Babbie, E. R. (2013). The Basics of Social Research, 13th edn. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar

BBC (2017). Election 2017: Methodology. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40104373Google Scholar

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2002). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Coolican, H. (2017). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Curtice, J., Fisher, S., Kuha, J., & Mellon, J. (2017). On the 2017 exit poll – Another surprise, another success. Discover Society, Focus, Issue 46. Retrieved from https://discoversociety.org/2017/07/05/focus-on-the-2017-exit-poll-another-surprise-another-success/Google Scholar

Danielsiek, H., Toma, L., & Vahrenhold, J. (2017). An instrument to assess self-efficacy in introductory algorithms courses. In ACM International Computing Education Research Conference (pp. 217–225). New York: ACM.Google 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 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–121). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jadud, M. C. (2006). An Exploration of Novice Compilation Behaviour in BlueJ (doctoral dissertation). University of Kent.Google Scholar

Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lee, M. J., Bahmani, F., Kwan, I., LaFerte, J., Charters, P., Horvath, A., Luor, F., Cao, J., Law, C., Beswetherick, M., Long, S., Burnett, M. M., & Ko, A. J. (2014). Principles of a debugging-first puzzle game for computing education. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 57–64). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Lehrer, J. (2010). How We Decide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar

Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Good, J., & Enbody, R. J. (2016). Learning to program: Gender differences and interactive effects of students’ motivation, goals, and self-efficacy on performance. In ACM International Computing Education Research Conference (pp. 211–220). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., & Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 125–180). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in Education: Evidence-based Inquiry, 7th edn. London, UK: Pearson Higher Education.Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1957). Empirical explorations with the logic theory machine. In Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference, Vol. 15 (pp. 218–239). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Parker, M. C., Guzdial, M., & Engleman, S. (2016). Replication, validation, and use of a language independent CS1 knowledge assessment. In ACM International Computing Education Research Conference (pp. 93–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory (Vol. 1). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

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

Utting, I., Tew, A. E., McCracken, M., Thomas, L., Bouvier, D., Frye, R., Paterson, J., Caspersen, M. Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Sorva, J., & Wilusz, T. (2013). A fresh look at novice programmers’ performance and their teachers’ expectations. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 15–32). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Amosu, A. M., & Degun, A. M. (2014). Impact of maternal nutrition on birth weight of babies. Biomedical Research, 25(1), 75–78.Google Scholar

Campbell, S. (1974). Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116.Google Scholar

Coe, R. (2002). Itʹs the effect size, stupid. What effect size is and why it is important. In Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association (pp. 12–14). London, UK: British Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dankel, S. J., Mouser, J. G., Mattocks, K. T., Counts, B. R., Jessee, M. B., Buckner, S. L., Loprinzi, P. D., & Loenneke, J. P. (2017). The widespread misuse of effect sizes. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(5), 446–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

DeWitt, A., Fay, J., Goldman, M., Nicolson, E., Oyolu, L., Resch, L., Martinez Saldaña, J., Sounalath, S., Williams, T., Yetter, K., Zak, , Brown, E., Rebelsky, N., , S. A. (2017). Arts coding for social good: A pilot project for middle-school outreach. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 159–164). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Edgcomb, A., Vaihd, F., Lyseckky, R., & Lysecky, S. (2017). Getting students to earnestly do reading, studying, and homework in an introductory programming class. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 171–176). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericson, B., & McKlin, T. (2012). Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 289–294). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, W. B. (2012). Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 8th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar

Haden, P., Parsons, D., Wood, K., & Gasson, J. (2017). Student affect in CS1: Insights from an easy data collection tool. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli Calling ‘17 (pp. 40–49). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Krohn, G. A., & O’Conner, C. M. (2005). Student effort and performance over the semester. Journal of Economic Education, 36(1), 3–29.Google Scholar

Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching. effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.Google Scholar

Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., Morgan, R. L., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2013). Understanding and Interpreting Educational Research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Murray, J. (2013). Ohio Gadfly Daily. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/links-and-broken-links-on-the-relationship-between-proficiency-progress-and-povertyGoogle Scholar

Parker, M. C., Guzdial, M., & Engleman, S. (2016). Replication, validation and use of a language independent CS1 knowledge assessment. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research ICER ‘16 (pp. 93–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Robertson, J. (2011). Stats: We’re Doing It Wrong. Retrieved from https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/107125-stats-were-doing-it-wrong/fulltextGoogle Scholar

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

Rumsey, D. J. (2016). How to interpret a correlation coefficient r. Retrieved from www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/Google Scholar

Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Counterbalanced Measures Design. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/counterbalanced-measures-designGoogle Scholar

Campbell, S. (1974). Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. L. (2014). Nonparametric Statistics: A Step-by-Step Approach, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70(3), 193–242.Google Scholar

Francis, G. (2017). Equivalent statistics and data interpretation. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1524–1538Google Scholar

Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, W. B. (2012). Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 8th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar

Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.Google Scholar

Maxwell, B. A., & Taylor, S. R. (2017). Comparing outcomes across different contexts in CS1. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 399–403). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

McDonald, J. H (2015). Handbook of Biological Statistics (online edition). Retrieved from www.biostathandbook.com/multiplecomparisons.htmlGoogle Scholar

Miller, J., & Haden, P. (2006). Statistical Analysis with the General Linear Model. Retrieved from www.otago.ac.nz/psychology/otago039309.pdfGoogle Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 241–301.Google Scholar

Pearce, S. C. (1992). Introduction to Fisher (1925): Statistical methods for research workers. In Kotz, S. & Johnson, N. L. (Eds.), Breakthroughs in Statistics: Volume 2: Methodology and Distributions (pp. 59–65). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.Google Scholar

Simes, R. J. (1986). An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 73(3), 751–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, M. (2012) Common Misteaks Mistakes in Using Statistics: Spotting and Avoiding Them. Retrieved from www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/StatisticsMistakes.htmlGoogle Scholar

Van de Schoot, R., Kaplan, D., Denissen, J., Asendorpf, J. B., Neyer, F. J., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2014). A gentle introduction to Bayesian analysis: Applications to developmental research. Child Development, 85, 842–860.Google Scholar

Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.Google Scholar

Wood, K., Parsons, D., Gasson, J., & Haden, P. (2013). It’s never too early: Pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp.13–21). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Yarkoni, T. (2011). Solving the file drawer problem by making the internet the drawer. Retrieved from www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2009/11/26/solving-the-file-drawer-problem-by-making-the-internet-the-drawer/Google Scholar

Atkinson, P., & Hammerseley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Barker, L., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Jackson, M. (2002). Defensive climate in the computer science classroom. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 43–47). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Basso, K. H. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1983). Uncovering principles of novice programming. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ‘83) (pp. 10–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1985). Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. Human–Computer Interaction, 1, 133–161.Google Scholar

Booth, S. A. (1992). Learning to Program: A Phenomenographic Perspective (doctoral thesis). Acta Universitatis Gothobergensis.Google Scholar

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research, 3rd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The practice of reflexive sociology (the Paris Workshop). In Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (Eds.), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (pp. 216–260). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Boustedt, J. (2012). Students’ different understandings of class diagrams. Computer Science Education, 22(1), 29–62.Google Scholar

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp 1–25). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar

Budgeon, S. (2013). The dynamics of gender hegemony: Femininities, masculinities and social change. Sociology, 48(2), 317–334.Google Scholar

Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Sharif, B., Simon, , Begel, , Hansen, A., , M., … Antropova, M. (2014). Eye tracking in computing education. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cherrington, S., & Loveridge, J. (2014). Using video to promote early childhood teachers’ thinking and reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 42–51.Google Scholar

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.Google Scholar

Computer History Museum (n.d.). Oral History Collection. Retrieved from www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/Google Scholar

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 19(6), 418–427.Google Scholar

Drescher, J. (2007). From bisexuality to intersexuality: Rethinking gender categories. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 43(1), 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. London, UK: Springer-Verlag London Ltd.Google Scholar

Dziallas, S., & Fincher, S. (2016). Aspects of graduateness in computing students’ narratives. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘16) (pp. 181–190). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Eckerdal, A., & Thuné, M. (2005). Novice Java progammers’ conceptions of “object” and “class”, and variation theory. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 89–93.Google Scholar

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised edn.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2018). Introducing Discourse Analysis: From Grammar to Society. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.) (2007). Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.Google Scholar

Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. New York, NY: Penguin Press.Google Scholar

Harper, D. A. (1987). Working Knowledge: Skill and Community in a Small Shop. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Harper, D. A. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26.Google Scholar

Harreveld, B., Danaker, M., Lawson, C., Knight, B. A., & Busch, G. (Eds.) (2016). Constructing Methodology for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Heath, C. (2010). Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., … Tracer, D. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–855.Google Scholar

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.Google Scholar

Hitchens, M., & Lister, R. (2009). A focus group study of student attitudes to lectures. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE ‘09) (pp. 93–100). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jordan, B. (1993). Birth in Four Cultures: A Crosscultural Investigation of Childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden, and the United States, 4th edn. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Knobelsdorf, M. (2011). Biographische Lern- und Bildungsprozesse im Handlungskontext der Computernutzung (Biographical Learning and Educational Processes in the Context of Computer Experiences) (PhD thesis). Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. (2012). The importance of students’ attention to program state: A case study of debugging behavior. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘12) (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Liberman, N., Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Beeri, C. (2009). In-service teachers learning of a new paradigm: A case study. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER ‘09) (pp. 43–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Luria, A. L. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Madley, B. (2016). American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Marwick, A. E. (2010). Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity and Self-branding in Web 2.0 (PhD thesis). New York University.Google Scholar

McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(3), 267–277.Google Scholar

McDermott, R. P. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (pp. 60–70). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3/4), 245–275.Google Scholar

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, W. J. T. (Ed.) (1980). On Narrative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.Google Scholar

Murphy, K. M., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33, 530–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd edn. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

Pew Research Center (2014). One-in-four Native Americans and Alaska Natives are living in poverty. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/13/1-in-4-native-americans-and-alaska-natives-are-living-in-poverty/Google Scholar

Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography, 3rd edn. London, UK: SAGE.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Ritchie, D. A. (2015). Doing Oral History, 3rd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Roth, W.-M. (2013). What More in/for Science Education: An Ethnomethodological Perspective. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar

Samuels, G. M., & Ross-Sheriff, F. (2008). Identity, oppression, and power. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 23(1), 5–9.Google Scholar

Scanniello, G., Romano, S., Fucci, D., Turhan, B., & Juristo, N. (2016). Students’ and professionals’ perceptions of test-driven development: A focus group study. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 1422–1427). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Schulte, C., & Knobelsdorf, M. (2007). Attitudes towards computer science–computing experiences as a starting point and barrier to computer science. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘07) (pp. 27–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Schutz, A. (1967). Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Scott, R. A. (1969). The Making of Blind Men: A Study of Adult Socialization. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys’ needlework: Understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘15) (pp. 31–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shinohara, K., & Tenenberg, J. (2009). A blind person’s interactions with technology. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 58–66.Google Scholar

Socha, D., Adams, R., Franznick, K., Roth, W.-M., Sullivan, K., Tenenberg, J., & Walter, S. (2016). Wide-field ethnography: Studying software engineering in 2025 and beyond. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE ‘16) (pp. 797–802). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Socha, D., & Tenenberg, J. (2013). Sketching software in the wild. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013) (pp. 1237–1240). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

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

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Stannard, D. E. (1992). American Holocaust. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stonich, S. (2002). Knowledge and questions after 15 years of research. In Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., & Weber, E. U. (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons (pp. 445–489). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237.Google Scholar

Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tenenberg, J., Fincher, S., Blaha, K., Bouvier, D. J., Chen, T.-Y., Chinn, D., … VanDeGrift, T. (2005). Students designing software: A multi-national, multi-institutional study. Informatics in Education, 4(1), 143–162.Google Scholar

Tenenberg, J., Roth, W.-M., Chinn, D., Jornet, A., Socha, D., & Walter, S. (2018). More than the code: Learning rules of rejection in writing programs. Communications of the ACM, 61(5), 66–71.Google Scholar

Toombs, A. L., Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2015). The proper care and feeding of hackerspaces: Care ethics and cultures of making. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘15) (pp. 629–638). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

United States Census Bureau (2016). Facts for Features: American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2016. Retrieved from www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2016/cb16-ff22.htmlGoogle Scholar

United States Department of Agriculture (n.d.). National School Lunch Program. Retrieved from www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/NSLPFactSheet.pdfGoogle Scholar

US Department of the Interior Indian Affairs (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questionsGoogle Scholar

Vygotsky, L., edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York, NY: Project for Public Spaces.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L., edited by Hacker, P., & Schulte, J. (2009). Philosophical Investigations, 4th edition. (translated by Anscombe G., Hacker P., & Schulte J.) Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.Google Scholar

Almstrum, V. L., Hazzan, O., Guzdial, M., & Petre, M. (2005). Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355.Google Scholar

Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 151–170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Ben-Ari, M. (2008). Fertile zones of cultural encounter in computer science education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 1–32.Google Scholar

Bender, E., & Gray, D. (1999). The scholarship of teaching. Research and Creative Activity, 12(1). Retrieved from www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v22n1/p03.htmlGoogle Scholar

Blackwell, A. F. (2002). First steps in programming: A rationale for attention investment models. In Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (pp. 2–10). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.Google Scholar

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141–178.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. In Anglin, J. M. (Ed.), Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing (pp. 143–175). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In New directions in Educational Technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar

Collins, A., & Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive apprenticeship. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 109–127). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Teaching computer science in context. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 5–8.Google Scholar

Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.Google Scholar

Deitrick, E., O’Connell, B., & Shapiro, R. B. (2014). The discourse of creative problem solving in childhood engineering education. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 591–598). Boulder, CO: ISLS.Google Scholar

Deitrick, E., Shapiro, R. B., Ahrens, M. P., Fiebrink, R., Lehrman, P. D., & Farooq, S. (2015). Using distributed cognition theory to analyze collaborative computer science learning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 51–60). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Deitrick, E., Shapiro, R. B., & Gravel, B. (2016). How do we assess equity in programming pairs? Singapore. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 370–7). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar

DiSessa, A. A. (1991). Local sciences: Viewing the design of human–computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing Interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 162–202). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B. J., & Bruckman, A. (2009). Questioning video games’ influence on CS interest. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 272–278). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B., & Bruckman, A. (2010). Race and gender in play practices: Young African American males. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 56–63). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B. J., Crowley, K., & Norwood, R. (2008). Learning in context: Digital games and young black men. Games and Culture, 3(2), 131–141.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B., Guzdial, M., Meadows, C., Perry, K., McKlin, T., & Bruckman, A. (2013). Workifying games: Successfully engaging African American gamers with computer science. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 317–322). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

DiSalvo, B., Yardi, S., Guzdial, M., McKlin, T., Meadows, C., Perry, K., & Bruckman, A. (2011). African American men constructing computing identity. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2967–2970). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence, J. T. (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar

Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172.Google Scholar

Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–21.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Esmonde, I. (2017). Power and sociocultural theories of learning. In Esmonde, I. & Booker, A. (Eds.), Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories of Learning (p. 6). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 128–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 104–108.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2010). Does contextualized computing education help? ACM Inroads, 1(4), 4–6.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M., & Tew, A. E. (2006). Imagineering inauthentic legitimate peripheral participation: An instructional design approach for motivating computing education. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hermes, M., Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2012). Designing Indigenous language revitalization. Harvard Educational Review, 82(3), 381–402.Google Scholar

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar

Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.Google Scholar

Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.Google Scholar

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in Play. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14, 1.Google Scholar

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022.Google Scholar

Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 23–31.Google Scholar

Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.Google Scholar

Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling Alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1455–1464). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kelly, A., Finch, L., Bolles, M., & Shapiro, R.B. (2018). BlockyTalky: New programmable tools to enable students learning networks. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 8–18.Google Scholar

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar

Kolodner, J. L. (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, and future. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 44(3), 37–42.Google Scholar

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

Lishinski, A., Good, J., Sands, P., & Yadav, A. (2016). Methodological rigor and theoretical foundations of CS education research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 161–169). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Bednarik, R., Helminen, J., Kinnunen, P., Korhonen, A., … 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

Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004). Scratch: A sneak preview [education]. In Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing. (pp. 104–109). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar

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

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

Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Margulieux, L., Morrison, B. B., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Training learners to self-explain: Designing instructions and examples to improve problem solving. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 98–105). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar

Morrison, B. B., Decker, A., & Margulieux, L. E. (2016). Learning loops: A replication study illuminates impact of HS courses. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 221–330). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 21–29). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Nathan, M. J., Rummel, N., & Hay, K. E. (2016). Growing the learning sciences: Brand or big tent? Implications for graduate education. In Evans, M. A., Packer, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (Eds.), Reflections on the Learning Sciences (pp. 191–209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In Sawyer, R. Keith (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 21–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. In Proceeding of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 705–712). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar

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

Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–299.Google Scholar

Porter, L., Guzdial, M., McDowell, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Success in introductory programming: What works? Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 34–36.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1990). LEGO/LOGO – Learning through and about Design. Cambridge, MA: Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory.Google Scholar

Robins, A. (2015). The ongoing challenges of computer science education research. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 115–119.Google Scholar

Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.) (2009). Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning science. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.Google Scholar

Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys’ needlework: Understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 31–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shapiro, R. B., Kelly, A., Ahrens, M., Johnson, B., Politi, H., & Fiebrink, R. (2017) Tangible distributed computer music for youth. The Computer Music Journal, 41(2), 52–68.Google Scholar

Sommerhoff, D., Szameitat, A., Vogel, F., Chernikova, O., Loderer, K., & Fischer, F. (2018). What do we teach when we teach the learning sciences? A document analysis of 75 graduate programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(2), 319–351.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121.Google Scholar

Tan, E., Kang, H. O’Neill, T., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate between their narrated and embodied identities in considering a STEM trajectory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179.Google Scholar

Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

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

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.Google Scholar

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.Google Scholar

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In Wentzel, K. & Miele, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 55–75). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar

Yoon, S. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 167–183.Google Scholar

ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013. New York: ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar

Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular systems and dysphasia. In Newman, S. K. & Epstein, R. J. (Eds.), Current Perspectives in Dysphasia (pp. 32–60). London, UK: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar

Almstrum, V. L., Hazzan, O., Guzdial, M., & Petre, M. (2005). Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘05) (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, Memory, and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.Google Scholar

Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & Van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 425–438.Google Scholar

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ayres, P.L. (2001). Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 227–248.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(4), 302–309.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of Human Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2015). Memory, 2nd edn. London and New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Baldwin, L. P., & Macredie, R. D. (1999). Beginners and programming: Insights from second language learning and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 4(2), 167–179.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.Google Scholar

Banerjee, A. V., Bhattacharjee, S., Chattopadhyay, R., & Alejandro, J. G. (2017). The Untapped Math Skills of Working Children in India: Evidence, Possible Explanations, and Implications. Retrieved from www.alejandroganimian.com/s/Banerjee-et-al-2017-2017-08-17.pdfGoogle Scholar

Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.Google Scholar

Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 245–250). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 522–533.Google Scholar

Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153–166.Google Scholar

Bereiter, C. (1985). Toward a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55, 201–226.Google Scholar

Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 151–163.Google Scholar

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar

Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1989). Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 324–353). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bouton, M. E. (2016). Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis, 2nd edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar

Brachman, R. J. & Levesque, H. J. (Eds.) (1985). Readings in Knowledge Representation. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar

Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.Google Scholar

Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119.Google Scholar

Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Sharif, B., Begel, A., Hansen, M., Bednarik, R., Orlov, P., Ihantola, P., Shchekotova, G., & Antropova, M. (2014). Eye tracking in computing education. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cao, L. (2010). In-depth behavior understanding and use: The behavior informatics approach. Information Sciences, 180(17), 3067–3085.Google Scholar

Cao, L., & Philip, S. Y. (Eds.) (2012). Behavior Computing: Modeling, Analysis, Mining and Decision. London, UK: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–29.Google Scholar

Caspersen, M. E., & Bennedsen, J. (2007). Instructional design of a programming course: a learning theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–122). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V., & Miller, S (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8, 293–332.Google Scholar

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 371–399). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Intelligence: A Brief History. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.Google Scholar

Cooper, J. O. (1982). Applied behavior analysis in education. Theory into Practice, 21(2), 114–118.Google Scholar

Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.Google Scholar

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.Google Scholar

Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51–57.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. (2010) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 3rd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153–176.Google Scholar

Deco, G., & Rolls, E. T. (2005). Attention, short-term memory, and action selection: A unifying theory. Progress in Neurobiology, 76, 236–256.Google Scholar

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 113–124). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

de Winstanley, P. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Generation effects and the lack thereof: The role of transfer-appropriate processing. Memory, 4, 31–48.Google Scholar

Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795–805.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.Google Scholar

Eiriksdottir, E., & Catrambone, R. (2011). Procedural instructions, principles, and examples: how to structure instructions for procedural tasks to enhance performance, learning, and transfer. Human Factors, 53(6), 749–770.Google Scholar

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.Google Scholar

Enderton, H. B. (2001). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd edn. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Engel, A. K., Fries, P., & Singer, W. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 704–716.Google Scholar

Eriksen, C. W., & James, J. D. S. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(4), 225–240.Google Scholar

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.Google Scholar

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

Feldon, D. F. (2007). The implications of research on expertise for curriculum and pedagogy. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 91–110.Google Scholar

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

Ferguson, R. W. (1994). MAGI: Analogy-based encoding using regularity and symmetry. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 283–288). London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Ferman, S., & Karni, A. (2012). Procedural and declarative memory in the acquisition of morphological knowledge: A model for second language acquisition in adults. In Leikin, M., Schwartz, M., & Tobin, Y. (Eds.), Current Issues in Bilingualism. Literacy Studies (Perspectives from Cognitive Neurosciences, Linguistics, Psychology and Education), Vol. 5 (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–77.Google Scholar

Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–531.Google Scholar

Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 998–1005.Google Scholar

Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget’s legacy. Psychological Science, 7(4), 200–203.Google Scholar

Foer, J. (2012). Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar

Fougnie, D. (2008). The relationship between attention and working memory. In Johansen, N. B. (Ed.), New Research on Short-Term Memory (pp. 1–45). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Garner, S. (2002). Reducing the cognitive load on novice programmers. In Barker, P. & Rebelsky, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002 – World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 578–583). Denver, CO: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. (2002). Mental models, psychology of. In Smelser, N. & Bates, P. B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 9683–9687). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.Google Scholar

Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.) (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.Google Scholar

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.Google Scholar

Gilbert, C. D., & Sigman, M. (2007). Brain states: Top-down influences in sensory processing. Neuron, 54(5), 677–696.Google Scholar

Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J., & Santa, J. L. (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Goldstein, E. B., & Brockmole, J. (2016). Sensation and Perception, 10th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Gray, S., St Clair, C., James, R., & Mead, J. (2007). Suggestions for graduated exposure to programming concepts using fading worked examples. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 99–110). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Gregory, R. (1997). Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, 5th edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165.Google Scholar

Hampton, J. A. (2016). Categories, prototypes and exemplars. In Riemer, N. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (pp. 125–141). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hansen, L., Umeda, Y., & McKinney, M. (2002). Savings in the relearning of second language vocabulary: The effects of time and proficiency. Language Learning, 52(4), 653–678.Google Scholar

Hansen, M. E., Lumsdaine, A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). An experiment on the cognitive complexity of code. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from www.indiana.edu/~pcl/papers/hansencode2013.pdfGoogle Scholar

Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-Analyses on Achievement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (2014). Problem-solving strategies. In Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (Eds.), Guide to Teaching Computer Science (pp. 75–93). London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Hinton, G. E., & Anderson, J. A. (1989). Parallel Models of Associative Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.) (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 649–667.Google Scholar

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.Google Scholar

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

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

Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.Google Scholar

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Kátai, Z., Juhász, K., & Adorjáni, A. K. (2008). On the role of senses in education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1707–1717.Google Scholar

Killian, S. (2016). Hattie Effect Size 2016 Update. Retrieved from www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/hattie-effect-size-2016-update/. Reproduced in Lubelfeld, M., Polyak, N., & Caposey, P. J. (2018). Student Voice: From Invisible to Invaluable (p. 3). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar

Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404.Google Scholar

Klaus-Dieter, G. (2018). Eye Movements in Programming Education Workshops. Retrieved from www.mi.fu-berlin.de/en/inf/groups/ag-ddi/Gaze_Workshop/index.htmlGoogle Scholar

Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V., & Repenning, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 59–66). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.Google Scholar

Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C. H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 417–446.Google Scholar

Laird, J. E., & Rosenbloom, P. (1996). The evolution of the Soar cognitive architecture. In Steier, D. M. & Mitchell, T. M. (Eds.), Mind Matters: A tribute to Allen Newell (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.Google Scholar

Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1058–1072.Google Scholar

Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.Google Scholar

Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology, 2nd edn. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Mandelbaum, E. (2017). Associationist Theories of Thought. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), E. N. Zalta, ed. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/associationist-thought/Google Scholar

Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar

Marr, D., & Poggio, T. (1976). From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural Circuitry. A.I. Memo 357. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in Problem Solving. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mason, R., & Cooper, G. (2012). Why the bottom 10% just can’t do it: Mental effort measures and implication for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Vol. 123 (pp. 187–196). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Mason, R., Cooper, G., & de Raadt, M. (2012). Trends in introductory programming courses in Australian universities: languages, environments and pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Vol. 123 (pp. 33–42). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Mathan, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2003). Recasting the feedback debate: Benefits of tutoring error detection and correction skills. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 13–20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Mather, G. (2016). Foundations of Sensation and Perception, 3rd edn. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

McClamrock, R. (1991). Marr’s three levels: A re-evaluation. Minds and Machines, 1(2), 185–196.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. (1970). The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Developmental Psycholinguistics. New York & London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.) (2014). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning. Madden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(3), 333–352.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar

Minda, J. P., & Smith, J. D. (2002). Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 275–292.Google Scholar

Morris, M. R., Begel, A., & Wiedermann, B. (2015). Understanding the challenges faced by neurodiverse software engineering employees: Towards a more inclusive and productive technical workforce. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (pp. 173–184). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Morrison, B. B., Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2014). Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 131–138). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 21–29). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., Ericson, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Subgoals help students solve Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 42–47). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28.Google Scholar

Norman, D. A. (Ed.) (1970). Models of Human Memory. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Novick, L. R., & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 321–349). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.Google Scholar

Paas, F. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.Google Scholar

Pandža, N. B. (2016) Computer programming as a second language. In Nicholson, D. (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 501 (pp. 439–445). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

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

Pashler, H. (Ed.) (2016). Attention. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the Cognitive Prerequisites of Learning Computer Programming. Technical Report No. 18. New York: Bank Street College of Education.Google Scholar

Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1971a). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In Green, D. R., Ford, M. P., & Flamer, G. B. (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1971b). Developmental stages and developmental processes. In Green, D. R., Ford, M. P., & Flamer, G. B. (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 172–188). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 235–275.Google Scholar

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

Pohl, R. (Ed.) (2004). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160–174.Google Scholar

Powell, S. R. (2011). Solving word problems using schemas: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 94–108.Google Scholar