(3), 12.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M. (2011). Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education, 21(2), 105–134.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2015). How equity and inequity can emerge in pair programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Liao, S. N., Zingaro, D., Laurenzano, M. A., Griswold, W. G., & Porter, L. (2016). Lightweight, early identification of at-risk CS1 students. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 123–131). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2008). POGIL: An overview. In Moog, R. S. & Spencer, J. N. (Eds.), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: ACS Symposium Series 994 (pp. 1–13). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar

McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90–95.Google Scholar

Narayanan, N. H., Hendrix, D., Ross, M., Hundhausen, C., & Crosby, M. (2018). Broadening Studio-Based Learning in Computing Education: Final Report to NSF 2015. Technical Report CSSE18-01. Auburn, AL: Department of Computer Science & Software Engineering, Auburn University.Google Scholar

NCWIT (2009). Pair Programming-in-a-Box: The Power of Collaborative Learning. Retrieved from www.ncwit.org/pairprogramming Google Scholar

O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Norman, M. (Eds.), Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Olivares, D. M., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2016). OSBLE+: A next-generation learning management and analytics environment for computing education. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (p. 5-5). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Eds.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 177–182). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., Simon, B., Cutts, Q., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Experience report: A multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 138–142). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Bouvier, D., Cutts, Q., Grissom, S., Lee, C., McCartney, R., Zingaro, D., & Simon, B. (2016). A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. ACM Inroads, 7(2), 76–81.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Garcia, S., Glick, J., Matusiewicz, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Peer instruction in computer science at small liberal arts colleges. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 129–134). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Zingaro, D., & Lister, R. (2014). Predicting student success using fine grain clicker data. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191–205.Google Scholar

Rodríguez, F. J., Price, K. M., & Boyer, K.E. (2017). Exploring the pair programming process: characteristics of effective collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 507–512). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ruder, S. M., & Hunnicutt, S. S. (2008). POGIL in chemistry courses at a large urban university: A case study. In ACS Symposium Series (Vol. 994, pp. 133–147). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2011). Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(4), 509–525.Google Scholar

Sauer, C., Jeffery, D. R., Land, L., & Yetton, P. (2000). The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: A behaviorally motivated program of research. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Schlimmer, J. C., Fletcher, J. B., & Hermens, L. A. (1994). Team-oriented software practicum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 37(2), 212–220.Google Scholar

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Simon, B., & Hanks, B. (2008). First-year students’ impressions of pair programming in CS1. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 7(4), 5.Google Scholar

Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee, J., Tamayo, K., & Cutts, Q. (2010). Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 341–345). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, B., Parris, J., & Spacco, J. (2013). How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 41–46). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.Google Scholar

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.Google Scholar

Straumanis, A., & Simons, E. (2008). A multi-institutional assessment of the use of POGIL in organic chemistry. In Moog, R. S. & Spencer, J. N. (Eds.), Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning: ACS Symposium Series 994 (pp. 226–239). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar

The POGIL Project (2018). POGIL Implementation Guide. Retrieved from www.pogil.org/educators/additional-resources Google Scholar

Totten, S. S., Digby, T. A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative Learning: A Guide to Research. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language – Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., Ortiz, E., DeLay, D., Hartl, A. C., & Laursen, B. (2013). Pair programming for middle school students: Does friendship influence academic outcomes? In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 421–426). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wiegers, K. E. (1995). Improving quality through software inspections. Software Development, 3(4), 1–15.Google Scholar

Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2000a). The effects of “pair-pressure” and “pair-learning” on software engineering education. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (pp. 59–65). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2000b). All I Really Need to Know About Pair Programming I Learned in Kindergarten. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 108–114.Google Scholar

Zingaro, D. (2014). Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 373–378). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2015). Tracking student learning from class to exam using isomorphic questions. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 356–361). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Beach, A., & Henderson, C. (2018). Research on Instructional Change in Postsecondary Education. Retrieved from http://wmich.edu/changeresearch Google Scholar

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.Google Scholar

Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.Google Scholar

Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. J. (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

Guzdial, M. (2018). Computing Education Research Blog. Retrieved from https://computinged.wordpress.com (Various posts: search for “peer instruction.”)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

Guzdial, M., & Ericson, B. (2007). Introduction to Computing and Programming in Java: A Multimedia Approach. London, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar

Henderson, C. (2018a). Charles Henderson Publications. Retrieved from http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/Publications/Publications.htm Google Scholar

Henderson, C. (2018b). Increase the Impact. Retrieved from www.increasetheimpact.com Google Scholar

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.Google Scholar

Lee, C. B. (2013). Experience report: CS1 in MATLAB for non-majors, with media computation and peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 35–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lee, C. B., Porter, L., Zingaro, D., & Simon, B. (2018). Peer Instruction for CS. Retrieved from www.peerinstruction4cs.org Google Scholar

Murphy, T. (2008). Success and failure of audience response systems in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference: Moving Mountains, Blazing Trails (pp. 33–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pargas, R. P., & Shah, D. M. (2006). Things are clicking in computer science courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1), 474–478.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Guzdial, M., McDowell, C., & Simon, B. (2013a). Success in introductory programming: What works? Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 34–36.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Lee, C. B., & Simon, B. (2013b). Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 177–182). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Lee, C. B., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 45–52). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Porter, L., & Simon, B. (2013). Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 165–170). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Prince, M., Borrego, M., Henderson, C., Cutler, S., & Froyd, J. (2013). Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses. Chemical Engineering Education, 47(1), 27–37.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar

Simon, B., & Cutts, Q. (2012). Peer instruction: A teaching method to foster deep understanding. Communications of the ACM, 55(2), 27–29.Google Scholar

Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee, J., Tamayo, K., & Cutts, Q. (2010). Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 341–345). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, B., Parris, J., & Spacco, J. (2013). How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 41–46). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.Google Scholar

Wieman, C. (2018). The Carl Wieman Science Initiative. Retrieved from www.cwsei.ubc.ca Google Scholar

Zingaro, D., Lee, C. B., & Porter, L. (2013). Peer instruction in computing: The role of reading quizzes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 47–52). New York: ACM.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

diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.Google Scholar

Haas, G. (n.d.) BFOIT Introduction to Computer Programming. Retrieved from http://guyhaas.com/bfoit/itp/Iteration.html#more_projects Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M. (2010). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. Scratch. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 346–350). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M. (2012a). The importance of students’ attention to program state: A case study of debugging behavior. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2012) (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M. (2012b). Applications of Out-of-Domain Knowledge in Students’ Reasoning about Computer Program State (PhD dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., Anderson, R. E., & Yasuhara, K. (2016). I don’t code all day: Fitting in computer science when the stereotypes don’t fit. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘16) (pp. 23–32). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2015). How equity and inequity can emerge in pair programming. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2015) (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., Yasuhara, K., & Anderson, R. E. (2011). Deciding to major in computer science: A grounded theory of students' self-assessment of ability. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Roth, W.-M. (2006). Textbooks on qualitative research and method/methodology: Toward a praxis of method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 11.Google Scholar

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar

Book contents

Part III - Topics

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Book contents

Part III - Topics

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive