Abdul-Rahman, S. S., & du Boulay, B. (2014). Learning programming via worked-examples: Relation of learning styles to cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 286–298.Google Scholar

Abelson, H., & DiSessa, A. (1986). Turtle Geometry: The Computer as a Medium for Exploring Mathematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). The LISP tutor. BYTE, 10(4), 159–175.Google Scholar

Anderson, R., Fincher, S. A., & Guzdial, M. (2005). Proceedings of the 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop, ICER 2005. New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Austin, H. (1976). Teaching Teachers Logo: The Lesley Experiments. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6237Google Scholar

Barr, A., Beard, M., & Atkinson, R. C. (1976). The computer as a tutorial laboratory: The Stanford BIP project. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 8(5), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barron, D. W. (1977). An Introduction to the Study of Programming Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bednarik, R., & Tukiainen, M. (2006). An Eye-tracking Methodology for Characterizing Program Comprehension Processes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA ‘06), San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Ben-Ari, M., Berglund, A., Booth, S., & Holmboe, C. (2004). What do we mean by theoretically sound research in computer science education? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36, 230–231.Google Scholar

Berglund, A. (2002). Learning computer systems in a distributed course: Problematizing content and context. European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), SIG, 10, 1–22.Google Scholar

Berglund, A., & Pears, A. (2003). Students’ Understanding of Computer Networks in an Internationally Distributed Course. Paper presented at the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’03), Athens, Greece.Google Scholar

Blackwell, A. F., Rode, J. A., & Toye, E. F. (2009). How do we program the home? Gender, attention investment, and the psychology of programming at home. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(4), 324–341.Google Scholar

Booth, S. (1992). Learning to Program: A Phenomenographic Perspective (PhD thesis), University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar

Booth, S. (1993). A study of learning to program from an experiential perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(2–3), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bork, A. M. (1971). “Learning to Program for the Science Student.” Technical Report. University of California, Irvine. Physics Computer Science Project. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar

Brna, P., du Boulay, B., & Pain, H. (Eds.). (1999). Learning to Build and Comprehend Complex Information Structures: Prolog as a Case Study. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

Brooks, R. (1977). Towards a theory of the cognitive processes in computer programming. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(6), 737–751.Google Scholar

Brooks, R. (1978). Using a behavioral theory of program comprehension in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 196–201). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Brooks, R. (1983). Towards a theory of the comprehension of computer programs. International Journal Man–Machine Studies, 18(6), 543–554.Google Scholar

Brown, M. H. (1987). Algorithm Animation. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar

Bryant, S., Romero, P., & du Boulay, B. (2008). Pair programming and the mysterious role of the navigator. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 66(7), 519–529.Google Scholar

Byrne, M. D., Catrambone, R., & Stasko, J. T. (1999). Evaluating animations as student aids in learning computer algorithms. Computers & Education, 33(4), 253–278.Google Scholar

Cannara, A. B. (1976). Experiments in Teaching Children Computer Programming (doctoral dissertation), School of Education, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Carver, S. M. (1986). Transfer of Logo Debugging Skill: Analysis, Instruction, and Assessment (PhD thesis), Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar

Cheney, P. H. (1977). Teaching computer programming in an environment where collaboration is required. Journal of the Association for Educational Data Systems, 11(1), 1–5.Google Scholar

Clancy, M. J., & Linn, M. (1992). Designing Pascal Solutions: A Case Study Approach. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. (2001). Changing Minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. A. (1985). A principled design for an integrated computational environment. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 1–47.Google Scholar

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

diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B. L., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 2, 117–160.Google Scholar

Druin, A., Knell, G., Soloway, E., Russell, D., Mynatt, E., & Rogers, Y. (2011). The future of child–computer interaction In CHI EA ‘11: CHI ‘11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 693–696). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

du Boulay, B., & O’Shea, T. (1981). Teaching novices programming. In Coombs, M. J. & Alty, J. L. (Eds.), Computing Skills and the User Interface (pp. 147–200). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

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

du Boulay, B., & Sothcott, C. (1987). Computers teaching programming: An introductory survey of the field. In Lawler, R. W. & Yazdani, M. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Education (Vol. 1, pp. 345–372). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

du Boulay, J. B. H. (1978). Learning Primary Mathematics through Computer Programming (PhD thesis), University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Eason, K. D. (1976). Understanding the naive computer user. The Computer Journal, 19(1), 3–7.Google Scholar

Eisenstadt, M. (1979). A friendly software environment for psychology students. In AISB Quarterly, 34, 589–593.Google Scholar

Eisenstadt, M., & Brayshaw, M. (1990). A fine-grained account of Prolog execution for teaching and debugging. Instructional Science, 19(4–5), 407–436.Google Scholar

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

Ericson, B. J., Guzdial, M. J., & Morrison, B. B. (2015). Analysis of Interactive Features Designed to Enhance Learning in an Ebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, Omaha, NE, USA.Google Scholar

Feurzeig, W., Papert, S., Bloom, M., Grant, R., & Solomon, C. (1969). Programming-Languages as a Conceptual Framework for Teaching Mathematics. Final Report on the First Fifteen Months of the Logo Project. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED038034Google Scholar

Fincher, S., Lister, R., Clear, T., Robins, A., Tenenberg, J., & Petre, M. (2005). Multi-institutional, multi-national studies in CSEd Research: some design considerations and trade-offs. In ICER ‘05: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–121). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., & Tenenberg, J. (2006). Using theory to inform capacity-building: Bootstrapping communities of practice in computer science education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 265–277.Google Scholar

Friend, J. (1975). Programs Students Write. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED112861Google Scholar

Gannon, J. D. (1978). Characteristic Errors in Programming Languages. Paper presented at ACM ‘78, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar

Garner, S., Haden, P., & Robins, A. (2005). My Program is Correct but it Doesn’t Run: a Preliminary Investigation of Novice Programmers’ Problems. Paper presented at the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education–Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar

Gegg-Harrison, T. S. (1991). Learning Prolog in a schema-based environment. Instructional Science, 20(2–3), 173–192.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A., & Kay, A. (1976). Smalltalk-72: Instruction Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Corporation.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A., & Robson, D. (1983). Smalltalk-80: The Language and Its Implementation. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar

Good, J. (2011). Learners at the wheel: Novice programming environments come of age. International Journal of People-Oriented Programming (IJPOP), 1(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Gould, J. D. (1975). Some psychological evidence on how people debug computer programs. International Journal Man–Machine Studies, 7(2), 171–182.Google Scholar

Gould, J. D., & Drongowski, P. (1974). An exploratory study of computer program debugging. Human Factors, 16(3), 258–277.Google Scholar

Green, T. R. G., & Petre, M. (1992). When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. In van der Veer, G. C., Tauber, M. J., Bagnarola, S., & Antavolits, M. (Eds.), Human–Computer Interaction: Tasks and Organisation, Proceedings EECE-6 (6th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics) (pp. 167–180). Rome, Italy: CUD.Google Scholar

Green, T. R. G., & Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a “cognitive dimensions” framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 7(2), 131–174.Google Scholar

Green, T. R. G., Petre, M., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (1991). Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of “superlativism” against the “match–mismatch” conjecture. In Koenemann-Belliveau, J., Moher, T., & Robertson, S. (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop (pp. 121–146). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Greenberger, M. (1962). Computers and the World of the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Habermann, A. N. (1973). Critical comments on the programming language Pascal. Acta Informatica, 3(1), 47–57.Google Scholar

Hasemer, T. (1983). An Empirically-based Debugging System for Novice Programmers (Open University Technical Report No. 6) (PhD thesis). The Open University.Google Scholar

Hoc, J.-M. (1977). Role of mental representation in learning a programming language. International Journal Man–Machine Studies, 9(1), 87–105.Google Scholar

Hoc, J.-M., Green, T. R. G., Samurcay, R., & Gilmore, D. J. (1990). Psychology of Programming. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Howland, K., Good, J., & du Boulay, B. (2013). Narrative threads: A tool to support young people in creating their own narrative-based computer games. In Pan, Z., Cheok, A. D., Müller, W., Iurgel, I., Petta, P., & Urban, B. (Eds.), Transactions on Edutainment X (pp. 122–145). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2007). An experimental study of the impact of visual semantic feedback on novice programming. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 18(6), 537–559.Google Scholar

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

Hundhausen, C. D., Farley, S., & Brown, J. L. (2006). Can Direct Manipulation Lower the Barriers to Programming and Promote Positive Transfer to Textual Programming? An Experimental Study. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Olivares, D. M., & Carter, A. S. (2017). IDE-based learning analytics for computing education: A process model, critical review, and research agenda. Transactions of Computing Education, 17(3), 1–26.Google Scholar

Johnson, W. L., & Soloway, E. (1987). Proust: An automatic debugger for Pascal programs. In Kearsley, G. P. (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence & Instruction: Applications and Methods (pp. 49–67). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar

Johnson, W. L., Soloway, E., Cutler, B., & Draper, S. (1983). Bug Catalogue 1 (286). Technical Report. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harbard University Press.Google Scholar

Joni, S.-N. A., & Soloway, E. (1986). But my program runs! Discourse rules for novice programmers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 95–125.Google Scholar

Kahney, H. (1982). An In-Depth Study of the Cognitive Behaviour of Novice Programmers (Technical Report No. 5). Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University.Google Scholar

Katz, I. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1987). Debugging: An analysis of bug-location strategies. Human–Computer Interaction, 3(4), 351–399.Google Scholar

Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. In IEEE Computer (pp. 31–41). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Kay, A. C. (1972). A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages. Paper presented at the ACM Annual Conference, 1972. Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar

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

Kehoe, C., Stasko, J., & Taylor, A. (2001). Rethinking the evaluation of algorithm animations as learning aids. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 54(2), 265–284.Google Scholar

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

Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(4), 429–458.Google Scholar

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

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342.Google Scholar

Lecarme, O., & Desjardins, P. (1975). More comments on the programming language Pascal. Acta Informatica, 4(3), 231–243.Google Scholar

Lemos, R. S. (1975). FORTRAN programming: An analysis of pedagogical alternatives. Journal of Educational Data Processing, 12(3), 21–29.Google Scholar

Lemos, R. S. (1978). Students’ attitudes towards programming: The effects of structured walk-throughs. Computers & Education, 2(4), 301–306.Google Scholar

Lemos, R. S. (1979). Teaching programming languages: A survey of approaches. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin – Proceedings of the 10th SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science, 11(1), 174–181.Google Scholar

Lister, R. (2011). Ten years after the McCracken Working Group. ACM Inroads, 2(4), 18–19.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Box, I., Morrison, B., Tenenberg, J., & Westbrook, D. S. (2004). The dimensions of variation in the teaching of data structures. SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 92–96.Google Scholar

Love, T. (1977). An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Program Structure on Program Understanding. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Language Design for Reliable Software, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar

Lukey, F. J. (1980). Understanding and debugging programs. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 12(2), 189–202.Google Scholar

Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004). Scratch: a sneak preview. In C5 ‘04: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing (pp. 104–109). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by Choice: Urban Youth Learning Programming with Scratch. Paper presented at SIGCSE ‘08: The 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography – Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200.Google Scholar

Mateas, M. (2008). Procedural literacy: Educating the new media practitioner. In Drew, D. (Ed.), Beyond Fun (pp. 67–83). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press.Google Scholar

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

Mayer, R. E. (1976). Comprehension as affected by structure of problem representation. Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 249–255.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1979). A psychology of learning BASIC. Communications of the ACM, 22(11), 589–593.Google Scholar

McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., … Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4), 125–140.Google Scholar

McLuhan, M. H. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

McLuhan, M. H. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326–337.Google Scholar

Miller, L. A. (1974). Programming by non-programmers. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 6(2), 237–260.Google Scholar

Miller, L. A. (1975). Naive Programmer Problems with Specification of Transfer-of-control. Paper presented at the AFIPS ‘75 National Computer Conference, Anaheim, CA, USA.Google Scholar

Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, , , M. (2017). Towards data-driven learning paths to develop computational thinking with Scratch. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 99, 1.Google Scholar

Morrison, B. B., Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2014). Measuring Cognitive Load in Introductory CS: Adaptation of an Instrument. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar

Murphy, L., Lewandowski, G., McCauley, R., Simon, B., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2008). Debugging: The good, the bad, and the quirky – A qualitative analysis of novices’ strategies. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 163–167.Google Scholar

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Ni, L., Tew, A. E., Guzdial, M. J., & McKlin, T. (2011). A Regional Professional Development Program for Computing Teachers: The Disciplinary Commons for Computing Educators. Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar

Nievergelt, J., Frei, H. P., Burkhart, H., Jacobi, C., Pattner, B., Sugaya, H., Weibel, B., & Weydert, J. (1978). XS-0: A self-explanatory school computer. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 10(4), 66–69.Google Scholar

Palumbo, D. J. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65–89.Google Scholar

Palumbo, D. J., & Reed, M. W. (1991). The effect of basic programming language instruction on high school students’ problem solving and computer anxiety. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(3), 343–372.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 3(3), 249–262.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1987). Information technology and education: Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.Google Scholar

Papert, S. A., & Solomon, C. (1971). Twenty Things to do With a Computer. Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5836Google Scholar

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

Pea, R. D. (1987). The aims of software criticism: Reply to professor papert. Educational Researcher, 16(5), 4–8.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D., Kurland, D. M., & Hawkins, J. (1985). Logo and the development of thinking skills. In Chen, M. & Paisley, W. (Eds.), Children and Microcomputers: Research on the Newest Medium (pp. 193–317). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

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

Petre, M. (1995). Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM, 38(6), 33–44.Google Scholar

Pugh, J., & Simpson, D. (1979). Pascal errors – Empirical evidence. Computer Bulletin, 2, 26–28.Google Scholar

Resnick, M. (1990). MultiLogo: A study of children and concurrent programming. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(3), 153–170.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3–4), 443–452.Google Scholar

Ripley, G. D., & Druseikis, F. C. (1978). A statistical analysis of syntax errors. Computer Languages, 3(4), 227–240.Google Scholar

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

Roman-Gonzalez, M., Perez-Gonzalez, J.-C., & Jimenez-Fernandez, C. (2016). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.Google Scholar

Romero, P., du Boulay, B., Robertson, J., Good, J., & Howland, K. (2009). Is Embodied Interaction Beneficial When Learning Programming? In VMR ‘09 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Virtual and Mixed Reality: Held as Part of HCI International 2009 (pp. 97–105). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Sackman, H. (1968). Conference on Personnel Research. Datamation, 14(7), 74–76.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. C., & Witmer, D. P. (1974). Interactive visual simulators for beginning programming students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin – Proceedings of the 4th SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education, 6(1), 11–14.Google Scholar

Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 1–61.Google Scholar

Sherman, L., Druin, A., Montemayor, J., Farber, A., Platner, M., Simms, S., Porteous, J., Alborzi, H., Best, J., Hammer, J., & Kruskal, A. (2001). StoryKit: Tools for children to build room-sized interactive experiences. In CHI’01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 197–198). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shneiderman, B. (1977a). Measuring computer program quality and comprehension. International Journal Man-Machine Studies, 9(4), 465–478.Google Scholar

Shneiderman, B. (1977b). Teaching programming: A spiral approach to syntax and semantics. Computers and Education, 1(4), 193–197.Google Scholar

Shneiderman, B., Mayer, R. E., McKay, D., & Heller, P. (1977). Experimental investigations of the utility of detailed flowcharts in programming. Communications of the ACM, 20(6), 373–381.Google Scholar

Sime, M. E., Arblaster, A. T., & Green, T. R. G. (1977a). Reducing programming errors in nested conditionals by prescribing a writing procedure. International Journal Man–Machine Studies, 9(1), 119–126.Google Scholar

Sime, M. E., Arblaster, A. T., & Green, T. R. G. (1977b). Structuring the programmer’s task. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(3), 205–216.Google Scholar

Sime, M. E., Green, T. R. G., & Guest, D. J. (1977). Scope marking in computer conditionals – A psychological evaluation. International Journal Man-Machine Studies, 9(1), 107–118.Google Scholar

Sleeman, D. (1986). The challenges of teaching computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 840–841.Google Scholar

Sleeman, D., Putnam, R. T., Baxter, J., & Kuspa, L. (1986). Pascal and high school students: A study of errors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 5–23.Google Scholar

Smith, D. C. (1975). PYGMALION: A Creative Programming Environment (PhD thesis), Stanford University.Google Scholar

Soloway, E., & Ehrlich, K. (1984). Empirical studies of programming knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-10, 5(5), 595–609.Google Scholar

Soloway, E., & Iyengar, S. (Eds.) (1986). Empirical Studies of Programmers: Papers Presented at the First Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Sorva, J. (2012). Visual Program Simulation in Introductory Programming Education (Doctor of Science in Technology thesis), Aalto University School of Science.Google Scholar

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

Sorva, J., & Sirkiä, T. (2010). UUhistle: A Software Tool for Visual Program Simulation. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 49–54). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Spohrer, J. C., Pope, E., Lipman, M., Sack, W., Freiman, S., Littman, D., & Soloway, E. (1985). Bug Catalogue: II, III, IV (Technical Report 386). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Stasko, J. T. (1997a). Supporting Student-built Algorithm Animation as a Pedagogical Tool. Paper presented at the CHI ‘97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar

Stasko, J. T. (1997b). Using Student-built Algorithm Animations as Learning Aids. Paper presented at the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, San Jose, CA, USA.Google Scholar

Statz, J. A. (1973). The Development of Computer Programming Concepts and Problem-solving Abilities Among Ten-year-olds Learning Logo (PhD thesis), Syracuse University.Google Scholar

Tagg, W. (1974). Programming languages for school use. Computer Education, 16, 11–22.Google Scholar

Taylor, J., & du Boulay, B. (1987). Why novices may find programming in Prolog hard. In Rutkowska, J. C. & Crook, C. (Eds.), Computers, Cognition and Development: Issues for Psychology and Education (pp. 153–176). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

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

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

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Using Commutative Assessments to Compare Conceptual Understanding in Blocks-based and Text-based Programs. Paper presented at the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, Omaha, NE, USA.Google Scholar

Welsh, J., Sneeringer, W. J., & Hoare, C. A. R. (1977). Ambiguities and insecurities in Pascal. Software: Practice and Experience, 7(6), 685–696.Google Scholar

Weyer, S. A., & Cannara, A. B. (1975). Children Learning Computer Programming: Experiments with Languages, Curricula and Programmable Devices (Technical Report 250). Stanford, CA: Institute for Mathematical Studies in Social Science.Google Scholar

Wiedenbeck, S. (1986). Beacons in computer program comprehension. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 25(6), 697–709.Google Scholar

Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Google Scholar

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Youngs, E. A. (1974). Human errors in programming. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 6(3), 361–376.Google Scholar

Begel, A., & Simon, B. (2008a). Novice software developers, all over again. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 3–14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Begel, A., & Simon, B. (2008b). Struggles of new college graduates in their first software development job. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 226–230). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., & Petre, M. (2004). Computer Science Education Research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

K–12 computer science framework (2016). Retrieved from www.k12cs.orgGoogle Scholar

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Simon, Bednarik, Helminen, R., Kinnunen, J., Korhonen, P., Myller, A., Sorva, N., , J., & Taherkhani, A. (2014). Theoretical underpinnings of computing education research: What is the evidence? In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 27–34). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Simon, Bednarik, Helminen, R., Korhonen, J., Myller, A., Sorva, N., , J., & Taherkhani, A. (2010). Characterizing research in computing education: A preliminary analysis of the literature. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 3–12). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pears, A., Seidman, S., Eney, C., Kinnunen, P., & Malmi, L. (2005). Constructing a core literature for computing education research. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(4), 152–161.Google Scholar

Randolph, J. J. (2007). Findings from a methodological review of the computer science education research: 2000–2005. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 130.Google Scholar

Randolph, J. J. (2008). A methodological review of computer science education research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 7, 135–162.Google Scholar

Randolph, J. J., Julnes, G., Bednarik, R., & Sutinen, E. (2007). A comparison of the methodological quality of articles in computer science education journals and conference proceedings. Computer Science Education, 17(4), 263–274.Google Scholar

Randolph, J. J., Julnes, G. & Sutinen, E. (2009). Trends, tribes, and territories in computer science education research. Journal for Computing Teachers, 1(1), 1–19.Google Scholar

Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context (pp. 9–44). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Simon, (2016). A picture of the growing ICER community. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 153–159). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, Carbone, de Raadt, A., Lister, M., Hamilton, R., , M., & Sheard, J. (2008a). Classifying computing education papers: Process and results. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 61–172). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, , Sheard, J., Carbone, A., de Raadt, M., Hamilton, M., Lister, R., & Thompson, E. (2008). Eight years of computing education papers at NACCQ. In 21st Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ 2008) (pp. 101–107). Auckland, New Zealand: National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications.Google Scholar

Valentine, D. W. (2004). CS educational research: A meta-analysis of SIGCSE technical symposium proceedings. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 255–259). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Vansledright, B. (2010). What does it mean to think historically and how do you teach it? In Parker, W. (Ed.), Social Studies Today: Research and Practice (pp. 113–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Berland, M. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

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

Blikstein, P. (2011). Using learning analytics to assess students’ behavior in open-ended programming tasks. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge – LAK 2011 (pp. 110–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P., Worsley, M., Piech, C., Sahami, M., Cooper, S., & Koller, D. (2014). Programming pluralism: Using learning analytics to detect patterns in novices’ learning of computer programming. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 561–599.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital Fabrication and ’Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.). FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (pp. 203–221). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P. (2018). Pre-College Computer Science Education: A Survey of the Field. Mountain View, CA: Google LLC. Retrieved on 1 November 2018 from https://goo.gl/gmS1VmGoogle Scholar

Brennan, K. (2013). Learning computing through creating and connecting. Computer, 46(9), 52–59.Google Scholar

Buechley, L. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Buechley, L., & Eisenberg, M. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Toward wearable engineering for everyone. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7(2), 12–15.Google Scholar

Clancy, M. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Clements, D. H. (1990). Metacomponential development in a LOGO programming environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 141.Google Scholar

De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1989). Logo: A vehicle for thinking. In Greer, B. & Mulhern, G. (Eds.), New Directions in Mathematics Education (pp. 63–81). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. (2000). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

diSessa, A. (2018). Computational literacy and “the big picture” concerning computers in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 3–31.Google Scholar

Fincher, S. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Google LLC. & Gallup Inc. (2016). Diversity gaps in computer science: Exploring the underrepresentation of girls, Blacks and Hispanics. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/PG34aHGoogle Scholar

Graham, P. (2004). Hackers & Painters: Big Ideas from the Computer Age. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar

Grover, S. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Horn, M. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

K–12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee (2016). K–12 Computer Science Framework (978-1-4503-5278-9). Retrieved from http://k12cs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/K%E2%80%9312-Computer-Science-Framework.pdfGoogle Scholar

Liu, M. (1997). The effects of HyperCard programming on teacher education students’ problem-solving ability and computer anxiety. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(3), 248–262.Google Scholar

Maltese, A., & Tai, R. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.Google Scholar

Margolis, J. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Noonan, R. (2017). STEM Jobs: 2017 Update (ESA Issue Brief # 02-17). Retrieved from www.esa.gov/reports/stem-jobs-2017-updateGoogle Scholar

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. New York: Crown Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Palumbo, D. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65–89.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

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

Resnick, M. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O’Grady-Cunniff, D., …, Verno, A. (2011). CSTA K–12 Computer Science Standards: Revised 2017. Retrieved from www.csteachers.org/page/standardsGoogle Scholar

Sentance, S. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Shapiro, B. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar

Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61.Google Scholar

Stager, G. (2017). A Modest Proposal. Retrieved from http://stager.tv/blog/?p=4153Google Scholar

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 128–157.Google Scholar

US Department of Labor (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: The role of the public workforce system in a national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/637/Google Scholar

Vogel, S., Santo, R., & Ching, D. (2017). Visions of computer science education: Unpacking arguments for and projected impacts of CS4All initiatives. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education – SIGCSE 2017 (pp. 609–614). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilensky, U. (1999, updated 2006, 2017). NetLogo [Computer software] (Version 6). Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogoGoogle Scholar

Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. (2010). Restructurations: Reformulating knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In Proceedings of Constructionism 2010 Paris (p. 15). Paris, France: American University of Paris.Google Scholar

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Google Scholar

Yongpradit, P. (2017). Phone interview with Paulo Blikstein.Google Scholar