Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Capturing the Impact and the Chatter Around Computing Education Research Beyond Academia in Social Media, Patents, and Blogs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research

  • 453 Accesses

Abstract

Research impact goes beyond academia and exists in the multiplicity of digital platforms that we use to read, share, and discuss knowledge. Computing education research (CER) is no exception: it is created in academia and typical research institutions but is talked about widely on social media, blogs, and news websites. The aim of this study is to have a comprehensive analysis of how research in CER has been received, talked about in social media, discussed on blogs, and spread to the news and media. In addition to common analysis of trends of growth, we analyze trends of usage of social media and quantitative analysis of platforms, articles, and venues. The analysis also includes which articles and in which subfields had a wide impact, and for whom (i.e., which platforms had more impact). The results show that Altmetrics adoption is weak, yet increasingly growing fast. Gender and diversity issues made it to popular news sites, e.g., Scientific American, Los Angeles Times, and Christian Science Monitor, while articles about ethics, programming education, introductory courses as well as computational thinking and inclusion have captured the attention of social media users. There was weak—or no—correlation between article, author or topic impact and the traditional impact measures, e.g., citation count.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C (2011) Altmetrics: A manifesto

    Google Scholar 

  2. Priem J, Groth P, Taraborelli D (2012) The altmetrics collection. PLoS One 7:e48753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Piwowar H (2013) Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bull Am Soc Inf Sci 39:8–9

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ortega J-L (2020) Altmetrics data providers: A metaanalysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication. El profesional de la información (EPI) 29:

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nuzzolese AG, Ciancarini P, Gangemi A, et al (2019) Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality? Scientometrics 118:539–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hassan S-U, Imran M, Gillani U, et al (2017) Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: an exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data. Scientometrics 113:1037–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Erdt M, Nagarajan A, Sin S-CJ, Theng Y-L (2016) Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics 109:1117–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Thelwall M (2020) The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment. Scholarly Assessment Reports 2. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.10

  9. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, et al (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520:429–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schöbel S, Saqr M, Janson A (2021) Two decades of game concepts in digital learning environments – A bibliometric study and research agenda. Comput Educ 173:104296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haustein S, Bowman TD, Holmberg K, et al (2016) Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67:232–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hassan S-U, Aljohani NR, Idrees N, et al (2020) Predicting literature’s early impact with sentiment analysis in Twitter. Knowledge-Based Systems 192:105383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web - WWW ’10. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sugimoto CR, Work S, Larivière V, Haustein S (2017) Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68:2037–2062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Elsevier (2013) Victor Henning’s brief guide to Mendeley. In: Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/archive/victor-hennings-brief-guide-to-mendeley. Accessed 2 May 2022

  16. López-Pernas, Saqr M, Apiola M (2023) Scientometrics: a concise introduction and a detailed methodology for the mapping of the scientific field of computing education. In: Apiola M, López-Pernas S, Saqr M (eds) Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research. Springer, p in–press

    Google Scholar 

  17. R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    Google Scholar 

  18. Apiola M, López-Pernas S, Saqr M (2023) The evolving themes of computing education research: Trends, topic models, and emerging research. In: Apiola M, López-Pernas S, Saqr M (eds) Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kuno S, Oettinger AG (1968) Computational linguistics in a Ph.D. computer science program. Commun ACM 11:831–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Teaching NLP Workshop @NAACL2021 (2021) How long have folks been thinking about #TeachingNLP? Here’s a paper from more than 50 years ago by Susumu Kuno and Anthony G. Oettinger (CACM 1968). Computational Linguistics in a Ph.D. Computer Science program. https://t.co/kyLfSz46uD. In: Twitter. https://twitter.com/TeachingNLP/status/1349884735011610628. Accessed 23 Apr 2022

  21. Raji ID, Scheuerman MK, Amironesei R (2021) You Can’t Sit With Us: Exclusionary Pedagogy in AI Ethics Education. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 515–525

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. McGowan A, Hanna P, Greer D, Busch J (2017) Learning to Program: Choose Your Lecture Seat Carefully! In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 4–9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Stefik A, Siebert S (2013) An Empirical Investigation into Programming Language Syntax. ACM Trans Comput Educ 13:1–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Drake P, Sung K (2011) Teaching introductory programming with popular board games. In: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 619–624

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Salac J, Franklin D (2020) If They Build It, Will They Understand It? Exploring the Relationship between Student Code and Performance. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 473–479

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen, Chen, Haduong P, et al (2019) The effects of first programming language on college students’ computing attitude and achievement: a comparison of graphical and textual languages. Computer Science Education 29:23–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Williamson B (2016) Political computational thinking: policy networks, digital governance and ‘learning to code.’ Critical Policy Studies 10:39–58

    Google Scholar 

  28. Malazita JW, Resetar K (2019) Infrastructures of abstraction: how computer science education produces anti-political subjects. Digital Creativity 30:300–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kemp PEJ, Wong B, Berry MG (2020) Female performance and participation in computer science. ACM trans comput educ 20:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shortliffe EH (2016) The organization and content of informatics doctoral dissertations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 23:840–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Papastergiou M (2009) Digital Game-Based Learning in high school Computer Science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Comput Educ 52:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Barr V, Stephenson C (2011) Bringing computational thinking to K-12. ACM Inroads 2:48–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Maloney J, Resnick M, Rusk N, et al (2010) The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM trans comput educ 10:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Brown MH, Sedgewick R (1984) Progress report. SIGCSE bull 16:91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Henderson PB, Cortina TJ, Wing JM (2007) Computational thinking. SIGCSE bull 39:195–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Astrachan O, Mitchener G, Berry G, Cox L (1998) Design patterns. In: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education – SIGCSE ’98. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  37. Román-González M, Pérez-González J-C, Jiménez-Fernández C (2017) Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Comput Human Behav 72:678–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yadav A, Mayfield C, Zhou N, et al (2014) Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM trans comput educ 14:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ben-Ari M (1998) Constructivism in computer science education. SIGCSE bull 30:257–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Master A (2016) Is making STEM social one way to get more children interested? In: The Christian Science Monitor. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2016/1007/Is-making-STEM-social-one-way-to-get-more-children-interested. Accessed 3 May 2022

  41. The Conversation (2021) Women are just as capable as men in computing skills — but they’re not as confident. Here’s how that’s contributing to the gender gap in tech. In: Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/lack-of-confidence-among-women-gender-gap-in-stem-tech-2020-10?r=UK&IR=T. Accessed 3 May 2022

  42. Prey JC, Weaver AC (2013) Fostering gender diversity in computing. Computer (Long Beach Calif) 46:22–23

    Google Scholar 

  43. Davis D, Yuen T, Berland M (2014) Multiple case study of nerd identity in a CS1 class. In: Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  44. DiSalvo B, Reid C, Roshan PK (2014) They can’t find us. In: Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE ’14. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  45. Svedin M, Bälter O (2016) Gender neutrality improved completion rate for all. Comput Sci Educ 26:192–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Long D, Magerko B (2020) What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bruno P, Lewis CM (2021) Computer science trends and trade-offs in California high schools. Educ Adm Q 0013161X2110548

    Google Scholar 

  48. Solomon C, Harvey B, Kahn K, et al (2020) History of Logo. Proc ACM Program Lang 4:1–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Burnette JL, Hoyt CL, Russell VM, et al (2020) A growth mind-set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 11:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Berland M, Lee VR (2011) Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. Int j game-based learn 1:65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Master A, Cheryan S, Meltzoff AN (2016) Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. J Educ Psychol 108:424–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tinoco LC, Barnette ND, Fox EA (1997) Online evaluation in WWW-based courseware. SIGCSE bull 29:194–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Yang A, Linn J, Quadrato D (1998) Developing integrated Web and database applications using JAVA applets and JDBC drivers. SIGCSE bull 30:302–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Dietrich SW, Suceava D, Cherukuri C, Urban SD (2001) A reusable graphical user interface for manipulating object-oriented databases using Java and XML. SIGCSE bull 33:362–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hadjerrouit S (1999) A constructivist approach to object-oriented design and programming. SIGCSE bull 31:171–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Moure JC, Rexachs DI, Luque E (2002) The KScalar simulator. ACM J Educ Resour Comput 2:73–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Marshall AD, Hurley S (1996) Interactive hypermedia courseware for the World Wide Web. SIGCSE bull 28:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Arnow D, Barshay O (1999) On-line programming examinations using Web to teach. SIGCSE bull 31:21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lim BBL (1998) Teaching Web development technologies in CS/IS curricula. SIGCSE bull 30:107–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. McCormick JW (1988) Using a model railroad to teach digital process control. SIGCSE bull 20:304–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Jipping MJ, Bugaj A, Mihalkova L, Porter DE (2003) Using Java to teach networking concepts with a programmable network sniffer. SIGCSE bull 35:120–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mounier-Kuhn P (2012) Computer science in french universities: Early entrants and latecomers. Inf cult 47:414–456

    Google Scholar 

  63. Osborne H, Yurcik W (2003) The educational range of visual simulations of the Little Man Computer architecture paradigm. In: 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education. IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  64. Yadav A, Hong H, Stephenson C (2016) Computational Thinking for All: Pedagogical Approaches to Embedding 21st Century Problem Solving in K-12 Classrooms. TechTrends 60:565–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Liberal Arts Computer Science Conso (2007) A 2007 model curriculum for a liberal arts degree in computer science. ACM J Educ Resour Comput 7:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Mohammed Saqr, Sonsoles López-Pernas & Mikko Apiola

Authors
  1. Mohammed Saqr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonsoles López-Pernas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mikko Apiola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Saqr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Mikko Apiola

  2. University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Sonsoles López-Pernas

  3. University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Mohammed Saqr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Saqr, M., López-Pernas, S., Apiola, M. (2023). Capturing the Impact and the Chatter Around Computing Education Research Beyond Academia in Social Media, Patents, and Blogs. In: Apiola, M., López-Pernas, S., Saqr, M. (eds) Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-25335-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-25336-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation