skip to main content
research-article

Development and Use of Domain-specific Learning Theories, Models, and Instruments in Computing Education

Published: 29 December 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Use of theory within a field of research provides the foundation for designing effective research programs and establishing a deeper understanding of the results obtained. This, together with the emergence of domain-specific theory, is often taken as an indicator of the maturity of any research area. This article explores the development and subsequent usage of domain-specific theories and theoretical constructs (TCs) in computing education research (CER). All TCs found in 878 papers published in three major CER publication venues over the period 2005–2020 were identified and assessed to determine the nature and purpose of the constructs found. We focused more closely on areas related to learning, studying, and progression, where our analysis found 80 new TCs that had been developed, based on multiple epistemological perspectives. Several existing frameworks were used to categorize the areas of CER focus in which TCs were found, the methodology by which they were developed, and the nature and purpose of the TCs. A citation analysis was undertaken, with 1,727 citing papers accessed to determine to what extent and in what ways TCs had been used and developed to inform subsequent work, also considering whether these aspects vary according to different focus areas within computing education. We noted which TCs were used most often and least often, and we present several brief case studies that demonstrate progressive development of domain-specific theory. The exploration provides insights into trends in theory development and suggests areas in which further work might be called for. Our findings indicate a general interest in the development of TCs during the period studied, and we show examples of how different approaches to theory development have been used. We present a framework suggesting how strategies for developing new TCs in CER might be structured and discuss the nature of theory development in relation to the field of CER.

References

[1]
Wendy K. Adams, Katherine K. Perkins, Noah S. Podolefsky, Michael Dubson, Noah D. Finkelstein, and Carl E. Wieman. 2006. New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Phys. Rev. Special Topics–Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 1 (2006), 010101.
[2]
Alireza Ahadi, Arto Hellas, Petri Ihantola, Ari Korhonen, and Andrew Petersen. 2016. Replication in computing education research: Researcher attitudes and experiences. In 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. 2–11.
[3]
Adnan Ahmad, Furkh Zeshan, Muhammad Salman Khan, Rutab Marriam, Amjad Ali, and Alia Samreen. 2020. The impact of gamification on learning outcomes of computer science majors. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (2020), 1–25.
[4]
Satu Alaoutinen. 2012. Evaluating the effect of learning style and student background on self-assessment accuracy. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 2 (2012), 175–198.
[5]
Mats Alvesson and Dan Kärreman. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 4 (2007), 1265–1281.
[6]
Albert Bandura. 1994. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.). Vol. 4. Academic Press, 71–81.
[7]
Ashok R. Basawapatna, Alexander Repenning, Kyu Han Koh, and Hilarie Nickerson. 2013. The zones of proximal flow: Guiding students through a space of computational thinking skills and challenges. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). 67–74.
[8]
Brett A. Becker. 2016. A new metric to quantify repeated compiler errors for novice programmers. In ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’16). 296–301. DOI:
[9]
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2005. An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 155–163.
[10]
Susan Bergin and Ronan Reilly. 2006. Predicting introductory programming performance: A multi-institutional multivariate study. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16, 4 (2006), 303–323.
[11]
Anders Berglund and Anna Eckerdal. 2006. What do CS students try to learn? Insights from a distributed, project-based course in computer systems. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16, 3 (2006), 185–195. DOI:
[12]
Sylvia Beyer. 2014. Why are women underrepresented in computer science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Comput. Sci. Educ. 24, 2–3 (2014), 153–192.
[13]
Jyoti Bhardwaj. 2017. In search of self-efficacy: Development of a new instrument for first year computer science students. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 2 (2017), 79–99.
[14]
Jennifer M. Blaney. 2020. Gender and leadership development in undergraduate computing: A closer look at women’s leadership conceptions. Comput. Sci. Educ. 30, 4 (2020), 469–499.
[15]
Jonas Boustedt. 2009. Students’ understanding of the concept of interface in a situated context. Comput. Sci. Educ. 19, 1 (2009), 15–36. DOI:
[16]
Jonas Boustedt. 2012. Students’ different understandings of class diagrams. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 1 (2012), 29–62. DOI:
[17]
Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Mark Ratcliffe, Kate Sanders, and Carol Zander. 2007. Threshold concepts in computer science: Do they exist and are they useful?ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 1 (2007), 504–508.
[18]
Ilona Box. 2009. Toward an understanding of the variation in approaches to analysis and design. Comput. Sci. Educ. 19, 2 (2009), 93–109. DOI:
[19]
Eric Bredo. 2006. Philosophies of educational research. In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, Judith Green, Gregory Camilli, and Patricia Elmore (Eds.). Routledge, 3–31.
[20]
Neil Christopher Charles Brown, Michael Kölling, Davin McCall, and Ian Utting. 2014. Blackbox: A large scale repository of novice programmers’ activity. In 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 223–228.
[21]
Heidi Burgiel, Philip M. Sadler, and Gerhard Sonnert. 2020. The association of high school computer science content and pedagogy with students’ success in college computer science. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (Apr.2020). DOI:
[22]
Pauli Byckling and Jorma Sajaniemi. 2006. A role-based analysis model for the evaluation of novices’ programming knowledge development. In 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’06). 85–96. DOI:
[23]
Angela Carbone, Linda Mannila, and Sue Fitzgerald. 2007. Computer science and IT teachers’ conceptions of successful and unsuccessful teaching: A phenomenographic study. Comput. Sci. Educ. 17, 4 (2007), 275–299.
[24]
Adam S. Carter, Christopher D. Hundhausen, and Olusola Adesope. 2015. The normalized programming state model: Predicting student performance in computing courses based on programming behavior. In 11th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’15). 141–150. DOI:
[25]
Adam S. Carter, Christopher D. Hundhausen, and Olusola Adesope. 2017. Blending measures of programming and social behavior into predictive models of student achievement in early computing courses. Trans. Comput. Educ. 17, 3 (2017), 12.
[26]
H. Chang, N. Cartwright, S. Psillos, and M. Curd. 2008. Routledge, London.
[27]
Chen Chen, Paulina Haduong, Karen Brennan, Gerhard Sonnert, and Philip Sadler. 2019. The effects of first programming language on college students’ computing attitude and achievement: A comparison of graphical and textual languages. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 1 (2019), 23–48.
[28]
Jody Clarke-Midura, Frederick J. Poole, Katarina Pantic, Chongning Sun, and Vicki Allan. 2018. How mother and father support affect youths’ interest in computer science. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 215–222.
[29]
Michael Lamport Commons, Edward James Trudeau, Sharon Anne Stein, Francis Asbury Richards, and Sharon R. Krause. 1998. Hierarchical complexity of tasks shows the existence of developmental stages. Devel. Rev. 18, 3 (1998), 237–278.
[30]
Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
[31]
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2000. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass.
[32]
Quintin Cutts, Sarah Esper, Marlena Fecho, Stephen R. Foster, and Beth Simon. 2012. The abstraction transition taxonomy: Developing desired learning outcomes through the lens of situated cognition. In 8th International Conference on Computing Education Research (ICER’12). 63–70.
[33]
Holger Danielsiek, Laura Toma, and Jan Vahrenhold. 2017. An instrument to assess self-efficacy in introductory algorithms courses. In 13th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’17). 217–225.
[34]
Brian Dorn and Allison Elliott Tew. 2015. Empirical validation and application of the computing attitudes survey. Comput. Sci. Educ. 25, 1 (2015), 1–36.
[35]
Remy Dou, Karina Bhutta, Monique Ross, Laird Kramer, and Vishodana Thamotharan. 2020. The effects of computer science stereotypes and interest on middle school boys’ career intentions. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 3 (2020), 1–15.
[36]
Toni Downes and Dianne Looker. 2011. Factors that influence students’ plans to take computing and information technology subjects in senior secondary school. Comput. Sci. Educ. 21, 2 (2011), 175–199.
[37]
Rodrigo Duran, Jan-Mikael Rybicki, Juha Sorva, and Arto Hellas. 2019. Exploring the value of student self-evaluation in introductory programming. In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 121–130.
[38]
Rodrigo Duran, Juha Sorva, and Sofia Leite. 2018. Towards an analysis of program complexity from a cognitive perspective. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 21–30.
[39]
Emile Durkheim. 1965. The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.
[40]
Anna Eckerdal, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Mark Ratcliffe, Kate Sanders, and Carol Zander. 2006. Putting threshold concepts into context in computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 3 (2006), 103–107.
[41]
Anna Eckerdal, Michael Thuné, and Anders Berglund. 2005. What does it take to learn “programming thinking”? In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 135–142. DOI:
[42]
Barbara J. Ericson, Kantwon Rogers, Miranda Parker, Briana Morrison, and Mark Guzdial. 2016. Identifying design principles for CS teacher Ebooks through design-based research. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 191–200.
[43]
Peter J. Fensham. 2004. Defining an Identity: The Evolution of Science Education as a Field of Research, Vol. 20. Springer Science & Business Media.
[44]
Sally A. Fincher and Anthony V. Robins. 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research. Cambridge University Press.
[45]
Sue Fitzgerald, Beth Simon, and Lynda Thomas. 2005. Strategies that students use to trace code: An analysis based in grounded theory. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). ACM, 69–80. DOI:
[46]
Diana Franklin, Jean Salac, Zachary Crenshaw, Saranya Turimella, Zipporah Klain, Marco Anaya, and Cathy Thomas. 2020. Exploring student behavior using the TIPP&SEE learning strategy. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 91–101.
[47]
Ken Goldman, Paul Gross, Cinda Heeren, Geoffrey L. Herman, Lisa Kaczmarczyk, Michael C. Loui, and Craig Zilles. 2010. Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing subjects. Trans. Comput. Educ. 10, 2 (2010), 1–29.
[48]
Eliyahu M. Goldratt. 1990. Theory of Constraints. North River Press.
[49]
Shirley Gregor. 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quart. 30, 6 (2006), 611–642.
[50]
Mark Guzdial. 2013. Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). 19–26.
[51]
Mark Guzdial, Barbara J. Ericson, Tom McKlin, and Shelly Engelman. 2012. A statewide survey on computing education pathways and influences: Factors in broadening participation in computing. In 8th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’12). 143–150.
[52]
Tracy Hall, Nathan Baddoo, Sarah Beecham, Hugh Robinson, and Helen Sharp. 2009. A systematic review of theory use in studies investigating the motivations of software engineers. Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 18, 3 (2009), 1–29.
[53]
Sally Hamouda, Stephen H. Edwards, Hicham G. Elmongui, Jeremy V. Ernst, and Clifford A. Shaffer. 2017. A basic recursion concept inventory. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 2 (2017), 121–148.
[54]
Qiang Hao, David H. Smith IV, Naitra Iriumi, Michail Tsikerdekis, and Amy J. Ko. 2019. A systematic investigation of replications in computing education research. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 4 (2019), 1–18.
[55]
Frederick Herzberg. 1968. One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees. Harvard Business Review, Boston, MA.
[56]
Frederick Herzberg. 2017. Motivation to Work. Routledge.
[57]
Michael Hewner. 2013. Undergraduate conceptions of the field of computer science. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). 107–114.
[58]
Michael Hewner. 2014. How CS undergraduates make course choices. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference. 115–122.
[59]
Michael Hewner and Mark Guzdial. 2011. How CS majors select a specialization. In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 11–18.
[60]
Rashina Hoda and Peter Andreae. 2014. It’s not them, it’s us! Why computer science fails to impress many first years. In 16th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE’14). 159–162.
[61]
Connor Hughes, Jim Buckley, Chris Exton, and Des O’Carroll. 2005. Towards a framework for characterising concurrent comprehension. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15, 1 (2005), 7–24. DOI:
[62]
William Huitt and John Hummel. 2003. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Educ. Psychol. Interact. 3, 2 (2003), 1–5.
[63]
Christopher D. Hundhausen, Sarah A. Douglas, and John T. Stasko. 2002. A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 13, 3 (2002), 259–290.
[64]
Petri Ihantola, Ville Karavirta, Ari Korhonen, and Jussi Nikander. 2005. Taxonomy of effortless creation of algorithm visualizations. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 123–133.
[65]
Eun-Ok Im. 2018. Theory development strategies for middle-range theories. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 41, 3 (2018), 275–292.
[66]
Essi Isohanni and Maria Knobelsdorf. 2010. Behind the curtain: Students’ use of VIP after class. In 6th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’10). 87–96. DOI:
[67]
Ville Isomöttönen, Mats Daniels, Åsa Cajander, Arnold Pears, and Roger McDermott. 2019. Searching for global employability: Can students capitalize on enabling learning environments?Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 2 (2019), 1–29.
[68]
Maya Israel, Quentin M. Wherfel, Saadeddine Shehab, Evan A. Ramos, Adam Metzger, and George C. Reese. 2016. Assessing collaborative computing: Development of the Collaborative-Computing Observation Instrument (C-COI). Comput. Sci. Educ. 26, 2–3 (2016), 208–233.
[69]
Matthew C. Jadud. 2006. Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’06). 73–84.
[70]
Fufen Jin and Monica Divitini. 2020. Affinity for technology and teenagers’ learning intentions. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 48–55.
[71]
Yasmin Kafai, Chris Proctor, and Debora Lui. 2020. From theory bias to theory dialogue: Embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K–12 CS education. ACM Inroads 11, 1 (2020), 44–53.
[72]
Peter E. J. Kemp, Billy Wong, and Miles G. Berry. 2019. Female performance and participation in computer science: A national picture. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 1 (2019), 1–28.
[73]
Päivi Kinnunen, Robert McCartney, Laurie Murphy, and Lynda Thomas. 2007. Through the eyes of instructors: A phenomenographic investigation of student success. In 3rd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’07). 61–72.
[74]
Päivi Kinnunen, Veijo Meisalo, and Lauri Malmi. 2010. Have we missed something? Identifying missing types of research in computing education. In 6th international Workshop on Computing Education Research. 13–22.
[75]
Päivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2010. Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: The emotional toll. In 6th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’10). 77–86.
[76]
Päivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2012. My program is OK—am I? Computing freshmen’s experiences of doing programming assignments. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 1 (2012), 1–28.
[77]
Siu-Cheung Kong. 2017. Development and validation of a programming self-efficacy scale for senior primary school learners. In International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 97–102.
[78]
Siu-Cheung Kong and Yi-Qing Wang. 2019. Positive youth development from a “3Cs” programming perspective: A multi-study investigation in the university. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 4 (2019), 335–356.
[79]
Aditi Kothiyal, Rwitajit Majumdar, Sahana Murthy, and Sridhar Iyer. 2013. Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). ACM, 137–144.
[80]
David R. Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theor. Pract. 41, 4 (2002), 212–218.
[81]
Quintin Kreth, Mary Eve Spirou, Sarabeth Budenstein, and Julia Melkers. 2019. How prior experience and self-efficacy shape graduate student perceptions of an online learning environment in computing. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 4 (2019), 357–381.
[82]
Wanda M. Kunkle and Robert B. Allen. 2016. The impact of different teaching approaches and languages on student learning of introductory programming concepts. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 1 (2016), 1–26.
[83]
Antti-Jussi Lakanen and Tommi Kärkkäinen. 2019. Identifying pathways to computer science: The long-term impact of short-term game programming outreach interventions. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 3 (2019), 1–30.
[84]
Ray Land, Jan H. F. Meyer, and Jan Smith. 2008. Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines. BRILL.
[85]
Jimmie Leppink, Fred Paas, Cees P. M. Van der Vleuten, Tamara Van Gog, and Jeroen J. G. Van Merriënboer. 2013. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav. Rese. Meth. 45, 4 (2013), 1058–1072.
[86]
Colleen Lewis, Paul Bruno, Jonathan Raygoza, and Julia Wang. 2019. Alignment of goals and perceptions of computing predicts students’ sense of belonging in computing. In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 11–19.
[87]
Colleen M. Lewis. 2014. Exploring variation in students’ correct traces of linear recursion. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 67–74. DOI:
[88]
Colleen M. Lewis, Ruth E. Anderson, and Ken Yasuhara. 2016. “I don’t code all day”: Fitting in computer science when the stereotypes don’t fit. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 23–32.
[89]
Colleen M. Lewis, Ken Yasuhara, and Ruth E. Anderson. 2011. Deciding to major in computer science: A grounded theory of students’ self-assessment of ability. In 7th international Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 3–10.
[90]
Tracy L. Lewis, Wanda J. Smith, France Bélanger, and K. Vernard Harrington. 2008. Are technical and soft skills required? The use of structural equation modeling to examine factors leading to retention in the CS major. In 4th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’08). 91–100.
[91]
Soohyun Nam Liao, Daniel Zingaro, Michael A. Laurenzano, William G. Griswold, and Leo Porter. 2016. Lightweight, early identification of at-risk CS1 students. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 123–131.
[92]
Mun Ling Lo. 2012. Variation Theory and the Improvement of Teaching and Learning. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
[93]
Alex Lishinski, Jon Good, Phil Sands, and Aman Yadav. 2016. Methodological rigor and theoretical foundations of CS education research. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 161–169.
[94]
Alex Lishinski and Aman Yadav. 2019. Motivation, attitudes, and dispositions. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally A. Fincher and Anthony V. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 801–826.
[95]
Alex Lishinski, Aman Yadav, and Richard Enbody. 2017. Students’ emotional reactions to programming projects in introduction to programming: Measurement approach and influence on learning outcomes. In 13th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’17). 30–38.
[96]
Alex Lishinski, Aman Yadav, Jon Good, and Richard Enbody. 2016. Learning to program: Gender differences and interactive effects of students’ motivation, goals, and self-efficacy on performance. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 211–220.
[97]
Dastyni Loksa and Amy J. Ko. 2016. The role of self-regulation in programming problem solving process and success. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 83–91.
[98]
Mike Lopez, Jacqueline Whalley, Phil Robbins, and Raymond Lister. 2008. Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In 4th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’08). 101–112.
[99]
Andy Luse, Julie A. Rursch, and Doug Jacobson. 2014. Utilizing structural equation modeling and social cognitive career theory to identify factors in choice of IT as a major. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 3 (2014), 1–19.
[100]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly and Paul Denny. 2010. Constructive evaluation: A pedagogy of student-contributed assessment. Comput. Sci. Educ. 20, 2 (2010), 145–167.
[101]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Simon, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A. Becker, Michail Giannakos, Amruth N. Kumar, Linda Ott, James Paterson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. Introductory programming: A systematic literature review. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE WGR’18). 55–106.
[102]
Peter Machamer and Michael Silberstein. 2008. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. John Wiley & Sons.
[103]
Brian Magerko, Jason Freeman, Tom McKlin, Mike Reilly, Elise Livingston, Scott McCoid, and Andrea Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-based approach for underrepresented populations in high school computer science education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 4 (2016), 1–25.
[104]
Phil Maguire, Rebecca Maguire, and Robert Kelly. 2017. Using automatic machine assessment to teach computer programming. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 3–4 (2017), 197–214.
[105]
Jonathan Mahadeo, Zahra Hazari, and Geoff Potvin. 2020. Developing a computing identity framework: Understanding computer science and information technology career choice. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 1 (2020), 1–14.
[106]
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Roman Bednarik, Juha Helminen, Ari Korhonen, Niko Myller, Juha Sorva, and Ahmad Taherkhani. 2010. Characterizing research in computing education: A preliminary analysis of the literature. In 6th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’10). 3–12.
[107]
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Päivi Kinnunen, Simon, and Jane Sinclair. 2019. Computing education theories: What are they and how are they used? In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 187–197.
[108]
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Päivi Kinnunen, Simon, and Jane Sinclair. 2020. Theories and models of emotions, attitudes, and self-efficacy in the context of programming education. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 36–47.
[109]
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Simon, Roman Bednarik, Juha Helminen, Päivi Kinnunen, Ari Korhonen, Niko Myller, Juha Sorva, and Ahmad Taherkhani. 2014. Theoretical underpinnings of computing education research: What is the evidence? In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 27–34.
[110]
Lauren Margulieux, Tuba Ayer Ketenci, and Adrienne Decker. 2019. Review of measurements used in computing education research and suggestions for increasing standardization. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 1 (2019), 49–78.
[111]
Lauren E. Margulieux, Brian Dorn, and Kristin A. Searle. 2019. Learning sciences for computing education. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally A. Fincher and Anthony V. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 208–230.
[112]
Lauren E. Margulieux and Briana B. Morrison. 2019. Guest editorial. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 2–3 (2019), 103–105.
[113]
Samiha Marwan, Ge Gao, Susan Fisk, Thomas W. Price, and Tiffany Barnes. 2020. Adaptive immediate feedback can improve novice programming engagement and intention to persist in computer science. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 194–203.
[114]
Davin McCall and Michael Kölling. 2019. A new look at novice programmer errors. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 4 (2019), 1–30.
[115]
Robert McCartney, Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Kate Sanders, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2016. Why computing students learn on their own: Motivation for self-directed learning of computing. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 1 (Jan.2016).
[116]
Monica M. McGill. 2012. The curriculum planning process for undergraduate game degree programs in the United Kingdom and United States. Trans. Comput. Educ. 12, 2 (Apr.2012).
[117]
Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2013. Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 3 (2013), 239–264.
[118]
Afaf Ibrahim Meleis. 1985. Theoretical nursing: Development and progress. Amer. J. Nurs. 85, 12 (1985), 1350.
[119]
Briana B. Morrison, Brian Dorn, and Mark Guzdial. 2014. Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 131–138. DOI:
[120]
Niko Myller, Roman Bednarik, Erkki Sutinen, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2009. Extending the engagement taxonomy: Software visualization and collaborative learning. Trans. Comput. Educ. 9, 1 (2009), 1–27.
[121]
Thomas L. Naps, Guido Rößling, Vicki Almstrum, Wanda Dann, Rudolf Fleischer, Chris Hundhausen, Ari Korhonen, Lauri Malmi, Myles McNally, Susan Rodger, and J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide. 2002. Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports. 131–152.
[122]
Fadia Nasser-Abu Alhija and Orna Levi-Eliyahu. 2019. Modelling achievement in advanced computer science: The role of learner characteristics and perceived learning environment. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 1 (2019), 79–102.
[123]
Greg L. Nelson and Amy J. Ko. 2018. On use of theory in computing education research. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 31–39.
[124]
Uolevi Nikula, Orlena Gotel, and Jussi Kasurinen. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 4 (Nov.2011).
[125]
Thomas H. Park, Ankur Saxena, Swathi Jagannath, Susan Wiedenbeck, and Andrea Forte. 2013. Towards a taxonomy of errors in HTML and CSS. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). ACM, 75–82.
[126]
Miranda C. Parker, Mark Guzdial, and Shelly Engleman. 2016. Replication, validation, and use of a language independent CS1 knowledge assessment. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 93–101.
[127]
Jack Parkinson and Quintin Cutts. 2018. Investigating the relationship between spatial skills and computer science. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 106–114.
[128]
Reinhard Pekrun. 2006. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18, 4 (2006), 315–341.
[129]
Markeya S. Peteranetz, Abraham E. Flanigan, Duane F. Shell, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2016. Perceived instrumentality and career aspirations in CS1 courses: Change and relationships with achievement. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 13–21.
[130]
Anne-Kathrin Peters. 2018. Students’ experience of participation in a discipline—A longitudinal study of computer science and IT engineering students. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 1 (2018), 1–28.
[131]
Leo Porter, Cynthia Bailey Lee, Beth Simon, and Daniel Zingaro. 2011. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 45–52.
[132]
Leo Porter, Daniel Zingaro, Soohyun Nam Liao, Cynthia Taylor, Kevin C. Webb, Cynthia Lee, and Michael Clancy. 2019. BDSI: A validated concept inventory for basic data structures. In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 111–119.
[133]
Thomas W. Price, Zhongxiu Liu, Veronica Cateté, and Tiffany Barnes. 2017. Factors influencing students’ help-seeking behavior while programming with human and computer tutors. In 13th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’17). 127–135.
[134]
Keith Quille and Susan Bergin. 2019. CS1: How will they do? How can we help? A decade of research and practice. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 2–3 (2019), 254–282.
[135]
Vennila Ramalingam and Susan Wiedenbeck. 1998. Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 19, 4 (1998), 367–381.
[136]
Scott Reeves, Mathieu Albert, Ayelet Kuper, and Brian David Hodges. 2008. Why use theories in qualitative research?Brit. Med. J. 337 (2008).
[137]
Research Council of Norway. 2012. The Role of Theory in Educational Research – Report from the March Seminar 2011.
[138]
Kathryn M. Rich, T. Andrew Binkowski, Carla Strickland, and Diana Franklin. 2018. Decomposition: A K–8 computational thinking learning trajectory. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 124–132.
[139]
Kathryn M. Rich, Carla Strickland, T. Andrew Binkowski, Cheryl Moran, and Diana Franklin. 2018. K–8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. ACM Inroads 9, 1 (2018), 46–55.
[140]
Mark Risjord. 2014. Philosophy of Social Science: a Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
[141]
Robert S. Rist. 1989. Schema creation in programming. Cog. Sci. 13, 3 (1989), 389–414.
[142]
Anthony Robins. 2010. Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Comput. Sci. Educ. 20, 1 (2010), 37–71.
[143]
Anthony V. Robins and Lauren E. Margulieux. 2019. Cognitive sciences for computing education. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally A. Fincher and Anthony V. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 231–275.
[144]
Ma Mercedes T. Rodrigo and Ryan Baker. 2009. Coarse-grained detection of student frustration in an introductory programming course. In 5th international Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’09). 75–80.
[145]
Alexander Rosenberg. 2008. Philosophy of Social Science, third edition. Westview Press Boulder.
[146]
Alex Rosenberg and Lee McIntyre. 2019. Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
[147]
Monique Ross, Zahra Hazari, Gerhard Sonnert, and Philip Sadler. 2020. The intersection of being black and being a woman: Examining the effect of social computing relationships on computer science career choice. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (2020), 1–15.
[148]
Mary Beth Rosson, John M. Carroll, and Hansa Sinha. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 3 (2011).
[149]
Janet Rountree, Anthony Robins, and Nathan Rountree. 2013. Elaborating on threshold concepts. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 3 (2013), 265–289. DOI:
[150]
Michael T. Rücker and Niels Pinkwart. 2018. “How else should it work?” A grounded theory of pre-college students’ understanding of computing devices. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 1 (2018), 1–23.
[151]
Michael T. Rücker, Wouter R. van Joolingen, and Niels Pinkwart. 2020. Small but powerful: A learning study to address secondary students’ conceptions of everyday computing technology. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (2020), 1–27.
[152]
Jorma Sajaniemi. 2002. An empirical analysis of roles of variables in novice-level procedural programs. In IEEE Symposia on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments. IEEE, 37–39.
[153]
Kate Sanders, Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2012. Threshold concepts and threshold skills in computing. In 8th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’12). 23–30. DOI:
[154]
Carsten Schulte and Maria Knobelsdorf. 2007. Attitudes towards computer science—Computing experiences as a starting point and barrier to computer science. In 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’07). 27–38.
[155]
Michael James Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2014. Measuring enrichment: The assembly and validation of an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 123–130.
[156]
Linda Seiter and Brendan Foreman. 2013. Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). 59–66. DOI:
[157]
Judy Sheard, Simon, Angela Carbone, Donald Chinn, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Tony Clear, Michael de Raadt, Daryl D’Souza, James Harland, Raymond Lister, Anne Philpott, and Geoff Warburton. 2011. Exploring programming assessment instruments: A classification scheme for examination questions. In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 33–38.
[158]
Simon. 2007. A classification of recent Australasian computing education publications. Comput. Sci. Educ. 17, 3 (2007), 155–169.
[159]
Simon. 2015. Emergence of Computing Education as a Research Discipline. Doctoral thesis. Aalto University. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-6416-1.
[160]
Elliot Soloway. 1986. Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Commun. ACM 29, 9 (1986), 850–858.
[161]
Elliot Soloway and Kate Ehrlich. 1984. Empirical studies of programming knowledge. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.5 (1984), 595–609.
[162]
Juha Sorva, Ville Karavirta, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 4 (2013), 1–64.
[163]
Juha Sorva, Jan Lönnberg, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. Students’ ways of experiencing visual program simulation. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 3 (2013), 207–238. DOI:
[164]
James C. Spohrer, Elliot Soloway, and Edgar Pope. 1985. A goal/plan analysis of buggy Pascal programs. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 1, 2 (1985), 163–207.
[165]
Ioanna Stamouli and Meriel Huggard. 2006. Object oriented programming and program correctness: The students’ perspective. In 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’06). 109–118. DOI:
[166]
Jan-Philipp Steghöfer, Håkan Burden, Regina Hebig, Gul Calikli, Robert Feldt, Imed Hammouda, Jennifer Horkoff, Eric Knauss, and Grischa Liebel. 2018. Involving external stakeholders in project courses. Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 2 (2018), 1–32.
[167]
Phil Steinhorst, Andrew Petersen, and Jan Vahrenhold. 2020. Revisiting self-efficacy in introductory programming. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 158–169.
[168]
Jane G. Stout and Jennifer M. Blaney. 2017. “But it doesn’t come naturally”: How effort expenditure shapes the benefit of growth mindset on women’s sense of intellectual belonging in computing. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 3–4 (2017), 215–228.
[169]
Patrick Suppes. 1974. The place of theory in educational research. Educ. Res. 3, 6 (1974), 3–10.
[170]
John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cog. Sci. 12, 2 (1988), 257–285.
[171]
Claudia Szabo, Nickolas Falkner, Andrew Petersen, Heather Bort, Kathryn Cunningham, Peter Donaldson, Arto Hellas, James Robinson, and Judy Sheard. 2019. Review and use of learning theories within computer science education research: Primer for researchers and practitioners. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports. 89–109.
[172]
Emily S. Tabanao, Ma Mercedes T. Rodrigo, and Matthew C. Jadud. 2011. Predicting at-risk novice Java programmers through the analysis of online protocols. In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 85–92.
[173]
Narjes Tahaei and David C. Noelle. 2018. Automated plagiarism detection for computer programming exercises based on patterns of resubmission. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 178–186.
[174]
Matti Tedre, Simon, and Lauri Malmi. 2018. Changing aims of computing education: A historical survey. Comput. Sci. Educ. 28, 2 (2018), 158–186.
[175]
Matti Tedre and Erkki Sutinen. 2008. Three traditions of computing: What educators should know. Comput. Sci. Educ. 18, 3 (2008), 153–170.
[176]
Agnes Tellings. 2001. Eclecticism and integration in educational theories: A metatheoretical analysis. Educ. Theor. 51, 3 (2001), 277.
[177]
Lynda Thomas, Anna Eckerdal, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Kate Sanders, and Carol Zander. 2014. Graduating students’ designs: Through a phenomenographic lens. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 91–98. DOI:
[178]
Lynda Thomas, Carol Zander, Chris Loftus, and Anna Eckerdal. 2017. Student software designs at the undergraduate midpoint. In 22nd Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’17). 34–39.
[179]
Errol Thompson and Kinshuk. 2011. The nature of an object-oriented program: How do practitioners understand the nature of what they are creating?Comput. Sci. Educ. 21, 3 (2011), 269–287. DOI:
[180]
Jonathan H. Tomkin, Matthew West, and Geoffrey L. Herman. 2018. An improved grade point average, with applications to CS undergraduate education analytics. Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 4 (2018), 1–16.
[181]
Meng-Jung Tsai, Ching-Yeh Wang, and Po-Fen Hsu. 2019. Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 56, 8 (2019), 1345–1360.
[182]
Ethel Tshukudu and Quintin Cutts. 2020. Understanding conceptual transfer for students learning new programming languages. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 227–237.
[183]
Jodi Tutty, Judithe Sheard, and Chris Avram. 2008. Teaching in the current higher education environment: Perceptions of IT academics. Comput. Sci. Educ. 18, 3 (2008), 171–185.
[184]
Jan Vahrenhold and Wolfgang Paul. 2014. Developing and validating test items for first-year computer science courses. Comput. Sci. Educ. 24, 4 (2014), 304–333.
[185]
Lev Vygotsky. 1987. Zone of proximal development. In Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 52–91.
[186]
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
[187]
Dana Linnell Wanzer, Tom McKlin, Jason Freeman, Brian Magerko, and Taneisha Lee. 2020. Promoting intentions to persist in computing: An examination of six years of the EarSketch program. Comput. Sci. Educ. 30, 4 (2020), 394–419.
[188]
Christopher Watson, Frederick W. B. Li, and Jamie L. Godwin. 2013. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE, 319–323.
[189]
Max Weber. 1968. The Methodology of the Social Sciences (4th ed.). Free Press.
[190]
Linda Werner, Jill Denner, Shannon Campe, and David M. Torres. 2020. Computational sophistication of games programmed by children: A model for its measurement. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (2020), 1–23.
[191]
Timothy J. Weston, Wendy M. Dubow, and Alexis Kaminsky. 2019. Predicting women’s persistence in computer science- and technology-related majors from high school to college. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 1 (2019), 1–16.
[192]
Susan Wiedenbeck. 2005. Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 13–24.
[193]
Timothy Williamson. 2017. Model-building in philosophy. In Philosophy’s Future: The Problem of Philosophical Progress, Russell Blackford and Damien Broderick (Eds.). Wiley Online Library, 159–172.
[194]
Benjamin Xie, Dastyni Loksa, Greg L. Nelson, Matthew J. Davidson, Dongsheng Dong, Harrison Kwik, Alex Hui Tan, Leanne Hwa, Min Li, and Amy J. Ko. 2019. A theory of instruction for introductory programming skills. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 2–3 (2019), 205–253.
[195]
Aman Yadav and Marc Berges. 2019. Computer science pedagogical content knowledge: Characterizing teacher performance. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 3 (2019), 1–24.
[196]
Timothy T. Yuen and Kay A. Robbins. 2014. A qualitative study of students’ computational thinking skills in a data-driven computing class. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 4 (Dec.2014). DOI:
[197]
Carol Zander, Jonas Boustedt, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Kate Sanders, and Lynda Thomas. 2009. Student transformations: Are they computer scientists yet? In 5th International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’09). 129–140.
[198]
Mark Zarb and Janet Hughes. 2015. Breaking the communication barrier: Guidelines to aid communication within pair programming. Comput. Sci. Educ. 25, 2 (2015), 120–151. DOI:
[199]
Yulei (Gavin) Zhang and Yan (Mandy) Dang. 2015. Investigating essential factors on students’ perceived accomplishment and enjoyment and intention to learn in web development. Trans. Comput. Educ. 15, 1 (Mar.2015).
[200]
Ninger Zhou, Ha Nguyen, Christian Fischer, Debra Richardson, and Mark Warschauer. 2020. High school teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching computer science. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 3 (2020), 1–18.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Human-Centered Digital Sustainability: Handling Enumerated Lists in Digital TextsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.336958712(30544-30561)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2023)Pre-testing erroneous text-based documents: Logging end-user activitiesFrontiers in Education10.3389/feduc.2022.9586357Online publication date: 15-Mar-2023
  • (2023)What is Computing Education Research (CER)?Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_2(9-31)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Development and Use of Domain-specific Learning Theories, Models, and Instruments in Computing Education

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
    ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 23, Issue 1
    March 2023
    396 pages
    EISSN:1946-6226
    DOI:10.1145/3578368
    • Editor:
    • Amy J. Ko
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 29 December 2022
    Online AM: 09 May 2022
    Accepted: 01 April 2022
    Revised: 12 January 2022
    Received: 24 June 2021
    Published in TOCE Volume 23, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Computing education
    2. theory
    3. theoretical construct
    4. literature
    5. research
    6. instrument

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Refereed

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)325
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)25
    Reflects downloads up to 18 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Human-Centered Digital Sustainability: Handling Enumerated Lists in Digital TextsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.336958712(30544-30561)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2023)Pre-testing erroneous text-based documents: Logging end-user activitiesFrontiers in Education10.3389/feduc.2022.9586357Online publication date: 15-Mar-2023
    • (2023)What is Computing Education Research (CER)?Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_2(9-31)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
    • (2023)A Case Study: The Uppsala Computing Education Research Group (UpCERG)Past, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_12(245-258)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
    • (2022)The Interpretation of Graphical Information in Word ProcessingEntropy10.3390/e2410149224:10(1492)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2022
    • (2022)Reflections on TheoryACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/357072823:1(1-8)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2022

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media