Allen, E., Cartwright, R., & Stoler, B. (2002). DrJava: A lightweight pedagogic environment for Java. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), 137–141.Google Scholar

Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83–102.Google Scholar

Ala-Mutka, K., & Jarvinen, H. M. (2004). Assessment process for programming assignments. In Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004 (pp. 181–185). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Aleven, V., Myers, E., Easterday, M., & Ogan, A. (2010). Toward a framework for the analysis and design of educational games. In Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL) (pp. 69–76). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Ali, N. H., Shukur, Z., & Idris, S. (2007). Assessment system for UML class diagram using notations extraction. International Journal on Computer Science Network Security, 7, 181–187.Google Scholar

Alvarado, C., Morrison, B., Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., Miller, B., & Ranum, D. (2012). Performance and use evaluation of an electronic book for introductory Python programming. Computer Science Faculty Publications. 62. University of Nebraska at Omaha. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/compscifacpub/62Google Scholar

Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). Increasing students’ awareness of their behavior in online learning environments with visualizations and achievement badges. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(3), 261–273.Google Scholar

Baecker, R. M., & Sherman, D. (1983). Sorting Out Sorting: Narrated colour videotape, 30 minutes, presented at ACM SIGGRAPH ‘81 and excerpted in ACM SIGGRAPH Video Review #7.Google Scholar

Benford, S., Burke, E., Foxley, E., Gutteridge, N., & Zin, A. M. (1994). Ceilidh as a course management support system. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Ari, M., Bednarik, R., Levy, R. B. B., Ebel, G., Moreno, A., Myller, N., & Sutinen, E. (2011). A decade of research and development on program animation: The Jeliot experience. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 22(5), 375–384.Google Scholar

Brown, M. H., & Sedgewick, R. (1984). A system for algorithm animation. SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 18(3), 177–186.Google Scholar

Bruce, K. B., Danyluk, A., & Murtagh, T. (2001). A library to support a graphics-based object-first approach to CS 1. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 6–10.Google Scholar

Brusilovsky, P., Edwards, S., Kumar, A., Malmi, L., Benotti, L., Buck, D., Ihantola, P., Prince, R., Sirkiä, T., Sosnovsky, , , S., & Urquiza, J. (2014). Increasing adoption of smart learning content for computer science education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (pp. 31–57). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Cardell-Oliver, R., & Doran Wu, P. (2011). UWA Java tools: Harnessing software metrics to support novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 341–341). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Charters, P., Lee, M. J., Ko, A. J., & Loksa, D. (2014). Challenging stereotypes and changing attitudes: the effect of a brief programming encounter on adults’ attitudes toward programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 653–658). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connolly, T. M., & Stansfield, M. H. (2006). Enhancing eLearning: Using computer games to teach requirements collection and analysis. Presented at Second Symposium of the Working Group on Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 15(5), 107–116.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003). Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 191–195.Google Scholar

Crescenzi, P. (2010). AlViE 3.0. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/alviehomepage/alvie3Google Scholar

Davies, S., Polack-Wahl, J. A., & Anewalt, K. (2011). A snapshot of current practices in teaching the introductory programming sequence. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 625–630). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dekeyser, S., de Raadt, M., & Lee, T. Y. (2007). Computer assisted assessment of SQL query skills. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Australasian Database – Volume 63 (pp. 53–62). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Diehl, S. (2007). Software Visualization: Visualizing the Structure, Behaviour, and Evolution of Software. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Douce, C., Livingstone, D., & Orwell, J. (2005). Automatic test-based assessment of programming: A review. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 5(3), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Eckerdal, A., Kinnunen, P., Thota, N., Nylén, A., Sheard, , , J., & Malmi, L. (2014). Teaching and learning with MOOCs: Computing academics’ perspectives and engagement. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 9–14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Edwards, S. H. (2003). Rethinking computer science education from a test-first perspective. In Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (pp. 148–155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Edwards, S. H., Kandru, N., & Rajagopal, M. (2017). Investigating static analysis errors in student Java programs. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 65–73). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eisenstadt, M. (1997). My hairiest bug war stories. Communications of the ACM, 40(4), 30–37.Google Scholar

Ericson, B. J., Guzdial, M. J., & Morrison, B. B. (2015). Analysis of interactive features designed to enhance learning in an ebook. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 169–178). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericson, B. J., Rogers, K., Parker, M., Morrison, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Identifying design principles for CS teacher ebooks through design-based research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 191–200). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (1998). The DrScheme project: An overview. ACM Sigplan Notices, 33(6), 17–23.Google Scholar

Findler, R. B., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., & Felleisen, M. (1997). DrScheme: A pedagogic programming environment for Scheme. In International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (pp. 369–388). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Findler, R. B., Clements, J., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Steckler, P., & Felleisen, M. (2002). DrScheme: A programming environment for Scheme. Journal of Functional Programming, 12(2), 159–182.Google Scholar

Fisker, K., McCall, D., Kölling, M., & Quig, B. (2008). Group work support for the BlueJ IDE. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 163–168.Google Scholar

Fouh, E., Karavirta, V., Breakiron, D. A., Hamouda, S., Hall, S., Naps, T. L., & Shaffer, C. A. (2014). Design and architecture of an interactive eTextbook – The OpenDSA system. Science of Computer Programming, 88, 22–40.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (2014). What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Gómez-Albarrán, M. (2005). The teaching and learning of programming: A survey of supporting software tools. The Computer Journal, 48(2), 130–144.Google Scholar

Guo, P. J. (2013). Online Python tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for CS education. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 579–584). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haaranen, L. (2017). Programming as a performance: Live-streaming and its implications for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 353–358). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haaranen, L., & Duran, R. (2017). Link between gaming communities in YouTube and computer science. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 17–24). Setúbal, Portugal: ScitePress.Google Scholar

Helminen, J., Ihantola, P., Karavirta, V., & Malmi, L. (2012). How do students solve parsons programming problems?: An analysis of interaction traces. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 119–126). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Higgins, C., Symeonidis, P., & Tsintsifas, A. (2002). The marking system for CourseMaster. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(3), 46–50.Google Scholar

Hollingsworth, J. (1960). Automatic graders for programming classes. Communications of the ACM, 3(10), 528–529.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar

Ibrahim, R., Yusoff, R. C. M., Omar, H. M., & Jaafar, A. (2010). Students perceptions of using educational games to learn introductory programming. Computer and Information Science, 4(1), 205.Google Scholar

Ihantola, P., Ahoniemi, T., Karavirta, V., & Seppälä, O. (2010). Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 86–93). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jackson, D., & Usher, M. (1997). Grading student programs using ASSYST. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 29(1), 335–339.Google Scholar

Joy, M., Griffiths, N., & Boyatt, R. (2005). The BOSS online submission and assessment system. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 5(3), 2.Google Scholar

Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., & Malmi, L. (2006). On the use of resubmissions in automatic assessment systems. Computer Science Education, 16(3), 229–240.Google Scholar

Karavirta, V., & Shaffer, C. A. (2013). JSAV: The JavaScript algorithm visualization library. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 159–164). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kemeny, J. G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1964). BASIC: A Manual for BASIC, the Elementary Algebraic Language Designed for Use with the Dartmouth Time Sharing System, 1st edn. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Computation Center.Google Scholar

Kim, A. S., & Ko, A. J. (2017). A pedagogical analysis of online coding tutorials. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 321–326). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ko, A. J., Latoza, T. D., & Burnett, M. M. (2015). A practical guide to controlled experiments of software engineering tools with human participants. Empirical Software Engineering, 20(1), 110–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kölling, M., Quig, , Patterson, B., , A., & Rosenberg, J. (2003). The BlueJ system and its pedagogy. Computer Science Education, 13(4), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lancaster, T., & Culwin, F. (2004). A comparison of source code plagiarism detection engines. Computer Science Education, 14(2), 101–112.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. (2014). Principles of a debugging-first puzzle game for computing education. In 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 57–64). New York: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2015). Comparing the effectiveness of online learning approaches on CS1 learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 237–246). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Malmi, L., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., Nikander, J., Seppälä, O., & Silvasti, P. (2004). Visual algorithm simulation exercise system with automatic assessment: TRAKLA2. Informatics in Education, 3(2), 267.Google Scholar

Malmi, L., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., & Nikander, J. (2005). Experiences on automatically assessed algorithm simulation exercises with different resubmission policies. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 5(3), 7.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 – Volume 123 (pp. 33–42). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

McIver, L. (2002). Evaluating languages and environments for novice programmers. In Fourteenth Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG 2002) (pp. 100–110). London, UK: Brunel University.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264.Google Scholar

Miller, B. N., & Ranum, D. L. (2012). Beyond PDF and ePub: Toward an interactive textbook. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 150–155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Miljanovic, M. A., & Bradbury, J. S. (2017). RoboBUG: A serious game for learning debugging techniques. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 93–100). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Mitrovic, A., Martin, B., & Mayo, M. (2002). Using evaluation to shape ITS design: Results and experiences with SQL-Tutor. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(2), 243–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myller, N., Bednarik, R., Sutinen, E., & Ben-Ari, M. (2009). Extending the engagement taxonomy: Software visualization and collaborative learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(1), 7.Google Scholar

Naps, T. L., Eagan, J. R., & Norton, L. L. (2000). JHAVÉ – An environment to actively engage students in web-based algorithm visualizations. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 109–113.Google Scholar

Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, , Dann, V., Fleischer, W., Hundhausen, R., Korhonen, C., Malmi, A., McNally, L., Rodger, M., S., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2002). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 35(2), 131–152.Google Scholar

Nelson, G. L., Xie, B., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Comprehension first: Evaluating a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 2–11). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parker, M. C., Rogers, K., Ericson, B. J., & Guzdial, M. (2017). Students and teachers use an online AP CS principles ebook differently: Teacher behavior consistent with expert learners. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 101–109). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, , Eastmond, N., Brennan, E., Millner, K., Rosenbaum, A., Silver, E., Silverman, J., , B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.Google Scholar

Redish, K. A., & Smyth, W. F. (1986). Program style analysis: A natural by-product of program compilation. Communications of the ACM, 29(2), 126–133.Google Scholar

Robinett, W., & Grimm, L. (1982). Rocky’s Boots/Robot Odyssey. San Francisco, CA: The Learning Company.Google Scholar

Rodger, S. H. (2002). Using hands-on visualizations to teach computer science from beginning courses to advanced courses. Presented at Second Program Visualization Workshop. Retrieved from www2.cs.duke.edu/csed/rodger/papers/pviswk02.pdfGoogle Scholar

Rodger, S. H., & Finley, T. W. (2006). JFLAP: An Interactive Formal Languages and Automata Package. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar

Rosales, F., García, A., Rodríguez, S., Pedraza, J. L., Méndez, R., & Nieto, M. M. (2008). Detection of plagiarism in programming assignments. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(2), 174–183.Google Scholar

Rößling, G., & Vellaramkalayil, T. (2009). A visualization-based computer science hypertextbook prototype. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(2), 11.Google Scholar

Rößling, G., & Freisleben, B. (2002). ANIMAL: A system for supporting multiple roles in algorithm animation. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 13(3), 341–354.Google Scholar

Roque, R., Kafai, Y., & Fields, D. (2012). From tools to communities: Designs to support online creative collaboration in Scratch. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 220–223). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Saikkonen, R., Malmi, L., & Korhonen, A. (2001). Fully automatic assessment of programming exercises. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 133–136.Google Scholar

Shaffer, C. A., Cooper, M. L., Alon, A. J. D., Akbar, M., Stewart, M., Ponce, S., & Edwards, S. H. (2010). Algorithm visualization: The state of the field. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(3), 9.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Eckerdal, A., Kinnunen, P., Malmi, L., Nylén, A., & Thota, N. (2014). MOOCs and their impact on academics. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 137–145). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sheard, J., Simon, S., Hamilton, M., & Lönnberg, J. (2009). Analysis of research into the teaching and learning of programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 93–104). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shukur, Z., Burke, E., & Foxley, E. (1999). The automatic assessment of formal specification coursework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 86–119.Google Scholar

Simon, A. (2007). classification of recent Australasian computing education publications. Computer Science Education, 17(3), 155–169.Google Scholar

Simon, S. (2009). Informatics in education and Koli Calling: A comparative analysis. Informatics in Education, 8(1), 101.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T. (2016). Jsvee & Kelmu: Creating and tailoring program animations for computing education. In 2016 IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT) (pp. 36–45). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Sirkiä, T., & Haaranen, L. (2017). Improving online learning activity interoperability with ACOS server. Software: Practice and Experience, 47(11), 1657–1676.Google Scholar

Soflano, M., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2015). An application of adaptive games-based learning based on learning style to teach SQL. Computers & Education, 86, 192–211.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

Sorva, J., Karavirta, V., & Malmi, L. (2013). A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(4), 15.Google Scholar

Spacco, J., Hovemeyer, D., Pugh, W., Emad, F., Hollingsworth, J. K., & Padua-Perez, N. (2006). Experiences with Marmoset: Designing and using an advanced submission and testing system for programming courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 13–17.Google Scholar

Stasko, J. T. (1990). Tango: A framework and system for algorithm animation. Computer, 23(9), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stasko, J. (Ed.) (1998). Software Visualization: Programming as a Multimedia Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Thorburn, G., & Rowe, G. (1997). PASS: An automated system for program assessment. Computers & Education, 29(4), 195–206.Google Scholar

Tillmann, N., Bishop, J., Horspool, N., Perelman, D., & Xie, T. (2014). Code hunt: Searching for secret code for fun. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Search-Based Software Testing (pp. 23–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Uysal, M. P. (2016). Evaluation of learning environments for object-oriented programming: Measuring cognitive load with a novel measurement technique. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1590–1609.Google Scholar

Valentine, D. W. (2004). CS educational research: A meta-analysis of SIGCSE technical symposium proceedings. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 255–259.Google Scholar

Wirth, N. (1973). The Programming Language Pascal (Revised Report). ETH Zürich. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-000814158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wolz, U., & Koffman, E. (1999). simpleIO: A Java package for novice interactive and graphics programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 31(3), 139–142.Google Scholar

Yan, A., Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Predicting abandonment in online coding tutorials. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centered Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 191–199). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Albo-Canals, J., Barco, A., Relkin, E., Hannon, D., Heerink, M., Heinemann, M., Leidl, K., & Bers, M. (2018). The use case of KIBO robot to positively impact social and emotional development in children with ASD. International Journal of Social Robots, 10, 371–383.Google Scholar

American Academy of Pediatrics (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591.Google Scholar

Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing Digital Experiences for Positive Youth Development: From Playpen to Playground. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2018a). Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2018b). Coding, playgrounds and literacy in early childhood education: The development of KIBO robotics and ScratchJr. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2094–2102). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood. In Berson, I. R. & Berson, M. J. (Eds.), HighTech Tots: Childhood in a Digital World (pp. 49–70). Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar

Blackwell, A. F., & Hague, R. (2001). AutoHAN: An architecture for programming the home. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposia on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments, 2001 (pp. 150–157). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Blackwell, A., McLean, A., Noble, J., & Rohrhuber, J. (2014). Collaboration and learning through live coding (Dagstuhl Seminar 13382). In Dagstuhl Reports (Vol. 3, No. 9). Wadern, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P. (2013). Gears of our childhood: Constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 173–182). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Erwin, B., Cyr, M., & Rogers, C. (2000). Lego engineer and robolab: Teaching engineering with labview from kindergarten to graduate school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 16(3), 181–192.Google Scholar

Fernaeus, Y., & Tholander, J. (2006). Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 447–456). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). Curlybot: Designing a new class of computational toys. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129–136). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Horn, M. S., AlSulaiman, S., & Koh, J. (2013). Translating Roberto to Omar: Computational literacy, stickerbooks, and cultural forms. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 120–127). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.Google Scholar

Horn, M. S., & Jacob, R. J. (2007). Designing tangible programming languages for classroom use. In Proceedings of Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 159–162). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 437–446). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hu, F., Zekelman, A., Horn, M., & Judd, F. (2015). Strawbies: Explorations in tangible programming. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 410–413). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hurtienne, J., & Israel, J. H. (2007). Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 234–241). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboy, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities. In Proceedings of the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 241–246). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371–391.Google Scholar

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Macaranas, A., Antle, A. N., & Riecke, B. E. (2012). Bridging the gap: Attribute and spatial metaphors for tangible interface design. In Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (pp. 161–168). New York: ACM 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

Mellis, D., Banzi, M., Cuartielles, D., & Igoe, T. (2007). Arduino: An open electronic prototyping platform. In Proceedings SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Extended Abstracts). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.Google Scholar

Myers, B. A., Ko, A. J., & Burnett, M. M. (2006). Invited research overview: end-user programming. In Proceedings SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Extended Abstracts). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

O’Malley, C., & Fraser, D. S. (2004). Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies. A NESTA Futurelab Research report – Report 12. Bristol, UK: FutureLab.Google Scholar

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

Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017) The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 172–193.Google Scholar

Pattis, R. E. (1981). Karel the Robot: A Gentle Introduction to the Art of Programming. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Raffle, H. S., Parkes, A. J., & Ishii, H. (2004). Topobo: A constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 647–654). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets: A tool for building domain-oriented visual programming environments. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 142–143). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, , Eastmond, N., Brennan, E., , K., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 281–287). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, M., Ocko, S., & Papert, S. (1988). LEGO, Logo, and design. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(4), 14–18.Google Scholar

Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69.Google Scholar

Schweikardt, E., & Gross, M. D. (2006). roBlocks: A robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In Proceedings of Multimodal Interfaces (pp. 72–75). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Searle, K. A., Fields, D. A., Lui, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2014). Diversifying high school students’ views about computing with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of International Computing Education Research (pp. 75–82). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: Past, present, and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, 3(1–2), 1–137.Google Scholar

Sherman, L., Druin, A., Montemayor, J., Farber, A., Platner, M., Simms, S., …, Kruskal, A. (2001). StoryKit: Tools for children to build room-sized interactive experiences. In SIGCHI Conferene on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 197–198). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Smith, A. C. (2007). Using magnets in physical blocks that behave as programming objects. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 147–150). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Smith, A. C., & Kotzé, P. (2010). Indigenous African artefacts: Can they serve as tangible programming objects? In IST-Africa, 2010 (pp. 1–11). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing children’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319.Google Scholar

Strawhacker, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the sum of its parts? In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (pp. 309–312). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Computational thinking and young children: Understanding the potential of tangible and graphical interfaces. In Ozcinar, H., Wong, G., & Ozturk, T. (Eds.), Teaching Computational Thinking in Primary Education (pp. 123–137). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325–346.Google Scholar

Sullivan, A. A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, playing, and coding with KIBO: Using robotics to foster computational thinking in young children. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (pp. 110–115). Ting Kok, Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (1995). Interaction-level support for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock – An open programming language. In The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 349–355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Thieme, A., Morrison, C., Villar, N., Grayson, M., & Lindley, S. (2017). Enabling collaboration in learning computer programing inclusive of children with vision impairments. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 739–752). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 37–54.Google Scholar

Weiser, M., Gold, R., & Brown, J. S. (1999). The origins of ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4), 693–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550.Google Scholar

Xambó, A., Drozda, , Weisling, B., Magerko, A., Huet, B., Gasque, M., , T., & Freeman, J. (2017). Experience and ownership with a tangible computational music installation for informal learning. In Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 351–360), New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., & Resnick, M. (2005). Extending tangible interfaces for education: Digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 859–868). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Zweben, S., & Bizot, B. (2016). Taulbee survey. Computing Research News, 29(5), 3–51.Google Scholar

Ahadi, A., Lister, R., Haapala, H., & Vihavainen, A. (2015). Exploring machine learning methods to automatically identify students in need of assistance. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 121–130). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ahonen, L., Cowley, B., Torniainen, J., Ukkonen, A., Vihavainen, A., & Puolamaki, K. (2016). S1: Analysis of Electrodermal Activity Recordings in Pair Programming from 2 Dyads, PLoS One. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?unique&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0159178.s001Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., Conrad, F. G., & Corbett, A. T. (1989). Skill acquisition and the LISP tutor. Cognitive Science, 13(1), 467–506.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., & Skwarecki, E. (1986). The automated tutoring of introductory computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 842–849.Google Scholar

Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self efficacy for Java programming among engineering students. Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), 26–32.Google Scholar

Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). Increasing students’ awareness of their behavior in online learning environments with visualizations and achievement badges. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(3), 261–273.Google Scholar

Baker, R. S. J., & Siemens, G. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 253–274). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Banovic, N., Buzali, T., Chevalier, F., Mankoff, J., & Dey, A. K. (2016). Modeling and understanding human routine behavior. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 248–260). New York: ACM.Google 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(1), 567–596.Google Scholar

Bednarik, R., & Tukiainen, M. (2004). Visual attention tracking during program debugging. In Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction (pp. 331–334). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Begel, A. (2016). Fun with software developers and biometrics: Invited talk. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emotion Awareness in Software Engineering (pp. 1–2). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Braught, G., & Midkiff, J. (2016). Tool design and student testing behavior in an introductory Java course. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 449–454). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bosch, N., & D’Mello, S. K. (2013). Sequential patterns of affective states of novice programmers. Presented at The First Workshop on AI-Supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS 2013), Memphis, TN.Google Scholar

Brown, N. C. C., Kölling, M., McCall, , , D., & Utting, I. (2014). Blackbox: A large scale repository of novice programmers’ activity. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 223–228). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Buffardi, K., & Edwards, S. H. (2013). Impacts of adaptive feedback on teaching test-driven development. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 293–298). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Bulling, A., Blanke, U., & Schiele, B. (2014). A tutorial on human activity recognition using body-worn inertial sensors. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(3), 33:1–33:33.Google Scholar

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

Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human–Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Cardell-Oliver, R. (2011). How can software metrics help novice programmers? In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference – Volume 114 (pp. 55–62). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S. (2013). OSBIDE. Retrieved from http://osbide.codeplex.comGoogle Scholar

Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2015). The design of a programming environment to support greater social awareness and participation in early computing courses. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 31(1), 143–153.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2016). With a little help from my friends: An empirical study of the interplay of students’ social activities, programming activities, and course success. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 201–209), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2017). Using programming process data to detect differences in students’ patterns of programming. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 105–110), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Carter, A. S., Hundhausen, C. D., & Adesope, O. (2015). The normalized programming state model: Predicting student performance in computing courses based on programming behavior. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 141–150), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Carter, J., & Dewan, P. (2010). Are you having difficulty? In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 211–214). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1992). The LISP intelligent tutoring system: Research in skill acquisition. In J. Larkin, R. Chabay & C. Scheftic (Eds.), Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Establishing Communication and Collaboration (pp. 73–110), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Carpenter, D. (2014). Enhancing syntax error messages appears ineffectual. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 273–278), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dominguez, A. K., Yacef, K., & Curran, J. R. (2010). Data mining for individualized hints in e-learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 91–100). International: International Educational Data Mining Society.Google Scholar

Eclipse.org (2016). Usage Data Collector User Guide. Retrieved from https://eclipse.org/org/usagedata/userguide.phpGoogle Scholar

Edwards, S. H., & Perez-Quinones, M. A. (2008). Web-CAT: Automatically grading programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 328–328), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Feliciano, J., Storey, M., & Zagalsky, A. (2016). Student experiences using GitHub in software engineering courses: A case study. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (pp. 422–431), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1–44.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M., Hohmann, L., Konneman, M., Walton, C., & Soloway, E. (1998). Supporting programming and learning-to-program with an integrated CAD and scaffolding workbench. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1–2), 143–179.Google Scholar

Haaranen, L., Ihantola, P., Hakulinen, L., & Korhonen, A. (2014). How (not) to introduce badges to online exercises. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 33–38), New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hartmann, B., MacDougall, D., Brandt, J., & Klemmer, S. R. (2010). What would other programmers do: Suggesting solutions to error messages. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1019–1028), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Herold, B. (2014). “Landmark” student-data-privacy law enacted in California. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2014/09/_landmark_student-data-privacy.htmlGoogle Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., & Adesope, O. (2017). Leveraging Programming and Social Analytics to Improve Computing Education Workshop, Tacoma, WA. Retrieved from https://icer.acm.org/icer-2017/leveraging-programming-and-social-analytics-to-improve-computing-education/Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D., & Trevisan, M. (2010). Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: An empirical comparison with a traditional approach. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 500–504), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar

Ihantola, P., Sorva, J., & Vihavainen, A. (2014). Automatically detectable indicators of programming assignment difficulty. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (pp. 33–38), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ihantola, P., Vihavainen, A., Ahadi, A., & Toll, D. (2015). Educational data mining and learning analytics in programming: literature review and case studies. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 41–63), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jadud, M. C. (2006). Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 73–84), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Jin, W., Barnes, T., Eagle, M., Johnson, M. W., & Lehmann, L. (2012). Program representation for automatic hint generation for a data-driven novice programming tutor. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 304–309), Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. (2010). Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to Understanding User Interface Design Rules. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar

Johnson, P. (2010). Hackystat – A framework for collection, analysis, visualization, interpretation, annotation, and dissemination of software development process and product data. Retrieved from https://code.google.com/p/hackystat/Google Scholar

Kevic, K., Walters, B. M., Shaffer, T. R., Sharif, B., Shepherd, D. C., & Fritz, T. (2015). Tracing software developers’ eyes and interactions for change tasks. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 202–213), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Kim, E., Helal, S., & Cook, D. (2010). Human activity recognition and pattern discovery. Pervasive Computing, 9(1), 48–53.Google Scholar

Kölling, M., Quig, , Patterson, B., , A., & Rosenberg, J. (2003). The BlueJ system and its pedagogy. Journal of Computer Science Education, 13(4), 249–268.Google Scholar

Leinonen, J., Longi, K., Klami, A., & Vihavainen, A. (2016). Automatic inference of programming performance and experience from typing patterns. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 132–137), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Luke, J. A. (2015). Continuously Collecting Software Development Event Data As Students Program (MSc thesis). Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar

Müller, S. C. (2015). Measuring software developers’ perceived difficulty with biometric sensors. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering – Volume 2 (pp. 887–890). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Müller, S. C., & Fritz, T. (2015). Stuck and Frustrated or in Flow and Happy: Sensing Developers’ Emotions and Progress. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering – Volume 1 (pp. 688–699). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Müller, S. C., & Fritz, T. (2016). Using (bio)metrics to predict code quality online. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 452–463), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

NetBeans.org (2016). NetBeans Usage Data Tracking. Retrieved from http://netbeans.org/about/usage-tracking.htmlGoogle Scholar

Nguyen, L. N. N., Rodriguez-Martin, D., Catala, A., Perez-Lopez, C., Sama, A., & Cavallaro, A. (2015). Basketball activity recognition using wearable inertial measurement units. In Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 60:1–60:6). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Norris, C., Barry, F., FenwickJr., J. B., Reid, K., & Rountree, J. (2008). ClockIt: Collecting quantitative data on how beginning software developers really work. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 37–41.Google Scholar

Olivares, D. (2015). Exploring learning analytics for computing education. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 271–272), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Papancea, A., Spacco, J., & Hovemeyer, D. (2013). An open platform for managing short programming exercises. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 47–52), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Parker, M. C., Rogers, K., Ericson, B. J., & Guzdial, M. (2017). Students and Teachers use an online AP CS Principles eBook differently: Teacher behavior consistent with expert learners. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 101–109), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Piech, C., Sahami, M., Huang, J., & Guibas, L. (2015). Autonomously generating hints by inferring problem solving policies. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 195–204), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Pintrich, D., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (Technical report No. NCRIPTAL-91-B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/23/3c/44.pdfGoogle Scholar

Rivers, K., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Automatic generation of programming feedback: A data-driven approach. Presented at The First Workshop on AI-Supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS 2013), Memphis, TN.Google Scholar

Robinson, D. (2017). How Do Students Use Stack Overflow? Retrieved from https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/02/15/how-do-students-use-stack-overflow/Google Scholar

Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Baker, R. S. J. D. (2009). Coarse-grained detection of student frustration in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (pp. 75–80), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Rodrigo, M. M. T., Baker, R. S., Jadud, M. C., & Tabanao, E. S. (2009). Affective and behavioral predictors of novice programmer achievement. SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 156–160.Google Scholar

Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., & Sinha, H. (2011). Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(3), 1–23.Google Scholar

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197–211.Google Scholar

Scacchi, W. (2002). Process models in software engineering. In Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471028959.sof250Google Scholar

Shaw, T. (2004). The emotions of systems developers: An empirical study of affective events theory. In Proceedings of the 2004 SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personnel Research: Careers, Culture, and Ethics in a Networked Environment (pp. 124–126). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Ruiz, N., Taib, R., Choi, E., & Chen, F. (2007). Galvanic skin response (GSR) as an index of cognitive load. In CHI ‘07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2651–2656), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Shneiderman, B. (1976). Exploratory experiments in programmer behavior. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 5(2), 123–143.Google Scholar

Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 252–254), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Soloway, E., Bonar, J., & Ehrlich, K. (1983). Cognitive strategies and looping constructs: an empirical study. Communications of the ACM, 26, 853–860.Google Scholar

Spacco, J., Fossati, D., Stamper, J., & Rivers, K. (2013). Towards improving programming habits to create better computer science course outcomes. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 243–248), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Spacco, J., Hovemeyer, D., & Pugh, W. (2004). An Eclipse-based course project snapshot and submission system. In Proceedings of the 2004 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (pp. 52–56), New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spacco, J., Hovemeyer, D., Pugh, W., Emad, F., Hollingsworth, J. K., & Padua-Perez, N. (2006). Experiences with Marmoset: Designing and using an advanced submission and testing system for programming courses. SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 13–17.Google Scholar

Stack Overflow (2012). Stack Overflow. Retrieved from http://stackoverflow.comGoogle Scholar

Stamper, J., Eagle, M., Barnes, T., & Croy, M. (2013). Experimental evaluation of automatic hint generation for a logic tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 22(1–2), 3–17.Google Scholar

Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2012). Learning analytics. Learning and Education, 1(8), Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-5-33367Google Scholar

Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., & Klerkx, J. (2014). Learning dashboards: An overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1499–1514.Google Scholar

Vihavainen, A., Vikberg, T., Luukkainen, M., & Pärtel, M. (2013). Scaffolding students’ learning using test my code. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 117–122), New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Watson, C., Li, F. W. B., & Godwin, J. L. (2013). Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 319–323). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar