Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:52:08.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Cognitive Sciences for Computing Education

from Part II - Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

By
Anthony V. Robins ,
Lauren E. Margulieux  and
Briana B. Morrison
Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

Computing education research (CEdR) has developed within the context of the broader disciplines of cognitive science and education. This chapter is an introduction to cognitive science for computing education researchers. Cognitive science is typically defined as the interdisciplinary study of the mind and its processes. The disciplines usually included within its scope include philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and artificial intelligence. Methodologically, CEdR shares the tools and methods of enquiry employed within these disciplines: empirically, CEdR has been guided and influenced by what we know about human cognition and learning: theoretically, CEdR has adopted paradigms such as cognitivism and constructivism. This chapter provides an introduction to topics in human cognition such as perception, attention, learning, memory, reasoning, problem solving, the transfer of learning, and cognitive load. It also describes the levels of analysis which are often used to organise explanations in the cognitive sciences.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 231 - 275
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

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

References

ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013. New York: ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular systems and dysphasia. In Newman, S. K. & Epstein, R. J. (Eds.), Current Perspectives in Dysphasia (pp. 32–60). London, UK: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Almstrum, V. L., Hazzan, O., Guzdial, M., & Petre, M. (2005). Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘05) (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, Memory, and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.Google Scholar
Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & Van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 425–438.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ayres, P.L. (2001). Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 227–248.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(4), 302–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of Human Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2015). Memory, 2nd edn. London and New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, L. P., & Macredie, R. D. (1999). Beginners and programming: Insights from second language learning and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 4(2), 167–179.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V., Bhattacharjee, S., Chattopadhyay, R., & Alejandro, J. G. (2017). The Untapped Math Skills of Working Children in India: Evidence, Possible Explanations, and Implications. Retrieved from www.alejandroganimian.com/s/Banerjee-et-al-2017-2017-08-17.pdfGoogle Scholar
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.Google Scholar
Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 245–250). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 522–533.Google Scholar
Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153–166.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. (1985). Toward a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55, 201–226.Google Scholar
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 151–163.Google Scholar
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1989). Preprogramming knowledge: A major source of misconceptions in novice programmers. In Soloway, E. & Spohrer, J. C. (Eds.), Studying the Novice Programmer (pp. 324–353). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bouton, M. E. (2016). Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis, 2nd edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Brachman, R. J. & Levesque, H. J. (Eds.) (1985). Readings in Knowledge Representation. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busjahn, T., Schulte, C., Sharif, B., Begel, A., Hansen, M., Bednarik, R., Orlov, P., Ihantola, P., Shchekotova, G., & Antropova, M. (2014). Eye tracking in computing education. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Cao, L. (2010). In-depth behavior understanding and use: The behavior informatics approach. Information Sciences, 180(17), 3067–3085.Google Scholar
Cao, L., & Philip, S. Y. (Eds.) (2012). Behavior Computing: Modeling, Analysis, Mining and Decision. London, UK: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
Caspersen, M. E., & Bennedsen, J. (2007). Instructional design of a programming course: a learning theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 111–122). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V., & Miller, S (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8, 293–332.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 371–399). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Intelligence: A Brief History. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. O. (1982). Applied behavior analysis in education. Theory into Practice, 21(2), 114–118.Google Scholar
Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12–19.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51–57.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2010) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 3rd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deco, G., & Rolls, E. T. (2005). Attention, short-term memory, and action selection: A unifying theory. Progress in Neurobiology, 76, 236–256.Google Scholar
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 113–124). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
de Winstanley, P. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Generation effects and the lack thereof: The role of transfer-appropriate processing. Memory, 4, 31–48.Google Scholar
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795–805.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.Google Scholar
Eiriksdottir, E., & Catrambone, R. (2011). Procedural instructions, principles, and examples: how to structure instructions for procedural tasks to enhance performance, learning, and transfer. Human Factors, 53(6), 749–770.Google Scholar
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.Google Scholar
Enderton, H. B. (2001). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd edn. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Engel, A. K., Fries, P., & Singer, W. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 704–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksen, C. W., & James, J. D. S. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(4), 225–240.Google Scholar
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (2004). Piaget’s stages: The unfinished symphony of cognitive development. New Ideas in Psychology, 22, 175–231.Google Scholar
Feldon, D. F. (2007). The implications of research on expertise for curriculum and pedagogy. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2001). How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, R. W. (1994). MAGI: Analogy-based encoding using regularity and symmetry. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 283–288). London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ferman, S., & Karni, A. (2012). Procedural and declarative memory in the acquisition of morphological knowledge: A model for second language acquisition in adults. In Leikin, M., Schwartz, M., & Tobin, Y. (Eds.), Current Issues in Bilingualism. Literacy Studies (Perspectives from Cognitive Neurosciences, Linguistics, Psychology and Education), Vol. 5 (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–77.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 998–1005.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget’s legacy. Psychological Science, 7(4), 200–203.Google Scholar
Foer, J. (2012). Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fougnie, D. (2008). The relationship between attention and working memory. In Johansen, N. B. (Ed.), New Research on Short-Term Memory (pp. 1–45). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Garner, S. (2002). Reducing the cognitive load on novice programmers. In Barker, P. & Rebelsky, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002 – World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 578–583). Denver, CO: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2002). Mental models, psychology of. In Smelser, N. & Bates, P. B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 9683–9687). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.) (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.Google Scholar
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. D., & Sigman, M. (2007). Brain states: Top-down influences in sensory processing. Neuron, 54(5), 677–696.Google Scholar
Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J., & Santa, J. L. (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Goldstein, E. B., & Brockmole, J. (2016). Sensation and Perception, 10th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gray, S., St Clair, C., James, R., & Mead, J. (2007). Suggestions for graduated exposure to programming concepts using fading worked examples. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 99–110). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (1997). Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, 5th edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (2016). Categories, prototypes and exemplars. In Riemer, N. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (pp. 125–141). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hansen, L., Umeda, Y., & McKinney, M. (2002). Savings in the relearning of second language vocabulary: The effects of time and proficiency. Language Learning, 52(4), 653–678.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. E., Lumsdaine, A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). An experiment on the cognitive complexity of code. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from www.indiana.edu/~pcl/papers/hansencode2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-Analyses on Achievement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (2014). Problem-solving strategies. In Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., & Ragonis, N. (Eds.), Guide to Teaching Computer Science (pp. 75–93). London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E., & Anderson, J. A. (1989). Parallel Models of Associative Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.) (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 649–667.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.Google Scholar
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kátai, Z., Juhász, K., & Adorjáni, A. K. (2008). On the role of senses in education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1707–1717.Google Scholar
Killian, S. (2016). Hattie Effect Size 2016 Update. Retrieved from www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/hattie-effect-size-2016-update/. Reproduced in Lubelfeld, M., Polyak, N., & Caposey, P. J. (2018). Student Voice: From Invisible to Invaluable (p. 3). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404.Google Scholar
Klaus-Dieter, G. (2018). Eye Movements in Programming Education Workshops. Retrieved from www.mi.fu-berlin.de/en/inf/groups/ag-ddi/Gaze_Workshop/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V., & Repenning, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 59–66). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.Google Scholar
Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C. H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 417–446.Google Scholar
Laird, J. E., & Rosenbloom, P. (1996). The evolution of the Soar cognitive architecture. In Steier, D. M. & Mitchell, T. M. (Eds.), Mind Matters: A tribute to Allen Newell (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.Google Scholar
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1058–1072.Google Scholar
Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.Google Scholar
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology, 2nd edn. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, E. (2017). Associationist Theories of Thought. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), E. N. Zalta, ed. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/associationist-thought/Google Scholar
Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Marr, D., & Poggio, T. (1976). From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural Circuitry. A.I. Memo 357. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in Problem Solving. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, R., & Cooper, G. (2012). Why the bottom 10% just can’t do it: Mental effort measures and implication for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Vol. 123 (pp. 187–196). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Mason, R., Cooper, G., & de Raadt, M. (2012). Trends in introductory programming courses in Australian universities: languages, environments and pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Vol. 123 (pp. 33–42). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Mathan, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2003). Recasting the feedback debate: Benefits of tutoring error detection and correction skills. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 13–20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Mather, G. (2016). Foundations of Sensation and Perception, 3rd edn. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McClamrock, R. (1991). Marr’s three levels: A re-evaluation. Minds and Machines, 1(2), 185–196.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1970). The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Developmental Psycholinguistics. New York & London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.) (2014). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning. Madden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(3), 333–352.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minda, J. P., & Smith, J. D. (2002). Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(2), 275–292.Google Scholar
Morris, M. R., Begel, A., & Wiedermann, B. (2015). Understanding the challenges faced by neurodiverse software engineering employees: Towards a more inclusive and productive technical workforce. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (pp. 173–184). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2014). Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 131–138). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 21–29). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., Ericson, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Subgoals help students solve Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 42–47). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (Ed.) (1970). Models of Human Memory. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Novick, L. R., & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 321–349). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.Google Scholar
Paas, F. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.Google Scholar
Pandža, N. B. (2016) Computer programming as a second language. In Nicholson, D. (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 501 (pp. 439–445). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s programming puzzles: A fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education – Volume 52 (ACE ‘06) (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (Ed.) (2016). Attention. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the Cognitive Prerequisites of Learning Computer Programming. Technical Report No. 18. New York: Bank Street College of Education.Google Scholar
Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1971a). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In Green, D. R., Ford, M. P., & Flamer, G. B. (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1971b). Developmental stages and developmental processes. In Green, D. R., Ford, M. P., & Flamer, G. B. (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 172–188). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 235–275.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pohl, R. (Ed.) (2004). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160–174.Google Scholar
Powell, S. R. (2011). Solving word problems using schemas: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 94–108.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969). Natural kinds. In Hempel, C. G., Davidson, D., & Rescher, N. (Eds.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Radvansky, G. (2016). Human Memory, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Recker, M., & Pirolli, P. (1995). Modeling individual differences in students’ learning strategies. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 1–38.Google Scholar
Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6(3), 436–450.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (2017). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: Students relate procedures to principles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(4), 571–584.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., & Grosse, C. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works – A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.Google Scholar
Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.Google Scholar
Revlin, R. (2012). Cognition: Theory and Practice. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Rieber, R. W., & Robinson, D. K. (Eds.) (2004). The Essential Vygotsky. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Rist, R. S. (1995). Program structure and design. Cognitive Science, 19, 507–562.Google Scholar
Robertson, S. I. (2016). Problem Solving: Perspectives From Cognition and Neuroscience. New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
Robins, A. (1996). Consolidation in neural networks and in the sleeping brain. Connection Science, 8(2), 259–276.Google Scholar
Robins, A. (2010). Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education, 20, 37–71.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, P. S., Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & McCarl, R. (1991). A preliminary analysis of the Soar architecture as a basis for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3), 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(9), 657–661.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’75) – Volume 1 (pp. 151–157). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (2013). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Schanzer, E., Fisler, K., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2018). Assessing bootstrap: Algebra students on scaffolded and unscaffolded word problems. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘18) (pp. 8–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schanzer, E., Fisler, K., Krishnamurthi, S., & Felleisen, M. (2015). Transferring skills at solving word problems from computing to algebra through bootstrap. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 616–621). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scholnick, E. K., Nelson, K., Gelman, S. A., & Miller, P. H. (Eds.) (1999). Conceptual Development: Piaget’s Legacy. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417.Google Scholar
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.) (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Singleton, D. M., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The Transfer of Cognitive Skill (No. 9). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Oxford, UK: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Skudder, B., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2014). Worked examples in computer science. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 148 (pp. 59–64). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Smith, T. J. (2007). The ergonomics of learning: Educational design and learning performance. Ergonomics, 50(10), 1530–1546.Google Scholar
Smith, T. A., & Kimball, D. R. (2010). Learning from feedback: Spacing and the delay–retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 80–95.Google Scholar
Soar (2018). Soar Home. Retrieved from https://soar.eecs.umich.edu/Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1982). Handbook of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stickgold, R. (2005). Sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Nature, 437(7063), 1272–1278.Google Scholar
Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement? Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 607–615.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (Vol. 1, No. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2018). The role of independent measures of load in cognitive load theory. In Zheng, R. Z. (Ed.), Cognitive Load Measurement and Application (pp. 17–22). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.Google Scholar
Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Expectation of a final cumulative test enhances long-term retention. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 1007–1013.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, T., Duszkiewicz, A. J., & Morris, R. G. (2014). The synaptic plasticity and memory hypothesis: Encoding, storage and persistence. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1633), 20130288.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. (1911). Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257–287.Google Scholar
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tonegawa, S., Pignatelli, M., Roy, D. S., & Ryan, T. J. (2015). Memory engram storage and retrieval. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 35, 101–109.Google Scholar
Trafton, J. G., & Reiser, B. J. (1993). Studying examples and solving problems: Contributions to skill acquisition. In Proceedings of the 15th conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1017–1022). London, UK: Psychology Press, Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1985). Elements of Episodic Memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, E., & Craik, F. I. (Eds.) (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1974). Cue-dependent forgetting: When we forget something we once knew, it does not necessarily mean that the memory trace has been lost; it may only be inaccessible. American Scientist, 62(1), 74–82.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Twyman, J. S. (2014). Behaviour analysis in education. In McSweeney, F. K. & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning (pp. 553–558). Madden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Review Neuroscience, 2, 717–726.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contribution of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.Google Scholar
van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Cognitive load measurement. In Seel, N. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 599–601). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.Google Scholar
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Krammer, H. P. (1990). The “completion strategy” in programming instruction: Theoretical and empirical support. In Dijkstra, S., van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M., & van der Sijde, P. C. (Eds.), Research on Instruction: Design and Effects (pp. 45–61). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
van Merriënboer, J. J., & De Croock, M. B. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 365–394.Google Scholar
van Merriënboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.Google Scholar
Volder, J. E. (1959). The CORDIC trigonometric computing technique. IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers, 3, 330–334.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., & Chiew, V. (2010). On the cognitive process of human problem solving. Cognitive Systems Research, 11(1), 81–92.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Weiser, M., & Shertz, J. (1983). Programming problem representation in novice and expert programmers. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 19(4), 391–398.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 23, 7–18.Google Scholar
Wertsh, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Science, 249(4969), 684–686.Google Scholar
Whelan, R. R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
Whitney, P. (2001). Schemas, frames, and scripts in cognitive psychology. In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 13522–13526). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the Classroom: Behaviourism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zheng, R. Z. (2018). Cognitive Load Measurement and Application: A Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Research and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×