skip to main content
research-article

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

Published:29 December 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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. [1] Adams Wendy K., Perkins Katherine K., Podolefsky Noah S., Dubson Michael, Finkelstein Noah D., and Wieman Carl E.. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] Ahadi Alireza, Hellas Arto, Ihantola Petri, Korhonen Ari, and Petersen Andrew. 2016. Replication in computing education research: Researcher attitudes and experiences. In 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. 211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Ahmad Adnan, Zeshan Furkh, Khan Muhammad Salman, Marriam Rutab, Ali Amjad, and Samreen Alia. 2020. The impact of gamification on learning outcomes of computer science majors. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (2020), 125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Alaoutinen Satu. 2012. Evaluating the effect of learning style and student background on self-assessment accuracy. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 2 (2012), 175198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Alvesson Mats and Kärreman Dan. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 4 (2007), 12651281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Bandura Albert. 1994. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Ramachandran V. S. (Ed.). Vol. 4. Academic Press, 7181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Basawapatna Ashok R., Repenning Alexander, Koh Kyu Han, and Nickerson Hilarie. 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). 6774.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Becker Brett A.. 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). 296301. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Bennedsen Jens and Caspersen Michael E.. 2005. An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 155163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Bergin Susan and Reilly Ronan. 2006. Predicting introductory programming performance: A multi-institutional multivariate study. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16, 4 (2006), 303323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Berglund Anders and Eckerdal Anna. 2006. What do CS students try to learn? Insights from a distributed, project-based course in computer systems. Comput. Sci. Educ. 16, 3 (2006), 185195. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Beyer Sylvia. 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), 153192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Bhardwaj Jyoti. 2017. In search of self-efficacy: Development of a new instrument for first year computer science students. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 2 (2017), 7999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Blaney Jennifer M.. 2020. Gender and leadership development in undergraduate computing: A closer look at women’s leadership conceptions. Comput. Sci. Educ. 30, 4 (2020), 469499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Boustedt Jonas. 2009. Students’ understanding of the concept of interface in a situated context. Comput. Sci. Educ. 19, 1 (2009), 1536. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Boustedt Jonas. 2012. Students’ different understandings of class diagrams. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 1 (2012), 2962. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Boustedt Jonas, Eckerdal Anna, McCartney Robert, Moström Jan Erik, Ratcliffe Mark, Sanders Kate, and Zander Carol. 2007. Threshold concepts in computer science: Do they exist and are they useful?ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39, 1 (2007), 504508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Box Ilona. 2009. Toward an understanding of the variation in approaches to analysis and design. Comput. Sci. Educ. 19, 2 (2009), 93109. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Bredo Eric. 2006. Philosophies of educational research. In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, Green Judith, Camilli Gregory, and Elmore Patricia (Eds.). Routledge, 331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Brown Neil Christopher Charles, Kölling Michael, McCall Davin, and Utting Ian. 2014. Blackbox: A large scale repository of novice programmers’ activity. In 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 223228.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Burgiel Heidi, Sadler Philip M., and Sonnert Gerhard. 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:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Byckling Pauli and Sajaniemi Jorma. 2006. A role-based analysis model for the evaluation of novices’ programming knowledge development. In 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’06). 8596. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Carbone Angela, Mannila Linda, and Fitzgerald Sue. 2007. Computer science and IT teachers’ conceptions of successful and unsuccessful teaching: A phenomenographic study. Comput. Sci. Educ. 17, 4 (2007), 275299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Carter Adam S., Hundhausen Christopher D., and Adesope Olusola. 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). 141150. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Carter Adam S., Hundhausen Christopher D., and Adesope Olusola. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Chang H., Cartwright N., Psillos S., and Curd M.. 2008. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Chen Chen, Haduong Paulina, Brennan Karen, Sonnert Gerhard, and Sadler Philip. 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), 2348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Clarke-Midura Jody, Poole Frederick J., Pantic Katarina, Sun Chongning, and Allan Vicki. 2018. How mother and father support affect youths’ interest in computer science. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 215222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Commons Michael Lamport, Trudeau Edward James, Stein Sharon Anne, Richards Francis Asbury, and Krause Sharon R.. 1998. Hierarchical complexity of tasks shows the existence of developmental stages. Devel. Rev. 18, 3 (1998), 237278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Division Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Csikszentmihalyi Mihaly. 2000. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Cutts Quintin, Esper Sarah, Fecho Marlena, Foster Stephen R., and Simon Beth. 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). 6370.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Danielsiek Holger, Toma Laura, and Vahrenhold Jan. 2017. An instrument to assess self-efficacy in introductory algorithms courses. In 13th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’17). 217225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Dorn Brian and Tew Allison Elliott. 2015. Empirical validation and application of the computing attitudes survey. Comput. Sci. Educ. 25, 1 (2015), 136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Dou Remy, Bhutta Karina, Ross Monique, Kramer Laird, and Thamotharan Vishodana. 2020. The effects of computer science stereotypes and interest on middle school boys’ career intentions. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 3 (2020), 115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Downes Toni and Looker Dianne. 2011. Factors that influence students’ plans to take computing and information technology subjects in senior secondary school. Comput. Sci. Educ. 21, 2 (2011), 175199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Duran Rodrigo, Rybicki Jan-Mikael, Sorva Juha, and Hellas Arto. 2019. Exploring the value of student self-evaluation in introductory programming. In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 121130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] Duran Rodrigo, Sorva Juha, and Leite Sofia. 2018. Towards an analysis of program complexity from a cognitive perspective. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 2130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Durkheim Emile. 1965. The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] Eckerdal Anna, McCartney Robert, Moström Jan Erik, Ratcliffe Mark, Sanders Kate, and Zander Carol. 2006. Putting threshold concepts into context in computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 3 (2006), 103107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Eckerdal Anna, Thuné Michael, and Berglund Anders. 2005. What does it take to learn “programming thinking”? In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 135142. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Ericson Barbara J., Rogers Kantwon, Parker Miranda, Morrison Briana, and Guzdial Mark. 2016. Identifying design principles for CS teacher Ebooks through design-based research. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 191200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Fensham Peter J.. 2004. Defining an Identity: The Evolution of Science Education as a Field of Research, Vol. 20. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Fincher Sally A. and Robins Anthony V.. 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Fitzgerald Sue, Simon Beth, and Thomas Lynda. 2005. Strategies that students use to trace code: An analysis based in grounded theory. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). ACM, 6980. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [46] Franklin Diana, Salac Jean, Crenshaw Zachary, Turimella Saranya, Klain Zipporah, Anaya Marco, and Thomas Cathy. 2020. Exploring student behavior using the TIPP&SEE learning strategy. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 91101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Goldman Ken, Gross Paul, Heeren Cinda, Herman Geoffrey L., Kaczmarczyk Lisa, Loui Michael C., and Zilles Craig. 2010. Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing subjects. Trans. Comput. Educ. 10, 2 (2010), 129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. [48] Goldratt Eliyahu M.. 1990. Theory of Constraints. North River Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [49] Gregor Shirley. 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quart. 30, 6 (2006), 611642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Guzdial Mark. 2013. Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). 1926.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Guzdial Mark, Ericson Barbara J., McKlin Tom, and Engelman Shelly. 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). 143150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Hall Tracy, Baddoo Nathan, Beecham Sarah, Robinson Hugh, and Sharp Helen. 2009. A systematic review of theory use in studies investigating the motivations of software engineers. Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 18, 3 (2009), 129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] Hamouda Sally, Edwards Stephen H., Elmongui Hicham G., Ernst Jeremy V., and Shaffer Clifford A.. 2017. A basic recursion concept inventory. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 2 (2017), 121148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Hao Qiang, IV David H. Smith, Iriumi Naitra, Tsikerdekis Michail, and Ko Amy J.. 2019. A systematic investigation of replications in computing education research. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 4 (2019), 118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] Herzberg Frederick. 1968. One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees. Harvard Business Review, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. [56] Herzberg Frederick. 2017. Motivation to Work. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. [57] Hewner Michael. 2013. Undergraduate conceptions of the field of computer science. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). 107114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. [58] Hewner Michael. 2014. How CS undergraduates make course choices. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference. 115122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. [59] Hewner Michael and Guzdial Mark. 2011. How CS majors select a specialization. In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 1118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Hoda Rashina and Andreae Peter. 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). 159162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Hughes Connor, Buckley Jim, Exton Chris, and O’Carroll Des. 2005. Towards a framework for characterising concurrent comprehension. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15, 1 (2005), 724. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. [62] Huitt William and Hummel John. 2003. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Educ. Psychol. Interact. 3, 2 (2003), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. [63] Hundhausen Christopher D., Douglas Sarah A., and Stasko John T.. 2002. A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 13, 3 (2002), 259290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. [64] Ihantola Petri, Karavirta Ville, Korhonen Ari, and Nikander Jussi. 2005. Taxonomy of effortless creation of algorithm visualizations. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 123133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. [65] Im Eun-Ok. 2018. Theory development strategies for middle-range theories. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 41, 3 (2018), 275292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. [66] Isohanni Essi and Knobelsdorf Maria. 2010. Behind the curtain: Students’ use of VIP after class. In 6th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’10). 8796. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. [67] Isomöttönen Ville, Daniels Mats, Cajander Åsa, Pears Arnold, and McDermott Roger. 2019. Searching for global employability: Can students capitalize on enabling learning environments?Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 2 (2019), 129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. [68] Israel Maya, Wherfel Quentin M., Shehab Saadeddine, Ramos Evan A., Metzger Adam, and Reese George C.. 2016. Assessing collaborative computing: Development of the Collaborative-Computing Observation Instrument (C-COI). Comput. Sci. Educ. 26, 2–3 (2016), 208233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. [69] Jadud Matthew C.. 2006. Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’06). 7384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. [70] Jin Fufen and Divitini Monica. 2020. Affinity for technology and teenagers’ learning intentions. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 4855.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. [71] Kafai Yasmin, Proctor Chris, and Lui Debora. 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), 4453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. [72] Kemp Peter E. J., Wong Billy, and Berry Miles G.. 2019. Female performance and participation in computer science: A national picture. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 1 (2019), 128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. [73] Kinnunen Päivi, McCartney Robert, Murphy Laurie, and Thomas Lynda. 2007. Through the eyes of instructors: A phenomenographic investigation of student success. In 3rd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’07). 6172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. [74] Kinnunen Päivi, Meisalo Veijo, and Malmi Lauri. 2010. Have we missed something? Identifying missing types of research in computing education. In 6th international Workshop on Computing Education Research. 1322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. [75] Kinnunen Päivi and Simon Beth. 2010. Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: The emotional toll. In 6th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’10). 7786.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. [76] Kinnunen Päivi and Simon Beth. 2012. My program is OK—am I? Computing freshmen’s experiences of doing programming assignments. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 1 (2012), 128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. [77] Kong Siu-Cheung. 2017. Development and validation of a programming self-efficacy scale for senior primary school learners. In International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 97102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. [78] Kong Siu-Cheung and Wang Yi-Qing. 2019. Positive youth development from a “3Cs” programming perspective: A multi-study investigation in the university. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 4 (2019), 335356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. [79] Kothiyal Aditi, Majumdar Rwitajit, Murthy Sahana, and Iyer Sridhar. 2013. Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). ACM, 137144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. [80] Krathwohl David R.. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theor. Pract. 41, 4 (2002), 212218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. [81] Kreth Quintin, Spirou Mary Eve, Budenstein Sarabeth, and Melkers Julia. 2019. How prior experience and self-efficacy shape graduate student perceptions of an online learning environment in computing. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 4 (2019), 357381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. [82] Kunkle Wanda M. and Allen Robert B.. 2016. The impact of different teaching approaches and languages on student learning of introductory programming concepts. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 1 (2016), 126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. [83] Lakanen Antti-Jussi and Kärkkäinen Tommi. 2019. Identifying pathways to computer science: The long-term impact of short-term game programming outreach interventions. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 3 (2019), 130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. [84] Land Ray, Meyer Jan H. F., and Smith Jan. 2008. Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines. BRILL.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. [85] Leppink Jimmie, Paas Fred, Vleuten Cees P. M. Van der, Gog Tamara Van, and Merriënboer Jeroen J. G. Van. 2013. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav. Rese. Meth. 45, 4 (2013), 10581072.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. [86] Lewis Colleen, Bruno Paul, Raygoza Jonathan, and Wang Julia. 2019. Alignment of goals and perceptions of computing predicts students’ sense of belonging in computing. In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 1119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. [87] Lewis Colleen M.. 2014. Exploring variation in students’ correct traces of linear recursion. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 6774. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. [88] Lewis Colleen M., Anderson Ruth E., and Yasuhara Ken. 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). 2332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. [89] Lewis Colleen M., Yasuhara Ken, and Anderson Ruth E.. 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). 310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. [90] Lewis Tracy L., Smith Wanda J., Bélanger France, and Harrington K. Vernard. 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). 91100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. [91] Liao Soohyun Nam, Zingaro Daniel, Laurenzano Michael A., Griswold William G., and Porter Leo. 2016. Lightweight, early identification of at-risk CS1 students. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 123131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. [92] Lo Mun Ling. 2012. Variation Theory and the Improvement of Teaching and Learning. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. [93] Lishinski Alex, Good Jon, Sands Phil, and Yadav Aman. 2016. Methodological rigor and theoretical foundations of CS education research. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 161169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. [94] Lishinski Alex and Yadav Aman. 2019. Motivation, attitudes, and dispositions. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Fincher Sally A. and Robins Anthony V. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 801826.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. [95] Lishinski Alex, Yadav Aman, and Enbody Richard. 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). 3038.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. [96] Lishinski Alex, Yadav Aman, Good Jon, and Enbody Richard. 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). 211220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. [97] Loksa Dastyni and Ko Amy J.. 2016. The role of self-regulation in programming problem solving process and success. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 8391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. [98] Lopez Mike, Whalley Jacqueline, Robbins Phil, and Lister Raymond. 2008. Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In 4th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’08). 101112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. [99] Luse Andy, Rursch Julie A., and Jacobson Doug. 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), 119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. [100] Luxton-Reilly Andrew and Denny Paul. 2010. Constructive evaluation: A pedagogy of student-contributed assessment. Comput. Sci. Educ. 20, 2 (2010), 145167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  101. [101] Luxton-Reilly Andrew, Simon, Albluwi Ibrahim, Becker Brett A., Giannakos Michail, Kumar Amruth N., Ott Linda, Paterson James, Scott Michael James, Sheard Judy, and Szabo Claudia. 2018. Introductory programming: A systematic literature review. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE WGR’18). 55106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. [102] Machamer Peter and Silberstein Michael. 2008. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. [103] Magerko Brian, Freeman Jason, McKlin Tom, Reilly Mike, Livingston Elise, McCoid Scott, and Crews-Brown Andrea. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-based approach for underrepresented populations in high school computer science education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 4 (2016), 125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. [104] Maguire Phil, Maguire Rebecca, and Kelly Robert. 2017. Using automatic machine assessment to teach computer programming. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 3–4 (2017), 197214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  105. [105] Mahadeo Jonathan, Hazari Zahra, and Potvin Geoff. 2020. Developing a computing identity framework: Understanding computer science and information technology career choice. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 1 (2020), 114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  106. [106] Malmi Lauri, Sheard Judy, Bednarik Roman, Helminen Juha, Korhonen Ari, Myller Niko, Sorva Juha, and Taherkhani Ahmad. 2010. Characterizing research in computing education: A preliminary analysis of the literature. In 6th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’10). 312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. [107] Malmi Lauri, Sheard Judy, Kinnunen Päivi, Simon, and Sinclair Jane. 2019. Computing education theories: What are they and how are they used? In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 187197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  108. [108] Malmi Lauri, Sheard Judy, Kinnunen Päivi, Simon, and Sinclair Jane. 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). 3647.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  109. [109] Malmi Lauri, Sheard Judy, Simon, Bednarik Roman, Helminen Juha, Kinnunen Päivi, Korhonen Ari, Myller Niko, Sorva Juha, and Taherkhani Ahmad. 2014. Theoretical underpinnings of computing education research: What is the evidence? In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 2734.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  110. [110] Margulieux Lauren, Ketenci Tuba Ayer, and Decker Adrienne. 2019. Review of measurements used in computing education research and suggestions for increasing standardization. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 1 (2019), 4978.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  111. [111] Margulieux Lauren E., Dorn Brian, and Searle Kristin A.. 2019. Learning sciences for computing education. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Fincher Sally A. and Robins Anthony V. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 208230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  112. [112] Margulieux Lauren E. and Morrison Briana B.. 2019. Guest editorial. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 2–3 (2019), 103105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  113. [113] Marwan Samiha, Gao Ge, Fisk Susan, Price Thomas W., and Barnes Tiffany. 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). 194203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. [114] McCall Davin and Kölling Michael. 2019. A new look at novice programmer errors. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 4 (2019), 130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  115. [115] McCartney Robert, Boustedt Jonas, Eckerdal Anna, Sanders Kate, Thomas Lynda, and Zander Carol. 2016. Why computing students learn on their own: Motivation for self-directed learning of computing. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 1 (Jan.2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  116. [116] McGill Monica M.. 2012. The curriculum planning process for undergraduate game degree programs in the United Kingdom and United States. Trans. Comput. Educ. 12, 2 (Apr.2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  117. [117] Meerbaum-Salant Orni, Armoni Michal, and Ben-Ari Mordechai. 2013. Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 3 (2013), 239264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  118. [118] Meleis Afaf Ibrahim. 1985. Theoretical nursing: Development and progress. Amer. J. Nurs. 85, 12 (1985), 1350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  119. [119] Morrison Briana B., Dorn Brian, and Guzdial Mark. 2014. Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 131138. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  120. [120] Myller Niko, Bednarik Roman, Sutinen Erkki, and Ben-Ari Mordechai. 2009. Extending the engagement taxonomy: Software visualization and collaborative learning. Trans. Comput. Educ. 9, 1 (2009), 127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  121. [121] Naps Thomas L., Rößling Guido, Almstrum Vicki, Dann Wanda, Fleischer Rudolf, Hundhausen Chris, Korhonen Ari, Malmi Lauri, McNally Myles, Rodger Susan, and Velázquez-Iturbide J. Ángel. 2002. Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports. 131152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. [122] Alhija Fadia Nasser-Abu and Levi-Eliyahu Orna. 2019. Modelling achievement in advanced computer science: The role of learner characteristics and perceived learning environment. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 1 (2019), 79102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  123. [123] Nelson Greg L. and Ko Amy J.. 2018. On use of theory in computing education research. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 3139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  124. [124] Nikula Uolevi, Gotel Orlena, and Kasurinen Jussi. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 4 (Nov.2011).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  125. [125] Park Thomas H., Saxena Ankur, Jagannath Swathi, Wiedenbeck Susan, and Forte Andrea. 2013. Towards a taxonomy of errors in HTML and CSS. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). ACM, 7582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  126. [126] Parker Miranda C., Guzdial Mark, and Engleman Shelly. 2016. Replication, validation, and use of a language independent CS1 knowledge assessment. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 93101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  127. [127] Parkinson Jack and Cutts Quintin. 2018. Investigating the relationship between spatial skills and computer science. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 106114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  128. [128] Pekrun Reinhard. 2006. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18, 4 (2006), 315341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  129. [129] Peteranetz Markeya S., Flanigan Abraham E., Shell Duane F., and Soh Leen-Kiat. 2016. Perceived instrumentality and career aspirations in CS1 courses: Change and relationships with achievement. In 12th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’16). 1321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  130. [130] Peters Anne-Kathrin. 2018. Students’ experience of participation in a discipline—A longitudinal study of computer science and IT engineering students. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 1 (2018), 128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  131. [131] Porter Leo, Lee Cynthia Bailey, Simon Beth, and Zingaro Daniel. 2011. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 4552.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  132. [132] Porter Leo, Zingaro Daniel, Liao Soohyun Nam, Taylor Cynthia, Webb Kevin C., Lee Cynthia, and Clancy Michael. 2019. BDSI: A validated concept inventory for basic data structures. In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’19). 111119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  133. [133] Price Thomas W., Liu Zhongxiu, Cateté Veronica, and Barnes Tiffany. 2017. Factors influencing students’ help-seeking behavior while programming with human and computer tutors. In 13th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’17). 127135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  134. [134] Quille Keith and Bergin Susan. 2019. CS1: How will they do? How can we help? A decade of research and practice. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 2–3 (2019), 254282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  135. [135] Ramalingam Vennila and Wiedenbeck Susan. 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), 367381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  136. [136] Reeves Scott, Albert Mathieu, Kuper Ayelet, and Hodges Brian David. 2008. Why use theories in qualitative research?Brit. Med. J. 337 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  137. [137] Norway Research Council of. 2012. The Role of Theory in Educational Research – Report from the March Seminar 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  138. [138] Rich Kathryn M., Binkowski T. Andrew, Strickland Carla, and Franklin Diana. 2018. Decomposition: A K–8 computational thinking learning trajectory. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 124132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  139. [139] Rich Kathryn M., Strickland Carla, Binkowski T. Andrew, Moran Cheryl, and Franklin Diana. 2018. K–8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. ACM Inroads 9, 1 (2018), 4655.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  140. [140] Risjord Mark. 2014. Philosophy of Social Science: a Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  141. [141] Rist Robert S.. 1989. Schema creation in programming. Cog. Sci. 13, 3 (1989), 389414.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  142. [142] Robins Anthony. 2010. Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Comput. Sci. Educ. 20, 1 (2010), 3771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  143. [143] Robins Anthony V. and Margulieux Lauren E.. 2019. Cognitive sciences for computing education. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Fincher Sally A. and Robins Anthony V. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 231275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  144. [144] Rodrigo Ma Mercedes T. and Baker Ryan. 2009. Coarse-grained detection of student frustration in an introductory programming course. In 5th international Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’09). 7580.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  145. [145] Rosenberg Alexander. 2008. Philosophy of Social Science, third edition. Westview Press Boulder.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  146. [146] Rosenberg Alex and McIntyre Lee. 2019. Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  147. [147] Ross Monique, Hazari Zahra, Sonnert Gerhard, and Sadler Philip. 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), 115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  148. [148] Rosson Mary Beth, Carroll John M., and Sinha Hansa. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 3 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  149. [149] Rountree Janet, Robins Anthony, and Rountree Nathan. 2013. Elaborating on threshold concepts. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 3 (2013), 265289. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  150. [150] Rücker Michael T. and Pinkwart Niels. 2018. “How else should it work?” A grounded theory of pre-college students’ understanding of computing devices. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 1 (2018), 123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  151. [151] Rücker Michael T., Joolingen Wouter R. van, and Pinkwart Niels. 2020. Small but powerful: A learning study to address secondary students’ conceptions of everyday computing technology. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (2020), 127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  152. [152] Sajaniemi Jorma. 2002. An empirical analysis of roles of variables in novice-level procedural programs. In IEEE Symposia on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments. IEEE, 3739.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  153. [153] Sanders Kate, Boustedt Jonas, Eckerdal Anna, McCartney Robert, Moström Jan Erik, Thomas Lynda, and Zander Carol. 2012. Threshold concepts and threshold skills in computing. In 8th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’12). 2330. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  154. [154] Schulte Carsten and Knobelsdorf Maria. 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). 2738.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  155. [155] Scott Michael James and Ghinea Gheorghita. 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). 123130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  156. [156] Seiter Linda and Foreman Brendan. 2013. Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In 9th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’13). 5966. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  157. [157] Sheard Judy, Simon, Carbone Angela, Chinn Donald, Laakso Mikko-Jussi, Clear Tony, Raadt Michael de, D’Souza Daryl, Harland James, Lister Raymond, Philpott Anne, and Warburton Geoff. 2011. Exploring programming assessment instruments: A classification scheme for examination questions. In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 3338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  158. [158] Simon. 2007. A classification of recent Australasian computing education publications. Comput. Sci. Educ. 17, 3 (2007), 155169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  159. [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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  160. [160] Soloway Elliot. 1986. Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Commun. ACM 29, 9 (1986), 850858.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  161. [161] Soloway Elliot and Ehrlich Kate. 1984. Empirical studies of programming knowledge. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.5 (1984), 595609.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  162. [162] Sorva Juha, Karavirta Ville, and Malmi Lauri. 2013. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 4 (2013), 164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  163. [163] Sorva Juha, Lönnberg Jan, and Malmi Lauri. 2013. Students’ ways of experiencing visual program simulation. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 3 (2013), 207238. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  164. [164] Spohrer James C., Soloway Elliot, and Pope Edgar. 1985. A goal/plan analysis of buggy Pascal programs. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 1, 2 (1985), 163207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  165. [165] Stamouli Ioanna and Huggard Meriel. 2006. Object oriented programming and program correctness: The students’ perspective. In 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’06). 109118. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  166. [166] Steghöfer Jan-Philipp, Burden Håkan, Hebig Regina, Calikli Gul, Feldt Robert, Hammouda Imed, Horkoff Jennifer, Knauss Eric, and Liebel Grischa. 2018. Involving external stakeholders in project courses. Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 2 (2018), 132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  167. [167] Steinhorst Phil, Petersen Andrew, and Vahrenhold Jan. 2020. Revisiting self-efficacy in introductory programming. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 158169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  168. [168] Stout Jane G. and Blaney Jennifer M.. 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), 215228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  169. [169] Suppes Patrick. 1974. The place of theory in educational research. Educ. Res. 3, 6 (1974), 310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  170. [170] Sweller John. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cog. Sci. 12, 2 (1988), 257285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  171. [171] Szabo Claudia, Falkner Nickolas, Petersen Andrew, Bort Heather, Cunningham Kathryn, Donaldson Peter, Hellas Arto, Robinson James, and Sheard Judy. 2019. Review and use of learning theories within computer science education research: Primer for researchers and practitioners. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports. 89109.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  172. [172] Tabanao Emily S., Rodrigo Ma Mercedes T., and Jadud Matthew C.. 2011. Predicting at-risk novice Java programmers through the analysis of online protocols. In 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’11). 8592.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  173. [173] Tahaei Narjes and Noelle David C.. 2018. Automated plagiarism detection for computer programming exercises based on patterns of resubmission. In 14th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’18). 178186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  174. [174] Tedre Matti, Simon, and Malmi Lauri. 2018. Changing aims of computing education: A historical survey. Comput. Sci. Educ. 28, 2 (2018), 158186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  175. [175] Tedre Matti and Sutinen Erkki. 2008. Three traditions of computing: What educators should know. Comput. Sci. Educ. 18, 3 (2008), 153170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  176. [176] Tellings Agnes. 2001. Eclecticism and integration in educational theories: A metatheoretical analysis. Educ. Theor. 51, 3 (2001), 277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  177. [177] Thomas Lynda, Eckerdal Anna, McCartney Robert, Moström Jan Erik, Sanders Kate, and Zander Carol. 2014. Graduating students’ designs: Through a phenomenographic lens. In 10th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’14). 9198. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  178. [178] Thomas Lynda, Zander Carol, Loftus Chris, and Eckerdal Anna. 2017. Student software designs at the undergraduate midpoint. In 22nd Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’17). 3439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  179. [179] Thompson Errol 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), 269287. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  180. [180] Tomkin Jonathan H., West Matthew, and Herman Geoffrey L.. 2018. An improved grade point average, with applications to CS undergraduate education analytics. Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 4 (2018), 116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  181. [181] Tsai Meng-Jung, Wang Ching-Yeh, and Hsu Po-Fen. 2019. Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 56, 8 (2019), 13451360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  182. [182] Tshukudu Ethel and Cutts Quintin. 2020. Understanding conceptual transfer for students learning new programming languages. In 16th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER’20). 227237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  183. [183] Tutty Jodi, Sheard Judithe, and Avram Chris. 2008. Teaching in the current higher education environment: Perceptions of IT academics. Comput. Sci. Educ. 18, 3 (2008), 171185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  184. [184] Vahrenhold Jan and Paul Wolfgang. 2014. Developing and validating test items for first-year computer science courses. Comput. Sci. Educ. 24, 4 (2014), 304333.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  185. [185] Vygotsky Lev. 1987. Zone of proximal development. In Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 5291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  186. [186] Vygotsky Lev Semenovich. 1980. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  187. [187] Wanzer Dana Linnell, McKlin Tom, Freeman Jason, Magerko Brian, and Lee Taneisha. 2020. Promoting intentions to persist in computing: An examination of six years of the EarSketch program. Comput. Sci. Educ. 30, 4 (2020), 394419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  188. [188] Watson Christopher, Li Frederick W. B., and Godwin Jamie L.. 2013. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE, 319323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  189. [189] Weber Max. 1968. The Methodology of the Social Sciences (4th ed.). Free Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  190. [190] Werner Linda, Denner Jill, Campe Shannon, and Torres David M.. 2020. Computational sophistication of games programmed by children: A model for its measurement. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2 (2020), 123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  191. [191] Weston Timothy J., Dubow Wendy M., and Kaminsky Alexis. 2019. Predicting women’s persistence in computer science- and technology-related majors from high school to college. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 1 (2019), 116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  192. [192] Wiedenbeck Susan. 2005. Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. In 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’05). 1324.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  193. [193] Williamson Timothy. 2017. Model-building in philosophy. In Philosophy’s Future: The Problem of Philosophical Progress, Blackford Russell and Broderick Damien (Eds.). Wiley Online Library, 159172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  194. [194] Xie Benjamin, Loksa Dastyni, Nelson Greg L., Davidson Matthew J., Dong Dongsheng, Kwik Harrison, Tan Alex Hui, Hwa Leanne, Li Min, and Ko Amy J.. 2019. A theory of instruction for introductory programming skills. Comput. Sci. Educ. 29, 2–3 (2019), 205253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  195. [195] Yadav Aman and Berges Marc. 2019. Computer science pedagogical content knowledge: Characterizing teacher performance. Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 3 (2019), 124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  196. [196] Yuen Timothy T. and Robbins Kay A.. 2014. A qualitative study of students’ computational thinking skills in a data-driven computing class. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 4 (Dec.2014). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  197. [197] Zander Carol, Boustedt Jonas, McCartney Robert, Moström Jan Erik, Sanders Kate, and Thomas Lynda. 2009. Student transformations: Are they computer scientists yet? In 5th International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’09). 129140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  198. [198] Zarb Mark and Hughes Janet. 2015. Breaking the communication barrier: Guidelines to aid communication within pair programming. Comput. Sci. Educ. 25, 2 (2015), 120151. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  199. [199] Zhang Yulei (Gavin) and Dang Yan (Mandy). 2015. Investigating essential factors on students’ perceived accomplishment and enjoyment and intention to learn in web development. Trans. Comput. Educ. 15, 1 (Mar.2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  200. [200] Zhou Ninger, Nguyen Ha, Fischer Christian, Richardson Debra, and Warschauer Mark. 2020. High school teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching computer science. Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 3 (2020), 118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

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

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • 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

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 December 2022
      • Online AM: 9 May 2022
      • Accepted: 1 April 2022
      • Revised: 12 January 2022
      • Received: 24 June 2021
      Published in toce Volume 23, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format