research-article

Identifying Pathways to Computer Science: The Long-Term Impact of Short-Term Game Programming Outreach Interventions

Authors:

Antti-Jussi Lakanen,

Tommi KärkkäinenAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 19, Issue 3

Article No.: 20, Pages 1 - 30

https://doi.org/10.1145/3283070

Published: 16 January 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Short-term outreach interventions are conducted to raise young students’ awareness of the computer science (CS) field. Typically, these interventions are targeted at K–12 students, attempting to encourage them to study CS in higher education. This study is based on a series of extra-curricular outreach events that introduced students to the discipline of computing, nurturing creative computational thinking through problem solving and game programming. To assess the long-term impact of this campaign, the participants were contacted and interviewed two to five years after they had attended an outreach event. We studied how participating in the outreach program affected the students’ perceptions of CS as a field and, more importantly, how it affected their educational choices. We found that the outreach program generally had a positive effect on the students’ educational choices. The most prominent finding was that students who already possessed a “maintained situational interest” in CS found that the event strengthened their confidence in studying CS. However, many students were not affected by attending the program, but their perceptions of CS did change. Our results emphasize the need to provide continuing possibilities for interested students to experiment with computing-related activities and hence maintain their emerging individual interests.

References

[1]

Mete Akcaoglu and Matthew J. Koehler. 2014. Cognitive outcomes from the game-design and learning (GDL) after-school program. Comput. Educ. 75 (2014), 72--81.

[2]

Mohammed Al-Bow, Debra Austin, Jeffrey Edgington, Rafael Fajardo, Joshua Fishburn, Carlos Lara, Scott Leutenegger, and Susan Meyer. 2009. Using game creation for teaching computer programming to high school students and teachers. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’09). ACM, New York, NY, 104--108.

Digital Library

[3]

Vicki L. Almstrum. 2003. What is the attraction to computing?Commun. ACM 46, 9 (Sept. 2003), 51--55.

Digital Library

[4]

Neil Anderson, Colin Lankshear, Carolyn Timms, and Lyn Courtney. 2008. “Because it’s boring, irrelevant, and I don’t like computers”: Why high school girls avoid professionally-oriented ICT subjects. Comput. Educ. 50, 4 (May 2008), 1304--1318.

Digital Library

[5]

Michal Armoni, Orni Meerbaum-Salant, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2015. From scratch to “real” programming. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 4, Article 25 (Feb. 2015), 15 pages.

Digital Library

[6]

Tehmina Basit. 2003. Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educ. Res. 45, 2 (1 June 2003), 143--154.

[7]

Ahmet Baytak. 2009. An Investigation of the Artifacts, Outcomes, and Processes of Constructing Computer Games about Environmental Science in a Fifth Grade Science Classroom. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.

[8]

Courtney K. Blackwell, Alexis R. Lauricella, and Ellen Wartella. 2014. Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Comput. Edu. 77 (2014), 82--90.

[9]

Neil C. C. Brown, Sue Sentance, Tom Crick, and Simon Humphreys. 2014. Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 2 (June 2014).

Digital Library

[10]

Lori Carter. 2006. Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (Mar. 2006), 27--31.

Digital Library

[11]

Anna Cleaves. 2005. The formation of science choices in secondary school. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 4 (1 Jan. 2005), 471--486.

[12]

John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, London.

[13]

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1991. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Vol. 41. Harper Perennial.

[14]

Shanna R. Daly, Erika A. Mosyjowski, and Colleen M. Seifert. 2014. Teaching creativity in engineering courses. J. Eng. Educ. 103, 3 (2014), 417--449.

[15]

Adrienne Decker and Monica M. McGill. 2017. Pre-college computing outreach research: Toward improving the practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE’17). ACM, New York, NY, 153--158.

Digital Library

[16]

Tim DeClue. 2009. A theory of attrition in computer science education which explores the effect of learning theory, gender, and context. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 24, 5 (May 2009), 115--121. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1516620.

Digital Library

[17]

Peggy Doerschuk, Jiangjiang Liu, and Judith Mann. 2011. INSPIRED high school computing academies. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11 (July 2011).

Digital Library

[18]

Mary A. Egan and Timoth Lederman. 2011. The impact of IMPACT: Assessing students’ perceptions after a day of computer exploration. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’11). ACM, New York, NY, 318--322.

Digital Library

[19]

Leon Festinger. 1962. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Vol. 2. Stanford University Press.

[20]

Jennifer A. Fredricks, Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, and Alison H. Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74, 1 (01 Mar. 2004), 59--109.

[21]

Mariia Gavriushenko, Mirka Saarela, and Tommi Kärkkäinen. 2017. Supporting institutional awareness and academic advising using clustered study profiles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU’17). 35--46.

[22]

Rani George. 2000. Measuring change in students’ attitudes toward science over time: An application of latent variable growth modeling. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 9, 3 (2000), 213--225.

[23]

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 1999. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (8th ed.). Aldine Transaction.

[24]

Mark Guzdial, Barbara Ericson, Tom McKlin, and Shelly Engelman. 2014. Georgia computes&excl; An intervention in a U.S. state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 2 (June 2014).

Digital Library

[25]

Roxana Hadad. 2013. Using game design as a means to make computer science accessible to adolescents. Cases on Digital Game-Based Learning: Methods, Models, and Strategies (2013), 279--300.

[26]

Margaret Hamilton, Andrew L. Reilly, Naomi Augar, Vanea Chiprianov, Eveling C. Gutierrez, Elizabeth V. Duarte, Helen H. Hu, Shoba Ittyipe, Janice L. Pearce, Michael Oudshoorn, and Emma Wong. 2016. Gender equity in computing: International faculty perceptions and current practices. In Proceedings of the 2016 ITiCSE Working Group Reports (ITiCSE’16). ACM, New York, NY, 81--102.

Digital Library

[27]

Judith M. Harackiewicz, Kenneth E. Barron, John M. Tauer, and Andrew J. Elliot. 2002. Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation.J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 3 (2002), 562--575.

[28]

Idit Harel Caperton. 2010. Toward a theory of game-media literacy: Playing and building as reading and writing. Int. J. Gam. Comput.-Med. Simul. 2, 1 (2010), 1--16.

[29]

A. Harriger, Alejandra J. Magana, and R. Lovan. 2012. Identifying the impact of the SPIRIT program in student knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions toward computing careers. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, 1--6.

Digital Library

[30]

Curtis R. Henrie, Lisa R. Halverson, and Charles R. Graham. 2015. Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Comput. Educ. 90 (2015), 36--53.

Digital Library

[31]

Suzanne Hidi and K. Ann Renninger. 2006. The four-phase model of interest development. Educ. Psychol. 41, 2 (1 June 2006), 111--127.

[32]

Henriette T. Holmegaard, Lars M. Ulriksen, and Lene M. Madsen. 2012. The process of choosing what to study: A longitudinal study of upper secondary students’ identity work when choosing higher education. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 58, 1 (21 June 2012), 21--40.

[33]

Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 9 (01 Nov. 2005), 1277--1288.

[34]

Peter Hubwieser, Michail N. Giannakos, Marc Berges, Torsten Brinda, Ira Diethelm, Johannes Magenheim, Yogendra Pal, Jana Jackova, and Egle Jasute. 2015. A global snapshot of computer science education in K-12 schools. In Proceedings of the ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (ITICSE-WGR’15). ACM, New York, NY, 65--83.

Digital Library

[35]

Jung W. Hur, Carey E. Andrzejewski, and Daniela Marghitu. 2017. Girls and computer science: Experiences, perceptions, and career aspirations. Comput. Sci. Educ. (18 Sept. 2017), 1--21.

[36]

Yasmin B. Kafai and Quinn Burke. 2015. Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educ. Psychol. 50, 4 (2 Oct. 2015), 313--334.

[37]

Yasmin B. Kafai, Quinn Burke, and Mitchel Resnick. 2014. Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming. MIT Press.

[38]

Alison Kelly. 1986. The development of girls’ and boys’ attitudes to science: A longitudinal study. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 8, 4 (1 Oct. 1986), 399--412.

[39]

Melisa Koorsse, Charmain Cilliers, and André Calitz. 2015. Programming assistance tools to support the learning of IT programming in South African secondary schools. Comput. Educ. 82 (2015), 162--178.

Digital Library

[40]

Andreas Krapp and Manfred Prenzel. 2011. Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1 (2011), 27--50.

[41]

Antti-Jussi Lakanen and Ville Isomöttönen. 2015. What does it take to do computer programming?: Surveying the K-12 students’ conceptions. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’15). ACM, New York, NY, 458--463.

Digital Library

[42]

Antti-Jussi Lakanen, Ville Isomöttönen, and Vesa Lappalainen. 2012. Life two years after a game programming course: Longitudinal viewpoints on K-12 outreach. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). ACM, New York, NY, 481--486.

Digital Library

[43]

Antti-Jussi Lakanen, Ville Isomöttönen, and Vesa Lappalainen. 2014. Five years of game programming outreach: Understanding student differences. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’14). ACM, New York, NY, 647--652.

Digital Library

[44]

S. D. Lamborn, F. M. Newmann, and G. G. Wehlage. 1992. The Significance and Sources of Student Engagement. Teachers College Press, New York, 11--39.

[45]

Winnie W. Y. Lau, Grace Ngai, Stephen C. F. Chan, and Joey C. Y. Cheung. 2009. Learning programming through fashion and design: A pilot summer course in wearable computing for middle school students. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1 (Mar. 2009), 504--508.

Digital Library

[46]

Michael A. Lawson and Hal A. Lawson. 2013. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Rev. Educ. Res. (19 Mar. 2013), 432--479.

[47]

R. Layer, Mark Sherriff, and L. Tychonievich. 2012. “Inform, experience, implement”—Teaching an intensive high school summer course. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’12). IEEE, 1--6.

Digital Library

[48]

Terry Lyons. 2006. Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 6 (12 May 2006), 591--613.

[49]

Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT press.

[50]

Bruce R. Maxim and Bruce S. Elenbogen. 2009. Attracting K-12 students to study computing. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’09). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 119--123. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1733663.1733701.

Digital Library

[51]

Robert McCartney, Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Kate Sanders, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2016. Why computing students learn on their own: Motivation for self-directed learning of computing. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 1, Article 2 (Jan. 2016), 18 pages.

Digital Library

[52]

Monica M. McGill, Adrienne Decker, and Amber Settle. 2015. Does outreach impact choices of major for underrepresented undergraduate students? In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’15). ACM, New York, NY, 71--80.

Digital Library

[53]

Monica M. McGill, Adrienne Decker, and Amber Settle. 2016. Undergraduate students' perceptions of the impact of pre-college computing activities on choices of major. Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 4.

Digital Library

[54]

Barbara M. Moskal, Catherine Skokan, Laura Kosbar, Agata Dean, Caron Westland, Heidi Barker, Que N. Nguyen, and Jennifer Tafoya. 2007. K-12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts of four outreach projects. J. Eng. Educ. 96, 3 (1 July 2007), 173--189.

[55]

Yunusa Olufadi. 2015. A configurational approach to the investigation of the multiple paths to success of students through mobile phone use behaviors. Comput. Educ. 86 (2015), 84--104.

Digital Library

[56]

Opetushallitus. 2014. Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/saadokset_ja_ohjeet/opetussuunnitelmien_ja_tutkintojen_perusteet/perusopetus.

[57]

Jonathan Osborne and Sue Collins. 2001. Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 5 (1 May 2001), 441--467.

[58]

Aura Paloheimo, Kaisa Pohjonen, and Pirjo Putila. 2011. Women and higher engineering education — Choosing one’s degree program. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’11). IEEE, T2H--1--T2H--6.

Digital Library

[59]

Marina Papastergiou. 2008. Are computer science and information technology still masculine fields? High school studentsâ perceptions and career choices. Comput. Educ. 51, 2 (2008), 594--608.

Digital Library

[60]

Michael Q. Patton. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (2 ed.). Sage Publications, London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Qualitative-Research-Evaluation-Methods-Michael/dp/0761919716.

[61]

K. Ann Renninger and Suzanne Hidi. 2011. Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educ. Psychol. 46, 3 (1 July 2011), 168--184.

[62]

Alexander Repenning, David Webb, and Andri Ioannidou. 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 (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, NY, 265--269.

Digital Library

[63]

Judy Robertson. 2013. The influence of a game-making project on male and female learners’ attitudes to computing. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23, 1 (2013), 58--83.

[64]

Mary Beth Rosson, John M. Carroll, and Hansa Sinha. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 3, Article 14 (Oct. 2011), 23 pages.

Digital Library

[65]

Miguel A. Rubio, Rocio Romero-Zaliz, Carolina Mañoso, and Angel P. de Madrid. 2015. Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Comput. Educ. 82 (2015), 409--420.

Digital Library

[66]

Mirka Saarela and Tommi Kärkkäinen. 2017. Knowledge discovery from the programme for international student assessment. In Learning Analytics: Fundaments, Applications, and Trends. Springer, 229--267.

[67]

Carol Sansone and Jessi L. Smith. 2000. Interest and Self-Regulation: The Relation Between Having To and Wanting To. Academic Press, San Diego, 341--372.

[68]

Pasqueline D. Scaico, Ruy José, and José Jorge Lima Dias. 2017. Analyzing how interest in learning programming changes during a CS0 course: A qualitative study with brazilian undergraduates. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’17). ACM, New York, NY, 16--21.

Digital Library

[69]

Pratim Sengupta, John S. Kinnebrew, Satabdi Basu, Gautam Biswas, and Douglas Clark. 2013. Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies 18, 2 (2013), 351--380.

[70]

Elaine Seymour and Nancy M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Oxford, UK.

[71]

David J. Shernoff, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Barbara Shneider, and Elisa S. Shernoff. 2003. Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychol. Quart. 18, 2 (2003), 158--176.

[72]

Antoine van den Beemt and Isabelle Diepstraten. 2016. Teacher perspectives on ICT: A learning ecology approach. Comput. Educ. 92--93 (2016), 161--170.

Digital Library

[73]

Jennifer Wang, Hai Hong, Jason Ravitz, and Marielena Ivory. 2015. Gender differences in factors influencing pursuit of computer science and related fields. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’15). ACM, New York, NY, 117--122.

Digital Library

[74]

Jeannette M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33--35.

Digital Library

[75]

Brian E. Woolnough. 1996. Changing pupils’ attitudes to careers in science. Phys. Educ. 31, 5 (1996), 301. Retrieved from http://stacks.iop.org/0031-9120/31/i=5/a=020.

[76]

Sarita Yardi and Amy Bruckman. 2007. What is computing?: Bridging the gap between teenagers’ perceptions and graduate students’ experiences. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’07). ACM, New York, NY, 39--50.

Digital Library

[77]

David S. Yeager, Marlone D. Henderson, David Paunesku, Gregory M. Walton, Sidney DâMello, Brian J. Spitzer, and Angela Lee Duckworth. 2014. Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation.J. Personal. Social Psychol. 107, 4 (2014), 559.

[78]

Barry J. Zimmerman, Albert Bandura, and Manuel Martinez-Pons. 1992. Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. Amer. Edu. Res. J. 29, 3 (1992), 663--676. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163261.

Cited By

Vrieler T(2024)Applying the Computer Science Capital Framework to Understand Factors Facilitating Children's Decision to Participate in Code ClubsProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699544(1-13)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3699538.3699544
Vrieler T(2024)A Case Study of a Code Club's Inclusion Policy and How It Is Implemented Online and in the Classroom2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578834(1-10)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578834
Kruskopf MAbdulhamed RRanta MLammassaari HLonka K(2024)Future teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching practical and algorithmic ICT competencies – Does background matter?Teaching and Teacher Education10.1016/j.tate.2024.104574144(104574)Online publication date: Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104574
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Identifying Pathways to Computer Science: The Long-Term Impact of Short-Term Game Programming Outreach Interventions
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. K-12 education

Recommendations

Computer Science Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany—A Case Study
Special Issue II on Computer Science Education in K-12 Schools

In North-Rhine Westphalia, the most populated state in Germany, Computer Science (CS) has been taught in secondary schools since the early 1970s. This article provides an overview of the past and current situation of CS education in North-Rhine ...
Introducing Computational Thinking and Computer Science Instruction to Preservice Science and Math Teachers
SIGCSETS 2025: Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1

Despite widespread recognition of the importance of computer science (CS) education and an increased focus on computational thinking (CT) instruction in the U.S., there remains a significant shortage of qualified K-12 CS teachers. Preparing preservice ...
Building a Statewide Computer Science Teacher Pipeline
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

From 2012 to 2015, the number of Utah secondary teachers teaching computer science courses grew from 38 to 164. This growth was made possible by introducing three new CS teacher endorsements, which reduced the effort required for existing teachers to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 19, Issue 3

September 2019

333 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3308443

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 16 January 2019

Accepted: 01 September 2018

Revised: 01 August 2018

Received: 01 December 2016

Published in TOCE Volume 19, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

Technology Industries of Finland Centennial Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

12
Total Citations
View Citations
755
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)59
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Vrieler T(2024)Applying the Computer Science Capital Framework to Understand Factors Facilitating Children's Decision to Participate in Code ClubsProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699544(1-13)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3699538.3699544
Vrieler T(2024)A Case Study of a Code Club's Inclusion Policy and How It Is Implemented Online and in the Classroom2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578834(1-10)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578834
Kruskopf MAbdulhamed RRanta MLammassaari HLonka K(2024)Future teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching practical and algorithmic ICT competencies – Does background matter?Teaching and Teacher Education10.1016/j.tate.2024.104574144(104574)Online publication date: Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104574
Spieler B(2024)Empfehlungen für gendersensible MINT-Angebote für Schülerinnen am Beispiel der SchweizTeaching Gender in MINT in der Pandemie10.1007/978-3-658-43375-8_5(97-128)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-43375-8_5
Liu TGonzalez-Maldonado DHarlow DEdwards EFranklin DDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)QupcakeryProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569837(1143-1149)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569837
De Lira CWong RAdesope O(2022)A systematic review on the effectiveness of programming camps on middle school students' programming knowledge and attitudes of computingJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3575618.357562738:1(89-98)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3575618.3575627
Malmi LSheard JKinnunen PSimon Sinclair J(2022)Development and Use of Domain-specific Learning Theories, Models, and Instruments in Computing EducationACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/353022123:1(1-48)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3530221
Gardner TLeonard HWaite JSentance S(2022)What do We Know about Computing Education for K-12 in Non-formal Settings? A Systematic Literature Review of Recent ResearchProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3501385.3543960(264-281)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3501385.3543960
Luo TReynolds JMuljana P(2022)Elementary Students Learning Computer Programming: an investigation of their knowledge Retention, Motivation, and perceptionsEducational technology research and development10.1007/s11423-022-10112-0Online publication date: 6-Jul-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10112-0
Clarke-Midura JSun CPantic K(2020)Making AppsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/342571020:4(1-23)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3425710
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents