Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 79 references

CoRemix: Supporting Informal Learning in Scratch Community With Visual Graph and Generative AI

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read CoRemix, a visual-graph and generative-AI system, helps novice children in the Scratch community understand project events and computing concepts and remix more creatively.

desk verdict CoRemix is a promising system with a real evaluation problem: the study design confounds condition with project and order, and the reported statistics need correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05559 v1 pith:MTFGC3EV submitted 2024-12-07 cs.HC

Yunnong Chen , Yishu Shen , Ruiyi Liu , Xinyu Yu , Lingyun Sun , Liuqing Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords informallearningScratchcommunityvisualgraphgenerativeAIcomputationalthinkingremixingretrieval-augmentedgenerationK-12programmingeducation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that informal learning in an online programming community can be made more effective by giving novice learners a structured visual graph of a project and a generative-AI assistant that scaffolds them as they build it. Concretely, it introduces CoRemix, a system that turns a Scratch project into event nodes and computing-concept nodes and guides 9- to 12-year-old learners through understanding and remixing. If the claim is right, then the open, unguided 'remix anything' model of communities like Scratch can be supplemented with a guided pathway that helps beginners learn computing concepts instead of just copying or tinkering. The paper's evidence is a study of 16 children, comparing CoRemix with the Scratch community website, on project understanding, computing-concept tests, and remixing behavior.

What carries the argument

The central object is the visual graph, a diagram in which nodes represent project events (characters, behaviors, results) and computing concepts (conditions, loops, variables, booleans), with edges showing logical and causal relations. Learners construct this graph while a conversational agent, built on a retrieval-augmented large language model, provides 'visual-textual scaffolding': a constructive loop that gives visual hints, asks a thinking question, checks the learner's answer, and only then supplies textual explanation. A knowledge base of 3,528 sentences extracted from Scratch community comments and posts is retrieved to make the agent's answers more relevant and educational. The graph also becomes the remixing canvas: learners add new event nodes, generate images from their descriptions, and connect them to existing nodes, then follow the graph to code.

What would settle it

A counterbalanced replication with the same two projects, half the children starting with CoRemix and half with the Scratch website, plus a delayed multiple-choice test two weeks later, would settle the claim: if the CoRemix advantage disappears on the delayed test, or if whichever tool comes second shows an advantage, then the measured gains are order or novelty effects, not durable learning caused by the visual graph.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a retrieval-augmented generative-AI agent combined with a learner-constructed visual graph can shift how novices absorb community projects. Children using CoRemix were better able to name key events, describe project details, and explain logical relationships, and they scored higher on multiple-choice questions about computing concepts such as abstraction, synchronization, and data representation. The same learners reported more enjoyment, exploration, expressiveness, and immersion, and they produced remixes with substantial new nodes and edges rather than superficial edits. The paper also reports that grounding the AI's answers in sentences mined from Scratch comments and posts produced richer, more educational responses than a generic language model.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the two chosen game projects are equally hard and that doing one condition first does not change how well the child does in the second condition, so the measured differences come from CoRemix rather than from task order or project choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Guided, graph-based scaffolding can be added to an existing informal community without redesigning the community itself, because CoRemix reads the same Scratch projects and community resources the baseline offers.
  • Learners in the CoRemix condition improved most on the dimensions informal learners usually miss: key events, project details, and logical relationships, and on computing-concept dimensions of abstraction, parallelism, synchronization, and data representation.
  • The higher creativity-support ratings and the average of roughly 3.6 added nodes and 6.8 added edges per remix suggest that scaffolding creativity in graph form can lead to more substantive remixing than open exploration alone.
  • Because cognitive load did not differ significantly from the baseline, the added scaffolding appears not to have taxed the children beyond the normal learning task.
  • The retrieval-augmented agent outperformed a vanilla language model on richness of content and educational value in expert ratings, supporting the use of community knowledge as grounding for AI tutors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the visual graph learners build could serve as a formative assessment artifact: the nodes a child creates and the edges they draw reveal which parts of a project the child has abstracted correctly, which could help teachers or parents target follow-up questions.
  • The community-knowledge recipe (scrape posts and comments, extract concept-related sentences, retrieve them during dialogue) is not inherently Scratch-specific; a similar pipeline could support informal learning in other project-sharing communities, though the quality would depend on how much explanatory discourse those communities contain.
  • A stronger test of the causal claim would be a counterbalanced design with a delayed retention test and more experienced Scratch users; the paper itself notes that the current results cannot rule out a novelty effect from first-time use of CoRemix.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents CoRemix, a system intended to support informal Scratch learning for children aged 9–12. CoRemix provides a visual graph of event and computing-concept nodes, a retrieval-augmented LLM conversational agent that supplies visual-textual scaffolding, and a remixing phase in which learners add new nodes and edges. The paper reports a technical evaluation of the project-analysis and RAG components (Tables 1–2) and a user study with 16 children comparing CoRemix against the Scratch community website (Section 6). The main claim is that CoRemix significantly improves project understanding, computing-concept learning, and remixing activity. The paper also reports formative interviews and design goals.

Significance. If the central effectiveness claim held, CoRemix would be a plausible contribution to CSCW and computing-education research: it combines graph-based abstraction, generative AI scaffolding, and community knowledge retrieval in one system, and the technical infrastructure (AST parsing, RAG, safety moderation) is nontrivial. The paper is also honest about several limitations, including lack of long-term evaluation and possible novelty effects. However, the evidence as presented is not yet sufficient to support the causal claims: the design is described inconsistently, the within-subjects comparison lacks information about counterbalancing, and the reported statistics contain internal inconsistencies. The technical evaluations use small samples without significance tests. The strengths are the concrete system design and the formulation of design goals from a formative study, but the validation needs substantial revision before the results can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.2/6.3] The paper describes the study as between-subjects in the Abstract and Introduction, but Section 6.2 states that each participant took part in both experimental conditions in a within-subjects design. With n=16, a between-subjects comparison would be severely underpowered, while a within-subjects design without counterbalancing cannot separate the treatment effect from order or project-specific effects. Please clarify the actual design and justify it.
  2. [Section 6.3] The within-subjects procedure pairs two game projects (soccer, racing) with two sessions, but the paper never states whether condition order or project-condition pairing was counterbalanced, randomized, or even recorded. Because all outcome measures (expert descriptions, MCQs, questionnaires) are collected per session, a systematic pairing would reproduce the reported pattern even without a CoRemix effect. Report the assignment scheme; if counterbalancing was used, give the order and test for order effects; if not, temper the causal claims.
  3. [Section 6.4 and Tables 3–5] The text states that Bonferroni correction was applied, but Tables 3–5 list uncorrected p-values. In addition, Table 4 contains internally inconsistent t/p pairs: for 'Logical', t=-1.71 cannot yield p=0.333 with 15 df, and for 'Flow Control', t=-1.69 cannot yield p=0.331. These inconsistencies suggest that the numbers as printed are not all correct; please provide the raw data, corrected test statistics, and a clear statement of the multiple-comparison correction used.
  4. [Section 5.4, Tables 1–2] The technical evaluation claims that the project-based and retrieval-augmented variants outperform their baselines, but reports only means and standard deviations without significance tests. With 10 questions per condition (or 10 projects), the observed differences (e.g., Relationships 5.4 vs 5.7; Relevance 5.2 vs 4.8) may not be reliable. Please add appropriate inferential statistics or describe the evaluation as descriptive.
  5. [Section 6.5, RQ3] The claim that CoRemix improves remixing practice is not supported by a direct baseline comparison: the node/edge extension counts (means 3.59 and 6.79) are reported only for the CoRemix condition, not for the Scratch baseline. The questionnaire ratings in Table 5 are subjective and do not measure remixing quality. Please report comparable baseline metrics or revise the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] The name 'Coremix' appears in the text and should be 'CoRemix' for consistency.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'ten participants were recruited' begins with a lowercase 'ten'; it should be 'Ten participants were recruited'.
  3. [Section 6.3 and Figure 6] The text says each session lasted about 45 minutes, but Figure 6 implies 5 + 30 + 15 + 10 = 60 minutes per session; please align these numbers.
  4. [Table 4] The 'Data' row reports the CoRemix mean as 1.687 in the text and 1.68 in the table; standardize the precision.
  5. [Tables 3–5] The tables use asterisks for significance levels but do not define them in the footnotes; please add a note stating what * and ** indicate and how the correction was applied.
  6. [Section 7.3] The paper acknowledges that long-term studies were not conducted and that the novelty effect cannot be ruled out; this limitation should be reflected in the strength of the claims in the Abstract and Conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the user-study outcomes are measured by external expert ratings, standardized MCQ instruments, and questionnaires, and no fitted parameter or same-author uniqueness theorem is used as evidence for the central claim.

full rationale

CoRemix contains no fitted parameters, and its headline user-study claim is not derived from its own inputs. The outcome measures for project understanding are expert ratings of learner descriptions on a 5-point scale, the computing-concept measure is a 14-item MCQ based on published computational-thinking scales, and the creativity-support and cognitive-load measures are adapted from external instruments. None of these are defined in terms of CoRemix's graph-generation pipeline or retrieval-augmented generation module, so the main learning claim is not circular by construction. The only same-author citation is [7] (ChatScratch), used in related work and as background for the asset-library design rationale; it is not invoked to prove the evaluation outcomes, so it is not load-bearing. The technical evaluations compare the proposed project-analysis module and RAG module against explicit baselines (novice descriptions and vanilla LLM), which are independent comparison points rather than the system's own outputs. The study does have validity concerns, including unreported counterbalancing and an inconsistency between the abstract's 'between-subjects' wording and Section 6's 'within-subjects' design, but those are threats to causal inference, not circularity: they do not make the reported outcome equivalent to the intervention by construction. No equation, fitted constant, or uniqueness claim is reused as its own evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the visual-graph abstraction, the Dr. Scratch difficulty matching, and the statistical treatment of small-sample Likert/MCQ data. No fitted free parameters or invented physical entities appear. The visual graph node types and constructive loop are UI constructs, not new physical or mathematical entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Scratch projects can be meaningfully abstracted into event nodes and computing concept nodes (condition, loop, variable, boolean) for novice learning.
    Used throughout Section 4.1 as the representational basis of the visual graph; if this abstraction is lossy for the projects used, the entire learning mechanism is built on an invalid representation.
  • domain assumption The Dr. Scratch CT scores provide a valid measure of project difficulty for matching the two study projects.
    Section 6.2.1 uses Dr. Scratch CT criteria to declare the two games equal difficulty; mismatched difficulty would confound the within-subjects comparison.
  • standard math Paired t-tests on 5-point Likert and MCQ data with n=16 are appropriate and the Bonferroni correction, as claimed, controls for multiple comparisons.
    Section 6.4 states Bonferroni correction was employed, but Section 6.5 reports uncorrected raw p-values, and Likert data is treated as interval.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoRemix: Supporting Informal Learning in Scratch Community With Visual Graph and Generative AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTFGC3EV

@misc{pith2026241205559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoRemix: Supporting Informal Learning in Scratch Community With Visual Graph and Generative AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTFGC3EV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05559}
}
read the original abstract

Online programming communities provide a space for novices to engage with computing concepts, allowing them to learn and develop computing skills using user-generated projects. However, the lack of structured guidance in the informal learning environment often makes it difficult for novices to experience progressively challenging learning opportunities. Learners frequently struggle with understanding key project events and relations, grasping computing concepts, and remixing practices. This study introduces CoRemix, a generative AI-powered learning system that provides a visual graph to present key events and relations for project understanding. We propose a visual-textual scaffolding to help learners construct the visual graph and support remixing practice. Our user study demonstrates that CoRemix, compared to the baseline, effectively helps learners break down complex projects, enhances computing concept learning, and improves their experience with community resources for learning and remixing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of CoRemix. In the understanding phase, learners decompose project events, create event nodes and edges, and incorporate computing concept (CC) nodes to understand key computing concepts, guided by generative AI scaffolding. In the co-remixing phase, learners engage in remixing, adding new nodes and relationships to enhance their projects. guidance or curricula. Informal learning communities, such as Scratc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Event and CC Nodes: In CoRemix, the child can use two types of nodes to build visual graph: Event nodes (Character, Behavior, and Result) and CC nodes (Condition, Boolean, Loop, and Variable). Manuscript submitted to ACM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. When using CoRemix, learners first create event and computing concept nodes from the node area (a.4) and build edges on the visual graph (a.1). Learners can also add corresponding event descriptions on the canvas. If they encounter difficulties while constructing the graph, they can get scaffolding support from the conversational agent equipped with generative AI (a.2). Then, learners can click “new event” (a.3) to … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual and Textual Scaffolding in the Constructive Loop: When a learner poses a question, CoRemix provides visual scaffolding to support them. If the learner clicks "Got it," CoRemix generates follow-up questions to further assess their understanding. However, if the R…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Workflow of community resource-driven retrieval-augmented generation and project analysis. 5.3 Prompting Pipeline for Visual-Textual Dialogues Inspired by [36], CoRemix adopts a constructive loop that uses multi-stage visual and textual scaffolding to make the dialogue…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The process of participants engaging in the within-subjects study. 6.4 Measures We focus on learners’ understanding and learning of community projects, the creative support they experience during remixing activities, and their sense of engagement and immersion througho…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of user ratings on the Baseline and CoRemix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jessie S Barrot. 2022. Social media as a language learning environment: a systematic review of the literature (2008-2019). Computer assisted language learning 35, 9 (2022), 2534–2562

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Amy Bruckman. 1998. Community support for constructionist learning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 7 (1998), 47–86

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Jean Burgess, Joshua Green, and Gala Rebane. 2020. Agency and controversy in the YouTube community. Handbuch soziale praktiken und digitale alltagswelten (2020), 105–116

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Quinn Burke, W Ian O’Byrne, and Yasmin B Kafai. 2016. Computational participation: Understanding coding as an extension of literacy instruction. Journal of adolescent & adult literacy 59, 4 (2016), 371–375. Manuscript submitted to ACM 20 Chen et al

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Julie Campbell, Cecilia Aragon, Katie Davis, Sarah Evans, Abigail Evans, and David Randall. 2016. Thousands of positive reviews: Distributed mentoring in online fan communities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing . 691–704

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Seth Chaiklin et al. 2003. The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context 1, 2 (2003), 39–64

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Liuqing Chen, Shuhong Xiao, Yunnong Chen, Yaxuan Song, Ruoyu Wu, and Lingyun Sun. 2024. ChatScratch: An AI-Augmented System Toward Autonomous Visual Programming Learning for Children Aged 6-12. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2024

  8. [8]

    Mei-Rong Alice Chen and Gwo-Jen Hwang. 2020. Effects of a concept mapping-based flipped learning approach on EFL students’ English speaking performance, critical thinking awareness and speaking anxiety. British Journal of Educational Technology 51, 3 (2020), 817–834

    work page 2020

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Ruijia Cheng, Sayamindu Dasgupta, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2022. How Interest-Driven Content Creation Shapes Opportunities for Informal Learning in Scratch: A Case Study on Novices’ Use of Data Structures. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Ruijia Cheng and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2022. Many destinations, many pathways: A quantitative analysis of legitimate peripheral participation in scratch. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–26

    2022

  3. [11]

    Ruijia Cheng and Mark Zachry. 2020. Building community knowledge in online competitions: motivation, practices and challenges. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–22

    2020

  4. [12]

    Ruijia Cheng, Ziwen Zeng, Maysnow Liu, and Steven Dow. 2020. Critique me: exploring how creators publicly request feedback in an online critique community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–24

    2020

  5. [13]

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 21, 4 (2014), 1–25

    2014

  6. [14]

    Michelene TH Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist 49, 4 (2014), 219–243

    2014

  7. [15]

    Chei-Chang Chiou, Li-Tze Lee, Li-Chu Tien, and Yu-Min Wang. 2017. Analyzing the effects of various concept mapping techniques on learning achievement under different learning styles. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 13, 7 (2017), 3687–3708

    2017

  8. [16]

    Sayamindu Dasgupta, William Hale, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2016. Remixing as a pathway to computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing . 1438–1449

    2016

  9. [17]

    Sayamindu Dasgupta and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2017. Scratch community blocks: Supporting children as data scientists. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 3620–3631

    2017

  10. [18]

    Adina Deiner, Patric Feldmeier, Gordon Fraser, Sebastian Schweikl, and Wengran Wang. 2023. Automated test generation for Scratch programs. Empirical Software Engineering 28, 3 (2023), 79

    2023

  11. [19]

    Griffin Dietz, Jimmy K Le, Nadin Tamer, Jenny Han, Hyowon Gweon, Elizabeth L Murnane, and James A Landay. 2021. Storycoder: Teaching computational thinking concepts through storytelling in a voice-guided app for children. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Fact...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Griffin Dietz, Nadin Tamer, Carina Ly, Jimmy K Le, and James A Landay. 2023. Visual StoryCoder: A Multimodal Programming Environment for Children’s Creation of Stories. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2023

  13. [21]

    Janne Fagerlund, Päivi Häkkinen, Mikko Vesisenaho, and Jouni Viiri. 2021. Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 29, 1 (2021), 12–28

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024. A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining ....

    2024

  15. [23]

    Deborah A Fields, Michael Giang, and Yasmin Kafai. 2014. Programming in the wild: trends in youth computational participation in the online scratch community. In Proceedings of the 9th workshop in primary and secondary computing education . 2–11

    2014

  16. [24]

    Eureka Foong, Steven P Dow, Brian P Bailey, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2017. Online feedback exchange: A framework for understanding the socio-psychological factors. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 4454–4467

    2017

  17. [25]

    We Don’t Do That Here

    Denae Ford, Kristina Lustig, Jeremy Banks, and Chris Parnin. 2018. " We Don’t Do That Here" How Collaborative Editing with Mentors Improves Engagement in Social Q&A Communities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12

    2018

  18. [26]

    Denae Ford, Justin Smith, Philip J Guo, and Chris Parnin. 2016. Paradise unplugged: Identifying barriers for female participation on stack overflow. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International symposium on foundations of software engineering . 846–857

    2016

  19. [27]

    Alexandra Funke and Katharina Geldreich. 2017. Gender differences in scratch programs of primary school children. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education . 57–64

    2017

  20. [28]

    Ebrahim Gabajiwala, Priyav Mehta, Ritik Singh, and Reeta Koshy. 2022. Quiz maker: Automatic quiz generation from text using NLP. In Futuristic Trends in Networks and Computing Technologies: Select Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on FTNCT 2021 . Springer, 523–533

    2022

  21. [29]

    Emilia F Gan, Benjamin Mako Hill, and Sayamindu Dasgupta. 2018. Gender, Feedback, and Learners’ Decisions to Share Their Creative Computing Projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–23. Manuscript submitted to ACM CoRemix: Supporting Info...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Mustafa Serkan Günbatar. 2019. Computational thinking within the context of professional life: Change in CT skill from the viewpoint of teachers. Education and Information Technologies 24, 5 (2019), 2629–2652

    2019

  23. [31]

    Qingyu Guo, Chao Zhang, Hanfang Lyu, Zhenhui Peng, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2023. What Makes Creators Engage with Online Critiques? Understanding the Role of Artifacts’ Creation Stage, Characteristics of Community Comments, and their Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Confer...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Benjamin Mako Hill and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2013. The remixing dilemma: The trade-off between generativity and originality. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 5 (2013), 643–663

    2013

  25. [33]

    Hui-mei Justina Hsu. 2014. Gender differences in Scratch Game design. In 2014 International Conference on Information, Business and Education Technology (ICIBET 2014). Atlantis Press, 100–103

    2014

  26. [34]

    Hyangeun Ji, Insook Han, and Yujung Ko. 2023. A systematic review of conversational AI in language education: Focusing on the collaboration with human teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 55, 1 (2023), 48–63

    2023

  27. [35]

    Qinjin Jia, Jialin Cui, Yunkai Xiao, Chengyuan Liu, Parvez Rashid, and Edward F Gehringer. 2021. All-in-one: Multi-task learning bert models for evaluating peer assessments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03895 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hyoungwook Jin, Seonghee Lee, Hyungyu Shin, and Juho Kim. 2024. Teach AI How to Code: Using Large Language Models as Teachable Agents for Programming Education. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–28

    2024

  29. [37]

    Mukund Kapoor. 2023. Negative Prompts in Stable Diffusion: A Beginner’s Guide. https://www.greataiprompts.com/imageprompt/what-is- negative-prompt-in-stable-diffusion/ Accessed: 2023-12-16

    2023

  30. [38]

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Seßler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, et al. 2023. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning an...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Runlong Ye, Xiaoning Wang, Austin Zachary Henley, Paul Denny, Michelle Craig, and Tovi Grossman. 2024. Codeaid: Evaluating a classroom deployment of an llm-based programming assistant that balances student and educator needs. In Proceedings of the CHI Conf...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Dubravka Knezic, Theo Wubbels, Ed Elbers, and Maaike Hajer. 2010. The Socratic Dialogue and teacher education. Teaching and teacher education 26, 4 (2010), 1104–1111

    2010

  33. [41]

    Özgen Korkmaz, Recep Çakir, and M Yaşar Özden. 2017. A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in human behavior 72 (2017), 558–569

    2017

  34. [42]

    Anastasios Ladias, Aristotelis Mikropoulos, Demetrios Ladias, and Ioanna Bellou. 2021. CodeOrama: A Two-Dimensional Visualization Tool for Scratch Code to Assist Young Learners’ Understanding of Computer Programming. Themes in eLearning 14 (2021), 31–41

    2021

  35. [43]

    Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge university press

    1991

  36. [44]

    Peng-Chun Lin, Huei-Tse Hou, and Kuo-En Chang. 2022. The development of a collaborative problem solving environment that integrates a scaffolding mind tool and simulation-based learning: An analysis of learners’ performance and their cognitive process in discussion. Interactiv...

    2022

  37. [45]

    Fang Liu, Yang Liu, Lin Shi, Houkun Huang, Ruifeng Wang, Zhen Yang, and Li Zhang. 2024. Exploring and evaluating hallucinations in llm-powered code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00971 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Emily Lovell, Leah Buechley, and James Davis. 2023. LilyTiny in the Wild: Studying the Adoption of a Low-Cost Sewable Microcontroller for Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 282–293

    2023

  39. [47]

    Charlotte P Malycha and Günter W Maier. 2017. Enhancing creativity on different complexity levels by eliciting mental models. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11, 2 (2017), 187

    2017

  40. [48]

    J Nathan Matias, Sayamindu Dasgupta, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2016. Skill progression in scratch revisited. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1486–1490

    2016

  41. [49]

    Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2007. ScratchR: sharing user-generated programmable media. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and children . 167–168

    2007

  42. [50]

    Jesús Moreno-León and Gregorio Robles. 2015. Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate Scratch projects. In Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 132–133

    2015

  43. [51]

    Briana B Morrison, Brian Dorn, and Mark Guzdial. 2014. Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: adaptation of an instrument. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research . 131–138

    2014

  44. [52]

    Stable Diffusion Online. 2023. Stable Diffusion: A Latent Text-to-Image Diffusion Model. https://stablediffusionweb.com/ Accessed: 2023-09-08

    2023

  45. [53]

    Jonas Oppenlaender, Thanassis Tiropanis, and Simo Hosio. 2020. CrowdUI: Supporting web design with the crowd. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, EICS (2020), 1–28

    2020

  46. [54]

    Hae Won Park, Mirko Gelsomini, Jin Joo Lee, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2017. Telling stories to robots: The effect of backchanneling on a child’s storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction . 100–108

    2017

  47. [55]

    Zhenhui Peng, Qiaoyi Chen, Zhiyu Shen, Xiaojuan Ma, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2024. DesignQuizzer: A Community-Powered Conversational Agent for Learning Visual Design. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–40

    2024

  48. [56]

    Zhenhui Peng, Qingyu Guo, Ka Wing Tsang, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2020. Exploring the effects of technological writing assistance for support providers in online mental health community. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15. Manuscript...

    2020

  49. [57]

    Katharina Resch, Ilse Schrittesser, and Mariella Knapp. 2024. Overcoming the theory-practice divide in teacher education with the ‘Partner School Programme’. A conceptual mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education 47, 3 (2024), 564–580

    2024

  50. [58]

    Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch: Programming for All. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (nov 2009), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/...

    2009

  51. [59]

    Gabriela T Richard and Yasmin B Kafai. 2016. Blind spots in youth DIY programming: Examining diversity in creators, content, and comments within the scratch online community. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1473–1485

    2016

  52. [60]

    E Romero and JS Artal-Sevil. 2021. Scratch: a tool for learning and teaching. In ICERI2021 Proceedings. IATED, 7844–7853

    2021

  53. [61]

    José-Manuel Sáez-López, Marcos Román-González, and Esteban Vázquez-Cano. 2016. Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education 97 (2016), 129–141

    2016

  54. [62]

    Woosuk Seo, Chanmo Yang, and Young-Ho Kim. 2024. ChaCha: Leveraging Large Language Models to Prompt Children to Share Their Emotions about Personal Events. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2024

  55. [63]

    Can you clarify what you said?

    Tasmia Shahriar and Noboru Matsuda. 2021. “Can you clarify what you said?”: Studying the impact of tutee agents’ follow-up questions on tutors’ learning. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 22nd International Conference, AIED 2021, Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 14–18, 20...

    2021

  56. [64]

    Murray Shanahan, Kyle McDonell, and Laria Reynolds. 2023. Role play with large language models. Nature 623 (2023), 493–498. https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06647-8

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    Samantha Shorey, Benjamin Mako Hill, and Samuel Woolley. 2021. From hanging out to figuring it out: Socializing online as a pathway to computational thinking. New Media & Society 23, 8 (2021), 2327–2344

    2021

  58. [66]

    Don Stone. 2023. What Do Negative AI Prompts Do and How They’ll Improve Your AI Art. https://interlinkedai.com/what-do-negative-ai-prompts- do-and-how-theyll-improve-your-ai-art/ Accessed: 2023-12-16

    2023

  59. [67]

    Meng Sun, Minhong Wang, Rupert Wegerif, and Jun Peng. 2022. How do students generate ideas together in scientific creativity tasks through computer-based mind mapping? Computers & Education 176 (2022), 104359

    2022

  60. [68]

    John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science 12, 2 (1988), 257–285

    1988

  61. [69]

    Tzu-Yu Tai and Howard Hao-Jan Chen. 2023. The impact of Google Assistant on adolescent EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Interactive Learning Environments 31, 3 (2023), 1485–1502

    2023

  62. [70]

    Xiaodan Tang, Yue Yin, Qiao Lin, Roxana Hadad, and Xiaoming Zhai. 2020. Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education 148 (2020), 103798

    2020

  63. [71]

    Yla Tausczik and Ping Wang. 2017. To share, or not to share? Community-level collaboration in open innovation contests. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1–23

    2017

  64. [72]

    Yla R Tausczik, Aniket Kittur, and Robert E Kraut. 2014. Collaborative problem solving: A study of mathoverflow. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing . 355–367

    2014

  65. [73]

    Liuping Wang, Dakuo Wang, Feng Tian, Zhenhui Peng, Xiangmin Fan, Zhan Zhang, Mo Yu, Xiaojuan Ma, and Hongan Wang. 2021. Cass: Towards building a social-support chatbot for online health community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–31

    2021

  66. [74]

    Rainer Winkler, Sebastian Hobert, Antti Salovaara, Matthias Söllner, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2020. Sara, the lecturer: Improving learning in online education with a scaffolding-based conversational agent. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computin...

    2020

  67. [75]

    Nirmalie Wiratunga, Ramitha Abeyratne, Lasal Jayawardena, Kyle Martin, Stewart Massie, Ikechukwu Nkisi-Orji, Ruvan Weerasinghe, Anne Liret, and Bruno Fleisch. 2024. CBR-RAG: case-based reasoning for retrieval augmented generation in LLMs for legal question answering. In Intern...

    2024

  68. [76]

    Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie Jun Cai. 2022. Ai chains: Transparent and controllable human-ai interaction by chaining large language model prompts. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–22

    2022

  69. [77]

    Zihan Yan, Chunxu Yang, Qihao Liang, and Xiang’Anthony’ Chen. 2023. XCreation: A Graph-based Crossmodal Generative Creativity Support Tool. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–15

    2023

  70. [78]

    Seungwon Yang, Carlotta Domeniconi, Matt Revelle, Mack Sweeney, Ben U Gelman, Chris Beckley, and Aditya Johri. 2015. Uncovering trajectories of informal learning in large online communities of creators. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale . 131–140

    2015

  71. [79]

    Chao Zhang, Xuechen Liu, Katherine Ziska, Soobin Jeon, Chi-Lin Yu, and Ying Xu. 2024. Mathemyths: leveraging large language models to teach mathematical language through Child-AI co-creative storytelling. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syste...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.