research-article

The Association of High School Computer Science Content and Pedagogy with Students’ Success in College Computer Science

Authors:

Philip M. Sadler,

Gerhard SonnertAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 20, Issue 2

Article No.: 13, Pages 1 - 21

https://doi.org/10.1145/3381995

Published: 24 April 2020 Publication History

Abstract

The number of computer science (CS) courses has been dramatically expanding in U.S. high schools (HS). In comparison with well-established courses in mathematics and science, little is known about how the decisions made by HS CS teachers regarding how and what to teach impact student performance later in introductory college CS courses. Drawing on a large sample of 2,871 introductory college CS students at 115 U.S. institutions who had taken a CS course in HS, we examined the topic coverage and prevailing instructional methods in the HS course and investigated how these experiences influenced student performance in college CS. Controlling for differences in student background, we find two predictors of higher grades in college CS: greater frequency of coding-related activities in HS (programming, debugging, studying algorithms) and lower frequency of “non-coding” computer use (e.g., data analysis, computer security). Interaction models revealed a more complex story. Coding-related activity more heavily benefited students who did not have coding help available at home. In the 28% of college CS courses in which instructors employed innovative pedagogies, students with higher ACT or SAT mathematics scores had a greater advantage than in traditionally taught courses. Finally, in the innovative college courses, students whose HS CS exams had typically included testing on vocabulary did worse than students whose exams had not included such tests.

References

[1]

Paul D. Allison. 2001. Missing Data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[2]

Carol Ann Alspaugh. 1972. Identification of some components of computer programming aptitude. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 3, 2, 89--98.

[3]

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. Computers 8 Education 50, 4, 1304--1318.

[4]

Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau, Owen Astrachan, Dwight Barnett, Matthew Bauer, Marilyn Carrell, Rebecca Dovi, Baker Franke, et al. 2013. Computer science principles: Analysis of a proposed advanced placement course. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 251--256.

Digital Library

[5]

Catherine Ashcraft, Brad McLain, and Elizabeth Eger. 2016. Women in Tech: The Facts. National Center for Women 8 Technology, Boulder, CO.

[6]

Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson. 2011. Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads 2, 1, 48--54.

Digital Library

[7]

Theresa Beaubouef and John Mason. 2005. Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: Some thoughts and observations. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 37, 2, 103--106.

Digital Library

[8]

Tim Bell, Jason Alexander, Isaac Freeman, and Mick Grimley. 2009. Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology 13, 1, 20--29.

[9]

Mordechai Ben-Ari. 1998. Constructivism in computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 30, 1, 257--261.

Digital Library

[10]

Mordechai Ben-Ari, Anders Berglund, Shirley Booth, and Christian Holmboe. 2004. What do we mean by theoretically sound research in computer science education? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 36, 3, 230--231.

Digital Library

[11]

Robert Q. Berry III. 2003. Mathematics standards, cultural styles, and learning preferences: The plight and the promise of African American students. Clearing House 76, 5, 244--249.

[12]

Torsten Brinda, Hermann Puhlmann, and Carsten Schulte. 2009. Bridging ICT and CS: Educational standards for computer science in lower secondary education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 3, 288--329.

Digital Library

[13]

Computing Research Association. 2017. Generation CS: Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments Surge Since 2006. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://cra.org/data/Generation-CS/.

[14]

Dylan Conger and Mark C. Long. 2010. Why are men falling behind? Gender gaps in college performance and persistence. In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 627, 1, 184--214.

[15]

Stephen Cooper, Wanda Dann, and Randy Pausch. 2003. Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 191--195.

Digital Library

[16]

Steve Cooper, Shuchi Grover, Mark Guzdial, and Beth Simon. 2014. A future for computing education research. Communications of the ACM 57, 11, 34--36.

Digital Library

[17]

CSTA, Oracle Academy. 2014. Results from the CSTA-Oracle Academy 2014 U.S. High School CS Survey: The State of Computer Science in U.S. High Schools: An Administrator's Perspective. Retrieved January 2, 2017 from https://www.csteachers.org/documents/en-us/51ef16d4-1bfe-44b6-81aa-0f3682baeb79/1.

[18]

CSTA. 2015. CSTA National Secondary Computer Science Survey 2015. Retrieved February 7, 2018 from https://www.csteachers.org/documents/en-us/02c2735f-f0cb-4425-930b-fa71c2acc2d4/1.

[19]

CSTA. 2017. CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards, Revised 2017. Retrieved April 28, 2019 from https://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/176/CSTA%20Computer%20Science%20Standards%20Revised%202017.pdf.

[20]

Jan Cuny. 2015. Transforming K-12 computing education: An update and a call to action. ACM Inroads 6, 3, 54--57.

Digital Library

[21]

Wade Curry, Walt MacDonald, and Rick Morgan. 1999. The Advanced Placement program: Access to excellence. Journal of Advanced Academics 11, 1, 17--23.

[22]

Edward C. Dillon Jr., Juan E. Gilbert, Jerlando F. L. Jackson, and LaVar J. Charleston. 2015. The State of African-Americans in Computer Science—The Need to Increase Representation. Computing Research News 27(8). Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://cra.org/crn/2015/09/expanding-the-pipeline-the-state-of-african-americans-in-computer-science-the-need-to-increase-representation/.

[23]

Cody S. Ding, Kim Song, and Lloyd I. Richardson. 2006. Do mathematical gender differences continue? A longitudinal study of gender difference and excellence in mathematics performance in the U.S. Educational Studies 40, 3, 279--295.

[24]

Paul S. Dowland, Steven M. Furnell, H. M. Illingworth, and Paul L. Reynolds. 1999. Computer crime and abuse: A survey of public attitudes and awareness. Computers 8 Security 18, 8, 715--726.

[25]

Stephen H. Edwards. 2003. Rethinking computer science education from a test-first perspective. In Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications. ACM, New York, NY, 148--155.

Digital Library

[26]

Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 23, 8410--8415.

[27]

Batya Friedman and Peter H. Kahn. 1994. Educating computer scientists: Linking the social and the technical. Communications of the ACM 37, 1, 64--70.

Digital Library

[28]

Steve Furber. 2012. Shut Down or Restart? The Way Forward for Computing in UK Schools. Royal Society, London, England.

[29]

Walter Gander, Antoine Petit, Gérard Berry, Barbara Demo, Jan Vahrenhold, Andrew McGettrick, Roger Boyle, et al. 2013. Informatics Education: Europe Cannot Afford to Miss the Boat. Report of the Joint Informatics Europe 8 ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://www.informatics-europe.org/images/documents/informatics-education-acm-ie.pdf.

[30]

Gene V. Glass, Percy D. Peckham, and James R. Sanders. 1972. Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research 42, 3, 237--288.

[31]

Google and Gallup. 2016. Diversity Gaps in Computer Science: Exploring the Underrepresentation of Girls, Blacks and Hispanics. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/diversity-gaps-in-computer-science-report.pdf.

[32]

Scott Grissom, Renée McCauley, and Laurie Murphy. 2017. How student centered is the computer science classroom? A survey of college faculty. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 18, 1, 1--27.

Digital Library

[33]

Shuchi Grover. 2011. Robotics and engineering for middle and high school students to develop computational thinking. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

[34]

Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K--12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher 42, 1, 38--43.

[35]

Mark Guzdial. 2010. Does contextualized computing education help? ACM Inroads 1, 4, 4--6.

Digital Library

[36]

Mark Guzdial. 2017. ‘Generation CS’ drives growth in enrollments. Communications of the ACM 60, 7, 10--11.

Digital Library

[37]

Douglas D. Havard and Keith E. Howard. 2019. All Advanced Placement (AP) computer science is not created equal: A comparison of AP Computer Science A and Computer Science Principles. Journal of Computer Science Integration 2, 1, 16--34.

[38]

Orit Hazzan, Judith Gal-Ezer, and Lenore Blum. 2008. A model for high school computer science education: The four key elements that make it! ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 40, 1, 281--285.

[39]

Orit Hazzan, Tami Lapidot, and Noa Ragonis. 2014. Guide to Teaching Computer Science: An Activity-Based Approach. Springer, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[40]

Christian Holmboe, Linda McIver, and Carlisle E. George. 2001. Research agenda for computer science education. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Vol. 13. 207--223.

[41]

Chuck Huff and C. Dianne Martin. 1995. Computing consequences: A framework for teaching ethical computing. Communications of the ACM 38, 12, 75--84.

Digital Library

[42]

International Technology Education Association. 2007. Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, Reston, VA.

[43]

Tina Marie Jackson. 2014. Pathways to fast tracking African American community college students to STEM careers. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

[44]

Henry F. Kaiser. 1991. Coefficient alpha for a principal component and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Psychological Reports 68, 3, 855--858.

[45]

Theodora Koulouri, Stanislao Lauria, and Robert D. Macredie. 2015. Teaching introductory programming: A quantitative evaluation of different approaches. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14, 4, 1--28.

Digital Library

[46]

Nathan R. Kuncel, Marcus Credé, and Lisa L. Thomas. 2005. The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 75, 1, 63--82.

[47]

D. Midian Kurland, Roy D. Pea, Catherine Clement, and Ronald Mawby. 1986. A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2, 4, 429--458.

[48]

Essi Lahtinen, Kirsti Ala-Mutka, and Hannu-Matti Järvinen. 2005. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 37, 3, 14--18.

Digital Library

[49]

Emily Rose Lai and Michaela Viering. 2012. Assessing 21st Century Skills: Integrating Research Findings. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

[50]

Diana Lambert. 2018. California Adopts First Computer Science Standards for K-12 Students. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://edsource.org/?p=601985.

[51]

Louis Major, Theocharis Kyriacou, and O. Pearl Brereton. 2012. Systematic literature review: Teaching novices programming using robots. IET Software 6, 6, 502--513.

[52]

Jane Margolis, Rachel Estrella, Joanna Goode, Jennifer Jellison Holme, and Kimberly Nao. 2010. Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[53]

Michael R. Matthews. 1994. Science Teaching: The Contribution of History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge, New York, NY.

[54]

Renée McCauley, Sue C. Fitzgerald, Gary Lewandowski, Laurie Murphy, Beth Simon, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2008. Debugging: A review of the literature from an educational perspective. Computer Science Education 18, 2, 67--92.

[55]

National Education Association. 2012. Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society: An Educator's Guide to the “Four Cs.” National Education Association, Alexandria, VA.

[56]

National Science Board. 2018. About Science and Engineering Indicators. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/front-matter/about-science-and-engineering-indicators.

[57]

Ian Newman, Mats Daniels, and Xristine Faulkner. 2003. Open ended group projects a ‘tool’ for more effective teaching. In Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE ’03). 95--103.

[58]

Jeannie Oakes. 1990. Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education 16, 1, 153--222.

[59]

Barbara A. Oakley, Darrin M. Hanna, Zenon Kuzmyn, and Richard M. Felder. 2007. Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering student respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education 50, 3, 266--272.

Digital Library

[60]

Mark Overmars. 2004. Teaching computer science through game design. Computer 37, 4, 81--83.

Digital Library

[61]

David B. Palumbo. 1990. Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research 60, 1, 65--89.

[62]

Marina Papastergiou. 2008. Are computer science and information technology still masculine fields? High school students’ perceptions and career choices. Computers 8 Education 51, 2, 594--608.

[63]

Marina Papastergiou. 2009. Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers 8 Education 52, 1, 1--12.

[64]

Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. 1991. Situating constructionism. In Constructionism. Ablex Publishing, New York, NY, 1--11.

[65]

Phys.org. 2017. Computer Science Educators to Decode Field's Future at Event. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://phys.org/wire-news/270382520/computer-science-educators-to-decode-fields-future-at-event.html.

[66]

Leo Porter, Dennis Bouvier, Quintin Cutts, Scott Grissom, Cynthia Lee, Robert McCartney, Daniel Zingaro, and Beth Simon. 2016. A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. ACM Inroads 7, 2, 76--81.

Digital Library

[67]

Jesús Ubaldo Quevedo-Torrero. 2009. Learning theories in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2009 6th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 634--635.

Digital Library

[68]

Alexander Repenning, David C. Webb, Kyu Han Koh, Hilarie Nickerson, Susan B. Miller, Catharine Brand, Ian Her Many Horses, et al. 2015. Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 15, 2, Article 11.

Digital Library

[69]

Donald B. Rubin. 1976. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63, 3) 581---592.

[70]

Donald B. Rubin. 1987. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics 81. John Wiley 8 Sons, New York, NY.

[71]

Donald B. Rubin. 1996. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 434, 473--489.

[72]

Mara Saeli, Jacob Perrenet, Wim M. G. Jochems, and Bert Zwaneveld. Teaching programming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education 10, 1, 73--88.

[73]

Dianne Schneider and Neil Dorans. 1999. Concordance Between SAT I and ACT Scores for Individual Students. Research Notes RN-07. College Entrance Examination Board, New York, NY.

[74]

Carsten Schulte and Jens Bennedsen. 2006. What do teachers teach in introductory programming? In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, 17--28.

Digital Library

[75]

David J. Shernoff, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Barbara Schneider, and Elisa Steele Shernoff. 2003. Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly 18, 2, 158--176.

[76]

Beth Simon, Julian Parris, and Jaime Spacco. 2013. How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 41--46.

Digital Library

[77]

Judith D. Singer and John B. Willett. 2003. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

[78]

Megan Smith. 2016. Computer Science for All. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all.

[79]

Jim Stanton, Lynn Goldsmith, Richards Adrion, Sarah Dunton, Katie Hendrickson, Alan Peterfreund, Pat Yongpradit, Rebecca Zarch, and Jennifer Zinth. 2017. State of the States Landscape Report: State-Level Policies Supporting Equitable K--12 Computer Science Education. Education Development Center, Waltham, MA.

[80]

Keith J. Topping. 2005. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 25, 6, 631--645.

[81]

Luis Torres, Christopher Peña, Karina Camacho, and Priscilla Silva. 2014. STEM Education: A Bridge for Latinos to Opportunity and Success. Time Warner Cable Research Program on Digital Communications, Washington, DC.

[82]

Allen Tucker. 2003. A Model Curriculum for K--12 Computer Science: Final Report of the ACM K--12 Task Force Curriculum Committee. ACM, New York, NY.

[83]

Sherry Turkle and Seymour Papert. 1992. Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 11, 1, 3--33.

[84]

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Home/UseTheData.

[85]

Arto Vihavainen, Jonne Airaksinen, and Christopher Watson. 2014. A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, 19--26.

Digital Library

[86]

Linda L. Werner, Brian Hanks, and Charlie McDowell. 2004. Pair-programming helps female computer science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing 4, 1, Article 4.

Digital Library

[87]

Gregory White and Gregory Nordstrom. 1996. Security across the curriculum: Using computer security to teach computer science principles. In Proceedings of the 19th National Information Systems Security Conference. 483--488.

[88]

Brenda Cantwell Wilson and Sharon Shrock. 2001. Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 33, 1, 184--188.

Digital Library

[89]

Cameron Wilson, Leigh Ann Sudol, Chris Stephenson, and Mark Stehlik. 2010. Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K-12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. ACM, New York, NY.

[90]

Jeannette M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49, 3, 33--35.

Digital Library

[91]

An Gie Yong and Sean Pearce. 2013. A beginner's guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 9, 2, 79--94.

[92]

Jennifer Dounay Zinth. 2016. Computer Science in High School Graduation Requirements. ECS Education Trends (Updated). Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO.

Cited By

Yang BHao LSong YZhang XZuo FQu X(2024)Demographics, Approaches, and Conceptions: Understanding Computer Science LearningJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3715602.371561140:1(38-48)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3715602.3715611
Borges JMcInerney CExton CHarkin BMcGarr O(2024)The subjective nature of curriculum innovation: The case of computer science students in upper secondary education in IrelandComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2024.2421680(1-29)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2024.2421680
Lusa Krug DMouza CJones WBarnett TShepherd DDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)Attracting Adults to Computer Programming via Hip HopProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569800(528-534)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569800
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The Association of High School Computer Science Content and Pedagogy with Students’ Success in College Computer Science
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education

Recommendations

High School Calculus and Computer Science Course Taking as Predictors of Success in Introductory College Computer Science

Success in an introductory college computer science (CS) course encourages students to major and pursue careers in computer science and many other STEM fields, whereas weak performance is often a powerful deterrent. This article examines the role of ...
Bringing the breadth of computer science to middle schools
SIGCSE '12: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education

In order to garner more student interest in the pursuit of computer science as both a major and a career path, K-12 students need to be made aware of what computer science is and what it is about earlier in their education. Although students in many ...
Preparing STEM Teachers to offer New Mexico Computer Science for All
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

In this paper, we describe a new teacher professional development program, New Mexico Computer Science for All (NM-CSforAll), that prepares high school science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers to serve as learning coaches / teaching ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 20, Issue 2

June 2020

174 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3382496

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

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

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 24 April 2020

Accepted: 01 January 2020

Revised: 01 January 2020

Received: 01 August 2018

Published in TOCE Volume 20, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
749
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)110
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

Reflects downloads up to 24 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Yang BHao LSong YZhang XZuo FQu X(2024)Demographics, Approaches, and Conceptions: Understanding Computer Science LearningJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3715602.371561140:1(38-48)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3715602.3715611
Borges JMcInerney CExton CHarkin BMcGarr O(2024)The subjective nature of curriculum innovation: The case of computer science students in upper secondary education in IrelandComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2024.2421680(1-29)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2024.2421680
Lusa Krug DMouza CJones WBarnett TShepherd DDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)Attracting Adults to Computer Programming via Hip HopProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569800(528-534)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569800
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
Lee SFrancom GNuatomue J(2022)Computer science education and K-12 students’ computational thinking: A systematic reviewInternational Journal of Educational Research10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102008114(102008)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102008
Boda PMcGee SSherriff MMerkle LCutter PMonge ASheard J(2021)Broadening Participation and Success in AP CSA: Predictive Modeling from Three Years of DataProceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education10.1145/3408877.3432421(626-632)Online publication date: 3-Mar-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3408877.3432421

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