New Milieux

New Milieux

from Part III - Topics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 February 2019

Edited by

Sally A. Fincher and

Anthony V. Robins

Show author details

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

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 511 - 636

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

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

References

Aharoni, D. (2000). Cogito, ergo sum! Cognitive processes of students dealing with data structures. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 26–30.Google Scholar

Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.Google Scholar

al-Khwārizmī, M. (c. 825). On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals.Google Scholar

Armoni, M. (2013). On teaching abstraction in computer science to novices. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(3) 265–284.Google Scholar

Barefoot (2014a). Barefoot Computing. Retrieved from http://barefootcas.org.uk/Google Scholar

Barefoot (2014b). Computational thinking: What does computational thinking look like in the primary curriculum? Retrieved from https://barefootcas.org.uk/barefoot-primary-computing-resources/concepts/computational-thinking/Google Scholar

Bebras (n.d.). Bebras International Challenge on Informatics and Computational Thinking. Retrieved from www.bebras.org Google Scholar

Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 13(1), 20–29.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012). Computer Science Unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In Bodlaender, H. L., Downey, R., Fomin, F. V, & Marx, D. (Eds.), The Multivariate Algorithmic Revolution and Beyond: Essays Dedicated to Michael R. Fellows on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 398–456). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Berry, M. (2014). Computational Thinking in Primary Schools. Retrieved from http://milesberry.net/2014/03/computational-thinking-in-primary-schools/Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2017). Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

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

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Böhm, C., & Jacopini, G. (1966). Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two formation rules. Communications of the ACM, 9(5), 366–371.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Vancouver, Canada: Educational Research Association. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/kbrennan/publications/new-frameworks-studying-and-assessing-development-computational-thinking Google Scholar

Computing at School (2012). Computer science: A curriculum for schools. Computing at School Working Group. Retrieved from www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/ComputingCurric.pdf Google Scholar

CSE (2017). Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, July, Hong Kong. Retrieved from www.eduhk.hk/cte2017/Google Scholar

Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. Retrieved from http://computingatschool.org.uk/computationalthinking Google Scholar

Curzon, P. (2002). Computing without Computers: A Gentle Introduction to Computer Programming, Data Structures and Algorithms. Retrieved from https://teachinglondoncomputing.org/resources/inspiring-computing-stories/computingwithoutcomputers/Google Scholar

Curzon, P. (2014). Unplugged computational thinking for fun. In Brinda, T., Reynolds, N., & Romeike, R. (Eds.), KEYCIT – Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT, Commentarii Informaticae Didacticae (pp. 15–28). Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar

Curzon, P., & McOwan, P. W. (2017). The Power of Computational Thinking: Games, Magic and Puzzles to Help You Become a Computational Thinker. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Donohue, J., Wright, S., & Marsh, D. W. R. (2018). Teaching of concepts. In Sentance, S., Barendsen, E., & Schulte, C. (Eds.), Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Learning and Teaching in School (pp. 91–108). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Cutts, Q., Esper, S., Fecho, M., Foster, S., & Simon, B. (2012). The abstraction transition taxonomy: developing desired learning outcomes through the lens of situated cognition. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 63–70). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dagienė, V., & Sentance, S. (2016). It’s computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In Brodnik, A. & Tort, F. (Eds.), Informatics in Schools: Improvement of Informatics Knowledge and Perception (ISSEP 2016). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp 28–39). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Dagienė, V., Sentance, S., & Stupienė, G. (2017). Developing a two-dimensional categorization system for educational tasks in informatics. Informatica 28(1), 23–44.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dagiene, V., & Futschek, G. (2008). Bebras international contest on informatics and computer literacy: Criteria for good tasks. In Mittermeir, R. T. & Sysło, M. M. (Eds.), Informatics Education – Supporting Computational Thinking. ISSEP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 19–30). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Denning, P. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39.CrossRef Google Scholar

Denning, P., & Tedre, M. (2019). Computational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Department for Education (2013). National Curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study Google Scholar

Dorling, M., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Evidence of assessing computational thinking. In Brodnik, A. & Lewin, C. (Eds.), IFIP 2015: A New Culture of Learning: Computing and Next Generations (pp. 1–11). Laxenburg, Austria: IFIP.Google Scholar

Dorling, M., & Walker, M. (2014). Computing Progression Pathways. Retrieved from http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/5098/original.xlsx Google Scholar

Dorling, M., & Stephens, T. (2016). Computational Thinking Rubric: Dispositions, Attitudes and Perspectives, Retrieved from https://community.computingatschool.org.uk/resources/4793/Google Scholar

Euclid, (1997). Elements [c. 300 BCE]. Joyce, D. E. (Ed.). Retrieved from http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/toc.html Google Scholar

Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., Hernán-Losada, I., Jackova, , Lahtinen, J., Lewis, E., Thompson, T. L., Riedesel, D. M., , C., & Thompson, E. (2007). Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. In Proceedings of the ITiCSE-WGR ‘07 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 152–170). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Google (n.d.). Exploring Computational Thinking, Google for Education. Retrieved from https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/Google Scholar

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Using a discourse-intensive pedagogy and Android’s App inventor for introducing computational concepts to middle school students. In Proceedings of the 44th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 723–728). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2008). Education: Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25–27.Google Scholar

Harel, D. (2003). Computers Ltd: What They REALLY Can’t Do. Oxford, UK: Oxford Paperbacks.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hazzan, O. (2003). How students attempt to reduce abstraction in the learning of mathematics and in the learning of computer science. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 95–122.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., & Mühling, A. (2014). Playing PISA with Bebras. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 128–129). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., Pal, J., Jackova, J., & Jasute, E.(2015) A global snapshot of computer science education in K–12 schools. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 65–83). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

ISTE/CSTA (2014). Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K–12 Education. Retrieved from www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12 education, Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27.Google Scholar

Kalelioglu, K., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.Google Scholar

Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569.Google Scholar

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2016). Reclaiming the roots of CT. CSTA Voice: The Voice of K–12 Computer Science Education and Its Educators, 12(1), 3–4.Google Scholar

Lister, R., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., Fone, W., Hamer, J., Lindholm, M., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Seppälä, O., & Simon, B. (2004). A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 119–150.Google Scholar

Lister, R. (2011). Concrete and other neo-Piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 9–18). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar

Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008). Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 101–112). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260–264.Google Scholar

Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22.Google Scholar

Macnaught, L., Maton, K., Martin, J. R., & Matruglio, E. (2013). Jointly constructing semantic waves: implications for teacher training. Linguistics and Education, 24, 50–63.Google Scholar

McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagen, D., Kolikant, Y. B., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., & Wilusz, T. (2001). A Multi-National, Multi-Institutional Study of Assessment of Programming Skills of First-year CS Students. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’01) (pp. 125–180). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Meagher, L. (2017). Teaching London Computing Follow-up Evaluation through Interviews with Teachers, Technology Development Group, Summer. Retrieved from https://teachinglondoncomputing.org/evaluation/Google Scholar

Millican, P., & Clark, A. (Eds.) (1996). The Legacy of Alan Turing, Volume 1: Machines and Thought. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Millican, P. (n.d.). A New Paradigm of Explanation? Retrieved from www.philocomp.net/home/paradigm.htm Google Scholar

Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate Scratch projects. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 132–133). New York: ACM.CrossRef Google Scholar

Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 46(10), 1–23.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2011). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a Workshop of Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

NZ Ministry of Education (2017). The New Zealand Curriculum Online: Technology: Learning area structure. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Technology/Learning-area-structure Google Scholar

Oates, T., Coe, R., Peyton-Jones, S., Scratcherd, T., & Woodhead, S. (2016). Quantum: Tests worth teaching. White Paper, March, Computing at School. Retrieved from http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/7256/original.pdf Google Scholar

OED (1993). The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Piaget, J. (2001). Studies in Reflecting Abstraction. Edited and translated by Campbell, R. L.. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, M. (2013). Learn to Code, Code to Learn. Edsurge, May 8. Retrieved from www.edsurge.com/news/2013-05-08-learn-to-code-code-to-learn Google Scholar

Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A, Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2017). K–8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’17) (pp. 182–190). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Román-González, M. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN 2015) (pp. 2436–2444). Valencia, Spain: IATED Academy.Google Scholar

Román-Gonzáles, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (CTE2017) (pp. 154–159). Ting Kok, Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Royal Society (2012). Shut Down or Restart? The Way Forward for Computing in UK Schools. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Royal Society (2017a). After the Reboot: Computing Education in UK Schools. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Royal Society (2017b). Machine Learning: The Power and Promise of Computers That Learn by Example. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Schocken, S., & Nisan, N. (2004). From NAND to Tetris in 12 easy steps. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference on Frontiers in Education (p. 1461). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’13) (pp. 59–66). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Seiter, L. (2015). Using SOLO to classify the programming responses of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 540–545). New York: ACM.CrossRef Google Scholar

Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481 Google Scholar

Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.Google Scholar

Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2016). Teaching abstract thinking in introduction to computer science for 7th graders. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 80–83). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Susskind, R. (2017). Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sykora, C. (2014). Computational thinking for all. Arlington: ISTE. Retrieved from www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=152&category=Solutions&article=Computational-thinking-for-all Google Scholar

Tedre, M., & Denning, P. J. (2016). The long quest for computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 120–129). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Thimbleby, H. (2018). Misunderstanding IT: Hospital cybersecurity and IT problems reach the courts. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 15, 11–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

Turing, A. M. (1936) (published 1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2(42), 230–265.Google Scholar

Waite, J., Curzon, P., Marsh, D. W., & Sentance, S. (2016). Abstraction and common classroom activities. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 112–113). New York: ACM.CrossRef Google Scholar

Waite, J., Curzon, P., Marsh, W., & Sentance, S. (2017). Teachers’ uses of levels of abstraction focusing on design. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 115–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(2), 9.Google Scholar

References

Aggarwal, A., Touretzky, D. S., & Gardner-McCune, C. (2018). Demonstrating the ability of elementary school students to reason about programs. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 735–740). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Al Sabbagh, A., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H., & Razak, S. (2017). Computing curriculum in middle schools: An experience report. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 230–235). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Alexandron, G., Armoni, M., Gordon, M., & Harel, D. (2013). On teaching programming with nondeterminism. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2013) (pp. 71–74). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Araujo, L. G. J., Bittencourt, R. A., & Santos, D. M. B. (2018). An analysis of a media-based approach to teach programming to middle school students. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 1005–1010). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). From Scratch to “real” programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 25.1–25.15.Google Scholar

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015). Australian Curriculum: Digital Technologies. Retrieved from www.australiancurriculum.edu.au Google Scholar

Basawapatna, A. R., Koh, K. H., & Repenning, A. (2010). Using scalable game design to teach computer science from middle school to graduate school. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘10) (pp. 224–228). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Andreae, P., & Robins, A. (2014). A case study of the introduction of computer science in NZ schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 10.1–10.31.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Newton, H., Andreae, P., & Robins, A. (2012a). The introduction of computer science to NZ high schools – An analysis of student work. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 5–15). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012b) Computer science unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In Bodlaender, H. L., Downey, R., Fomin, F. V., & Marx, D. (Eds.), The Multivariate Algorithmic Revolution and Beyond. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7370 (pp. 398–456). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Benacka, J., & Reichel, J. (2013). Computer modeling with Delphi – Constructionism and IBL in practice and motivation for studying STEM. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7780 (pp. 136–46). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Ben-Bassat Levry, R., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). Robotics – Is the investment worthwhile? In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 22–31). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Ben-David Kolikant, Y. (2001). Gardeners and cinema tickets: High school students’ preconceptions of concurrency. Computer Science Education, 11(3), 221–245.Google Scholar

Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Pollack, S. (2004). Establishing computer science professional norms among high-school students. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 21–35.Google Scholar

Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Sadler, S. (2016). Parental involvement and adolescent’s educational success: The roles of prior achievement and socioeconomic status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1053–1064.Google Scholar

Benotti, L., Martínez, M. C., & Schapachnik, F. (2014). Engaging high school students using chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 63–68). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Bischof, E., & Sabitzer, B. (2011). Computer science in primary schools – Not possible, but necessary?! In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2011), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7013 (pp. 95–105). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, , , A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 65–72). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brinda, T., Puhlmann, H., & Schulte, C. (2009). Bridging ICT and CS: Educational standards for computer science in lower secondary education. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2009) (pp. 289–292). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brinda, T., & Terjung, Th. (2017). A database is like a dresser with lots of sorted drawers: Secondary school learners’ conceptions of relational databases. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 39–48). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brinkmeier, M., & Kalbreyer, D. (2016). A case study of physical computing in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2016) (pp. 54–59). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Brown, N. C. C., Sentance, S., Crick, T., & Humphreys, S. (2014). Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 9.1–9.22.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Buffum, P. S., Frankorsky, M. H., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Empowering all Sstudents: Closing the CS confidence gap with an in-school initiative for middle school students. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 382–387). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. (2012). The writers’ workshop for youth programmers: Digital storytelling with scratch in middle school classrooms. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 433–438). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Carruthers, S., Milford, T., Pelton, T., & Stege, U. (2011). Draw a social network. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘11) (pp. 178–182). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Carter, E., Blank, G., & Walz, J. (2012). Bringing the breadth of computer science to middle schools. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 203–208). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Castro, B., Diaz, T., Gee, M., Justice, R., Kwan, D., Seshadri, P., & Dodds, Z. (2016). MyCS at 5: Assessing a middle-years CS curriculum. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 558–563). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Cateté, V., Snider, , , E., & Barnes, T. (2016). Developing a rubric for a creative CS principles lab. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 290–295). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 355–376.Google Scholar

Cheong, Y. F., Pajares, F., & Oberman, P. S. (2004). Motivation and academic help-seeking in high school computer science. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 3–19.Google Scholar

Chiprianov, V., & Gallon, L. (2016). Introducing computational thinking to K–5 in a French context. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 112–117). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Chun, S. Y., & Ryoo, J. (2010). Development and application of a web-based programming learning system with LED display kits. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2010) (pp. 310–314). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Corradini, I., Lodi, M., & Nardelli, E. (2017). Computational thinking in Italian schools: Quantitative data and teachers’ sentiment analysis after two years of “Programma il Futuro”. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 224–229). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Cutts, Q., Connor, R., Donaldson, P., & Michaelson, G. (2014). Code or (not code) – Separating formal and natural language in CS education. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 20–28). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Deitrick, E., Wilkerson, M., & Simoneau, E. (2017). Understanding student collaboration in interdisciplinary computing activities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2017) (pp. 118–126). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

DeLyser, L. A. (2014). Software engineering students in the city. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 37–42). New York: ACM Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2015) (pp. 39–48). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Dwyer, H. A., Hill, C., Hansen, A., Iveland, A., Franklin, D., & Harlow, D. (2015). Fourth grade students reading block-based programs: Predictions, visual cues, and affordances. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2015) (pp. 111–119). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Dwyer, H. A., Hill, C., Carpenter, S., Harlow, D., & Franklin, D. (2014). Identifying elementary students’ pre-instructional ability to develop algorithms and step-by-step instructions. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 511–516). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Eglash, R., Krishnamoorthy, M., Sanchez, J., & Woodbridge, A. (2011). Fractal simulations of African design in pre-college computing education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(3), 17.1–17.14.Google Scholar

Epstein, R. G., Aiken, R. M., Snelbecker, G., & Potosky, J. (1987). Retraining high school teachers to teach computer science – Observations on the first course. In Proceedings of the 18th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 1987) (pp. 136–140). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Esterhues, J. (Ed.) (1984) Johann Friedrich Herbart. Band I. Umriß pädagogischer Vorlesungen. Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh. In German.Google Scholar

Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. (2014). The Australian digital technologies curriculum: Challenge and opportunity. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2014) (pp. 3–12). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Feaster, Y., Ali, F., Zhai, J., & Hallstrom, J. O. (2014). Serious toys: Three years of teaching computer science concepts in K–12 classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 69–74). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Feaster, Y., Segars, L., Wahba, S. K., & Hallstrom, J. O. (2011). Teaching CS Unplugged in the high school (with limited success). In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2011) (pp. 248–252). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2000). How to Design Programs: An Introduction to Programming and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2004). The TeachScheme! Project: Computing and programming for every student. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 55–77.Google Scholar

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for Life in a Digital Age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Franklin, D., Hill, C., Dwyer, H. A., Hansen, A. K., Iveland, A., & Harlow, D. B. (2016). Initialization in Scratch: Seeking Knowledge transfer. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 217–222). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Franklin, D., Skifstad, G., Rolock, R., Mehrotra, I., Ding, V., Hansen, A., Weintrop, D., & Harlow, D. (2017). Using upper-elementary student performance to understand conceptual sequencing in a blocks-based curriculum. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 231–236). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Fronza, I., El Ioini, N., & Corral, L. (2017). Teaching computational thinking using agile software engineering methods: A framework for middle schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(4), 19.1–19.28.Google Scholar

Frost, D. (2007). Fourth grade computer science. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2007) (pp. 302–306). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Funke, A., & Geldreich, K. (2017). Gender differences in Scratch programs of primary school children. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 57–64). New York: ACM Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2014). A tale of two countries: Successes and challenges in K–12 computer science education in Israel and the United States. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 8.1–8.18.Google Scholar

Gander, W., Petit, A., Berry, G., Demo, B., Vahrenhold, J., McGettrick, A., Boyle, R., Drechsler, M., Stephenson, C., Ghezzi, C., & Meyer, B. (2013). Informatics Education: Europe Cannot Afford to Miss the Boat. Informatics Europe & Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from www.informatics-europe.org/images/documents/informatics-education-acm-ie.pdf Google Scholar

Gärtig-Daugs, A., Weitz, , Wolking, K., , M., & Schmid, U. (2016). Computer science experimenter’s kit for use in preschool and primary school. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2016) (pp. 66–71). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Giannakos, M. N., Hubwieser, P., & Ruf, A. (2012). Is self-efficacy in programming decreasing with the level of programming skills? In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 16–21). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. P. (2012). Teaching graph algorithms to children of all ages. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 34–39). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ginat, D., & Alankry, R. (2012). Pseudo abstract composition: The case of language concatenation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 28–33). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ginat, D., Menashe, E., & Taya, A. (2013). Novice difficulties with interleaved pattern composition. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7780 (pp. 56–67). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Goode, J., Chapman, G., & Margolis, J. (2012). Beyond curriculum: The Exploring Computer Science Program. ACM Inroads, 3(2), 47–53.Google Scholar

Gordon, M., Marron, A., & Meerbaum-Salant, O. (2012) Spaghetti for the main course?: Observations on the naturalness of scenario-based programming. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 198–203). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 267–272). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Basu, S., & Schank, P. (2018) What we can learn about student learning from open-ended programming projects in middle school computer science. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 999–1004). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014a). Assessing computational learning in K–12. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 57–62). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2014b). Remedying misperceptions of computer science among middle school students. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 343–348). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2016a). Factors influencing computer science learning in middle school. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 552–557). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Grover, S., Rutstein, D., & Snow, E. (2016b). “What is a computer”: What do secondary school students think? In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 564–569). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Gujberova, M., & Kalas, I. (2013). Designing productive gradations of tasks in primary programming education. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2013) (pp. 108–117). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2003) (pp. 104–108). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Haberman, B. (2004). How learning logic programming affects recursion comprehension. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 37–53.Google Scholar

Hansen, A. K., Hansen, E. R., Dwyer, H. A., Harlow, D. B., & Franklin, D. (2016). Differentiating for diversity: Using universal design for learning in elementary computer science education. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 376–381). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Education Studies in Mathematics, 44, 71–90.Google Scholar

Heimann, P. (1962). Didaktik als Theorie und Lehre. Die Deutsche Schule, 54(9), 407–427. In German.Google Scholar

Heiner, C. (2018). A robotics experience for all the students in an elementary school. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 729–34). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Heintz, F., Mannila, L., Nygårds, K., Parnes, , , P., & Regnell, B. (2015). Computing at school in Sweden – Experiences from introducing computer science within existing subjects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 118–130). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Hermans, F., & Aivaloglo, E. (2017). To Scratch or not to Scratch?: A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 49–56). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hildebrandt, C., & Diethelm, I. (2012). The school experiment InTech: How to influence interest, self-concept of ability in informatics and vocational orientation. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 30–39). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P. (2013). The Darmstadt Model: A first step towards a research framework for computer science education in schools. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7780 (pp. 1–14). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., Brinda, T., Dagiene, V., Diethelm, I., Giannakos, M. N., Knobelsdorf, M., Magenheim, J., Mittermeir, R. T., & Schubert, S. (2011). Computer science/informatics in secondary schools. In ITICSE-WGR ‘11: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education – Working Group Reports (pp. 18–38). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., & Giannakos, M. N. (2015a). How to implement rigorous computer science education in K–12 schools? Some answers and many questions. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(2), 5.1–5.12.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., Giannakos, M. N., & Mittermeir, R.T. (2014). Perspectives and visions of computer science education in primary and secondary (K–12) schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 7.1–7.9.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., Pal, Y., Jackova, J., & Jasute, E. (2015b). A global snapshot of computer science education in K–12 schools. In ITICSE-WGR ‘15: Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 65–83). New York: ACM Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hug, S., Guenther, R., & Wenk, M. (2013). Cultivating a K12 computer science community: A case study. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2013) (pp. 275–280). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ioannou, I., & Angeli, C. (2014). Examining the effects of an instructional intervention on destabilizing learners’ misconceptions about the central processing unit. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 93–99). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Isayama, D., Ishiyama, M., Relator, R., & Yamazaki, K. (2017). Computer science education for primary and lower secondary school students: Teaching the concept of automata. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(1), 2.1–2.28.Google Scholar

Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Shehab, S., Melvin, O., & Lash, T. (2017). Describing elementary students’ interactions in K–5 puzzle-based computer science environments using the Collaborative Computing Observation Instrument (C-COI). InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2017) (pp. 110–117). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Joentausta, J., & Hellas, A. (2018). Subgoal labeled worked examples in K–3 education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 616–621). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic Textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1.1–1.20.Google Scholar

Kaila, E., Lindén, R., Lokkila, , , E., & Laakso, M. (2017). About programming maturity in Finnish high schools: A comparison between high school and university students’ programming skills. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 122–127). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kallia, M. (2017). Assessment in Computer Science Courses: A Literature Review. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Kastl, P., KIesmüller, U., & Romeike, R. (2016). Starting out with projects – Experiences with agile software development in high schools. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2016) (pp. 60–65). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Kiesmüller, U. (2009). Diagnosing learners’ problem-solving strategies using learning environments with algorithmic problems in secondary education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(3), 17.1–17.26.Google Scholar

King-Sears, P. (2014). Introduction to Learning Disability Quarterly special series on universal design for learning: Part one of two. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 68–70.Google Scholar

Knobelsdorf, M., Magenheim, J., Brinda, T., Engbring, D., Humbert, L., Pasternak, A., Schroeder, U., Thomas, M., & Vahrenhold, J. (2015). Computer science education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany – A case study. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(2), 9.1–9.22.Google Scholar

Kohn, T. (2017). Variable evaluation: An exploration of novice programmers’ understanding and common misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 345–350). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lamprou, A., Repenning, A., & Escherle, N. A. (2017). The Solothurn Project: Bringing computer science education to primary schools in Switzerland. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 218–223). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lang, C., Craig, A., & Casey, G. (2014). Unblocking the pipeline by providing a compelling computing experience in secondary schools: Are the teachers ready? In Proceedings of the Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2014) (pp. 149–158). Sydney, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar

Lemov, D. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Lemov, D., Hernandez, J., & Kim, J. (2016). Teach Like a Champion Field Guide 2.0: A Practical Resource to Make the 62 Techniques Your Own, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Lewis, C. M., Khayarallah, H., & Tsai, A. (2013). Mining data from the AP CS A exam: Patterns, non-patterns, and replication failure. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2013) (pp. 115–122). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. W., Kohne, L., Mechlinski, T., & Schmalstig, M. (2015). The exploring computer science course, attendance and math achievement. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘15) (pp. 147–152). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Liebenberg, J., Mentz, E., & Breed, B. (2012). Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject information technology (IT). Computer Science Education, 22(3), 219–236.Google Scholar

Liu, A., Schunn, C., Flot, J., & Shoop, R. (2013). The role of physicality in rich programming environments. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 315–331.Google Scholar

Magerko, B., Freeman, J., McKlin, T., Reilly, M., Livingston, E., McCoid, S., & Crews-Brown, A. (2016). EarSketch: A STEAM-based approach for underrepresented populations in high school computer science education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 16(4), 14.1–14.25.Google Scholar

Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2001). Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Martinez, C., Gomez, M. J., & Benotti, L. (2015). A comparison of preschool and elementary school children learning computer science concepts through a multilanguage robot programming platform. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘15) (pp. 159–164). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

McCabe, T. J. (1976). A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-2(4), 308–320.Google Scholar

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

Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Hazzan, O. (2010). An agile constructionist mentoring methodology for software projects in the high school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 9(4), 21.1–21.29.Google Scholar

Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Challenges in mentoring software development projects in the high school: Analysis according to Shulman’s teacher knowledge base model. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(1), 23–43.Google Scholar

Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K., & Kameas, A. (2017). Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(2), 9.1–9.22.Google Scholar

Montessori, M. (1909). Il Metodo della Pedagogia Scientifica Applicato All’educazione Infantile Nelle Case dei Bambini. Città di Castello, Italy: S. Lafi.Google Scholar

Mühling, A., Ruf, , , A., & Hubwieser, P. (2015). Design and first results of a psychometric test for measuring basic programming abilities. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2015) (pp. 2–10). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Musicant, D., & Selcen Guzey, S. (2015). Engaging high school students in modeling and simulation through educational media. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2015) (pp. 464–469). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Nishida, T., Idosaka, Y., Hofuku, Y., Kanemune, S., & Kuno, Y. (2008). New methodology of information education with “computer science unplugged”. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5090 (pp. 241–252). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Pasternak, A. (2016). Contextualized teaching in the lower secondary education: Long-term evaluation of a CS course from Grade 6 to 10. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 657–662). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Pasternak, A., & Vahrenhold, J. (2012). Design and evaluation of a braided teaching course in sixth grade computer science education. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 45–50). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Peters, A. K., & Rick, D. (2014). Identity development in computing education: Theoretical perspectives and an implementation in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 70–79). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Poirot, J. L. (1979). Computer education in the secondary school: Problems and solutions. In Proceedings of the Tenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 1979) (pp. 101–104). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Reges, S. (2008). The mystery of “b:= (b = false)”. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2008) (pp. 21–25). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Robertson, J. (2013). The influence of a game-making project on male and female learners’ attitudes to computing. Computer Science Education, 23(1), 58–83.Google Scholar

Rodriguez, B., Kennicutt, S., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2017). Assessing computational thinking in CS Unplugged activities. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 501–506). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Rodriguez, B., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2016). Using student performance to assess CS Unplugged activities in a classroom environment. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 95–100). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Ruf, A., Mühling, A., & Hubwieser, P. (2014). Scratch vs. Karel – Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2014) (pp. 50–59). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Sahami, M., Danyluk, A., Fincher, S., Fisher, K., Grossman, D., Hawthorne, E., Katz, R., LeBlanc, R., Reed, D., Roach, S., Cuadros-Vargas, E., Dodge, R., France, R., Kumar, A., Robinson, B., Seker, R., & Thompson, A. (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013 – Final Report. Association for Computing Machinery & IEEE-Computer Society. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2534860 Google Scholar

Sakhnini, V., & Hazzan, O. (2008). Reducing abstraction in high school computer science education: The case of definition, implementation, and use of abstract data types. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 8(2), 5.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 2018) (pp. 8–13). New York: ACM Press.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 (SIGCSE 2015) (pp. 616–621). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Schofield, E., Erlinger, M., & Dodds, Z. (2014). MyCS: CS for middle-year students and their teachers. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2014) (pp. 337–342). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Schollmeyer, M. (1996). Computer programming in high school vs. college. In Proceedings of the 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 1996) (pp. 378–382). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Schulte, C., & Magenheim, J. (2005). Novices’ expectations and prior knowledge of software development: Results of a study with high school students. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER 2005) (pp. 143–153). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

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

Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O’Grady-Cunniff, D., Boucher Owens, B., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2011). K–12 Computer Science Standards – Revised 2011. New York: Computer Science Teachers Association & Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., & Kobarg, M. (Eds.) (2005). How to Run a Video Study. Technical Report of the IPN Video Study. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar

Seiter, L. (2015). Using SOLO to classify the programming responses of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2015) (pp. 540–545). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2013) (pp. 59–66). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Sentance, S., & Czismadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.Google Scholar

Sentance, S., Waite, J., Hodges, S., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. (2017). “Creating cool stuff”: Pupils’ experience of the BBC micro:bit. In Proceedings of the 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2017) (pp. 531–536). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Serafini, G. (2011). Teaching programming at primary schools: Visions, experiences, and long-term research prospects. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2011), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7013 (pp. 143–154). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Settle, A., Franke, B., Hansen, R., Spaltro, F., Jurisson, C., Rennert-May, C., & Wildeman, B. (2012). Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and high-school curriculum. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 22–27). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Siegel, A. A., & Zarb, M. (2016). Student concerns regarding transition into higher education CS. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 23–28). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Shah, P., Capovilla, D., & Hubwieser, P. (2015). Searching for barriers to learning iteration and runtime in computer science. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2015) (pp. 73–75). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Shulman, L. E. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Smetsers-Weeda, R., & Smetsers, S. (2017). Problem solving and algorithmic development with flowcharts. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 25–34). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Snow, E., Rutstein, D., Bienkowski, M., & Xu, Y. (2017). Principled assessment of student learning in high school computer science. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2017) (pp. 209–216). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2017). Learning abstraction in computer science: A gender perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2017) (pp. 5–14). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Steiner, R. (1984). Erziehungskunst. Seminarbesprechungen und Lehrplanvorträge. Dornach, Germany: Rudolf Steiner Verlag. In German.Google Scholar

Sysło, M. M. (2014) The first 25 years of computers in education in Poland: 1965–1990. In Tatnall, A. & Davey, B. (Eds.), Reflections on the History of Computers in Education. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 424 (pp. 266–290). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Sysło, M. M., & Kwiatkowska, A. B. (2015). Introducing a new computer science curriculum for all school levels in Poland. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 141–154). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Tabet, N., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H., & Razak, S. (2016). From Alice to Python. Introducing text-based programming in middle schools. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 124–129). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Taub, R., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2012). CS Unplugged and middle-school students’ views, attitudes, and intentions regarding CS. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(2), 8.1–8.29.Google Scholar

Tessler, J., Beth, B., & Lin, C. (2013). Using Cargo-Bot to provide contextualized learning of recursion. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2013) (pp. 161–168). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

The Royal Society (2012). Shut Down or Restart – The Way Forward for Computing in UK Schools. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-computing-in-schools.pdf Google Scholar

Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2013). On plugging “Unplugged” into CS classes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2013) (pp. 365–370). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2016). Back to school: Computer science unplugged in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2016) (pp. 118–123). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Tsan, J., Boyer, K. E., & Lynch, C. F. (2016). How early does the CS gender gap emerge?: A study of collaborative problem solving in 5th grade computer science. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 288–293). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Tsan, J., Rodriguez, F. J., Boyer, K. E., & Lynch, C. (2018). “I think we should…”: Analyzing elementary students’ collaborative processes for giving and taking suggestions. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2018) (pp. 622–627). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Vahrenhold, J. (2012). On the importance of being earnest: Challenges in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE 2012) (pp. 3–4). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Vahrenhold, J., Nardelli, E., Pereira, C., Berry, G., Caspersen, M. E., Gal-Ezer, J., Kölling, M., McGettrick, , , A., & Westermeier, M. (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are We All in The Same Boat? Association for Computing Machinery & Informatics Europe. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3106077 Google Scholar

Vaníček, J. (2015). Programming in Scratch using inquiry-based approach. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2015), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9378 (pp. 82–93). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Waite, J. (2017). Pedagogy in Teaching Computer Science in Schools: A Literature Review. London, UK: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y.J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., & Sysło, M. M. (2017). Computer science in K–12 school curricula of the 21st century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445–468.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 3.1–3.20.Google Scholar

Werner, L., Campe, S., & Denner, J. (2012a). Children learning computer science concepts via Alice game-programming. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 427–432). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012b). The Fairy Performance Assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2012) (pp. 215–220). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

White House Office of the Press Secretary (2016). FACT SHEET: President Obama Announces Computer Science For All Initiative. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-computer-science-all-initiative-0 Google Scholar

Whitherspoon, E. B., Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., Baehr, E. C., & Shoop, R. (2018). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 4.1–4.20.Google Scholar

Wilson, C., Sudol, L.A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K–12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. New York: Association for Computing Machinery & Computer Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar

Wong-Villacres, M., Ehsan, U., Solomon, A., Pozo Buil, M., & DiSalvo, B. (2017). Design guidelines for parent-school technologies to support the ecology of parental engagement. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 73–83). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Woszczynski, A. B. (2006). CyberTech I: Online introduction to computer science course for high school students. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2006) (pp. 153–157). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Wood, Z. J., Muhl, P., & Hicks, K. (2016). Computational art: Introducing high school students to computing via art. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 261–266). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Wu, C.-C., Tseng, I.-C., & Huang, S.-L. (2008). Visualization of program behaviors: Physical robots versus robot simulators. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5090 (pp. 53–62). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Xu, D., Cadle, A., Thompson, D., Wolz, U., Greenberg, I., & Kumar, D. (2016). Creative computation in high school. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2016) (pp. 273–278). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Zur-Bargury, I., Pârv, B., & Lanzberg, D. (2013). A nationwide exam as a tool for improving a new curriculum. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘13) (pp. 267–272). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, J. R., Conrad, F., Corbett, A. T., Fincham, J. M., Hoffman, D., & Wu, Q. (1993). Computer programming and transfer. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Rules of the Mind (pp. 205–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Antoniu, T., Steckler, P. A., Krishnamurthi, S., Neuwirth, E., & Felleisen, M. (2004). Validating the unit correctness of spreadsheet programs. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 439–448). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 81–119.Google Scholar

Brennan, K., Hernández, A. M., & Resnick, M. (2009). Scratch: Creating and sharing interactive media. In CSCL’09: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (p. 217). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

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

Carver, S. M., & Klahr, D. (1986). Assessing children’s LOGO debugging skills with a formal model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 487–525.Google Scholar

Diethelm, I., Hubwieser, P., & Klaus, R. (2012). Students, teachers and phenomena: educational reconstruction for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 164–173). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Dorn, B. (2011). ScriptABLE: Supporting informal learning with cases. In ICER ‘11: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 69–76). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Graphic designers who program as informal computer science learners. In ICER ‘06: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 127–134). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2010). Discovering computing: Perspectives of web designers. In ICER ‘10: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 23–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Dorn, B. J. (2012). A Case-based Approach for Supporting the Informal Computing Education of End-user Programmers (PhD thesis). College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Eisenstadt, M. (1979). A friendly software environment for psychology students. Communications of the ACM, 26, 1058–1064.Google Scholar

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

Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., & Biggers, M. (2005). A model for improving secondary CS education. In SIGCSE ‘05: Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 332–336). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., & Biggers, M. (2007). Improving secondary CS education: Progress and problems. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39, 298–301.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2009). Viewpoint: Why computer science doesn’t matter. Communications of the ACM, 52, 37–40.Google Scholar

Fincher, S., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., & Maloney, J. (2010). Comparing Alice, Greenfoot, & Scratch. In SIGCSE ‘10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 192–193). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Flanagan, D. (2006). JavaScript: The Definitive Guide. Newton, MA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar

Forte, A., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Computers for communication, not calculation: Media as a motivation and context for learning. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04) – Track 4 – Volume 4 (p. 10) Hoboken, NJ: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Forte, A., & Guzdial, M. (2005). Motivation and non-majors in computer science: Identifying discrete audiences for introductory courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48, 248–253.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Guo, Y., Wagh, A., Brady, C., Levy, S. T., Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Frogs to think with: Improving students’ computational thinking and understanding of evolution in a code-first learning environment. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 246–254). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (1995). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1–44.Google Scholar

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

Guzdial, M. (2009). Education: Teaching computing to everyone. Communications of the ACM, 52, 31–33.Google Scholar

Guzdial, M. (2013). Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

Guzdial, M., & Forte, A. (2005). Design process for a non-majors computing course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37, 361–365.Google Scholar

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

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar

Hewner, M., & Guzdial, M. (2008). Attitudes about computing in postsecondary graduates. In ICER ‘08: Proceeding of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Hubwieser, P. (2012). Computer science education in secondary schools – The introduction of a new compulsory subject. Transactions on Computing Education, 12, 16:1–16:41.Google Scholar

Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hundhausen, C. D., Farley, S., & Brown, J. L. (2006). Can direct manipulation lower the barriers to programming and promote positive transfer to textual programming? An experimental study. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 2006. VL/HCC 2006 (pp. 157–164). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in Play: Computer Game Design As a Context for Children’s Learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B. (1998). Video game designs by girls and boys: Variability and consistency of gender differences. In From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games (pp. 90–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 321–363.Google Scholar

Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. Transactions on Computing Education, 14, 1–20.Google Scholar

Katz, E. E., & Porter, H. S. (1991). HyperTalk as an overture to CS1. SIGCSE Bulletin, 23, 48–54.Google Scholar

Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. Computer, 10(3), 31–41.Google Scholar

Kay, A. C. (1972). A personal computer for children of all ages. In Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference – Volume 1. New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

Kemeny, J. G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1980). Basic Programming. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1985). Back to Basic: The History, Corruption, and Future of the Language. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar

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

Ko, A. J., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Blackwell, A., Burnett, M., Erwig, M., Scaffidi, C., Lawrance, J., Lieberman, H., & Myers, B. (2011). The state of the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 43(3), 21.Google Scholar

Koushik, V., & Lewis, C. (2016). An accessible blocks language: Work in progress. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 317–318). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

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

Lee, C. B. (2013). Experience report: CS1 in MATLAB for non-majors, with media computation and peer instruction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 35–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008a). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. In SIGCSE ‘08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 367–371). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008b). Media designs with Scratch: What urban youth can learn about programming in a computer clubhouse. In ICLS’08: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 81–82). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. Transactions on Computing Education, 10, 16:1–16:15.Google Scholar

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

Miller, L. A. (1981). Natural language programming: Styles, strategies, and contrasts. IBM Systems Journal, 29, 184–215.Google Scholar

Myers, B. A., Pane, J. F., & Ko, A. (2004). Natural programming languages and environments. Communications of the ACM, 47, 47–52.Google Scholar

Ni, L. (2009). What makes CS teachers change?: Factors influencing CS teachers’ adoption of curriculum innovations. In SIGCSE ‘09: Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 544–548). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Ni, L. (2011). Building Professional Identity as Computer Science Teachers: Supporting High School Computer Science Teachers Through Reflection and Community Building (PhD thesis). Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Ni, L., & Guzdial, M. (2011). Prepare and support computer science (CS) teachers: Understanding CS teachers’ professional identity. In American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA: AERA.Google Scholar

Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and Computers. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

Olson, G. M., Catrambone, R., & Soloway, E. (1987). Programming and algebra word problems: a failure to transfer. In Empirical Studies of Programmers Workshop (pp. 1–13). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar

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

Pane, J. F., Ratanamahatana, C., & Myers, B. (2001). Studying the language and structure in non-programmers’ solutions to programming problems. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 54(2), 237–264.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 417–427.Google Scholar

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

Pasternak, A., & Vahrenhold, J. (2010). Braided teaching in secondary CS education: Contexts, continuity, and the role of programming. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 204–208). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

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

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

Pea, R. D., Kurland, D. M., & Hawkins, J. (1985). Logo programming and the development of thinking skills. Technical Report 16. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED249930 Google Scholar

Perlis, A. J. (1962). The computer in the iniversity. In Greenberger, M. (Ed.), Computers and the World of the Future (pp. 180–217). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In CHI ‘98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 281–287). Los Angeles, CA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Rich, L., Perry, H., & Guzdial, M. (2004). A CS1 course designed to address interests of women. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 190–194). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Scaffidi, C. (2017). Workers who use spreadsheets and who program earn more than similar works who do neither. In VL/HCC 2017 (pp. 233–237). Hoboken, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar

Scaffidi, C., Shaw, M., & Myers, B. (2005). An approach for categorizing end user programmers to guide software engineering research. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 30, 1–5.Google Scholar

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

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

Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick’’ authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10, 195–215.Google Scholar

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

Simon, B., Chen, T.-Y., Lewandowski, G., McCartney, R., & Sanders, K. (2006). Commonsense computing: What students know before we teach (Episode 1: Sorting). In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 29–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Simon, B., Kinnunen, P., Porter, L., & Zazkis, D. (2010). Experience report: CS1 for majors with media computation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 214–218). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Sloan, R. H., & Troy, P. (2008). CS 0.5: A better approach to introductory computer science for majors. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 271–275). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Schmucker, K. (1996). Making programming easier for children. Interactions, 3, 58–67.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Clark, R., & Kirschner, P. (2010). Teaching general problem-solving skills is not a substitute for, or a viable addition to, teaching mathematics. Notices of the AMS, 57, 1303–1304.Google Scholar

Taylor, R. (Ed.) (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Vasudevan, V., Kafai, Y., & Yang, L. (2015). Make, wear, play: Remix designs of wearable controllers for scratch games by middle school youth. In IDC ‘15: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 339–342). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127–147.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015a). Using commutative assessments to compare conceptual understanding in blocks-based and text-based programs. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Snnual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 101–110). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015b). To block or not to block, that is the question: Students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 199–208). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Whitehead, C., Ray, L., Khan, S., Summers, W., & Obando, R. (2011). Implementing a computer science endorsement program for secondary school teachers. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 547–552). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57, 24–28.Google Scholar

Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wilkerson-Jerde, M., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. R. I. (2015). Balancing curricular and pedagogical needs in computational construction kits: Lessons From the DeltaTick Project. Science Education, 99(3), 465–499.Google Scholar

Wilson, G. (2016). Software Carpentry: Lessons learned. F1000Research. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3976103/Google Scholar

Wing, J. (2010). Computational Thinking: What and Why. The Link. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why Google Scholar

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

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

References

Aaronson, S. (2002). Quantum Computing for High School Students. Retrieved from www.scottaaronson.com/writings/highschool.html Google Scholar

Abelson, H., Sussman, G. J., & Sussman, J. (1996). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Aho, A. V. (2011). Ubiquity symposium: Computation and computational thinking. Ubiquity, January 2011, Article 1 (8 pages). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.Google Scholar

Arlot, S., & Celisse, A. (2010). A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Statistics Surveys, 4, 40–79.Google Scholar

Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., & Yasmin, K. (Eds.) (2013). Textile messages: Dispatches from the world of e-textiles and education. In New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2013). Imagining, creating, playing, sharing, reflecting: How online community supports young people as designers of interactive media. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for the Classroom (pp. 253–268). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Brewer, E. A. (2000). Towards robust distributed systems (abstract). In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC ‘00) (p. 7). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (Eds.) (2005). Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chong, F. T., Franklin, D., & Martonosi, M. (2017). Programming languages and compiler design for realistic quantum hardware. Nature, 549, 180–187.Google Scholar

Computer Science Teachers Association (2017). K–12 Computer Science Standards. Retrieved from www.csteachers.org/page/standards Google Scholar

Computing at School Working Group (2012). Computer science: A curriculum for schools. sCurric.pdf Google Scholar

Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to Algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, S. (2013). From surveys to collaborative art: Enabling children to program with online data. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 28–35). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39.Google Scholar

Denning, P. J. (1989). A debate on teaching computing science. Communications of the ACM, 32(12), 1397–1414.Google Scholar

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

Fails, J. A., & OlsenJr., D. R. (2003). Interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 39–45). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2014). How to Design Programs, Second Edition. Retrieved from www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/HtDP2e/Google Scholar

Felleisen, M., Findler, R. B., Flatt, M., & Krishnamurthi, S. (2009). A functional I/O system or, fun for freshman kids. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 44(9), 47–58.Google Scholar

Feynman, R. P. (1982). Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6), 467–488.Google Scholar

Feynman, R. P. (1986). Quantum mechanical computers. Foundations of Physics, 16(6), 507–531.Google Scholar

Fiebrink, R., Trueman, D., & Cook, P. R. (2009). A meta-instrument for interactive, on-the-fly machine learning. In Proceedings of NIME 2009 (pp. 280–285). International: NIME.Google Scholar

Fiebrink, R., Cook, P. R., & Trueman, D. (2011). Human model evaluation in interactive supervised learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 147–156). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Fischer, M. J., Lynch, N. A., & Paterson, M. S. (1985). Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2), 374–382.Google Scholar

Flegg, J., Mallet, D., & Lupton, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of the relevance of mathematics in engineering. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(6), 717–732.Google Scholar

Gilbert, S. & Lynch, N. (2002). Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. ACM SIGACT News, 33(2), 51–59.Google Scholar

Gruber, H., Holzer, M., & Ruepp, O. (2007). Sorting the slow way: An analysis of perversely awful randomized sorting algorithms. In International Conference on Fun with Algorithms (pp. 183–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Harrow, A. W., & Montanaro, A. (2017). Quantum computational supremacy. Nature, 549, 203–209.Google Scholar

Hoare, C. A. R. (1978). Communicating sequential processes. In P. B. Hansen (Ed.), The Origin of Concurrent Programming (pp. 413–443). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

K–12 Computer Science Framework (2016). K–12 Computer Science Framework. Retrieved from https://k12cs.org Google Scholar

Kay, A. (1993). The early history of smalltalk. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 28(3), 511–598.Google Scholar

Kelly, A., Finch, L., Bolles, M. & Shapiro, R. B. (in press). BlockyTalky: New programmable tools to enable students’ learning networks. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.03.004 Google Scholar

Kleppmann, M. (2015). A Critique of the CAP Theorem. Computing Research Repository. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.05393.pdf Google Scholar

Klopfer, E. (2008) Augmented Learning: Research and Design of Mobile Educational Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Knuth, D. E. (1998). The Art of Computer Programming: Sorting and Searching (Vol. 3). London, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Kohavi, R. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. IJCAI, 14(2), 1137–1145.Google Scholar

Laboratory for Playful Computation (2017). BlockyTalkyBLE. Retrieved from www.playfulcomputation.group/blockytalkyble.html Google Scholar

Lamport, L. (1978). Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM, 21(7), 558–565.Google Scholar

Lamport, L. (1998). The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 16(2), 133–169.Google Scholar

Lamport, L. (2001). Paxos made simple. ACM SIGACT News, 32(4), 18–25.Google Scholar

Lewis-Kraus, G. (2016). The great AI awakening. The New York Times Magazine, December 14, 2016. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html Google Scholar

Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 243–254.Google Scholar

Mahendran, A., & Vedaldi, A. (2015). Understanding deep image representations by inverting them. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 5188–5196). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Metodi, T. S., Faruque, A. I., & Chong, F. T. (2011). Quantum computing for computer architects, second edition. In M. D. Hill (Ed.), Synthesis Lectures on Computer Architecture (pp. 1–203). San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar

Mohseni, M., Read, P., Neven, H., Boixo, S., Denchev, V., Babbush, R., Fowler, A., Smelyanskiy, V., & Martinis, J. (2017). Commercialize quantum technologies in five years. Nature News, 543(7644), 171–175.Google Scholar

Morazán, M. (2018). Infusing an HtDP-based CS1 with distributed programming using functional video games. Journal of Functional Programming, 28, e5.Google Scholar

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Google Scholar

Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3–4), 720–729.Google Scholar

Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 265–269). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.Google Scholar

Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 1.5–2.6.Google Scholar

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

Shor, P. W. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. In Foundations of Computer Science, 1994 Proceedings (pp. 124–134). Chicago, IL: IEEE.Google Scholar

Sipser, M. (2012). Introduction to the Theory of Computation. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry – Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.Google Scholar

Tanenbaum, A. S., & Van Steen, M. (2007). Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

The College Board (2014). Computer Science A: Course Description. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar

The College Board (2017). AP Computer Science Principles. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar

The Royal Society (2017). Machine learning: The power and promise of computers that learn by example. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/machine-learning Google Scholar

Tichy, W. (2017). Is quantum computing for real? An interview with Catherine McGeoch of D-Wave Systems. Ubiquity, 2007, 2.Google Scholar

Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., Seop, L., Lee, C. H., & Lao, N. (2017). Critical computational empowerment: Engaging youth as shapers of the digital future. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017 IEEE (pp. 1705–1708). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., & Abelson, H. (in press). From Computational Thinking to Computational Action. To appear in Communications of the ACM.Google Scholar

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.Google Scholar

Reader, R. (2015). Code Girl documentary perfectly sums up why more girls don’t code. VentureBeat. Retrieved from https://venturebeat.com/2015/11/04/code-girl-documentary-perfectly-sums-up-why-more-girls-dont-code/Google Scholar

Vandin, F., Upfal, E., & Raphael, B. J. (2011). Algorithms for detecting significantly mutated pathways in cancer. Journal of Computational Biology, 18(3), 507–522.Google Scholar

Vogels, W. (2009). Eventually consistent. Communications of the ACM, 52(1), 40–44.Google Scholar

Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.Google Scholar

Wilkerson-Jerde, M., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Balancing curricular and pedagogical needs in computational construction kits: Lessons from the DeltaTick project. Science Education, 99(3), 465–499.Google Scholar

Williams, C., Stanisstreet, M., Spall, K., Boyes, E., & Dickson, D. (2003). Why aren’t secondary students interested in physics? Physics Education, 38(4), 324.Google Scholar

Williamson, D. P., & Shmoys, D. B. (2011). The Design of Approximation Algorithms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.Google Scholar

Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Retrieved from www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why.Google Scholar

Book contents

New Milieux

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive