The History of Computing Education Research

doi:10.1017/9781108654555.002

1 - The History of Computing Education Research

from Part I - Background

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 February 2019

Mark Guzdial and

Benedict du Boulay

Edited by

Sally A. Fincher and

Anthony V. Robins

Show author details

Sally A. Fincher: Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins: Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews the history of computing education research from the 1970s to about 2005. It focuses on the tools, research methods and objectives for learning programming, both for its own sake and also as a vehicle for other outcomes. It describes early experiments with Basic-like and other languages, the rise and fall of Logo, and the emergence of Boxer and Smalltalk. From a methodological point of view, we chart the early lab-based studies of novices, the more authentic classroom-based studies, and the influences of cognitive science and phenomenography on understanding learning, with the former’s emphasis on model building and the latter’s emphasis on the learner experience. We summarise the organisation of computing education research activity over these decades, including such organisations as The Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG), The Empirical Studies of Programmers (ESP) and The ACM Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education. We conclude with a discussion of the development of the notion of programming, of programming as a notation for thinking, and representing execution, and draw links between early research and more contemporary concerns such as computational thinking.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 11 - 39

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.002 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austin, H. (1976). Teaching Teachers Logo: The Lesley Experiments. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6237 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(5), 567–582.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feurzeig, W., Papert, S., Bloom, M., Grant, R., & Solomon, C. (1969). Programming-Languages as a Conceptual Framework for Teaching Mathematics. Final Report on the First Fifteen Months of the Logo Project. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED038034 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 ICER ‘05: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–121). New York: ACM.CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Friend, J. (1975). Programs Students Write. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED112861 Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.