research-article

Introductory programming: a systematic literature review

Authors:
Andrew Luxton-Reilly

University of Auckland, New Zealand

University of Auckland, New Zealand
View Profile

,
Simon

University of Newcastle, Australia

University of Newcastle, Australia
View Profile

,
Ibrahim Albluwi

Princeton University, USA

Princeton University, USA
View Profile

,
Brett A. Becker

University College Dublin, Ireland

University College Dublin, Ireland
View Profile

,
Michail Giannakos

NTNU, Norway

NTNU, Norway
View Profile

,
Amruth N. Kumar

Ramapo College of New Jersey, USA

Ramapo College of New Jersey, USA
View Profile

,
Linda Ott

Michigan Technological University, USA

Michigan Technological University, USA
View Profile

,
James Paterson

Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
View Profile

,
Michael James Scott

Falmouth University, UK

Falmouth University, UK
View Profile

,
Judy Sheard

Monash University, Australia

Monash University, Australia
View Profile

,
Claudia Szabo

University of Adelaide, Australia

University of Adelaide, Australia
View Profile

ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science EducationJuly 2018Pages 55–106https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295779

Published:02 July 2018Publication History

ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Pages 55–106

ABSTRACT

As computing becomes a mainstream discipline embedded in the school curriculum and acts as an enabler for an increasing range of academic disciplines in higher education, the literature on introductory programming is growing. Although there have been several reviews that focus on specific aspects of introductory programming, there has been no broad overview of the literature exploring recent trends across the breadth of introductory programming.

This paper is the report of an ITiCSE working group that conducted a systematic review in order to gain an overview of the introductory programming literature. Partitioning the literature into papers addressing the student, teaching, the curriculum, and assessment, we explore trends, highlight advances in knowledge over the past 15 years, and indicate possible directions for future research.

References

Kalle Aaltonen, Petri Ihantola, and Otto Seppälä. 2010. Mutation analysis vs. code coverage in automated assessment of students’ testing skills. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications Companion (OOPSLA ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 153–160. 1869542.1869567 Google ScholarDigital Library
Samy S. Abu Naser. 2009. Evaluating the effectiveness of the CPP-Tutor, an Intelligent Tutoring System for students learning to program in C++. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 5, 1 (2009), 109–114.Google Scholar
Michał Adamaszek, Piotr Chrzaçstowski-Wachtel, and Anna Niewiarowska. 2008. VIPER a student-friendly visual interpreter of Pascal. In Informatics Education — Supporting Computational Thinking, Roland T. Mittermeir and Maciej M. Sysło (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 192–203. 1007/978-3-540-69924-8_18 Google ScholarDigital Library
Abejide Ade-Ibijola, Sigrid Ewert, and Ian Sanders. 2014. Abstracting and narrating novice programs using regular expressions. In Proceedings of the Southern African Institute for Computer Scientist and Information Technologists Annual Conference 2014 on SAICSIT 2014 Empowered by Technology (SAICSIT ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 19, 19:19–19:28 pages. 1145/2664591.2664601 Google ScholarDigital Library
Achla Agarwal, Krishna K. Agarwal, Leslie Fife, and M. Emre Celebi. 2016. Raptor and Visual Logic©: a comparison of flowcharting tools for CS0. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 31, 4 (2016), 36–41. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2904127.2904132 Google ScholarDigital Library
Alireza Ahadi, Raymond Lister, Shahil Lal, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Performance and consistency in learning to program. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 11–16. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nova Ahmed, Arman Kamal, Adnan Nuruddin, and Syed Tanveer Jishan. 2016. My code in my native tone: Cha Script. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 28, 28:1– 28:4 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tuukka Ahoniemi and Essi Lahtinen. 2007. Visualizations in preparing for programming exercise sessions. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 178 (2007), 137–144. Google ScholarDigital Library
T. C. Ahren. 2005. Using online annotation software to provide timely feedback in an introductory programming course. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’05). IEEE, T2H–1.Google Scholar
Nouf M. Al-Barakati and Arwa Y. Al-Aama. 2009. The effect of visualizing roles of variables on student performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 228–232. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ahmad Al-Jarrah and Enrico Pontelli. 2014. “AliCe-ViLlagE” Alice as a Collaborative Virtual Learning Environment. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’14). IEEE, 1–9.Google Scholar
Ali Alammary, Angela Carbone, and Judy Sheard. 2012. Implementation of a smart lab for teachers of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 123 (ACE ’12). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 121–130. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2483716.2483731 Google ScholarDigital Library
Ahmed S. Alardawi and Agil M. Agil. 2015. Novice comprehension of object-oriented OO programs: an empirical study. In 2015 World Congress Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus on Information Technology and Computer Applications (WCITCA). IEEE, 1– 4.Google Scholar
Veljko Aleksić and Mirjana Ivanović. 2016. Introductory programming subject in European higher education. Informatics in Education 15, 2 (2016), 163–182.Google ScholarCross Ref
José Luis Fernández Alemán, Dominic Palmer-Brown, and Chrisina Draganova. 2010. Evaluating student response driven feedback in a programming course. In 2010 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE, 279–283. Google ScholarDigital Library
Laura K. Alford, Mary Lou Dorf, and Valeria Bertacco. 2017. Student perceptions of their abilities and learning environment in large introductory computer programming courses. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2017-June. ASEE.Google ScholarCross Ref
Carl Alphonce and Blake Martin. 2005. Green: a pedagogically customizable round-tripping UML class diagram Eclipse plug-in. In Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (eclipse ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 115–119. Google ScholarDigital Library
Carl Alphonce and Phil Ventura. 2003. Using graphics to support the teaching of fundamental object-oriented principles in CS1. In Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 156–161. Google ScholarDigital Library
Fatima AlShamsi and Ashraf Elnagar. 2009. JLearn-DG: Java learning system using dependence graphs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications &Amp; Services (iiWAS ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 633–637. 1145/1806338.1806458 Google ScholarDigital Library
Maria Altebarmakian, Richard Alterman, Anna Yatskar, Kendall Harsch, and Antonella DiLillo. 2016. The microgenetic analysis of staged peer collaboration for introductory programming. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’16). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarCross Ref
Raad A. Alturki. 2016. Measuring and improving student performance in an introductory programming course. Informatics in Education 15, 2 (2016), 183– 204.Google ScholarCross Ref
Omar AlZoubi, Davide Fossati, Barbara Di Eugenio, Nick Green, Mehrdad Alizadeh, and Rachel Harsley. 2015. A hybrid model for teaching recursion. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65–70. 1145/2808006.2808030 Google ScholarDigital Library
Milan Amaratunga, Gayan Wickramasinghe, Milinda Deepal, Oshani Perera, Dilshan De Silva, and Samantha Rajapakse. 2013. An interactive programming assistance tool (iPAT) for instructors and novice programmers. In 2013 8th International Conference on Computer Science & Education. IEEE, 680–684.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ana Paula L. Ambrósio and Fábio M. Costa. 2010. Evaluating the impact of PBL and tablet PCs in an algorithms and computer programming course. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 495–499. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lorin W Anderson, David R Krathwohl, Peter W Airasian, Kathleen A Cruikshank, Richard E Mayer, Paul R Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C Wittrock. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (abridged ed.). Longman, White Plains, NY.Google Scholar
Ruth E. Anderson, Michael D. Ernst, Robert Ordóñez, Paul Pham, and Ben Tribelhorn. 2015. A data programming CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 150–155. Google ScholarDigital Library
Subashini Annamalai and Sobihatun Nur Abdul Salam. 2017. A multimedia approach towards learning C programming: a discussion from novice learners’ perspective. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering 9, 2-12 (2017), 99–103.Google Scholar
D. F. Ninan S. A. Akinboro H. Abimbola Soriyan Anuoluwapo Ajayi, Emmanuel A. Olajubu. 2010. Development and testing of a graphical FORTRAN learning tool for novice programmers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 5 (2010), 277–291.Google ScholarCross Ref
Masayuki Arai and Tomomi Yamazaki. 2006. Design of a learning support system to aid novice programmers in obtaining the capability of tracing. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’06). IEEE, 396–397. Google ScholarDigital Library
Eliane Araujo, Matheus Gaudencio, Dalton Serey, and Jorge Figueiredo. 2016. Applying spectrum-based fault localization on novice’s programs. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’16). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarCross Ref
7757727Google Scholar
Glen Archer, Briana Bettin, Leonard Bohmann, Allison Carter, Christopher Cischke, Linda M Ott, and Leo Ureel. 2017. The impact of placement strategies on the success of students in introductory computer science. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’17). IEEE, 1–9.Google ScholarCross Ref
8190526Google Scholar
Hazleen Aris. 2015. Improving students performance in introductory programming subject: a case study. In 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE ’15). IEEE, 657–662. 2015.7250328Google ScholarCross Ref
Muhammad Ateeq, Hina Habib, Adnan Umer, and Muzammil Ul Rehman. 2014. C++ or Python? Which one to begin with: a learner’s perspective. In International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’14). IEEE, 64–69. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nikolaos Avouris, Stefanos Kaxiras, Odysseas Koufopavlou, Kyriakos Sgarbas, and Polyxeni Stathopoulou. 2010. Teaching introduction to computing through a project-based collaborative learning approach. In 2010 14th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics. IEEE, 237–241. Google ScholarDigital Library
John Aycock, Etienne Pitout, and Sarah Storteboom. 2015. A game engine in pure Python for CS1: design, experience, and limits. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93–98. 1145/2729094.2742590 Google ScholarDigital Library
Mewati Ayub, Hapnes Toba, Steven Yong, and Maresha C. Wijanto. 2017. Modelling students’ activities in programming subjects through educational data mining. Global Journal of Engineering Education 19, 3 (2017), 249–255.Google Scholar
David Azcona and Alan F. Smeaton. 2017. Targeting at-risk students using engagement and effort predictors in an introductory computer programming course. In Data Driven Approaches in Digital Education. Springer International Publishing, 361–366.Google Scholar
Shahdatunnaim Azmi, Noorminshah A Iahad, and Norasnita Ahmad. 2016. Attracting students’ engagement in programming courses with gamification. In IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e ’16). 112–115.Google ScholarCross Ref
Monica Babes-Vroman, Isabel Juniewicz, Bruno Lucarelli, Nicole Fox, Thu Nguyen, Andrew Tjang, Georgiana Haldeman, Ashni Mehta, and Risham Chokshi. 2017. Exploring gender diversity in CS at a large public R1 research university. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 51–56. Google ScholarDigital Library
Suzan Badri, James Denholm-Price, and James Orwell. 2011. Layout for learning: designing an interface for students learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU ’11), Vol. 1. INSTICC, SciTePress, 324–332.Google Scholar
Yu Bai, Liqian Chen, Gang Yin, Xinjun Mao, Ye Deng, Tao Wang, Yao Lu, and Huaimin Wang. 2017. Quantitative analysis of learning data in a programming course. In Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Springer International Publishing, 436–441.Google Scholar
Bridget Baird and Christine Chung. 2010. Expanding CS1: applications across the liberal arts. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 25, 6 (2010), 47–54. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1791129.1791139 Google ScholarDigital Library
Olle Bälter and Duane A. Bailey. 2010. Enjoying Python, processing, and Java in CS1. ACM Inroads 1, 4 (2010), 28–32. Google ScholarDigital Library
Albert Bandura. 1962. Social learning through imitation. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Univer. Nebraska Press, Oxford, England, 211–274.Google Scholar
Mousumi Banerjee, Michelle Capozzoli, Laura McSweeney, and Debajyoti Sinha. 1999. Beyond kappa: a review of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics / La Revue Canadienne de Statistique 27, 1 (1999), 3–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3315487Google ScholarCross Ref
Lecia J. Barker, Charlie McDowell, and Kimberly Kalahar. 2009. Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 153–157. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ian Barland. 2008. Some methods for teaching functions first using Java. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Southeast Regional Conference on XX (ACM-SE 46). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 256–259. 1593105.1593172 Google ScholarDigital Library
Glenda Barlow-Jones and Duan van der Westhuizen. 2017. Problem solving as a predictor of programming performance. In Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer International Publishing, 209–216.Google Scholar
Tiffany Barnes, Eve Powell, Amanda Chaffin, and Heather Lipford. 2008. Game2Learn: improving the motivation of CS1 students. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Game Development in Computer Science Education (GDCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. 1463673.1463674 Google ScholarDigital Library
Valerie Barr and Deborah Trytten. 2016. Using turing’s craft codelab to support CS1 students as they learn to program. ACM Inroads 7, 2 (2016), 67–75. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jordan Barria-Pineda, Julio Guerra, Yun Huang, and Peter Brusilovsky. 2017. Concept-level knowledge visualization for supporting self-regulated learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. Companion (IUI ’17 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 141–144. Google ScholarDigital Library
João Paulo Barros, Luís Estevens, Rui Dias, Rui Pais, and Elisabete Soeiro. 2003. Using lab exams to ensure programming practice in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16–20. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jessica D. Bayliss and Sean Strout. 2006. Games as a “flavor” of CS1. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 500–504.Google Scholar
Jennifer Bayzick, Bradley Askins, Sharon Kalafut, and Michael Spear. 2013. Reading mobile games throughout the curriculum. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 209–214. Google ScholarDigital Library
Leland L. Beck, Alexander W. Chizhik, and Amy C. McElroy. 2005. Cooperative learning techniques in CS1: design and experimental evaluation. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 470–474. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brett A. Becker. 2016. An effective approach to enhancing compiler error messages. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 126–131. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brett A. Becker. 2016. A new metric to quantify repeated compiler errors for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 296–301. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brett A. Becker, Graham Glanville, Ricardo Iwashima, Claire McDonnell, Kyle Goslin, and Catherine Mooney. 2016. Effective compiler error message enhancement for novice programming students. Computer Science Education 26, 2-3 (2016), 148–175.Google ScholarCross Ref
Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2001. Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 20, 1 (2001), 45– 73. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mordechai Ben-Ari, Roman Bednarik, Ronit Ben-Bassat Levy, Gil Ebel, Andrés Moreno, Niko Myller, and Erkki Sutinen. 2011. A decade of research and development on program animation: the Jeliot experience. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 22 (2011), 375–384. 04.004Google ScholarCross Ref
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2004. Programming in context: a model-first approach to CS1. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 477–481. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2005. Revealing the programming process. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 186–190. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2006. Abstraction ability as an indicator of success for learning object-oriented programming? SIGCSE Bull. 38, 2 (2006), 39–43. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2007. Failure rates in introductory programming. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2 (2007), 32–36. Google ScholarDigital Library
1272879Google Scholar
Jens Bennedsen and Carsten Schulte. 2007. What does “objects-first” mean?: An international study of teachers’ perceptions of objects-first. In Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research - Volume 88 (Koli Calling ’07). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 21–29. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2449323.2449327 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jens Bennedsen and Carsten Schulte. 2010. BlueJ visual debugger for learning the execution of object-oriented programs? Trans. Comput. Educ. 10, 2, Article 8 (2010), 8:1–8:22 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chris Bennett. 2009. Student-authored wiki textbook in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 24, 6 (2009), 50–56. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1529995.1530006 Google ScholarDigital Library
Marc Berges and Peter Hubwieser. 2013. Concept specification maps: displaying content structures. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 291–296. Google ScholarDigital Library
Marc Berges, Michael Striewe, Philipp Shah, Michael Goedicke, and Peter Hubwieser. 2016. Towards deriving programming competencies from student errors. In International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’16). IEEE, 19–23.Google ScholarCross Ref
Anders Berglund and Raymond Lister. 2010. Introductory Programming and the Didactic Triangle. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 103 (ACE ’10). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 35–44. Google ScholarDigital Library
Matthew Berland, Taylor Martin, Tom Benton, Carmen Petrick Smith, and Don Davis. 2013. Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning Sciences 22, 4 (2013), 564–599.Google ScholarCross Ref
Matthew Berland, Carmen Petrick Smith, and Don Davis. 2013. Visualizing live collaboration in the classroom with AMOEBA. In Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL, Vol. 2. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 2–5.Google Scholar
Michael Berry and Michael Kölling. 2016. Novis: a notional machine implementation for teaching introductory programming. In International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’16). IEEE, 54–59.Google ScholarCross Ref
Mária Bieliková. 2006. An adaptive web-based system for learning programming. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning 16, 1-2 (2006), 122–136.Google ScholarCross Ref
John Biggs. 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education 32, 3 (1996), 347–364.Google Scholar
John B. Biggs and Kevin F. Collis. 1982. Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Don Blaheta. 2009. Democracy in the classroom: an exercise for the first days of CS1. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 36–39. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ben Blake. 2010. BLAKE a language designed for programming I. Education and Information Technologies 15, 4 (2010), 277–291. s10639-010-9139-3 Google ScholarDigital Library
Douglas Blank, Jennifer S. Kay, James B. Marshall, Keith O’Hara, and Mark Russo. 2012. Calico: a multi-programming-language, multi-context framework designed for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 63–68. Google ScholarDigital Library
Imma Boada, Josep Soler, Ferran Prados, and Jordi Poch. 2004. A teaching/learning support tool for introductory programming courses. In Information Technology Based Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Higher Education and Training (ITHET ’04). IEEE, 604–609. ITHET.2004.1358243Google ScholarCross Ref
Michael G. Boland and Curtis Clifton. 2009. Introducing PyLighter: dynamic code highlighter. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 489–493. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jürgen Börstler, Marie Nordström, Lena Kallin Westin, Jan-Erik Moström, and Johan Eliasson. 2008. Transitioning to OOP/Java — a never ending story. In Reflections on the Teaching of Programming: Methods and Implementations, Jens Bennedsen, Michael E. Caspersen, and Michael Kölling (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 80–97. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jürgen Börstler, Marie Nordström, and James H. Paterson. 2011. On the quality of examples in introductory Java textbooks. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 1, Article 3 (2011), 21 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nigel Bosch, Yuxuan Chen, and Sidney D’Mello. 2014. It’s written on your face: detecting affective states from facial expressions while learning computer programming. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer International Publishing, 39–44. Google ScholarDigital Library
Matt Bower. 2007. Groupwork activities in synchronous online classroom spaces. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 91–95. 1145/1227310.1227345 Google ScholarDigital Library
Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, August A. Dwight, R. Taylor Fondren, Mladen A. Vouk, and James C. Lester. 2008. A development environment for distributed synchronous collaborative programming. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 3 (2008), 158–162. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Rachael S. Dwight, Carolyn S. Miller, C. Dianne Raubenheimer, Matthias F. Stallmann, and Mladen A. Vouk. 2007. A case for smaller class size with integrated lab for introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 341–345. 1227310.1227430 Google ScholarDigital Library
Steven Bradley. 2016. Managing plagiarism in programming assignments with blended assessment and randomisation. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21–30. Google ScholarDigital Library
Grant Braught, L. Martin Eby, and Tim Wahls. 2008. The effects of pairprogramming on individual programming skill. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 200–204. Google ScholarDigital Library
Grant Braught, John MacCormick, and Tim Wahls. 2010. The benefits of pairing by ability. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 249–253. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Google ScholarDigital Library
Tom Briggs and C. Dudley Girard. 2007. Tools and techniques for test-driven learning in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 22, 3 (2007), 37–43. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1181849.1181854 Google ScholarDigital Library
Neil C.C. Brown and Amjad Altadmri. 2014. Investigating novice programming mistakes: educator beliefs vs. student data. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 43–50. Google ScholarDigital Library
Neil Christopher Charles Brown, Michael Kölling, Davin McCall, and Ian Utting. 2014. Blackbox: a large scale repository of novice programmers’ activity. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 223–228. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kim B. Bruce. 2005. Controversy on how to teach CS 1: a discussion on the SIGCSE-members mailing list. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 2 (2005), 111–117. org/10.1145/1083431.1083477 Google ScholarDigital Library
Kim B. Bruce, Andrea Danyluk, and Thomas Murtagh. 2005. Why structural recursion should be taught before arrays in CS 1. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 246–250. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kim B. Bruce, Andrea Danyluk, and Thomas Murtagh. 2010. Introducing concurrency in CS 1. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 224–228. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael P Bruce-Lockhart and Theodore S Norvell. 2007. Developing mental models of computer programming interactively via the web. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’07). IEEE, S3H–3–S3H–8. FIE.2007.4418051Google ScholarCross Ref
Peter Brusilovsky, Olena Shcherbinina, and Sergey Sosnovsky. 2004. Minilanguages for non-computer science majors: what are the benefits? Interactive Technology and Smart Education 1, 1 (2004), 21–28. 17415650480000009Google ScholarCross Ref
Engin Bumbacher, Alfredo Sandes, Amit Deutsch, and Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Student coding styles as predictors of help-seeking behavior. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 856–859. 1007/978-3-642-39112-5_130Google Scholar
Carl Burch. 2009. Jigsaw, a programming environment for Java in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 24, 5 (2009), 37–43. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1516595.1516604 Google ScholarDigital Library
Ignacio Cabrera, Jorge Villalon, and Jorge Chavez. 2017. Blending communities and team-based learning in a programming course. IEEE Transactions on Education 60 (2017), 288–295. Issue 4.Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Cain. 2013. Developing assessment criteria for portfolio assessed introductory programming. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE ’13). IEEE, 55– 60.Google ScholarCross Ref
Andrew Cain. 2014. Factors influencing student learning in portfolio assessed introductory programming. In IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE ’14). IEEE, 55–62.Google ScholarCross Ref
Andrew Cain and Clinton J Woodward. 2012. Toward constructive alignment with portfolio assessment for introductory programming. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE ’12). IEEE, H1B–11–H1B–17. 2012.6360322Google ScholarCross Ref
Andrew Cain, Clinton J Woodward, and Shannon Pace. 2013. Examining student progress in portfolio assessed introductory programming. In Proceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE). IEEE, 67–72.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ünal Çakıroğlu. 2014. Analyzing the effect of learning styles and study habits of distance learners on learning performances: a case of an introductory programming course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 15, 4 (2014), 161–185.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jennifer Campbell, Diane Horton, and Michelle Craig. 2016. Factors for success in online CS1. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 320–325. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jennifer Campbell, Diane Horton, Michelle Craig, and Paul Gries. 2014. Evaluating an inverted CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 307–312. Google ScholarDigital Library
Yingjun Cao, Leo Porter, and Daniel Zingaro. 2016. Examining the value of analogies in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 231–239. Google ScholarDigital Library
Antonella Carbonaro and Mirko Ravaioli. 2017. Peer assessment to promote deep learning and to reduce a gender gap in the traditional introductory programming course. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society 13, 3 (2017), 121–129.Google Scholar
Angela Carbone, John Hurst, Ian Mitchell, and Dick Gunstone. 2009. An exploration of internal factors influencing student learning of programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 95 (ACE ’09). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 25–34. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1862712.1862721 Google ScholarDigital Library
Rachel Cardell-Oliver. 2011. How can software metrics help novice programmers?. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 114 (ACE ’11). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 55–62. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2459936. Google ScholarDigital Library
2459943Google Scholar
Martin C. Carlisle. 2010. Using You Tube to enhance student class preparation in an introductory Java course. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 470–474. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jeffrey Carver and Lisa Hende. 2006. Viope as a tool for teaching introductory programming: an empirical investigation. In 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET’06). IEEE, 9–16. 1109/CSEET.2006.38 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jeffrey C Carver, Lisa Henderson, Lulu He, Julia Hodges, and Donna Reese. 2007. Increased retention of early computer science and software engineering students using pair programming. In 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET’07). IEEE, 115–122. CSEET.2007.29 Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael E. Caspersen and Henrik Bærbak Christensen. 2008. CS1: getting started. In Reflections on the Teaching of Programming: Methods and Implementations, Jens Bennedsen, Michael E. Caspersen, and Michael Kölling (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 130–141. Google ScholarDigital Library
Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro and Kathi Fisler. 2016. On the interplay between bottom-up and datatype-driven program design. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 205–210. 2839509.2844574 Google ScholarDigital Library
Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro and Kathi Fisler. 2017. Designing a multifaceted SOLO taxonomy to track program design skills through an entire course. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10–19. Google ScholarDigital Library
A. T. Chamillard. 2011. Using a student response system in CS1 and CS2. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 299–304. Google ScholarDigital Library
Bruce Char. 2016. Automatic feedback systems for code: what can they tell the busy instructor? J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 31, 4 (2016), 87–93. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=2904127.2904143 Google ScholarDigital Library
Spyropoulos Charalampos, Vassilios Dagdilelis, and Georgios Evangelidis. 2005. Teaching object-oriented thinking to novice programmers using the AgentSheets environment. In IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA ’05). IADIS, 343–348.Google Scholar
Therese Charles, David Bustard, and Michaela Black. 2011. Experiences of promoting student engagement through game-enhanced learning. In Serious Games and Edutainment Applications. Springer London, 425–445. org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2161-9_21Google Scholar
Tzu-Yi Chen, Gary Lewandowski, Robert McCartney, Kate Sanders, and Beth Simon. 2007. Commonsense computing: using student sorting abilities to improve instruction. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 276–280. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tzu-Yi Chen, Alvaro Monge, and Beth Simon. 2006. Relationship of early programming language to novice generated design. SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (2006), 495–499. Google ScholarDigital Library
Donald Chinn, Judy Sheard, Angela Carbone, and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2010. Study habits of CS1 students: what do they do outside the classroom?. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 103 (ACE ’10). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 53–62. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1862219.1862229 Google ScholarDigital Library
Chih-Yueh Chou and Peng-Fei Sun. 2013. An educational tool for visualizing students’ program tracing processes. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 21, 3 (2013), 432–438.Google ScholarCross Ref
Yu-kai Chou. 2015. Actionable gamification: beyond points, badges, and leaderboards. Octalysis Group.Google Scholar
Rohan Roy Choudhury, Hezheng Yin, and Armando Fox. 2016. Scale-driven automatic hint generation for coding style. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, Cham, 122–132. Google ScholarDigital Library
Vincent A. Cicirello. 2009. On the role and effectiveness of pop quizzes in CS1. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 286–290. Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniel C Cliburn. 2006. The effectiveness of games as assignments in an introductory programming course. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. (FIE ’06). IEEE, 6–10.Google ScholarCross Ref
Daniel C Cliburn. 2008. Student opinions of Alice in CS1. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’08). IEEE, T3B–1–T3B–6. FIE.2008.4720254Google ScholarCross Ref
Daniel C Cliburn, Susan M Miller, and Emma Bowring. 2010. Student preferences between open-ended and structured game assignments in CS1. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’10). IEEE, F2H–1–F2H–5.Google ScholarCross Ref
Stephen Cooper, Wanda Dann, and Randy Pausch. 2003. Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191–195. Google ScholarDigital Library
Malcolm Corney, Donna Teague, and Richard N. Thomas. 2010. Engaging students in programming. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 103 (ACE ’10). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 63–72. http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=1862219.1862230 Google ScholarDigital Library
Evandro B. Costa, Baldoino Fonseca, Marcelo Almeida Santana, Fabrísia Ferreira de Araújo, and Joilson Rego. 2017. Evaluating the effectiveness of educational data mining techniques for early prediction of students’ academic failure in introductory programming courses. Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017), 247–256. Google ScholarDigital Library
Natalie J Coull and Ishbel MM Duncan. 2011. Emergent requirements for supporting introductory programming. Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 10, 1 (2011), 78–85. 11120/ital.2011.10010078Google Scholar
Michelle Craig and Andrew Petersen. 2016. Student difficulties with pointer concepts in C. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 8:1– 8:10 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michelle Craig, Jacqueline Smith, and Andrew Petersen. 2017. Familiar contexts and the difficulty of programming problems. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123–127. 3141880.3141898 Google ScholarDigital Library
Stewart Crawford and Elizabeth Boese. 2006. ActionScript: a gentle introduction to programming. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 21, 3 (2006), 156–168. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1089182.1089203 Google ScholarDigital Library
James Cross, Dean Hendrix, Larry Barowski, and David Umphress. 2014. Dynamic program visualizations: an experience report. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 609–614. Google ScholarDigital Library
Gilbert Cruz, Jacob Jones, Meagan Morrow, Andres Gonzalez, and Bruce Gooch. 2017. An AI system for coaching novice programmers. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology in Education. Springer International Publishing, 12–21.Google Scholar
Kathryn Cunningham, Sarah Blanchard, Barbara Ericson, and Mark Guzdial. 2017. Using tracing and sketching to solve programming problems: replicating and extending an analysis of what students draw. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 164–172. Google ScholarDigital Library
Quintin Cutts, Emily Cutts, Stephen Draper, Patrick O’Donnell, and Peter Saffrey. 2010. Manipulating mindset to positively influence introductory programming performance. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 431–435. Google ScholarDigital Library
Quintin I. Cutts and Gregor E. Kennedy. 2005. Connecting learning environments using electronic voting systems. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 42 (ACE ’05). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 181–186. http://dl.acm. org/citation.cfm?id=1082424.1082447 Google ScholarDigital Library
Marin Aglić Čuvić, Josip Maras, and Saša Mladenović. 2017. Extending the object-oriented notional machine notation with inheritance, polymorphism, and GUI events. In 40th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO ’17). IEEE, 794–799.Google ScholarCross Ref
Charlie Daly and Jane Horgan. 2005. Patterns of plagiarism. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 383–387. 1047344.1047473 Google ScholarDigital Library
Sayamindu Dasgupta and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2017. Learning to code in localized programming languages. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33–39. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mark Davies and Joseph L. Fleiss. 1982. Measuring agreement for multinomial data. Biometrics 38, 4 (1982), 1047–1051. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529886Google ScholarCross Ref
Suzanne L. Dazo, Nicholas R. Stepanek, Robert Fulkerson, and Brian Dorn. 2016. An empirical analysis of video viewing behaviors in flipped CS1 courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 106–111. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael de Raadt. 2012. Student created cheat-sheets in examinations: impact on student outcomes. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 123 (ACE ’12). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 71–76. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=2483716.2483725 Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael de Raadt, David Lai, and Richard Watson. 2007. An evaluation of electronic individual peer assessment in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research — Volume 88 (Koli Calling ’07). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 53–64. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2449323.2449330 Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael de Raadt, Richard Watson, and Mark Toleman. 2003. Language tugof-war: industry demand and academic choice. In Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 20 (ACE ’03). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 137–142. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=858403.858420 Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael de Raadt, Richard Watson, and Mark Toleman. 2004. Introductory programming: what’s happening today and will there be any students to teach tomorrow?. In Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 30 (ACE ’04). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 277–282. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 979968.980005 Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael de Raadt, Richard Watson, and Mark Toleman. 2009. Teaching and assessing programming strategies explicitly. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 95 (ACE ’09). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 45–54. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1862712.1862723 Google ScholarDigital Library
Adrienne Decker and Elizabeth Lane Lawley. 2013. Life’s a game and the game of life: how making a game out of it can change student behavior. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233–238. Google ScholarDigital Library
Adrienne Decker, Phil Ventura, and Christopher Egert. 2006. Through the looking glass: reflections on using undergraduate teaching assistants in CS1. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 46–50. 1145/1121341.1121358 Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Denny, Diana Cukierman, and Jonathan Bhaskar. 2015. Measuring the effect of inventing practice exercises on learning in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13–22. Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Dave Carpenter. 2014. Enhancing syntax error messages appears ineffectual. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 273–278. Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, John Hamer, Dana B. Dahlstrom, and Helen C. Purchase. 2010. Self-predicted and actual performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 118–122. Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Beth Simon. 2008. Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 113–124. Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Ewan Tempero, and Jacob Hendrickx. 2011. Codewrite: supporting student-driven practice of Java. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 471–476. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9–15. Google ScholarDigital Library
Adrian Devey and Angela Carbone. 2011. Helping first year novice programming students pass. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 114 (ACE ’11). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 135–144. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=2459936.2459953 Google ScholarDigital Library
Nicholas Diana, Michael Eagle, John Stamper, Shuchi Grover, Marie Bienkowski, and Satabdi Basu. 2017. An instructor dashboard for real-time analytics in interactive programming assignments. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 272–279. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul E. Dickson. 2011. Motivating students taking CS1 by using image manipulation in C and C+. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 6 (2011), 136–141. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1968521.1968551 Google ScholarDigital Library
Edward Dillon, Monica Anderson, and Marcus Brown. 2012. Comparing feature assistance between programming environments and their “effect” on novice programmers. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 27, 5 (2012), 69–77. http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=2168874.2168894 Google ScholarDigital Library
Edward Dillon, Monica Anderson, and Marcus Brown. 2012. Comparing mental models of novice programmers when using visual and command line environments. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM-SE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 142–147. 2184512.2184546 Google ScholarDigital Library
Daghan Dinç and Suzan Üsküdarli. 2009. A web environment to support teaching introductory programming. In 2009 Fourth International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services. IEEE, 578–582. 1109/ICIW.2009.93 Google ScholarDigital Library
Zachary Dodds, Ran Libeskind-Hadas, and Eliot Bush. 2010. When CS 1 is Biology 1: crossdisciplinary collaboration as CS context. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 219–223. Google ScholarDigital Library
Liam Doherty, J Shakya, M Jordanov, P Lougheed, D Brokenshire, S Rao, and VS Kumar. 2005. Recognizing opportunities for mixed-initiative interactions in novice programming. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Mixed-Initiative Problem-Solving Assistants. AAAI, 51–56.Google Scholar
Brian Dorn and Allison Elliott Tew. 2015. Empirical validation and application of the computing attitudes survey. Computer Science Education 25, 1 (2015), 1–36.Google ScholarCross Ref
Brian Dorn and Dean Sanders. 2003. Using Jeroo to introduce object-oriented programming. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’03), Vol. 1. IEEE, T4C–22–7 Vol.1.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ricardo Vargas Dorneles, Delcino Picinin Jr, and André Gustavo Adami. 2010. ALGOWEB: a web-based environment for learning introductory programming. In 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’10). IEEE, 83–85. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mohsen Dorodchi, Nasrin Dehbozorgi, and Tonya K Frevert. 2017. “I wish I could rank my exam’s challenge level!”: An algorithm of Bloom’s taxonomy in teaching CS1. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’17). IEEE, 1–5.Google ScholarCross Ref
Daryl D’Souza, Margaret Hamilton, James Harland, Peter Muir, Charles Thevathayan, and Cecily Walker. 2008. Transforming learning of programming: a mentoring project. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education — Volume 78 (ACE ’08). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 75–84. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=1379249.1379256 Google ScholarDigital Library
Amalia Duch Brown, Joaquim Gabarró Vallès, Jordi Petit Silvestre, Maria Josep Blesa Aguilera, and María José Serna Iglesias. 2015. A cost-benefit analysis of continuous assessment. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU ’15). SciTePress, 57–66. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mark S. Durrheim, Abejide Ade-Ibijola, and Sigrid Ewert. 2016. Code pathfinder: a stepwise programming e-tutor using plan mirroring. In Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer International Publishing, 69–82.Google Scholar
Thomas Dy and Ma. Mercedes Rodrigo. 2010. A detector for non-literal Java errors. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 118–122. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael Eagle and Tiffany Barnes. 2009. Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1 (2009), 321–325. Google ScholarDigital Library
Alice H Eagly and Shelly Chaiken. 1998. Attitude structure and function. In The Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Anna Eckerdal, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Mike Lopez, and Amitrajit Sarkar. 2011. Relationship between text and action conceptions of programming: a phenomenographic and quantitative perspective. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33–37. Google ScholarDigital Library
1999760Google Scholar
Alex Edgcomb and Frank Vahid. 2014. Effectiveness of online textbooks vs. interactive web-native content. In Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE Annual Conference. ASEE.Google Scholar
Alex Edgcomb, Frank Vahid, Roman Lysecky, and Susan Lysecky. 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). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 171–176. Google ScholarDigital Library
Alex Daniel Edgcomb, Frank Vahid, Roman Lysecky, and Susan Lysecky. 2017. An analysis of incorporating small coding exercises as homework in introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference. ASEE.Google ScholarCross Ref
Stephen H. Edwards. 2004. Using software testing to move students from trial- and-error to reflection-in-action. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 26–30. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stephen H. Edwards and Krishnan Panamalai Murali. 2017. CodeWorkout: short programming exercises with built-in data collection. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 188–193. 1145/3059009.3059055 Google ScholarDigital Library
Stephen H. Edwards and Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones. 2007. Experiences using test-driven development with an automated grader. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 22, 3 (2007), 44–50. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1181849.1181855 Google ScholarDigital Library
Stephen H. Edwards, Daniel S. Tilden, and Anthony Allevato. 2014. Pythy: improving the introductory Python programming experience. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 641–646. 2538862.2538977 Google ScholarDigital Library
Johan Eliasson, Lena Kallin Westin, and Marie Nordström. 2006. Investigating students’ confidence in programming and problem solving. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’06). IEEE, 22–27.Google ScholarCross Ref
322490Google Scholar
Allison Elliott Tew and Brian Dorn. 2013. The case for validated tools in computer science education research. Computer 46, 9 (2013), 60–66. Google ScholarDigital Library
Joelle Elmaleh and Venky Shankararaman. 2017. Improving student learning in an introductory programming course using flipped classroom and competency framework. In IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON ’17). IEEE, 49–55.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ashraf Elnagar and Mahir Ali. 2012. A modified team-based learning methodology for effective delivery of an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177–182. 1145/2380552.2380604 Google ScholarDigital Library
Richard J. Enbody, William F. Punch, and Mark McCullen. 2009. Python CS1 as preparation for C++ CS2. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 116– 120. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kiran L. N. Eranki and Kannan M. Moudgalya. 2012. A collaborative approach to scaffold programming efficiency using spoken tutorials and its evaluation. In 8th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom ’12). IEEE, 556–559. https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6450951Google Scholar
Barbara J. Ericson, Kantwon Rogers, Miranda Parker, Briana Morrison, and Mark Guzdial. 2016. Identifying design principles for CS teacher ebooks through design-based research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191–200. Google ScholarDigital Library
Anthony Estey, Hieke Keuning, and Yvonne Coady. 2017. Automatically classifying students in need of support by detecting changes in programming behaviour. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 189–194. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jim Etheredge. 2004. CMeRun: program logic debugging courseware for CS1/CS2 students. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 22– 25. Google ScholarDigital Library
Thomas R Etherington. 2016. Teaching introductory GIS programming to geographers using an open source Python approach. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 40, 1 (2016), 117–130.Google ScholarCross Ref
1086981Google Scholar
Geela Venise Firmalo Fabic, Antonija Mitrovic, and Kourosh Neshatian. 2017. Investigating the effectiveness of menu-based self-explanation prompts in a mobile Python tutor. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, Elisabeth André, Ryan Baker, Xiangen Hu, Ma. Mercedes T. Rodrigo, and Benedict du Boulay (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 498–501. 1007/978-3-319-61425-0_49Google Scholar
Lisa Facey-Shaw and Paul Golding. 2005. Effects of peer tutoring and attitude on academic performance of first year introductory programming students. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’05). IEEE, S1E. 1109/FIE.2005.1612175Google ScholarCross Ref
Katrina Falkner and David S Munro. 2009. Easing the transition: a collaborative learning approach. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 95 (ACE ’09). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, 65–74. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1862712. Google ScholarDigital Library
1862725Google Scholar
Waleed Farag, Sanwar Ali, and Debzani Deb. 2013. Does language choice influence the effectiveness of online introductory programming courses?. In ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 165–170. Google ScholarDigital Library
Rob Faux. 2006. Impact of preprogramming course curriculum on learning in the first programming course. IEEE Transactions on Education 49 (2006), 11–15. Issue 1. Google ScholarDigital Library
Matthias Felleisen, Robert Bruce Findler, Matthew Flatt, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2018. How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and Computing. MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
James B Fenwick Jr, Cindy Norris, Frank E Barry, Josh Rountree, Cole J Spicer, and Scott D Cheek. 2009. Another look at the behaviors of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 296–300. Google ScholarDigital Library
José Luis Fernández Alemán and Youssef Oufaska. 2010. SAMtool, a tool for deducing and implementing loop patterns. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 68–72. Google ScholarDigital Library
1822111Google Scholar
Kasper Fisker, Davin McCall, Michael Kölling, and Bruce Quig. 2008. Group work support for the BlueJ IDE. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163–168. Google ScholarDigital Library
Fred Fonseca and Larry Spence. 2014. The karate kid method of problem based learning. In Innovative Practices in Teaching Information Sciences and Technology. Springer International Publishing, Cham., 9–17. 1007/978-3-319-03656-4_2Google Scholar
Davide Fossati, Barbara Di Eugenio, Christopher Brown, and Stellan Ohlsson. 2008. Learning linked lists: experiments with the iList system. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 80–89. 978-3-540-69132-7_13 Google ScholarDigital Library
Patrice Frison. 2015. A teaching assistant for algorithm construction. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9–14. Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniel Frost. 2008. Ucigame, a Java library for games. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 310–314. Google ScholarDigital Library
Luka Fürst and Viljan Mahnič. 2012. A cooperative development system for an interactive introductory programming course. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 10, 2 (2012), 122–127.Google Scholar
Judith Gal-Ezer, Tamar Vilner, and Ela Zur. 2009. Has the paradigm shift in CS1 a harmful effect on data structures courses: a case study. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 126–130. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jianxiong Gao, Bei Pang, and Steven S Lumetta. 2016. Automated feedback framework for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 53–58. Google ScholarDigital Library
2899440Google Scholar
Ryan Garlick and Ebru Celikel Cankaya. 2010. Using Alice in CS1: a quantitative experiment. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 165–168. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stuart Garner. 2007. A program design tool to help novices learn programming. In Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference (ASCILITE ’07). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 321–324.Google Scholar
David Ginat and Eti Menashe. 2015. SOLO taxonomy for assessing novices’ algorithmic design. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 452–457. Google ScholarDigital Library
David Ginat and Ronit Shmalo. 2013. Constructive use of errors in teaching CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 353–358. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mark Goadrich. 2014. Incorporating tangible computing devices into CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 29, 5 (2014), 23–31. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2600623. Google ScholarDigital Library
2600627Google Scholar
Paul Golding, Lisa Facey-Shaw, and Vanesa Tennant. 2006. Effects of peer tutoring, attitude and personality on academic performance of first year introductory programming students. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’06). IEEE, 7–12.Google ScholarCross Ref
Michael H Goldwasser and David Letscher. 2007. Introducing network programming into a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19–22. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael H Goldwasser and David Letscher. 2009. A graphics package for the first day and beyond. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 206–210. Google ScholarDigital Library
Anabela Jesus Gomes, Alvaro Nuno Santos, and António José Mendes. 2012. A study on students’ behaviours and attitudes towards learning to program. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 132–137. Google ScholarDigital Library
Gracielo Gonzalez. 2004. Constructivism in an introduction to programming course. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 19 (2004), 299–305. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=1050231.1050277 Google ScholarDigital Library
Graciela Gonzalez. 2006. A systematic approach to active and cooperative learning in CS1 and its effects on CS2. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 133–137. Google ScholarDigital Library
Morten Goodwin and Tom Drange. 2016. Teaching programming to large student groups through test driven development comparing established methods with teaching based on test driven development. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU ’16), Vol. 1. SciTePress, 281–288. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ira Greenberg, Deepak Kumar, and Dianna Xu. 2012. Creative coding and visual portfolios for CS1. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 247–252. Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Gries, Volodymyr Mnih, Jonathan Taylor, Greg Wilson, and Lee Zamparo. 2005. Memview: a pedagogically-motivated visual debugger. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’05). IEEE, S1J–11. 2005.1612204Google ScholarCross Ref
Paul Gross and Kris Powers. 2005. Evaluating assessments of novice programming environments. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 99–110. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sebastian Gross and Niels Pinkwart. 2015. Towards an integrative learning environment for Java programming. In IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’15). IEEE, 24–28. 1109/ICALT.2015.75 Google ScholarDigital Library
Dee Gudmundsen, Lisa Olivieri, and Namita Sarawagi. 2011. Using Visual Logic ©: three different approaches in different courses — General Education, CS0, and CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 6 (2011), 23–29. http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=1968521.1968529 Google ScholarDigital Library
Minzhe Guo, Taolun Chai, and Kai Qian. 2010. Design of online runtime and testing environment for instant Java programming assessment. In 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. IEEE, 1102–1106. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mark Guzdial. 2003. A media computation course for non-majors. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 104–108. Google ScholarDigital Library
Simo Haatainen, Antti-Jussi Lakanen, Ville Isomöttönen, and Vesa Lappalainen. 2013. A practice for providing additional support in CS1. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’13). IEEE, 178–183. Google ScholarDigital Library
Patricia Haden, Dale Parsons, Krissi Wood, and Joy Gasson. 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). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 40–49. 3141880.3141881 Google ScholarDigital Library
Pari Delir Haghighi and Judy Sheard. 2005. Summative computer programming assessment using both paper and computer. In Towards Sustainable and Scalable Educational Innovations Informed by the Learning Sciences (ICCE ’05). IOS Press, 67–75. Google ScholarDigital Library
John Hamer, Quintin Cutts, Jana Jackova, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Robert McCartney, Helen Purchase, Charles Riedesel, Mara Saeli, Kate Sanders, and Judithe Sheard. 2008. Contributing student pedagogy. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 4 (2008), 194–212. Google ScholarDigital Library
John Hamer, Helen C Purchase, Paul Denny, and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. {n. d.}. Quality of Peer Assessment in CS1. 27–36.Google Scholar
1584327Google Scholar
Nadeem Abdul Hamid. 2012. Automated web-based user interfaces for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM-SE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 42–47. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nadeem Abdul Hamid. 2016. A generic framework for engaging online data sources in introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 136–141. 2899415.2899437 Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Google ScholarDigital Library
Brian Hanks. 2005. Student performance in CS1 with distributed pair programming. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 316–320. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brian Hanks. 2006. Student attitudes toward pair programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 113–117. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brian Hanks. 2008. Problems encountered by novice pair programmers. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 7, 4, Article 2 (2008), 2:1–2:13 pages. 1316450.1316452 Google ScholarCross Ref
Brian Hanks, Charlie McDowell, David Draper, and Milovan Krnjajic. 2004. Program quality with pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 176–180. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brian Hanks, Laurie Murphy, Beth Simon, Renée McCauley, and Carol Zander. 2009. CS1 students speak: advice for students by students. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19–23. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael R Hansen and Jens Thyge Kristensen. 2008. Experiences with functional programming in an introductory curriculum. In Reflections on the Teaching of Programming, Jens Bennedsen, Michael E. Caspersen, and Michael Kölling (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 30–46. 4 Google ScholarDigital Library
Brian K Hare. 2013. Classroom interventions to reduce failure & withdrawal in CS1: a field report. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 28, 5 (2013), 228–235. http://dl.acm. org/citation.cfm?id=2458569.2458618 Google ScholarDigital Library
Douglas Harms. 2011. Personal robots in CS1: implementing the Myro API in Java. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 552– 557. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brian Harrington and Ayaan Chaudhry. 2017. TrAcademic: improving participation and engagement in CS1/CS2 with gamified practicals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 347–352. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nathan Harris and Charmain Cilliers. 2006. A program beacon recognition tool. In 2006 7th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET ’06). IEEE, 216–225. 1109/ITHET.2006.339767Google ScholarCross Ref
Björn Hartmann, Daniel MacDougall, Joel Brandt, and Scott R Klemmer. 2010. What would other programmers do: suggesting solutions to error messages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1019–1028. Google ScholarDigital Library
1145/1753326.1753478Google Scholar
Andrew Head, Elena Glassman, Gustavo Soares, Ryo Suzuki, Lucas Figueredo, Loris D’Antoni, and Björn Hartmann. 2017. Writing reusable code feedback at scale with mixed-initiative program synthesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 89–98. Google ScholarDigital Library
David Heaney and Charlie Daly. 2004. Mass production of individual feedback. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117–121. Google ScholarDigital Library
Bastiaan Heeren, Daan Leijen, and Arjan van IJzendoorn. 2003. Helium, for learning Haskell. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Haskell (Haskell ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 62–71. Google ScholarDigital Library
871902Google Scholar
Kenny Heinonen, Kasper Hirvikoski, Matti Luukkainen, and Arto Vihavainen. 2014. Using CodeBrowser to seek differences between novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 229–234. Google ScholarDigital Library
James Heliotis and Richard Zanibbi. 2011. Moving away from programming and towards computer science in the CS first year. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 3 (2011), 115–125. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1859159.1859183 Google ScholarDigital Library
Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, and Petri Ihantola. 2017. Plagiarism in take-home exams: help-seeking, collaboration, and systematic cheating. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 238–243. 1145/3059009.3059065 Google ScholarDigital Library
Joseph Henrich, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 2-3 (2010), 61–83.Google ScholarCross Ref
Pavel Herout and Premysl Brada. 2015. Duck Testing Enhancements for Automated Validation of Student Programmes. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education — Volume 1 (CSEDU ’15). SciTePress, Portugal, 228–234. 0005412902280234 Google ScholarDigital Library
Matthew Hertz and Sarah Michele Ford. 2013. Investigating factors of student learning in introductory courses. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 195–200. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael Hilton and David S Janzen. 2012. On teaching arrays with test-driven learning in WebIDE. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93–98. Google ScholarDigital Library
Amanda M Holland-Minkley and Thomas Lombardi. 2016. Improving engagement in introductory courses with homework resubmission. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 534–539. 2839509.2844576 Google ScholarDigital Library
Mark A Holliday and David Luginbuhl. 2004. CS1 assessment using memory diagrams. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 200–204. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lars Josef Höök and Anna Eckerdal. 2015. On the bimodality in an introductory programming course: an analysis of student performance factors. In International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’15). IEEE, 79–86. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dainal Hooshyar, Rodina Binti Ahmad, Mohd Hairul Nizam Md Nasir, and Wong Ching Mun. 2014. Flowchart-based approach to aid novice programmers: a novel framework. In 2014 International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCOINS). IEEE, 1–5. 2014.6868826Google ScholarCross Ref
Danial Hooshyar, Rodina Binti Ahmad, Mohd Hairul Nizam Md Nasir, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, and Shi-Jinn Horng. 2015. Flowchart-based programming environments for improving comprehension and problem-solving skill of novice programmers: a survey. International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms 7, 1 (2015), 24–56. Google ScholarDigital Library
Danial Hooshyar, Rodina Binti Ahmad, Ram Gopal Raj, Mohd Hairul Nizam Md Nasir, Moslem Yousef, Shi-Jinn Horng, and Jože Rugelj. 2015. A flowchart-based multi-agent system for assisting novice programmers with problem solving activities. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science 28, 2 (2015), 132–151.Google Scholar
Danial Hooshyar, Rodina Binti Ahmad, Moslem Yousefi, Moein Fathi, Shi-Jinn Horng, and Heuiseok Lim. 2018. SITS: a solution-based intelligent tutoring system for students’ acquisition of problem-solving skills in computer programming. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 55, 3 (2018), 325–335.Google ScholarCross Ref
Danial Hooshyar, Rodina Binti Ahmad, Moslem Yousefi, FD Yusop, and S-J Horng. 2015. A flowchart-based intelligent tutoring system for improving problem-solving skills of novice programmers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 31, 4 (2015), 345–361. Google ScholarDigital Library
V Horner and P Gouws. 2016. E-tutoring support for undergraduate students learning computer programming at the university of South Africa. In Proceedings of the Computer Science Education Research Conference 2016 (CSERC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 29–36. Google ScholarDigital Library
2998557Google Scholar
Diane Horton, Jennifer Campbell, and Michelle Craig. 2016. Online CS1: who enrols, why, and how do they do?. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 323–328. Google ScholarDigital Library
David Hovemeyer and David Babcock. 2009. Using terminal window graphics in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 24, 3 (2009), 151–158. http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=1409873.1409902 Google ScholarDigital Library
David Hovemeyer, Arto Hellas, Andrew Petersen, and Jaime Spacco. 2016. Control-flow-only abstract syntax trees for analyzing students’ programming progress. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 63–72. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wen Chin Hsu and Scott W Plunkett. 2016. Attendance and grades in learning programming classes. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 4:1– 4:6 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Minjie Hu, Michael Winikoff, and Stephen Cranefield. 2012. Teaching novice programming using goals and plans in a visual notation. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 123 (ACE ’12). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 43–52. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2483716.2483722 Google ScholarDigital Library
Minjie Hu, Michael Winikoff, and Stephen Cranefield. 2013. A process for novice programming using goals and plans. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 136 (ACE ’13). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 3–12. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2667199.2667200 Google ScholarDigital Library
Yun-Jen Hu and Po-Yao Chao. 2015. A simulation-based learning environment for learning debugging. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. on Computers in Education (ICCE ’15). 310–312.Google Scholar
Chenn-Jung Huang, Chen Chun-Hua, Luo Yun-Cheng, Chen Hong-Xin, and Yi-Ta Chuang. 2008. Developing an intelligent diagnosis and assessment elearning tool for introductory programming. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 11, 4 (2008), 139–157.Google Scholar
JL Huff and HR Clements. 2017. The hidden person within the frustrated student: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of a student’s experience in a programming course. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. ASEE.Google ScholarCross Ref
Bowen Hui and Shannon Farvolden. 2017. How can learning analytics improve a course?. In Proceedings of the 22nd Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 6 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, Dana Fairbrother, and Michael Trevisan. 2009. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 291–295. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, Dana Fairbrother, and Michael Trevisan. 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 (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 500–504. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, and Kyle Ryan. 2010. The design of an online environment to support pedagogical code reviews. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 182–186. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher D Hundhausen, Pawan Agarwal, and Michael Trevisan. 2011. Online vs. face-to-face pedagogical code reviews: an empirical comparison. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117–122. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher D Hundhausen and Jonathan Lee Brown. 2007. An experimental study of the impact of visual semantic feedback on novice programming. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 18, 6 (2007), 537–559. j.jvlc.2006.09.001 Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher D Hundhausen and Jonathan L Brown. 2007. What you see is what you code: a “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 18, 1 (2007), 22–47. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher D Hundhausen and Jonathan L Brown. 2008. Designing, visualizing, and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: an empirical study. Computers & Education 50, 1 (2008), 301–326. compedu.2006.06.002 Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher D Hundhausen, Sarah A Douglas, and John T Stasko. 2002. A metastudy of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 13, 3 (2002), 259–290.Google ScholarCross Ref
Christopher D Hundhausen, Sean Farley, and Jonathan Lee Brown. 2006. Can direct manipulation lower the barriers to programming and promote positive transfer to textual programming? An experimental study. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 2006 (VL/HCC’06). IEEE, 157–164. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher D Hundhausen, N Hari Narayanan, and Martha E Crosby. 2008. Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 392–396. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jacqueline Hundley. 2008. A review of using design patterns in CS1. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM-SE 46). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 30–33. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jacqueline Hundley and Winard Britt. 2009. Engaging students in software development course projects. In The Fifth Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing Conference: Intellect, Initiatives, Insight, and Innovations (TAPIA ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 87–92. Google ScholarDigital Library
Petri Ihantola, Tuukka Ahoniemi, Ville Karavirta, and Otto Seppälä. 2010. Review of Recent Systems for Automatic Assessment of Programming Assignments. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 86–93. Google ScholarDigital Library
Petri Ihantola, Arto Vihavainen, Alireza Ahadi, Matthew Butler, Jürgen Börstler, Stephen H Edwards, Essi Isohanni, Ari Korhonen, Andrew Petersen, Kelly Rivers, Miguel Ángel Rubio, Judy Sheard, Bronius Skupas, Jaime Spacco, Claudia Szabo, and Daniel Toll. 2015. Educational data mining and learning analytics in programming: literature review and case studies. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (ITICSE-WGR ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41–63. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ville Isomöttönen and Vesa Lappalainen. 2012. CSI with games and an emphasis on TDD and unit testing: piling a trend upon a trend. ACM Inroads 3, 3 (2012), 62–68. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mirjana Ivanović, Zoran Budimac, Miloš Radovanović, and Miloš Savić. 2015. Does the choice of the first programming language influence students’ grades?. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 305–312. Google ScholarDigital Library
Janusz Jablonowski. 2004. Some remarks on teaching of programming. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. org/10.1145/1050330.1050419 Google ScholarDigital Library
James Jackson, Michael Cobb, and Curtis Carver. 2005. Identifying top Java errors for novice programmers. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’05). IEEE, T4C–T4C.Google ScholarCross Ref
Matthew C Jadud. 2006. Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 73–84. org/10.1145/1151588.1151600 Google ScholarDigital Library
Matthew C Jadud and Poul Henriksen. 2009. Flexible, reusable tools for studying novice programmers. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37–42. Google ScholarDigital Library
Siti Robaya Jantan and Syed Ahmad Aljunid. 2012. An experimental evaluation of scaffolded educational games design for programming. In IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS ’12). IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ambikesh Jayal, Stasha Lauria, Allan Tucker, and Stephen Swift. 2011. Python for teaching introductory programming: a quantitative evaluation. ITALICS Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 10, 1 (2011), 86–90.Google Scholar
Mehdi Jazayeri. 2015. Combining mastery learning with project-based learning in a first programming course: an experience report. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering — Volume 2 (ICSE ’15). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 315–318. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2819009.2819059 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jam Jenkins, Evelyn Brannock, Thomas Cooper, Sonal Dekhane, Mark Hall, and Michael Nguyen. 2012. Perspectives on active learning and collaboration: javawide in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 185–190. Google ScholarDigital Library
Åse Jevinger and Kristina Von Hausswolff. 2016. Large programming task vs questions-and-answers examination in Java introductory courses. In International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’16). IEEE, 154–161.Google ScholarCross Ref
25Google Scholar
Wei Jin and Albert Corbett. 2011. Effectiveness of cognitive apprenticeship learning (CAL) and cognitive tutors (CT) for problem solving using fundamental programming concepts. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 305– 310. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wei Jin, Albert Corbett, Will Lloyd, Lewis Baumstark, and Christine Rolka. 2014. Evaluation of guided-planning and assisted-coding with task relevant dynamic hinting. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham., 318–328. 978-3-319-07221-0_40 Google ScholarDigital Library
Chris Johnson. 2012. SpecCheck: automated generation of tests for interface conformance. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 186–191. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chris Johnson, Monica McGill, Durell Bouchard, Michael K Bradshaw, Víctor A Bucheli, Laurence D Merkle, Michael James Scott, Z Sweedyk, J Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide, Zhiping Xiao, and Ming Zhang. 2016. Game development for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2016 ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 23–44.Google ScholarDigital Library
3024908Google Scholar
Mary Elizabeth “ME” Jones, Melanie Kisthardt, and Marie A Cooper. 2011. Interdisciplinary teaching: introductory programming via creative writing. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 523–528. Google ScholarDigital Library
Francisco Jurado, Ana I Molina, Miguel A Redondo, Manuel Ortega, Adam Giemza, Lars Bollen, and Heinz Ulrich Hoppe. 2009. Learning to program with COALA, a distributed computer assisted environment. Journal of Universal Computer Science 15, 7 (2009), 1472–1485.Google Scholar
Erkki Kaila, Teemu Rajala, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, and Tapio Salakoski. 2009. Effects, experiences and feedback from studies of a program visualization tool. Informatics in Education 8, 1 (2009), 17–34. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, CyprusGoogle ScholarCross Ref
Geetha Kanaparan, Rowena Cullen, and David Mason. 2013. Self-efficacy and engagement as predictors of student programming performance. In PACIS 2013 Proceedings, Vol. 282. AISeL, 12. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2013/282Google Scholar
Pertti Kansanen. 1999. Teaching as teaching-studying-learning interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 43, 1 (1999), 81–89.Google ScholarCross Ref
Oscar Karnalim. 2016. Detecting source code plagiarism on introductory programming course assignments using a bytecode approach. In International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS ’16). IEEE, 63–68.Google ScholarCross Ref
Petra Kastl, Oliver Krisch, and Ralf Romeike. 2017. 3D printing as medium for motivation and creativity in computer science lessons. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives. Springer International Publishing, 27–36.Google ScholarCross Ref
Nadia Kasto, Jacqueline Whalley, Anne Philpott, and David Whalley. 2014. Solution spaces. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 148 (ACE ’14). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 133–137. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2667490.2667506 Google ScholarDigital Library
Aaron Keen and Kurt Mammen. 2015. Program decomposition and complexity in CS1. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 48–53. org/10.1145/2676723.2677219 Google ScholarDigital Library
Hansi Keijonen, Jaakko Kurhila, and Arto Vihavainen. 2013. Carry-on effect in extreme apprenticeship. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’13). IEEE, 1150–1155.Google ScholarCross Ref
Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 2 (2005), 83–137. 1089733.1089734 Google ScholarDigital Library
Hieke Keuning, Johan Jeuring, and Bastiaan Heeren. 2016. Towards a systematic review of automated feedback generation for programming exercises. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41–46. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nazish Zaman Khan and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2016. Is computing for social good the solution to closing the gender gap in computer science?. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 17:1–17:5 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hassan Khosravi and Kendra M.L. Cooper. 2017. Using learning analytics to investigate patterns of performance and engagement in large classes. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 309–314. Google ScholarDigital Library
Suin Kim, Jae Won Kim, Jungkook Park, and Alice Oh. 2016. Elice: an online CS education platform to understand how students learn programming. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 225–228. Google ScholarDigital Library
Päivi Kinnunen and Lauri Malmi. 2006. Why students drop out CS1 course?. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 97–108. 1151588.1151604 Google ScholarDigital Library
Paivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2010. Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: the emotional toll. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 77–86. Google ScholarDigital Library
Päivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2011. CS majors’ self-efficacy perceptions in CS1: results in light of social cognitive theory. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19–26. Google ScholarDigital Library
Päivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2012. My program is ok—am I? Computing freshmen’s experiences of doing programming assignments. Computer Science Education 22, 1 (2012), 1–28.Google ScholarCross Ref
Päivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2012. Phenomenography and grounded theory as research methods in computing education research field. Computer Science Education 22, 2 (2012), 199–218.Google ScholarCross Ref
Stephen Kirby, Benjamin Toland, and Catherine Deegan. 2010. Program visualisation tool for teaching programming in C. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Training and Informatics (ICETI’10). 457–461.Google Scholar
Michael S. Kirkpatrick and Chris Mayfield. 2017. Evaluating an alternative CS1 for students with prior programming experience. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 333–338. 3017680.3017759 Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul A Kirschner. 2017. Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education 106 (2017), 166–171.Google Scholar
Gabor Kiss and Zuzanna Arki. 2017. The influence of game-based programming education on the algorithmic thinking. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017), 613–617.Google Scholar
Yoshihiro Kita, Tetsuro Katayama, and Shigeyuki Tomita. 2007. Implementation and evaluation of an automatic visualization tool “PGT” for programming education. In 5th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management & Applications (SERA 2007). IEEE, 213–220. Google ScholarDigital Library
Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33, 2004 (2004), 1–26.Google Scholar
Antti Knutas, Jouni Ikonen, Uolevi Nikula, and Jari Porras. 2014. Increasing collaborative communications in a programming course with gamification: a case study. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 370– 377. Google ScholarDigital Library
A. J. Ko. 2003. Preserving non-programmers’ motivation with errorprevention and debugging support tools. In IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments, 2003. Proceedings. 2003. IEEE, 271– 272. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew J. Ko. 2009. Attitudes and self-efficacy in young adults’ computing autobiographies. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC ’09). IEEE, 67–74. Google ScholarDigital Library
5295297Google Scholar
Andrew J. Ko and Brad A. Myers. 2008. Debugging reinvented: asking and answering why and why not questions about program behavior. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 301–310. Google ScholarDigital Library
Yousun Ko, Bernd Burgstaller, and Bernhard Scholz. 2013. Parallel from the beginning: the case for multicore programming in the computer science undergraduate curriculum. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 415–420. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kimberle Koile and David Singer. 2006. Improving learning in CS1 via tablet-pc-based in-class assessment. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 119–126. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael Kölling. 2008. Using BlueJ to introduce programming. In Reflections on the Teaching of Programming, Jens Bennedsen, Michael E. Caspersen, and Michael Kölling (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 98–115. 1007/978-3-540-77934-6_9Google Scholar
Steven Kollmansberger. 2010. Helping students build a mental model of computation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 128–131. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mario Konecki, Sandra Lovrenčić, and Matija Kaniški. 2016. Using real projects as motivators in programming education. In 39th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO ’16). IEEE, 883–886. 2016.7522264Google ScholarCross Ref
Yana Kortsarts and Yulia Kempner. 2012. Enriching introductory programming courses with non-intuitive probability experiments component. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 128–131. Google ScholarDigital Library
Aditi Kothiyal, Rwitajit Majumdar, Sahana Murthy, and Sridhar Iyer. 2013. Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137–144. Google ScholarDigital Library
Aditi Kothiyal, Sahana Murthy, and Sridhar Iyer. 2014. Think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: does learning really happen?. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 51–56. Google ScholarDigital Library
2591739Google Scholar
Theodora Koulouri, Stanislao Lauria, and Robert D. Macredie. 2014. Teaching introductory programming: a quantitative evaluation of different approaches. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 4, Article 26 (2014), 26:1–26:28 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Svetlana Kouznetsova. 2007. Using bluej and blackjack to teach object-oriented design concepts in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 22, 4 (2007), 49–55. http://dl.acm. org/citation.cfm?id=1229637.1229646 Google ScholarDigital Library
Feng-Yang Kuo, Wen-Hsiung Wu, and Cathy S Lin. 2013. An investigation of self-regulatory mechanisms in learning to program Visual Basic. Journal of Educational Computing Research 49, 2 (2013), 225–247. EC.49.2.fGoogle ScholarCross Ref
Jaakko Kurhila and Arto Vihavainen. 2011. Management, structures and tools to scale up personal advising in large programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–8. ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lisa L. Lacher and Mark C. Lewis. 2015. The effectiveness of video quizzes in a flipped class. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 224–228. Google ScholarDigital Library
Essi Lahtinen and Tuukka Ahoniemi. 2007. Annotations for defining interactive instructions to interpreter based program visualization tools. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 178 (2007), 121–128. entcs.2007.01.041 Google ScholarDigital Library
Essi Lahtinen and Tuukka Ahoniemi. 2009. Kick-start activation to novice programming — a visualization-based approach. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 224 (2009), 125–132. 056 Google ScholarDigital Library
Essi Lahtinen, Kirsti Ala-Mutka, and Hannu-Matti Järvinen. 2005. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 14–18. Google ScholarDigital Library
1067453Google Scholar
Chien-Hung Lai, Wei-Ching Lin, Bin-Shyan Jong, and Yen-Teh Hsia. 2013. Java assist learning system for assisted learning on facebook. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’13). IEEE, 77–82. Google ScholarDigital Library
Antti-Jussi Lakanen, Vesa Lappalainen, and Ville Isomöttönen. 2015. Revisiting rainfall to explore exam questions and performance on CS1. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 40–49. Google ScholarDigital Library
Maria S. W. Lam, Eric Y. K. Chan, Victor C. S. Lee, and Y. T. Yu. 2008. Designing an automatic debugging assistant for improving the learning of computer programming. In International Conference on Hybrid Learning and Education (ICHL ’08). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 359–370. 978-3-540-85170-7_32 Google ScholarDigital Library
H Chad Lane and Kurt VanLehn. 2004. A dialogue-based tutoring system for beginning programming. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS ’04), Vol. 2. AAAI, 449–454. http://www.aaai.org/Papers/FLAIRS/2004/Flairs04-078.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vesa Lappalainen, Antti-Jussi Lakanen, and Harri Högmander. 2017. Towards computer-based exams in CS1. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU ’17), Vol. 2. SciTePress, 125–136.Google ScholarCross Ref
Patricia Lasserre and Carolyn Szostak. 2011. Effects of team-based learning on a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 133–137. Google ScholarDigital Library
Matti Lattu, Veijo Meisalo, and Jorma Tarhio. 2003. A visualisation tool as a demonstration aid. Computers & Education 41, 2 (2003), 133–148. Google ScholarDigital Library
Celine Latulipe, N. Bruce Long, and Carlos E. Seminario. 2015. Structuring flipped classes with lightweight teams and gamification. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 392–397. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tom Lauwers, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Emily Hamner. 2009. CSbots: design and deployment of a robot designed for the CS1 classroom. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 428–432. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kris M.Y. Law, Victor C.S. Lee, and Y.T. Yu. 2010. Learning motivation in elearning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education 55, 1 (2010), 218–228. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael J Lee, Faezeh Bahmani, Irwin Kwan, Jilian LaFerte, Polina Charters, Amber Horvath, Fanny Luor, Jill Cao, Catherine Law, Michael Beswetherick, et al. 2014. Principles of a debugging-first puzzle game for computing education. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2014). IEEE, 57–64.Google ScholarCross Ref
Juho Leinonen, Leo Leppänen, Petri Ihantola, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Comparison of time metrics in programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 200–208. Google ScholarDigital Library
Noel LeJeune. 2010. Contract grading with mastery learning in CS 1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 2 (2010), 149–156. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1858583.1858604 Google ScholarDigital Library
Ronald Leppan, Charmain Cilliers, and Marinda Taljaard. 2007. Supporting CS1 with a program beacon recognition tool. In Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (SAICSIT ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 66–75. 1292491.1292499 Google ScholarDigital Library
Leo Leppänen, Juho Leinonen, Petri Ihantola, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Predicting academic success based on learning material usage. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13–18. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chuck Leska and John Rabung. 2005. Refactoring the CS1 course. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 20, 3 (2005), 6–18. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1040196.1040199 Google ScholarDigital Library
Colleen M. Lewis, Ken Yasuhara, and Ruth E. Anderson. 2011. Deciding to major in computer science: a grounded theory of students’ self-assessment of ability. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–10. org/10.1145/2016911.2016915 Google ScholarDigital Library
Hai-Ning Liang, Charles Fleming, Ka Lok Man, and Tammam Tillo. 2013. A first introduction to programming for first-year students at a Chinese university using LEGO MindStorms. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE ’13). IEEE, 233–238.Google ScholarCross Ref
Soohyun Nam Liao, Daniel Zingaro, Michael A. Laurenzano, William G. Griswold, and Leo Porter. 2016. Lightweight, early identification of at-risk CS1 students. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123–131. Google ScholarDigital Library
Derrell Lipman. 2014. LearnCS!: a new, browser-based C programming environment for CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 29, 6 (2014), 144–150. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=2602724.2602752 Google ScholarDigital Library
Alex Lishinski, Aman Yadav, and Richard Enbody. 2017. Students’ emotional reactions to programming projects in introduction to programming: measurement approach and influence on learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 30–38. Google ScholarDigital Library
Alex Lishinski, Aman Yadav, Richard Enbody, and Jon Good. 2016. The influence of problem solving abilities on students’ performance on different assessment tasks in CS1. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 329– 334. Google ScholarDigital Library
Alex Lishinski, Aman Yadav, Jon Good, and Richard Enbody. 2016. Learning to program: gender differences and interactive effects of students’ motivation, goals, and self-efficacy on performance. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 211–220. Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond Lister. 2004. Teaching Java first: experiments with a pigs-early pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 30 (ACE ’04). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 177–183. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 979968.979992 Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond Lister. 2005. One small step toward a culture of peer review and multi-institutional sharing of educational resources: a multiple choice exam for first semester programming students. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 42 (ACE ’05). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 155–164. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1082424.1082444 Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond Lister. 2011. Concrete and other neo-piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 114 (ACE ’11). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 9–18. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=2459936.2459938 Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond Lister, Elizabeth S Adams, Sue Fitzgerald, William Fone, John Hamer, Morten Lindholm, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Kate Sanders, Otto Seppälä, et al. 2004. A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. In Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 119–150. Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond Lister, Colin Fidge, and Donna Teague. 2009. Further evidence of a relationship between explaining, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 161–165. Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond Lister and John Leaney. 2003. Introductory programming, criterionreferencing, and Bloom. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 143–147. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stanislav Litvinov, Marat Mingazov, Vladislav Myachikov, Vladimir Ivanov, Yuliya Palamarchuk, Pavel Sozonov, and Giancarlo Succi. 2017. A tool for visualizing the execution of programs and stack traces especially suited for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2017). Springer International Publishing, 235–240.Google ScholarDigital Library
Matija Lokar and Matija Pretnar. 2015. A low overhead automated service for teaching programming. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 132–136. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Google ScholarDigital Library
Dastyni Loksa and Andrew J. Ko. 2016. The role of self-regulation in programming problem solving process and success. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83–91. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mike Lopez, Jacqueline Whalley, Phil Robbins, and Raymond Lister. 2008. Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 101–112. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ellie Lovellette, John Matta, Dennis Bouvier, and Roger Frye. 2017. Just the numbers: an investigation of contextualization of problems for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 393–398. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew K. Lui, Yannie H. Y. Cheung, and Siu Cheung Li. 2008. Leveraging students’ programming laboratory work as worked examples. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 2 (2008), 69–73. Google ScholarDigital Library
Evelyn Lulis and Reva Freedman. 2011. Validating an instructor rating scale for the difficulty of CS1 test items in C++. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 27, 2 (2011), 85–91. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2038836.2038847 Google ScholarDigital Library
Harri Luoma, Essi Lahtinen, and Hannu-Matti Järvinen. 2007. CLIP, a command line interpreter for a subset of C++. In Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research — Volume 88 (Koli Calling ’07). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 199–202. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2449323.2449351 Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2016. Learning to program is easy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 284–289. 1145/2899415.2899432 Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Brett A. Becker, Yingjun Cao, Roger McDermott, Claudio Mirolo, Andreas Mühling, Andrew Petersen, Kate Sanders, Simon, and Jacqueline Whalley. 2017. Developing assessments to determine mastery of programming fundamentals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 47–69. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Luxton-Reilly and Paul Denny. 2009. A simple framework for interactive games in CS1. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 216–220. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Luxton-Reilly and Andrew Petersen. 2017. The compound nature of novice programming assessments. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 26–35. Google ScholarDigital Library
Marianne Lykke, Mayela Coto, Sonia Mora, Niels Vandel, and Christian Jantzen. 2014. Motivating programming students by problem based learning and LEGO robots. In IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON ’14). IEEE, 544–555.Google ScholarCross Ref
Linxiao Ma, John Ferguson, Marc Roper, Isla Ross, and Murray Wood. 2009. Improving the mental models held by novice programmers using cognitive conflict and Jeliot visualisations. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 166–170. 1562877.1562931 Google ScholarDigital Library
Linxiao Ma, John Ferguson, Marc Roper, and Murray Wood. 2007. Investigating the viability of mental models held by novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 499–503. 1227310.1227481 Google ScholarDigital Library
Linxiao Ma, John Ferguson, Marc Roper, and Murray Wood. 2011. Investigating and improving the models of programming concepts held by novice programmers. Computer Science Education 21, 1 (2011), 57–80. 08993408.2011.554722Google ScholarCross Ref
Sandra Madison and James Gifford. 2002. Modular programming: novice misconceptions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34, 3 (2002), 217–229.Google ScholarCross Ref
Qusay H. Mahmoud, Wlodek Dobosiewicz, and David Swayne. 2004. Redesigning introductory computer programming with HTML, JavaScript, and Java. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 120–124. Google ScholarDigital Library
Qusay H Mahmoud and Pawel Popowicz. 2010. A mobile application development approach to teaching introductory programming. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’10). IEEE, T4F–1–T4F–6. FIE.2010.5673608Google ScholarCross Ref
Mirna Carelli Oliveira Maia, Dalton Serey, and Jorge Figueiredo. 2017. Learning styles in programming education: a systematic mapping study. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’17). IEEE, 1–7.Google ScholarCross Ref
8190465Google Scholar
L. Major, T. Kyriacou, and O. P. Brereton. 2012. Systematic literature review: teaching novices programming using robots. In IET Software, Vol. 6. IET, 502– 513. Issue 6.Google Scholar
David J. Malan. 2010. Reinventing CS50. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 152–156. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mercy Maleko, Margaret Hamilton, and Daryl D’Souza. 2012. Novices’ perceptions and experiences of a mobile social learning environment for learning of programming. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 285–290. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mercy Maleko, Dip Nandi, Margaret Hamilton, Daryl D’Souza, and James Harland. 2013. Facebook versus Blackboard for supporting the learning of programming in a fully online course: the changing face of computing education. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’13). IEEE, 83–89. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Simon, Roman Bednarik, Juha Helminen, Päivi Kinnunen, Ari Korhonen, Niko Myller, Juha Sorva, and Ahmad Taherkhani. 2014. Theoretical underpinnings of computing education research: what is the evidence?. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27–34. Google ScholarDigital Library
Linda Mannila and Michael de Raadt. 2006. An objective comparison of languages for teaching introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research: Koli Calling 2006 (Koli Calling ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 32–37. 1315803.1315811 Google ScholarDigital Library
Guillaume Marceau, Kathi Fisler, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2011. Measuring the effectiveness of error messages designed for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 499–504. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jakeline Marcos-Abed. 2014. Using a COAC# for CS1. In Proceedings of the Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 10, 10:1–10:3 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
2597971Google Scholar
Stefanie A. Markham. 2009. Expanding security awareness in introductory computer science courses. In Information Security Curriculum Development Conference (InfoSecCD ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27–31. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stefanie A. Markham and K. N. King. 2010. Using personal robots in CS1: experiences, outcomes, and attitudinal influences. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 204–208. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tanya Markow, Eugene Ressler, and Jean Blair. 2006. Catch that speeding turtle: latching onto fun graphics in CS1. Ada Lett. XXVI, 3 (2006), 29–34. Google ScholarDigital Library
Will Marrero and Amber Settle. 2005. Testing first: emphasizing testing in early programming courses. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4–8. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chris Martin, Janet Hughes, and John Richards. 2017. Learning experiences in programming: the motivating effect of a physical interface. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Vol. 1. SCITEPRESS, 162–172.Google ScholarCross Ref
José Alfredo Martínez-Valdés, J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide, and Raquel Hijón-Neira. 2017. A (relatively) unsatisfactory experience of use of Scratch in CS1. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 8:1–8:7 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Raina Mason and Simon. 2017. Introductory programming courses in Australasia in 2016. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81–89. 1145/3013499.3013512 Google ScholarDigital Library
Ásrún Matthíasdóttir and Hallgrímur Arnalds. 2016. E-assessment: students’ point of view. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 369– 374. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sarah Matzko and Timothy A. Davis. 2006. Teaching CS1 with graphics and C. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 168–172. Google ScholarDigital Library
Bruce A. Maxwell and Stephanie R. Taylor. 2017. Comparing outcomes across different contexts in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 399–403. ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. Google ScholarDigital Library
Brendan McCane, Claudia Ott, Nick Meek, and Anthony Robins. 2017. Mastery learning in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. Google ScholarDigital Library
Renée McCauley, Christopher Starr, Walter Pharr, RoxAnn Stalvey, and George Pothering. 2006. Is CS1 better with the same lecture and lab instructor? SIGCSE Bull. 38, 2 (2006), 54–60. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ian McChesney. 2016. Three years of student pair programming: action research insights and outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 84– 89. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael McCracken, Vicki Almstrum, Danny Diaz, Mark Guzdial, Dianne Hagan, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Cary Laxer, Lynda Thomas, Ian Utting, and Tadeusz Wilusz. 2001. A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR 2001). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 125–180. 1145/572139.572181 Google ScholarDigital Library
Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather E. Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2003. The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’03). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 602–607. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=776816.776899 Google ScholarDigital Library
Aidan McGowan, Philip Hanna, and Neil Anderson. 2016. Teaching programming: understanding lecture capture YouTube analytics. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 35–40. 1145/2899415.2899421 Google ScholarDigital Library
Fraser McKay and Michael Kölling. 2013. Predictive modelling for HCI problems in novice program editors. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (BCS-HCI ’13). British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, UK, Article 35, 35:1–35:6 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=2578048.2578092 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jim McKeown. 2004. The use of a multimedia lesson to increase novice programmers’ understanding of programming array concepts. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 19, 4 (2004), 39–50. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1050231.1050236 Google ScholarDigital Library
Dawn McKinney and Leo F. Denton. 2004. Houston, we have a problem: there’s a leak in the CS1 affective oxygen tank. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 236–239. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dawn McKinney and Leo F. Denton. 2005. Affective assessment of team skills in agile CS1 labs: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 465–469. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dawn McKinney and Leo F. Denton. 2006. Developing collaborative skills early in the CS curriculum in a laboratory environment. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 138–142. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kirby McMaster, Brian Rague, Samuel Sambasivam, and Stuart Wolthuis. 2016. Coverage of CS1 programming concepts in C++ and Java textbooks. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’16). IEEE, 1–8. FIE.2016.7757618Google ScholarCross Ref
William Isaac McWhorter and Brian C. O’Connor. 2009. Do LEGO® Mindstorms® motivate students in CS1?. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 438–442.Google Scholar
R. P. Medeiros, G. L. Ramalho, and T. P. Falcão. 2018. A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education. IEEE Transactions on Education (2018), 1–14.Google Scholar
2864133Google Scholar
Paola Medel and Vahab Pournaghshband. 2017. Eliminating gender bias in computer science education materials. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 411–416. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Dee Medley. 2007. Inquiry-based learning in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 23, 2 (2007), 209–215. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1292428.1292464 Google ScholarDigital Library
Andréa Mendonça, Clara de Oliveira, Dalton Guerrero, and Evandro Costa. 2009. Difficulties in solving ill-defined problems: a case study with introductory computer programming students. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’09). IEEE, 1–6. Google ScholarDigital Library
Alexander Mentis, Charles Reynolds, Donald Abbott-McCune, and Benjamin Ring. 2009. Cementing abstraction with a concrete application: a focused use of robots in CS1. In Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 14.Google Scholar
László Menyhárt and Gáborné Pap. 2014. Presentation of improved version of guide application for teaching programming fundamentals. In Proceedings on 7th International Multi-Conference on Engineering and Technological Innovation (IMETI ’14). IIIS, 77–82.Google Scholar
Michael A. Miljanovic and Jeremy S. Bradbury. 2017. Robobug: a serious game for learning debugging techniques. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93–100. Google ScholarDigital Library
Alexander Miller, Stuart Reges, and Allison Obourn. 2017. jGRASP: a simple, visual, intuitive programming environment for CS1 and CS2. ACM Inroads 8, 4 (2017), 53–58. Google ScholarDigital Library
Bradley N. Miller and David L. Ranum. 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 (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 150–155. Google ScholarDigital Library
L. D. Miller, Leen-Kiat Soh, Vlad Chiriacescu, Elizabeth Ingraham, Duane F. Shell, and Melissa Patterson Hazley. 2014. Integrating computational and creative thinking to improve learning and performance in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 475–480. Google ScholarDigital Library
Claudio Mirolo. 2012. Is iteration really easier to learn than recursion for CS1 students?. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 99–104. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ananya Misra, Douglas Blank, and Deepak Kumar. 2009. A music context for teaching introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 248–252. 1145/1562877.1562955 Google ScholarDigital Library
Behram F.T. Mistree, Bhupesh Chandra, Ewen Cheslack-Postava, Philip Levis, and David Gay. 2011. Emerson: accessible scripting for applications in an extensible virtual world. In Proceedings of the 10th SIGPLAN Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software (Onward! 2011). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 77–90. 2048237.2048247 Google ScholarDigital Library
Phatludi Modiba, Vreda Pieterse, and Bertram Haskins. 2016. Evaluating plagiarism detection software for introductory programming assignments. In Proceedings of the Computer Science Education Research Conference 2016 (CSERC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37–46. Google ScholarDigital Library
2998558Google Scholar
Susana Montero, Paloma Díaz, David Díez, and Ignacio Aedo. 2010. Dual instructional support materials for introductory object-oriented programming: classes vs. objects. In IEEE Education Engineering Conference (EDUCON ’10). IEEE, 1929–1934.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jan Moons and Carlos De Backer. 2009. Rationale behind the design of the EduVisor software visualization component. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 224 (2009), 57–65. Google ScholarDigital Library
Anmol More, Jitendra Kumar, and VG Renumol. 2011. Web based programming assistance tool for novices. In IEEE International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E ’11). IEEE, 270–273. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrés Moreno, Niko Myller, Erkki Sutinen, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2004. Visualizing programs with Jeliot 3. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373–376. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael Morgan, Jane Sinclair, Matthew Butler, Neena Thota, Janet Fraser, Gerry Cross, and Jana Jackova. 2017. Understanding international benchmarks on student engagement: awareness and research alignment from a computer science perspective. In Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–24. org/10.1145/3174781.3174782 Google ScholarDigital Library
Sally H. Moritz, Fang Wei, Shahida M. Parvez, and Glenn D. Blank. 2005. From objects-first to design-first with multimedia and intelligent tutoring. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 99–103. Google ScholarDigital Library
Barbara Moskal, Deborah Lurie, and Stephen Cooper. 2004. Evaluating the effectiveness of a new instructional approach. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 75–79. Google ScholarDigital Library
Frank Mueller and Antony L. Hosking. 2003. Penumbra: an Eclipse plugin for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 2003 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (Eclipse ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65–68. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andreas Mühling, Peter Hubwieser, and Marc Berges. 2015. Dimensions of programming knowledge. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015). Springer, Cham, 32–44.Google ScholarCross Ref
Paul Mullins, Deborah Whitfield, and Michael Conlon. 2009. Using Alice 2.0 as a first language. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 24, 3 (2009), 136–143. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=1409873.1409900 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jonathan P. Munson and Elizabeth A. Schilling. 2016. Analyzing novice programmers’ response to compiler error messages. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 31, 3 (2016), 53–61. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2835377.2835386 Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Google ScholarDigital Library
Surya Muntha and Larry Morell. 2006. Adding object-orientation to Genesis. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 21, 5 (2006), 101–106. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1127351.1127369 Google ScholarDigital Library
Christian Murphy, Gail Kaiser, Kristin Loveland, and Sahar Hasan. 2009. Retina: helping students and instructors based on observed programming activities. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 178–182. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christian Murphy, Eunhee Kim, Gail Kaiser, and Adam Cannon. 2008. Backstop: a tool for debugging runtime errors. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–177. Google ScholarDigital Library
Laurie Murphy and Lynda Thomas. 2008. Dangers of a fixed mindset: implications of self-theories research for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 271–275. Google ScholarDigital Library
Laurie Murphy and David Wolff. 2009. Creating video podcasts for CS1: lessons learned. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 25, 1 (2009), 152–158. http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=1619221.1619252 Google ScholarDigital Library
Thomas P. Murtagh. 2007. Squint: barely visible library support for CS1. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 526–530. Google ScholarDigital Library
Thomas P. Murtagh. 2007. Weaving CS into CS1: a doubly depth-first approach. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 336–340. Google ScholarDigital Library
Greg L. Nelson, Benjamin Xie, and Andrew J. Ko. 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 (ICER ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2–11. Google ScholarDigital Library
Vicente Lustosa Neto, Roberta Coelho, Larissa Leite, Dalton S. Guerrero, and Andrea P. Mendonça. 2013. POPT: a problem-oriented programming and testing approach for novice students. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1099–1108. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486788.2486939 Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Neve, Gordon Hunter, David Livingston, and James Orwell. 2012. NoobLab: an intelligent learning environment for teaching programming. In Proceedings of the The 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology — Volume 03 (WI-IAT ’12). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 357–361. WI-IAT.2012.218 Google ScholarDigital Library
Tia Newhall, Lisa Meeden, Andrew Danner, Ameet Soni, Frances Ruiz, and Richard Wicentowski. 2014. A support program for introductory CS courses that improves student performance and retains students from underrepresented groups. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 433–438. Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul Newton and Stuart Shaw. 2014. Validity in educational and psychological assessment. Sage.Google Scholar
Sin Chun Ng, Steven O Choy, Reggie Kwan, and SF Chan. 2005. A web-based environment to improve teaching and learning of computer programming in distance education. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning (ICWL ’05). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 279–290. Google ScholarDigital Library
Grace Ngai, Winnie W.Y. Lau, Stephen C.F. Chan, and Hong-va Leong. 2010. On the implementation of self-assessment in an introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 4 (2010), 85–89. Google ScholarDigital Library
Thuy-Linh Nguyen, Dip Nandi, and Geoff Warburton. 2011. Alice in online and on-campus environments — how well is it received?. In Proceedings of Information Systems Educators Conference (ISECON ’11).Google Scholar
Uolevi Nikula, Orlena Gotel, and Jussi Kasurinen. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 4, Article 24 (2011), 24:1–24:38 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Uolevi Nikula, Orlena Gotel, and Jussi Kasurinen. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 4, Article 24 (Nov. 2011), 24:1–24:38 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
2048935Google Scholar
Keith Nolan and Susan Bergin. 2016. The role of anxiety when learning to program: a systematic review of the literature. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61–70. 2999541.2999557 Google ScholarDigital Library
Cindy Norris, Frank Barry, James B. Fenwick Jr., Kathryn Reid, and Josh Rountree. 2008. ClockIt: collecting quantitative data on how beginning software developers really work. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 37–41. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jeff Offutt, Paul Ammann, Kinga Dobolyi, Chris Kauffmann, Jaime Lester, Upsorn Praphamontripong, Huzefa Rangwala, Sanjeev Setia, Pearl Wang, and Liz White. 2017. A novel self-paced model for teaching programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177–180. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ken Okada, Manabu Sugiura, Yoshiaki Matsuzawa, Megumi Araki, and Hajime Ohiwa. 2008. Programming in Japanese for literacy education. In History of Computing and Education 3 (HCE3). Springer, US, 171–176. 1007/978-0-387-09657-5_12Google Scholar
Osvaldo Luiz Oliveira, Ana Maria Monteiro, and Norton Trevisan Roman. 2013. Can natural language be utilized in the learning of programming fundamentals?. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’13). IEEE, 1851–1856.Google ScholarCross Ref
Rafael AP Oliveira, Lucas BR Oliveira, Bruno BP Cafeo, and Vinicius HS Durelli. 2015. Evaluation and assessment of effects on exploring mutation testing in programming courses. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’15). IEEE, 1–9. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tihomir Orehovački, Danijel Radošević, and Mladen Konecki. 2012. Acceptance of Verificator by information science students. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI ’12). IEEE, 223–230.Google Scholar
Tihomir Orehovački, Danijel Radošević, and Mladen Konecki. 2014. Perceived quality of Verifìcator in teaching programming. In 37th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO ’14). IEEE, 643–648. 2014.6859646Google Scholar
Claudia Ott, Anthony Robins, Patricia Haden, and Kerry Shephard. 2015. Illustrating performance indicators and course characteristics to support students’ self-regulated learning in CS1. Computer Science Education 25, 2 (2015), 174– 198.Google ScholarCross Ref
Claudia Ott, Anthony Robins, and Kerry Shephard. 2016. Translating principles of effective feedback for students into the CS1 context. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 1, Article 1 (2016), 1:1–1:27 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Özcan Özyurt and Hacer Özyurt. 2016. Using Facebook to enhance learning experiences of students in computer programming at introduction to programming and algorithm course. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 24 (2016), 546–554. Google ScholarDigital Library
James Dean Palmer. 2013. Computer Science I with Flare. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 28, 4 (2013), 94–100. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2458539.2458557 Google ScholarDigital Library
James Dean Palmer, Joseph Flieger, and Eddie Hillenbrand. 2011. JavaGrinder: a web-based platform for teaching early computing skills. In Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. ASEE, 15.Google ScholarCross Ref
Andrei Papancea, Jaime Spacco, and David Hovemeyer. 2013. An open platform for managing short programming exercises. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 47–52. 2493394.2493401 Google ScholarDigital Library
Sagar Parihar, Ziyaan Dadachanji, Praveen Kumar Singh, Rajdeep Das, Amey Karkare, and Arnab Bhattacharya. 2017. Automatic grading and feedback using program repair for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 92–97. 1145/3059009.3059026 Google ScholarDigital Library
Myung Ah Park. 2010. Designing CS1 as an eye-opening tool to the utility of computer science and a research-initiating tool. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 25, 4 (2010), 44–51. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1734797.1734805 Google ScholarDigital Library
Kevin R Parker, Thomas A Ottaway, and Joseph T Chao. 2006. Criteria for the selection of a programming language for introductory courses. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 2, 1-2 (2006), 119–139.Google ScholarCross Ref
Dale Parsons and Patricia Haden. 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). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 157–163. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1151869.1151890 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jody Paul. 2006. Leveraging students knowledge: introducing CS 1 concepts. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 22, 1 (2006), 246–252. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1181811.1181846 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jody Paul. 2006. “What first?” Addressing the critical initial weeks of CS-1. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’06). IEEE, 1–5. 1109/FIE.2006.322382Google ScholarCross Ref
Jarred Payne, Vincent Cavé, Raghavan Raman, Mathias Ricken, Robert Cartwright, and Vivek Sarkar. 2011. DrHJ: a lightweight pedagogic IDE for Habanero Java. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Programming in Java (PPPJ ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 147–150. Google ScholarDigital Library
Patrick Peachock, Nicholas Iovino, and Bonita Sharif. 2017. Investigating eye movements in natural language and C++ source code — a replication experiment. ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. In International Conference on Augmented Cognition. Springer, Cham, 206– 218.Google Scholar
Janice L. Pearce, Mario Nakazawa, and Scott Heggen. 2015. Improving problem decomposition ability in CS1 through explicit guided inquiry-based instruction. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 31, 2 (2015), 135–144. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2831432.2831453 Google ScholarDigital Library
Arnold Pears, Stephen Seidman, Crystal Eney, Päivi Kinnunen, and Lauri Malmi. 2005. Constructing a core literature for computing education research. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 37, 4 (2005), 152–161. Google ScholarDigital Library
Arnold Pears, Stephen Seidman, Lauri Malmi, Linda Mannila, Elizabeth Adams, Jens Bennedsen, Marie Devlin, and James Paterson. 2007. A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 204–223. Google ScholarDigital Library
Štefan Pero. 2014. How to detect programming skills of students?. In European Summit on Immersive Education. Springer, 63–72. 978-3-319-22017-8_6Google Scholar
Markeya S. Peteranetz, Abraham E. Flanigan, Duane F. Shell, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2016. Perceived instrumentality and career aspirations in CS1 courses: change and relationships with achievement. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13–21. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Petersen, Michelle Craig, Jennifer Campbell, and Anya Tafliovich. 2016. Revisiting why students drop CS1. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 71–80. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Petersen, Michelle Craig, and Daniel Zingaro. 2011. Reviewing CS1 exam question content. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 631– 636. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew Petersen, Jaime Spacco, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015. An exploration of error quotient in multiple contexts. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 77–86. Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond Pettit, John Homer, Roger Gee, Susan Mengel, and Adam Starbuck. 2015. An empirical study of iterative improvement in programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 410–415. Google ScholarDigital Library
Raymond S. Pettit, John Homer, and Roger Gee. 2017. Do enhanced compiler error messages help students?: Results inconclusive.. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 465–470. 3017680.3017768 Google ScholarDigital Library
Andrew M Phelps, Christopher A Egert, and Kevin J Bierre. 2005. MUPPETS: multi-user programming pedagogy for enhancing traditional study: an environment for both upper and lower division students. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’05). IEEE, S2H–8.Google ScholarCross Ref
Phitchaya Mangpo Phothilimthana and Sumukh Sridhara. 2017. High-coverage hint generation for massive courses: do automated hints help CS1 students?. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 182–187. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dinh Dong Phuong, Yusuke Yokota, Fumiko Harada, and Hiromitsu Shimakawa. 2010. Graining and filling understanding gaps for novice programmers. In International Conference on Education and Management Technology (ICEMT ’10). IEEE, 60–64.Google ScholarCross Ref
Marco Piccioni, Christian Estler, and Bertrand Meyer. 2014. Spoc-supported introduction to programming. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–8. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chris Piech, Mehran Sahami, Daphne Koller, Steve Cooper, and Paulo Blikstein. 2012. Modeling how students learn to program. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 153–160. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kerttu Pollari-Malmi, Julio Guerra, Peter Brusilovsky, Lauri Malmi, and Teemu Sirkiä. 2017. On the value of using an interactive electronic textbook in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 168–172. Google ScholarDigital Library
M. Poole. 2017. Extending the design of a blocks-based Python environment to support complex types. In IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B ’17). IEEE, 1–7.Google ScholarCross Ref
Leo Porter, Dennis Bouvier, Quintin Cutts, Scott Grissom, Cynthia Lee, Robert McCartney, Daniel Zingaro, and Beth Simon. 2016. A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 358–363. Google ScholarDigital Library
Leo Porter, Mark Guzdial, Charlie McDowell, and Beth Simon. 2013. Success in introductory programming: what works? Commun. ACM 56, 8 (2013), 34–36. Google ScholarDigital Library
Leo Porter and Beth Simon. 2013. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 165–170. Google ScholarDigital Library
Leo Porter and Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Importance of early performance in CS1: two conflicting assessment stories. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 295–300. Google ScholarDigital Library
Leo Porter, Daniel Zingaro, and Raymond Lister. 2014. Predicting student success using fine grain clicker data. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 51–58. Google ScholarDigital Library
Vahab Pournaghshband. 2013. Teaching the security mindset to CS1 students. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 347–352. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kris Powers, Stacey Ecott, and Leanne M. Hirshfield. 2007. Through the looking glass: teaching CS0 with alice. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 213–217. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kellie Price and Suzanne Smith. 2014. Improving student performance in CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 30, 2 (2014), 157–163. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2667432.2667454 Google ScholarDigital Library
Thomas W. Price and Tiffany Barnes. 2015. Comparing textual and block interfaces in a novice programming environment. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 91–99. org/10.1145/2787622.2787712 Google ScholarDigital Library
Mitchell Pryor. 2012. Real-time monitoring of student procrastination in a PSI first-year programming course. In Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. ASEE, 14.Google ScholarCross Ref
Wayne Pullan, Steven Drew, and Steven Tucker. 2013. An integrated approach to teaching introductory programming. In Second International Conference on E-Learning and E-Technologies in Education (ICEEE ’13). IEEE, 81–86.Google ScholarCross Ref
William Punch, Richard Enbody, Colleen McDonough, and Jon Sticklen. 2010. Measuring the effect of intervening early for academically at risk students in a CS1 course. ASEE.Google Scholar
Sandeep Purao, Maung Sein, Hallgeir Nilsen, and Even Åby Larsen. 2017. Setting the pace: experiments with Keller’s PSI. IEEE Transactions on Education 60 (2017), 97–104. Issue 2. Google ScholarDigital Library
Yizhou Qian and James Lehman. 2017. Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: a literature review. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 1, Article 1 (2017), 1:1–1:24 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Keith Quille, Natalie Culligan, and Susan Bergin. 2017. Insights on gender differences in CS1: a multi-institutional, multi-variate study.. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 263–268. 1145/3059009.3059048 Google ScholarDigital Library
Martin Quinson and Gérald Oster. 2015. A teaching system to learn programming: the programmer’s learning machine. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 260–265. 2729094.2742626 Google ScholarDigital Library
Alex Radermacher, Gursimran Walia, and Richard Rummelt. 2012. Assigning student programming pairs based on their mental model consistency: an initial investigation. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 325–330. Google ScholarDigital Library
Alex D. Radermacher and Gursimran S. Walia. 2011. Investigating the effective implementation of pair programming: an empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 655–660. Google ScholarDigital Library
Teemu Rajala, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Erkki Kaila, and Tapio Salakoski. 2007. VILLE: a language-independent program visualization tool. In Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research — Volume 88 (Koli Calling ’07). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 151–159. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2449323.2449340 Google ScholarDigital Library
R.Z. Ramli, A.Y. Kapi, and N. Osman. 2015. Visualization makes array easy. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Testing and Measurement: Techniques and Applications (TMTA ’15). CRC Press, 381–384.Google Scholar
Justus J Randolph, George Julnes, Erkki Sutinen, and Steve Lehman. 2008. A methodological review of computer science education research. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 7 (2008), 135–162. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, CyprusGoogle ScholarCross Ref
R. Rashkovits and I. Lavy. 2011. Students’ strategies for exception handling. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 10, 1 (2011), 183–207.Google ScholarCross Ref
Andrew Ray. 2012. Evolving the usage of LEGO robots in CS1 to facilitate highlevel problem solving. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE ’12). ICTA Press, 91–98.Google Scholar
Saquib Razak. 2013. A case for course capstone projects in CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 693–698. 2445196.2445398 Google ScholarDigital Library
Susan Reardon and Brendan Tangney. 2014. Smartphones, studio-based learning, and scaffolding: helping novices learn to program. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 4, Article 23 (2014), 23:1–23:15 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Samuel A. Rebelsky, Janet Davis, and Jerod Weinman. 2013. Building knowledge and confidence with mediascripting: a successful interdisciplinary approach to CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 483–488. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dale Reed, Sam John, Ryan Aviles, and Feihong Hsu. 2004. CFX: finding just the right examples for CS1. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 363–367. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stuart Reges. 2006. Back to basics in CS1 and CS2. SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (2006), 293–297. Google ScholarDigital Library
Charles Reis and Robert Cartwright. 2004. Taming a professional IDE for the classroom. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 156–160. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jake Renzella and Andrew Cain. 2017. Supporting better formative feedback in task-oriented portfolio assessment. In IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE ’17). IEEE, 360–367.Google ScholarCross Ref
Emma Riese. 2017. Students’ experience and use of assessment in an online introductory programming course. In International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’17). IEEE, 30–34.Google ScholarCross Ref
Peter C. Rigby and Suzanne Thompson. 2005. Study of novice programmers using Eclipse and Gild. In Proceedings of the 2005 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (Eclipse ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 105–109. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kelly Rivers and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2015. Data-driven hint generation in vast solution spaces: a self-improving Python programming tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 27, 1 (2015), 37–64. org/10.1007/s40593-015-0070-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
Mona Rizvi, Thorna Humphries, Debra Major, Heather Lauzun, and Meghan Jones. 2011. A new CS0 course for at-risk majors. In 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T ’11). IEEE, 314–323. Google ScholarDigital Library
Eric Roberts and Keith Schwarz. 2013. A portable graphics library for introductory CS. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 153–158. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael Robey, Brian R Von Konsky, Jim Ivins, Susan J Gribble, Allan Loh, and David Cooper. 2006. Student self-motivation: lessons learned from teaching first year computing. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’06). IEEE, 6–11.Google ScholarCross Ref
Anthony Robins. 2010. Learning edge momentum: a new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education 20, 1 (2010), 37–71. 1080/08993401003612167Google ScholarCross Ref
Anthony Robins, Janet Rountree, and Nathan Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion. Computer Science Education 13, 2 (2003), 137–172.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ma. Mercedes T. Rodrigo and Ryan S.J.d. Baker. 2009. Coarse-grained detection of student frustration in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 75–80. Google ScholarDigital Library
1584332Google Scholar
Ma. Mercedes T. Rodrigo, Ryan S. Baker, Matthew C. Jadud, Anna Christine M. Amarra, Thomas Dy, Maria Beatriz V. Espejo-Lahoz, Sheryl Ann L. Lim, Sheila A.M.S. Pascua, Jessica O. Sugay, and Emily S. Tabanao. 2009. Affective and behavioral predictors of novice programmer achievement. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 156–160. Google ScholarDigital Library
Maria Mercedes T Rodrigo, Emily Tabanao, Ma Beatriz E Lahoz, and Matthew C Jadud. 2009. Analyzing online protocols to characterize novice Java programmers. Philippine Journal of Science 138, 2 (2009), 177–190.Google Scholar
Reinout Roels, Paul Meştereagă, and Beat Signer. 2016. An interactive source code visualisation plug-in for the MindXpres presentation platform. In Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer, Cham, 169– 188.Google Scholar
Reinout Roels, Paul Meźtereagź, and Beat Signer. 2015. Towards enhanced presentation-based teaching of programming: an interactive source code visualisation approach. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education—Volume 1 (CSEDU ’15). SciTePress, 98–107. Google ScholarDigital Library
Timo Rongas, Arto Kaarna, and Heikki Kalviainen. 2004. Classification of computerized learning tools for introductory programming courses: learning approach. In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’04). IEEE, 678–680. Google ScholarDigital Library
Guido Rößling. 2010. A family of tools for supporting the learning of programming. Algorithms 3, 2 (2010), 168–182.Google ScholarCross Ref
Janet Rountree, Nathan Rountree, Anthony Robins, and Robert Hannah. 2005. Observations of student competency in a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 42 (ACE ’05). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 145–149. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1082424.1082442 Google ScholarDigital Library
Krishnendu Roy, William C Rousse, and David B DeMeritt. 2012. Comparing the mobile novice programming environments: App Inventor for Android vs. GameSalad. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’12). IEEE, 1–6. Google ScholarDigital Library
Marc J. Rubin. 2013. The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 651–656. Google ScholarDigital Library
Miguel Angel Rubio, Rocio Romero-Zaliz, Carolina Mañoso, and P Angel. 2014. Enhancing an introductory programming course with physical computing modules. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’14). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarCross Ref
Mark F. Russo. 2017. Doodlepad: next-gen event-driven programming for CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 32, 4 (2017), 99–105. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 3055338.3055356 Google ScholarDigital Library
Daisuke Saito, Ayana Sasaki, Hironori Washizaki, Yoshiaki Fukazawa, and Yusuke Muto. 2017. Program learning for beginners: survey and taxonomy of programming learning tools. In IEEE 9th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED ’17). IEEE, 137–142.Google ScholarCross Ref
8251181Google Scholar
A Sajana, Kamal Bijlani, and R Jayakrishnan. 2015. An interactive serious game via visualization of real life scenarios to learn programming concepts. In 6th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) (ICCCNT ’15). IEEE, 1–8. Google ScholarDigital Library
Norsaremah Salleh, Emilia Mendes, John Grundy, and Giles St. J. Burch. 2010. The effects of neuroticism on pair programming: an empirical study in the higher education context. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 22:1–22:10 pages. 1852786.1852816 Google ScholarDigital Library
Norsaremah Salleh, Emilia Mendes, John Grundy, and Giles St. J Burch. 2010. An empirical study of the effects of conscientiousness in pair programming using the five-factor personality model. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering — Volume 1 (ICSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 577–586. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dean Sanders and Brian Dorn. 2003. Jeroo: a tool for introducing object-oriented programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 201–204. Google ScholarDigital Library
Joseph P. Sanford, Aaron Tietz, Saad Farooq, Samuel Guyer, and R. Benjamin Shapiro. 2014. Metaphors we teach by. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 585–590. Google ScholarDigital Library
Loé Sanou, Sybille Caffiau, Patrick Girard, and Laurent Guittet. 2008. Example usage evaluation for the learning of programming using the MELBA environment. In IADIS Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems; Proceedings of Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction 2008 (MCCSIS ’08). ICTA Press, 35–42.Google Scholar
André L. Santos. 2012. An open-ended environment for teaching Java in context. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 87–92. Google ScholarDigital Library
Linda J. Sax, Kathleen J. Lehman, and Christina Zavala. 2017. Examining the enrollment growth: non-cs majors in CS1 courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 513–518. Google ScholarDigital Library
Pablo Schoeffel, Raul Sidnei Wazlawick, and Vinicius Ramos. 2017. Impact of preuniversity factors on the motivation and performance of undergraduate students ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. in software engineering. In IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T ’17). IEEE, 266–275. CSEET.2017.50Google Scholar
Joachim Schramm, Sven Strickroth, Nguyen-Thinh Le, and Niels Pinkwart. 2012. Teaching UML skills to novice programmers using a sample solution based intelligent tutoring system. In Proceedings of the 25th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS ’12). AAAI Press, 472–477.Google Scholar
Ivonne Schröter, Jacob Krüger, Janet Siegmund, and Thomas Leich. 2017. Comprehending studies on program comprehension. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC ’17). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 308–311. Google ScholarDigital Library
Carsten Schulte and Jens Bennedsen. 2006. What do teachers teach in introductory programming?. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17–28. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jorg Schulze, Matthias Langrich, and Antje Meyer. 2007. The success of the demidovich-principle in undergraduate C# programming education. In IEEE Frontiers In Education Conference (FIE ’07). IEEE, F4C–7–F4C–12. org/10.1109/FIE.2007.4418090Google ScholarCross Ref
Andrew Scott, Mike Watkins, and Duncan McPhee. 2008. E-learning for novice programmers; a dynamic visualisation and problem solving tool. In 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications (ICTTA ’08). IEEE, 1–6. ICTTA.2008.4529966Google ScholarCross Ref
Michael James Scott, Steve Counsell, Stanislao Lauria, Stephen Swift, Allan Tucker, Martin Shepperd, and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2015. Enhancing practice and achievement in introductory programming with a robot Olympics. IEEE Transactions on Education 58 (2015), 249–254. Issue 4. TE.2014.2382567Google ScholarCross Ref
Michael James Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2014. Measuring enrichment: the assembly and validation of an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123–130. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael J Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2014. On the domain-specificity of mindsets: the relationship between aptitude beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Transactions on Education 57 (2014), 169–174. Issue 3. 1109/TE.2013.2288700 Google ScholarDigital Library
P. Seeling. 2016. Switching to blend-Ed: effects of replacing the textbook with the browser in an introductory computer programming course. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’16). IEEE, 1–5.Google ScholarCross Ref
7757620Google Scholar
Otto Seppälä, Petri Ihantola, Essi Isohanni, Juha Sorva, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015. Do we know how difficult the rainfall problem is?. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 87–96. 2828959.2828963 Google ScholarDigital Library
Amber Settle, John Lalor, and Theresa Steinbach. 2015. Reconsidering the impact of CS1 on novice attitudes. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 229–234. Google ScholarDigital Library
Olga Shabalina, Christos Malliarakis, Florica Tomos, and Peter Mozelius. 2017. Game-based learning for learning to program: from learning through play to learning through game development. In European Conference on Games Based Learning 2017 (ECGBL ’17), Vol. 11. Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, 571–576.Google Scholar
Steven C. Shaffer and Mary Beth Rosson. 2013. Increasing student success by modifying course delivery based on student submission data. ACM Inroads 4, 4 (2013), 81–86. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ritu Sharma, Haifeng Shen, and Robert Goodwin. 2016. Voluntary participation in discussion forums as an engagement indicator: an empirical study of teaching first-year programming. In Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 489–493. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jason H Sharp and Leah A Schultz. 2013. An exploratory study of the use of video as an instructional tool in an introductory C# programming course. Information Systems Education Journal 11, 6 (2013), 33.Google Scholar
Alan Shaw. 2011. Using a collaborative programming methodology to incorporate social computing projects into introductory computer science courses. In Eighth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG ’11). IEEE, 7–11. Google ScholarDigital Library
Judy Sheard, Angela Carbone, Raymond Lister, Beth Simon, Errol Thompson, and Jacqueline L. Whalley. 2008. Going SOLO to assess novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 209–213. Google ScholarDigital Library
Judy Sheard, Simon, Matthew Butler, Katrina Falkner, Michael Morgan, and Amali Weerasinghe. 2017. Strategies for maintaining academic integrity in first-year computing courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 244–249. Google ScholarDigital Library
Judy Sheard, Simon, Angela Carbone, Donald Chinn, Tony Clear, Malcolm Corney, Daryl D’Souza, Joel Fenwick, James Harland, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, and Donna Teague. 2013. How difficult are exams?: a framework for assessing the complexity of introductory programming exams. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 136 (ACE ’13). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 145–154. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2667199.2667215 Google ScholarDigital Library
Judy Sheard, Simon, Angela Carbone, Daryl D’Souza, and Margaret Hamilton. 2013. Assessment of programming: pedagogical foundations of exams. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 141–146. Google ScholarDigital Library
Judy Sheard, Simon, Julian Dermoudy, Daryl D’Souza, Minjie Hu, and Dale Parsons. 2014. Benchmarking a set of exam questions for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 148 (ACE ’14). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 113–121. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2667490.2667504 Google ScholarDigital Library
Judy Sheard, Simon, Margaret Hamilton, and Jan Lönnberg. 2009. Analysis of research into the teaching and learning of programming. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93–104. Google ScholarDigital Library
1584334Google Scholar
Lee Sheldon. 2011. The multiplayer classroom: designing coursework as a game. Cengage Learning. Google ScholarDigital Library
Duane F. Shell, Leen-Kiat Soh, Abraham E. Flanigan, and Markeya S. Peteranetz. 2016. Students’ initial course motivation and their achievement and retention in college CS1 courses. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 639– 644. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nianfeng Shi, Zhiyu Min, and Ping Zhang. 2017. Effects of visualizing roles of variables with animation and IDE in novice program construction. Telematics and Informatics 34, 5 (2017), 743–754. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dermot Shinners-Kennedy and David J. Barnes. 2011. The novice programmer’s “device to think with”. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 511– 516. Google ScholarDigital Library
Shuhaida Shuhidan, Margaret Hamilton, and Daryl D’Souza. 2009. A taxonomic study of novice programming summative assessment. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 95 (ACE ’09). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 147–156. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1862712.1862734 Google ScholarDigital Library
T. Y. Sim. 2015. Exploration on the impact of online supported methods for novice programmers. In IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e) (IC3e ’15). IEEE, 158–162.Google ScholarCross Ref
7403505Google Scholar
Simon. 2011. Assignment and sequence: why some students can’t recognise a simple swap. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10–15. Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon. 2013. Soloway’s rainfall problem has become harder. In Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’13). IEEE, 130–135. Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Angela Carbone, Michael de Raadt, Raymond Lister, Margaret Hamilton, and Judy Sheard. 2008. Classifying computing education papers: process and results. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 161–172. Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Donald Chinn, Michael de Raadt, Anne Philpott, Judy Sheard, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Daryl D’Souza, James Skene, Angela Carbone, Tony Clear, Raymond Lister, and Geoff Warburton. 2012. Introductory programming: examining the exams. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 123 (ACE ’12). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 61–70. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=2483716.2483724 Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Alison Clear, Janet Carter, Gerry Cross, Atanas Radenski, Liviana Tudor, and Eno Tõnisson. 2015. What’s in a Name?: International Interpretations of Computing Education Terminology. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (ITICSE-WGR ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–186. Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Daryl D’Souza, Judy Sheard, James Harland, Angela Carbone, and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2012. Can computing academics assess the difficulty of programming examination questions?. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 160–163. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Mike Lopez, Ken Sutton, and Tony Clear. 2009. Surely we must learn to read before we learn to write!. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 95 (ACE ’09). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 165–170. http://dl.acm. org/citation.cfm?id=1862712.1862736 Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Judy Sheard, Daryl D’Souza, Peter Klemperer, Leo Porter, Juha Sorva, Martijn Stegeman, and Daniel Zingaro. 2016. Benchmarking introductory programming exams: how and why. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 154–159. Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Judy Sheard, Daryl D’Souza, Peter Klemperer, Leo Porter, Juha Sorva, Martijn Stegeman, and Daniel Zingaro. 2016. Benchmarking introductory programming exams: some preliminary results. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 103–111. Google ScholarDigital Library
Simon, Judy Sheard, Michael Morgan, Andrew Petersen, Amber Settle, Jane Sinclair, Gerry Cross, and Charles Riedesel. 2016. Negotiating the maze of academic integroty in computing education. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 57–80. 3024906.3024910 Google ScholarDigital Library
Beth Simon, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, Susan Haller, John Hamer, Brian Hanks, Michael T. Helmick, Jan Erik Moström, Judy Sheard, and Lynda Thomas. 2007. Debugging assistance for novices: a video repository. In Working Group Reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137–151. Google ScholarDigital Library
Beth Simon, Brian Hanks, Laurie Murphy, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2008. Saying isn’t necessarily believing: influencing self-theories in computing. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–184. Google ScholarDigital Library
Beth Simon, Päivi Kinnunen, Leo Porter, and Dov Zazkis. 2010. Experience report: CS1 for majors with media computation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 214–218. Google ScholarDigital Library
Guttorm Sindre, Steinar Line, and Ottar V. Valvåg. 2003. Positive experiences with an open project assignment in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’03). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 608–613. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=776816.776900 Google ScholarDigital Library
Rishabh Singh, Sumit Gulwani, and Armando Solar-Lezama. 2013. Automated feedback generation for introductory programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15–26. Google ScholarDigital Library
Teemu Sirkiä. 2016. Jsvee & Kelmu: creating and tailoring program animations for computing education. In IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT ’16). IEEE, 36–45. 2016.24Google ScholarCross Ref
Ben Skudder and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2014. Worked examples in computer science. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 148 (ACE ’14). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 59–64. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2667490. Google ScholarDigital Library
2667497Google Scholar
Robert H. Sloan, Cynthia Taylor, and Richard Warner. 2017. Initial experiences with a CS + Law introduction to computer science (CS 1). In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 40–45. 1145/3059009.3059029 Google ScholarDigital Library
Leen-Kiat Soh. 2006. Incorporating an intelligent tutoring system into CS1. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 486–490. Google ScholarDigital Library
Elliot Soloway. 1986. Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Commun. ACM 29, 9 (1986), 850–858. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hosung Song. 2010. Online shared editing for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education — Volume 1 (CSEDU ’10), Vol. 1. INSTICC, SciTePress, 489–492.Google Scholar
Raja Sooriamurthi. 2009. Introducing abstraction and decomposition to novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 196–200. Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva. 2007. Students’ understandings of storing objects. In Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research - Volume 88 (Koli Calling ’07). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 127–135. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2449323.2449337 Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva. 2008. The same but different students’ understandings of primitive and object variables. In Proceedings of the 8th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5–15. Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva. 2010. Reflections on threshold concepts in computer programming and beyond. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21–30. Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva. 2013. Notional machines and introductory programming education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 2, Article 8 (2013), 8:1–8:31 pages. 1145/2483710.2483713 Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva, Ville Karavirta, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 4, Article 15 (2013), 15:1–15:64 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva, Ville Karavirta, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 4, Article 15 (2013), 15:1–15:64 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva, Jan Lönnberg, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. Students’ ways of experiencing visual program simulation. Computer Science Education 23, 3 (2013), 207–238.Google ScholarCross Ref
Juha Sorva and Otto Seppälä. 2014. Research-based design of the first weeks of CS1. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 71–80. Google ScholarDigital Library
Juha Sorva and Teemu Sirkiä. 2010. UUhistle: a software tool for visual program simulation. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 49–54. Google ScholarDigital Library
Draylson Micael de Souza, Seiji Isotani, and Ellen Francine Barbosa. 2015. Teaching novice programmers using ProgTest. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 10, 1 (2015), 60–77.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jaime Spacco, Paul Denny, Brad Richards, David Babcock, David Hovemeyer, James Moscola, and Robert Duvall. 2015. Analyzing student work patterns using programming exercise data. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 18–23. Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael Sperber and Marcus Crestani. 2012. Form over function: teaching beginners how to construct programs. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Workshop on Scheme and Functional Programming (Scheme ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81–89. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andreas Stefik and Stefan Hanenberg. 2014. The programming language wars: questions and responsibilities for the programming language community. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming & Software (Onward! 2014). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 283–299. Google ScholarDigital Library
Andreas Stefik and Susanna Siebert. 2013. An empirical investigation into programming language syntax. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 4, Article 19 (2013), 19:1–19:40 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Martijn Stegeman, Erik Barendsen, and Sjaak Smetsers. 2016. Designing a rubric for feedback on code quality in programming courses. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 160–164. 2999541.2999555 Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniel E. Stevenson and Paul J. Wagner. 2006. Developing real-world programming assignments for CS1. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 158–162. 1140124.1140167 Google ScholarDigital Library
Margaret-Anne Storey, Daniela Damian, Jeff Michaud, Del Myers, Marcellus Mindel, Daniel German, Mary Sanseverino, and Elizabeth Hargreaves. 2003.Google Scholar
Improving the usability of Eclipse for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 2003 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology eXchange (Eclipse ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 35–39. Google ScholarDigital Library
Leigh Ann Sudol-DeLyser, Mark Stehlik, and Sharon Carver. 2012. Code comprehension problems as learning events. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81–86. Google ScholarDigital Library
2325319Google Scholar
Hui Sun, Bofang Li, and Min Jiao. 2014. Yoj: an online judge system designed for programming courses. In 2014 9th International Conference on Computer Science & Education. IEEE, 812–816. 2014.6926575Google ScholarCross Ref
Kelvin Sung, Rob Nash, and Jason Pace. 2016. Building casual game SDKs for teaching CS1/2: a case study. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 32, 1 (2016), 129–143. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3007225.3007253 Google ScholarDigital Library
Ryo Suzuki, Gustavo Soares, Elena Glassman, Andrew Head, Loris D’Antoni, and Björn Hartmann. 2017. Exploring the design space of automatically synthesized hints for introductory programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2951–2958. Google ScholarDigital Library
3027063.3053187Google Scholar
John Sweller. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction 4, 4 (1994), 295–312.Google Scholar
Emily S. Tabanao, Ma. Mercedes T. Rodrigo, and Matthew C. Jadud. 2011. Predicting at-risk novice Java programmers through the analysis of online protocols. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 85–92. 2016911.2016930 Google ScholarDigital Library
Pallavi Tadepalli and H. Conrad Cunningham. 2004. JavaCHIME: Java class hierarchy inspector and method executer. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM-SE 42). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 152– 157. Google ScholarDigital Library
Anya Tafliovich, Jennifer Campbell, and Andrew Petersen. 2013. A student perspective on prior experience in CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 239–244. Google ScholarDigital Library
Yasuhiro Takemura, Hideo Nagumo, Kuo-Li Huang, and Hidekuni Tsukamoto. {n. d.}. Assessing the learners’ motivation in the e-learning environments for programming education. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning (ICWL ’07), Howard Leung, Frederick Li, Rynson Lau, and Qing Li (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 355–366. 978-3-540-78139-4_32 Google ScholarDigital Library
Terry Tang, Scott Rixner, and Joe Warren. 2014. An environment for learning interactive programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 671– 676. Google ScholarDigital Library
Donna Teague. 2009. A people-first approach to programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education — Volume 95 (ACE ’09). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 171–180. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1862712.1862737 Google ScholarDigital Library
Donna Teague, Malcolm Corney, Alireza Ahadi, and Raymond Lister. 2013. A qualitative think aloud study of the early neo-piagetian stages of reasoning in novice programmers. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 136 (ACE ’13). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 87–95. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=2667199.2667209 Google ScholarDigital Library
Donna Teague and Raymond Lister. 2014. Longitudinal think aloud study of a novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 148 (ACE ’14). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 41–50. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=2667490.2667495 Google ScholarDigital Library
Donna Teague and Raymond Lister. 2014. Manifestations of preoperational reasoning on similar programming tasks. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 148 (ACE ’14). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 65–74. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2667490.2667498 Google ScholarDigital Library
Donna Teague and Raymond Lister. 2014. Programming: reading, writing and reversing. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 285– 290. Google ScholarDigital Library
D. Teague and P. Roe. 2009. Learning to program : from pear-shaped to pairs. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU ’09), Vol. 2. SciTePress, 151–158.Google Scholar
Lynda Thomas, Mark Ratcliffe, and Ann Robertson. 2003. Code warriors and code-a-phobes: a study in attitude and pair programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 363–367. 611892.612007 Google ScholarDigital Library
Errol Thompson, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Jacqueline L. Whalley, Minjie Hu, and Phil Robbins. 2008. Bloom’s taxonomy for CS assessment. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education — Volume 78 (ACE ’08). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 155–161. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1379249.1379265 Google ScholarDigital Library
Neena Thota. 2014. Programming course design: phenomenographic approach to learning and teaching. In International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE ’14). IEEE, 125–132. 1109/LaTiCE.2014.30 Google ScholarDigital Library
Veronika Thurner and Axel Böttcher. 2015. An “objects first, tests second” approach for software engineering education. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’15). IEEE, 1–5. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nikolai Tillmann, Michal Moskal, Jonathan de Halleux, Manuel Fahndrich, Judith Bishop, Arjmand Samuel, and Tao Xie. 2012. The future of teaching programming is on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 156–161. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lisa Torrey. 2011. Student interest and choice in programming assignments. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 6 (2011), 110–116. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 1968521.1968545 Google ScholarDigital Library
Gloria Childress Townsend. 2009. Using a groupware system in CS1 to engage introverted students. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16–20. Google ScholarDigital Library
V Javier Traver. 2010. On compiler error messages: what they say and what they mean. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2010 (2010), 26. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nghi Truong, Peter Bancroft, and Paul Roe. 2003. A web based environment for learning to program. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computer Science Conference — Volume 16 (ACSC ’03). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 255–264. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=783106.783135 Google ScholarDigital Library
Hidekuni Tsukamoto, Hideo Nagumo, Yasuhiro Takemura, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2009. Comparative analysis of 2D games and artwork as the motivation to learn programming. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’09). IEEE, 1–6. Google ScholarDigital Library
Georgi Tuparov, Daniela Tuparova, and Vladimir Jordanov. 2014. Teaching sorting and searching algorithms through simulation-based learning objects in an introductory programming course. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014), 2962–2966.Google Scholar
Kota Uchida and Katsuhiko Gondow. 2016. C-helper: C latent-error static/heuristic checker for novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU ’16), Vol. 1. SciTePress, 321–329. Google ScholarDigital Library
Timothy Urness. 2017. A hybrid open/closed lab for CS 1. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 46–51. 1145/3059009.3059014 Google ScholarDigital Library
Ian Utting, Allison Elliott Tew, Mike McCracken, Lynda Thomas, Dennis Bouvier, Roger Frye, James Paterson, Michael Caspersen, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Juha Sorva, and Tadeusz Wilusz. 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 (ITiCSE -WGR ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15–32. Google ScholarDigital Library
Evgenia Vagianou. 2006. Program working storage: a beginner’s model. In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 69–76. Google ScholarDigital Library
Adilson Vahldick, António José Mendes, and Maria José Marcelino. 2014. A review of games designed to improve introductory computer programming competencies. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’14). IEEE, 1–7.Google ScholarCross Ref
David W. Valentine. 2004. CS Educational Research: A Meta-analysis of SIGCSE Technical Symposium Proceedings. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 255–259. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tammy VanDeGrift. 2015. Supporting creativity and user interaction in CS 1 homework assignments. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 54–59. Google ScholarDigital Library
Elena Verdú, Luisa M Regueras, María J Verdú, José P Leal, Juan P de Castro, and Ricardo Queirós. 2012. A distributed system for learning programming on-line. Computers & Education 58, 1 (2012), 1–10. compedu.2011.08.015 Google ScholarDigital Library
Arto Vihavainen, Jonne Airaksinen, and Christopher Watson. 2014. A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19–26. Google ScholarDigital Library
Arto Vihavainen, Juha Helminen, and Petri Ihantola. 2014. How novices tackle their first lines of code in an IDE: analysis of programming session traces. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 109–116. Google ScholarDigital Library
Arto Vihavainen, Craig S. Miller, and Amber Settle. 2015. Benefits of selfexplanation in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 284–289. Google ScholarDigital Library
Arto Vihavainen, Matti Paksula, and Matti Luukkainen. 2011. Extreme apprenticeship method in teaching programming for beginners. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93–98. Google ScholarDigital Library
Arto Vihavainen, Thomas Vikberg, Matti Luukkainen, and Jaakko Kurhila. 2013. Massive increase in eager TAs: experiences from extreme apprenticeshipbased CS1. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123–128. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tamar Vilner, Ela Zur, and Judith Gal-Ezer. 2007. Fundamental concepts of CS1: procedural vs. object oriented paradigm — a case study. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 171–175. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tamar Vilner, Ela Zur, and Ronit Sagi. 2012. Integrating video components in CS1. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123–128. Google ScholarDigital Library
Giovanni Vincenti, James Braman, and J. Scott Hilberg. 2013. Teaching introductory programming through reusable learning objects: a pilot study. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 28, 3 (2013), 38–45. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2400161.2400172 Google ScholarDigital Library
Milena Vujošević-Janičić, Mladen Nikolić, Dušan Tošić, and Viktor Kuncak. 2013. Software verification and graph similarity for automated evaluation of students’ assignments. Information and Software Technology 55, 6 (2013), 1004–1016. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hong Wang. 2010. Teaching CS1 with Python GUI game programming. In AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1247. AIP, 253–260. 3460234Google Scholar
K. Wang. 2015. Enhancing the teaching of CS 1 by programming mobile apps in MIT App Inventor. In ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (ASEE ’15). 26.671.1 – 26.671.9.Google ScholarCross Ref
Tiantian Wang, Xiaohong Su, Peijun Ma, Yuying Wang, and Kuanquan Wang. 2011. Ability-training-oriented automated assessment in introductory programming course. Computers & Education 56, 1 (2011), 220–226. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kera Z. B. Watkins and Maurice J. Watkins. 2009. Towards minimizing pair incompatibilities to help retain under-represented groups in beginning programming courses using pair programming. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 25, 2 (2009), 221–227. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1629036.1629071 Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Watson and Frederick W.B. Li. 2014. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 39–44. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Watson, Frederick WB Li, and Jamie L Godwin. 2013. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’13). IEEE, 319–323. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Watson, Frederick W.B. Li, and Jamie L. Godwin. 2014. No tests required: comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 469–474. Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Watson, Frederick W. B. Li, and Jamie L. Godwin. 2012. Blue-Fix: using crowd-sourced feedback to support programming students in error diagnosis and repair. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning (ICWL ’12), Elvira Popescu, Qing Li, Ralf Klamma, Howard Leung, and Marcus Specht (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 228–239. 978-3-642-33642-3_25 Google ScholarDigital Library
Christopher Watson, Frederick W. B. Li, and Rynson W. H. Lau. 2011. Learning programming languages through corrective feedback and concept visualisation. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning, Howard Leung, Elvira Popescu, Yiwei Cao, Rynson W. H. Lau, and Wolfgang Nejdl (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 11–20. Google ScholarDigital Library
Carol A Wellington, Thomas H Briggs, and C Dudley Girard. 2007. Experiences using automated 4ests and 4est driven development in computer 9cience i. In Agile 2007 (AGILE ’07). IEEE, 106–112. Google ScholarDigital Library
Briana Lowe Wellman, James Davis, and Monica Anderson. 2009. Alice and robotics in introductory CS courses. In The Fifth Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing Conference: Intellect, Initiatives, Insight, and Innovations (TAPIA ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 98–102. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dinesha Weragama and Jim Reye. 2013. The PHP intelligent tutoring system. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, H. Chad Lane, Kalina Yacef, Jack Mostow, and Philip Pavlik (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 583–586.Google Scholar
Lena Kallin Westin and M Nordstrom. 2004. Teaching OO concepts—a new approach. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE ’04). IEEE, F3C–6–11.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jacqueline Whalley, Tony Clear, Phil Robbins, and Errol Thompson. 2011. Salient elements in novice solutions to code writing problems. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 114 (ACE ’11). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 37–46. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2459936.2459941 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jacqueline Whalley and Nadia Kasto. 2013. Revisiting models of human conceptualisation in the context of a programming examination. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 136 (ACE ’13). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 67–76. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2667199.2667207 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jacqueline Whalley and Nadia Kasto. 2014. How difficult are novice code writing tasks?: A software metrics approach. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 148 (ACE ’14). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 105–112. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2667490.2667503 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jacqueline L. Whalley and Anne Philpott. 2011. A unit testing approach to building novice programmers’ skills and confidence. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 114 (ACE ’11). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 113–118. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2459936.2459950 Google ScholarDigital Library
S. J. Whittall, W. A. C. Prashandi, G. L. S. Himasha, D. I. De Silva, and T. K. Suriyawansa. 2017. CodeMage: educational programming environment for beginners. In 9th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST ’17). IEEE, 311–316.Google Scholar
David .M. Whittinghill, David B. Nelson, K. Andrew R. Richards, and Charles A. Calahan. 2014. Improving the affective element in introductory programming coursework for the “non programmer” student. In Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. ASEE, 11.Google Scholar
Richard Wicentowski and Tia Newhall. 2005. Using image processing projects to teach CS1 topics. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 287–291. Google ScholarDigital Library
E Wiebe, Laurie Williams, Julie Petlick, Nachiappan Nagappan, Suzanne Balik, Carol Miller, and Miriam Ferzli. 2003. Pair programming in introductory programming labs. In Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference. ASEE, 3503–3514.Google Scholar
Susan Wiedenbeck, Xiaoning Sun, and Thippaya Chintakovid. 2007. Antecedents to end users’ success in learning to program in an introductory programming course. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC ’07). IEEE, 69–72. 1109/VLHCC.2007.8 Google ScholarDigital Library
Joseph B. Wiggins, Joseph F. Grafsgaard, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Eric N. Wiebe, and James C. Lester. 2016. Do you think you can? the influence of student self-efficacy on the effectiveness of tutorial dialogue for computer science. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 27, 1 (2016), 130– 153.Google ScholarCross Ref
Chris Wilcox. 2015. The role of automation in undergraduate computer science education. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 90–95. org/10.1145/2676723.2677226 Google ScholarDigital Library
Laurie Williams, Charlie McDowell, Nachiappan Nagappan, Julian Fernald, and Linda Werner. 2003. Building pair programming knowledge through a family of experiments. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE ’03). IEEE, 143–152. 2003.1237973 Google ScholarDigital Library
Michael Wirth. 2009. Ecological footprints as case studies in programming. In IEEE Toronto International Conference Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH ’09). IEEE, 188–193.Google ScholarCross Ref
Michael Wirth and Judi McCuaig. 2014. Making programs with the Raspberry PI. In Proceedings of the Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 17:1–17:5 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
Denise Woit and David Mason. 2003. Effectiveness of online assessment. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137–141. Google ScholarDigital Library
Krissi Wood, Dale Parsons, Joy Gasson, and Patricia Haden. 2013. It’s never too early: pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference — Volume 136 (ACE ’13). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 13–21. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=2667199.2667201 Google ScholarDigital Library
Dana Wortman and Penny Rheingans. 2007. Visualizing trends in student performance across computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 430–434. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stelios Xinogalos, Maya Satratzemi, and Vassilios Dagdilelis. 2006. An introduction to object-oriented programming with a didactic microworld: objectKarel. Computers & Education 47, 2 (2006), 148–171. compedu.2004.09.005 Google ScholarDigital Library
Jitendra Yasaswi, Sri Kailash, Anil Chilupuri, Suresh Purini, and C. V. Jawahar. 2017. Unsupervised learning based approach for plagiarism detection in programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 10th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference (ISEC ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117–121. ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Luxton-Reilly et al. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jane Yau and Mike Joy. 2007. Architecture of a context-aware and adaptive learning schedule for learning Java. In Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’07). IEEE, 252–256. org/10.1109/ICALT.2007.72Google ScholarCross Ref
Leelakrishna Yenigalla, Vinayak Sinha, Bonita Sharif, and Martha Crosby. 2016. How novices read source code in introductory courses on programming: an eye-tracking experiment. In Foundations of Augmented Cognition: Neuroergonomics and Operational Neuroscience, Dylan D. Schmorrow and Cali M. Fidopiastis (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 120–131. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jooyong Yi, Umair Z. Ahmed, Amey Karkare, Shin Hwei Tan, and Abhik Roychoudhury. 2017. A feasibility study of using automated program repair for introductory programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 740–751. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jungsoon P Yoo, Suk Jai Seo, and Sung K Yoo. 2004. Designing an adaptive tutor for CS-I laboratory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Computing (IC’04), Vol. 1. 459–464.Google Scholar
Nurliana Yusri, Ain Zulika, Sharifah Mashita Syed-Mohamad, and Nur’Aini Abdul Rashid. 2014. Tools for teaching and learning programming: a review and proposed tool. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 265 (2014), 859–872.Google Scholar
Nick Z. Zacharis. 2011. Measuring the effects of virtual pair programming in an introductory programming Java course. IEEE Transactions on Education 54 (2011), 168–170. Issue 1. Google ScholarDigital Library
Carol Zander, Lynda Thomas, Beth Simon, Laurie Murphy, Renée McCauley, Brian Hanks, and Sue Fitzgerald. 2009. Learning styles: novices decide. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 223–227. Google ScholarDigital Library
Matej Zapušek, Martin Možina, Ivan Bratko, Jože Rugelj, and Matej Guid. 2014. Designing an interactive teaching tool with ABML knowledge refinement loop. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Stefan Trausan-Matu, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Martha Crosby, and Kitty Panourgia (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 575–582. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ramon Zatarain-Cabada, M. L. Barrón-Estrada, J. Moisés Osorio-Velásquez, L. Zepeda-Sánchez, and Carlos A. Reyes-García. 2008. L2Code: an author environment for hybrid and personalized programming learning. In Hybrid Learning and Education, Joseph Fong, Reggie Kwan, and Fu Lee Wang (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 338–347. Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniela Zehetmeier, Anne Brüggemann-Klein, Axel Böttcher, and Veronika Thurner. 2016. A concept for interventions that address typical error classes in programming education. In IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON ’16). IEEE, 545–554.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kurtis Zimmerman and Chandan R Rupakheti. 2015. An automated framework for recommending program elements to novices (n). In Proceedings of 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’15). IEEE, 283–288.Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373–378. Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniel Zingaro, Yuliya Cherenkova, Olessia Karpova, and Andrew Petersen. 2013. Facilitating code-writing in PI classes. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 585–590. Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniel Zingaro, Andrew Petersen, and Michelle Craig. 2012. Stepping up to integrative questions on CS1 exams. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 253–258. Google ScholarDigital Library
Daniel Zingaro and Leo Porter. 2016. Impact of student achievement goals on CS1 outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 279– 296. Google ScholarDigital Library

Index Terms

Introductory programming: a systematic literature review
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education

Recommendations

50 Years of CS1 at SIGCSE: A Review of the Evolution of Introductory Programming Education Research
SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

The SIGCSE Technical Symposium is celebrating its 50th year, and a constant theme throughout this history has been to better understand how novices learn to program. In this paper, we present a perspective on the evolution of introductory programming ...
Read More
A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success
ICER '14: Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research

Decades of effort has been put into decreasing the high failure rates of introductory programming courses. Whilst numerous studies suggest approaches that provide effective means of teaching programming, to date, no study has attempted to quantitatively ...
Read More
A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming
ITiCSE-WGR '07: Working group reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education

Three decades of active research on the teaching of introductory programming has had limited effect on classroom practice. Although relevant research exists across several disciplines including education and cognitive science, disciplinary differences ...
Read More

Comments

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

Published in
ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
July 2018
235 pages
ISBN:9781450362238
DOI:10.1145/3293881
Program Chairs:
Guido Rößling
TU Darmstadt, Germany
,
Bruce Scharlau
University of Aberdeen, UK
Copyright © 2018 ACM
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
- Published: 2 July 2018
Permissions
Request permissions about this article.
Request Permissions

Check for updates
Author Tags
CS1
ITiCSE working group
SLR
introductory programming
literature review
novice programming
overview
review
systematic literature review
systematic review
Qualifiers
- research-article
Conference

Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%
Upcoming Conference
ITiCSE 2024

Sponsor:

sigcse

Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 8 - 10, 2024

Milan , Italy
Funding Sources
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics

Article Metrics
- 7
  Total Citations
  View Citations
- 5,341
  Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)1,079
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)98
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Cited By
View all

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Introductory programming: a systematic literature review

ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

ABSTRACT

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

50 Years of CS1 at SIGCSE: A Review of the Evolution of Introductory Programming Education Research

A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success

A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming