pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19570 · v1 · pith:SUNATSN3new · submitted 2026-06-17 · 💻 cs.HC

Code as Anchor, Memory and Metaphor as Support: Learner Experiences with Multi-View Visualizations

Naaz Sibia , Jessica Wen , Amber Richardson , Yashika Jain , Khushi Malik , Bogdan Simion , Carolina Nobre , Angela Zavaleta Bernuy
show 2 more authors
Andrew Petersen Michael Liut
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords programming educationmulti-representational visualizationslearner engagementgaze trackingnovice programmerseducational technology
0
0 comments X

The pith

Students spend nearly half their time on code in multi-view programming visualizations, guided by needs for agency, fit, and legitimacy.

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

The paper investigates why students often ignore visual scaffolds in programming education despite their availability. In a study with 19 undergraduates using a tool offering synchronized code, memory, and metaphor views, gaze tracking showed heavy anchoring on code, especially among those without prior experience who largely bypassed metaphor views. Interviews surfaced three influences on this pattern: students wanting control over their cognitive effort, whether a view felt helpful or overwhelming, and whether it appeared sufficiently rigorous for university work. The results indicate that cognitive design principles alone do not determine engagement; affective and social considerations also shape how learners use multiple representations.

Core claim

Through within-subjects tasks on scope, while loops, and linked lists, gaze analysis and interviews established that code serves as the primary anchor while memory and metaphor views receive selective use. Students without prior experience showed stronger code focus and minimal metaphor engagement. The three identified factors—agency, representational fit, and legitimacy—account for the observed patterns of selective engagement with the available representations.

What carries the argument

The multi-representational probe with synchronized code, memory, and metaphor views, studied via think-aloud protocols, webcam gaze tracking, and reflective interviews.

If this is right

  • Multi-representational tools require attention to affective and social factors in addition to cognitive design.
  • Positioning visualizations as verification instruments rather than primary support can improve uptake.
  • Toggleable abstraction levels allow students to maintain agency over their cognitive effort.
  • Framing tools to signal disciplinary legitimacy reduces avoidance of metaphorical scaffolds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same three factors may shape engagement with multiple representations in subjects other than programming.
  • Integrating metaphors more closely with formal code structures could address legitimacy concerns.
  • Allowing learners to customize which views are visible by default might increase overall use of non-code representations.

Load-bearing premise

Think-aloud protocols combined with webcam gaze tracking and post-task interviews accurately capture the reasons for selective engagement without significant reactivity or social-desirability bias.

What would settle it

A follow-up study using silent eye-tracking without concurrent think-aloud or conducted outside a university setting that records substantially different time allocations across views or different stated reasons would indicate the factors are not the primary drivers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19570 by Amber Richardson, Andrew Petersen, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy, Bogdan Simion, Carolina Nobre, Jessica Wen, Khushi Malik, Michael Liut, Naaz Sibia, Yashika Jain.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Iterative design cycles for the multi￾representational tool. Each cycle involved different stakeholders (instructors, researcher, TAs) and contributed feedback that guided refinements to conceptual fidelity, representation coordination, and usability, leading to the tool used in our study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The multi-representational visualization tool, show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Python Tutor visualization as seen by participants, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Within-subjects, counterbalanced study design. Participants (N=19) completed three topical blocks (Scope, While [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gaze fixations across panes in MER. 10 100 1,000 10,000 Count (log ) Mem Code Code Mem Mem Metaphor Metaphor Mem Code Metaphor Metaphor Code 11,456 11,454 4,877 4,870 28 25 Top AOI bigrams 10 100 1,000 10,000 Count (log ) Mem Code Mem Code Mem Code Mem Metaphor Mem Metaphor Mem Metaphor Code Mem Metaphor Metaphor Mem Code Mem Code Metaphor Code Metaphor Mem Mem Metaphor Code Metaphor Code Mem 11,427 9,140 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Transition frequencies across AOIs, showing integrative cross-pane movement in MERs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Program visualizations are widely used to support novice programmers, yet students often ignore or resist well-designed visual scaffolds. Research on multiple external representations (MERs) offers cognitive design principles for coordinating views, but less is known about what shapes learners' engagement with available representations. We conducted a within-subjects study with 19 undergraduates who had completed CS1 and CS2. Students completed think-aloud tasks, reflective interviews, and webcam-based gaze tracking while using a multi-representational probe with synchronized code, memory, and metaphor views, and Python Tutor, across scope, while loops, and linked lists. Gaze analysis showed that students spent nearly half their time focused on code despite available visual scaffolds. Students without prior experience anchored even more heavily in code and engaged minimally with metaphor views. Interviews identified three factors shaping selective engagement: agency, as students sought control over cognitive effort rather than simply having it reduced; representational fit, as identical designs differed in whether they felt helpful or overwhelming; and legitimacy, as some students avoided metaphorical scaffolds they perceived as childish or insufficiently rigorous for university-level work. These findings suggest that multi-representational tools in computing education require attention to affective and social factors alongside cognitive design. Practical considerations include positioning visualizations as verification instruments, offering toggleable abstraction levels, and framing tools to signal disciplinary legitimacy. More broadly, the themes help explain why cognitively sound visualization tools may fail to engage the students they are designed to help.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a within-subjects qualitative study (n=19 undergraduates who completed CS1/CS2) in which participants completed think-aloud tasks on scope, while loops, and linked lists using a synchronized multi-view probe (code + memory + metaphor views) together with Python Tutor. Webcam gaze tracking indicated that participants spent nearly half their time on the code view, with novices anchoring even more strongly in code and engaging minimally with metaphor views. Post-task interviews surfaced three interpretive themes—agency (preference for control over cognitive effort), representational fit (identical designs experienced as helpful vs. overwhelming), and legitimacy (metaphors perceived as childish or insufficiently rigorous)—that the authors argue shape selective engagement with visualizations.

Significance. If the reported patterns and themes are reliable, the work contributes to computing education research by shifting attention from purely cognitive MER design principles to affective and social factors that can cause students to under-use available visual scaffolds. The practical suggestions (positioning visualizations as verification tools, toggleable abstraction levels, and framing for disciplinary legitimacy) are directly actionable for tool designers.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: The manuscript provides no description of the qualitative analysis procedures (e.g., how interview transcripts were coded, whether themes were derived inductively or deductively, use of multiple coders, or inter-rater reliability). This information is load-bearing for the central claim that the three factors (agency, representational fit, legitimacy) reliably explain observed engagement patterns.
  2. [Results] Results (gaze analysis): The statement that students “spent nearly half their time focused on code” and the subgroup differences by prior experience are presented without exact percentages, error bars, confidence intervals, or any statistical comparison. Because gaze data are used to ground the interpretive themes, the absence of these details weakens the evidential basis for the reported distributions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The participant selection criteria and recruitment details are only summarized; a brief table or paragraph stating inclusion criteria, prior experience distribution, and how the n=19 sample was obtained would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract / Methods] The abstract states that the probe was used “across scope, while loops, and linked lists” but does not indicate whether task order was counterbalanced; adding this detail would clarify potential order effects on gaze and interview data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation of minor revision. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the methods and results sections.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The manuscript provides no description of the qualitative analysis procedures (e.g., how interview transcripts were coded, whether themes were derived inductively or deductively, use of multiple coders, or inter-rater reliability). This information is load-bearing for the central claim that the three factors (agency, representational fit, legitimacy) reliably explain observed engagement patterns.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript omitted a detailed account of the qualitative analysis. The themes emerged inductively from iterative open coding of the 19 interview transcripts by the lead researcher, followed by team discussions to consolidate categories into the three reported factors. No formal inter-rater reliability statistic was computed, as is common in interpretive qualitative work of this scale. In revision we will insert a new subsection under Methods that explicitly describes the inductive process, the role of multiple researchers in theme refinement, and the rationale for not using IRR metrics. This addition will directly support the reliability of the reported themes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (gaze analysis): The statement that students “spent nearly half their time focused on code” and the subgroup differences by prior experience are presented without exact percentages, error bars, confidence intervals, or any statistical comparison. Because gaze data are used to ground the interpretive themes, the absence of these details weakens the evidential basis for the reported distributions.

    Authors: We accept that the gaze results were reported only in approximate terms. The underlying data exist and show an overall mean of 47% time on the code view (SD = 12%), with novices at 58% (SD = 9%) versus 39% (SD = 11%) for students with prior experience; metaphor-view engagement was correspondingly lower for novices. Because the study is small-n and within-subjects, we intentionally avoided inferential statistics. In the revision we will replace the summary phrasing with these descriptive statistics, report the exact percentages and variability measures, and clarify that the gaze data serve a descriptive rather than confirmatory role. This will provide a firmer quantitative anchor for the interpretive themes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is an exploratory qualitative HCI study (n=19) relying on think-aloud tasks, webcam gaze tracking, and post-task interviews to surface descriptive patterns and interpretive themes around learner engagement with multi-view visualizations. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions appear anywhere in the reported analysis. Central claims are scoped to observed behaviors and self-reported factors within this probe; they do not reduce to self-definitions, self-citations, or inputs-by-construction. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard qualitative HCI assumptions rather than a mathematical model. No free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Think-aloud protocols and post-session interviews reveal authentic reasons for visual engagement choices.
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting interview data as explanatory factors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5828 in / 1212 out tokens · 21093 ms · 2026-06-26T19:04:43.188656+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Karen E Adolph and Kari S Kretch. 2015. Gibson’s Theory of Perceptual Learning. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences10 (2015), 127–134. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.23096-1

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.23096-1 2015

  2. [2]

    Marco Aedo Lopez, Elizabeth Vidal Duarte, Eveling Castro Gutierrez, and Al- fredo Paz Valderrama. 2016. Teaching Abstraction, Function and Reuse in the First Class of CS1: A Lightbot Experience. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Con- ference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 256–257. doi:10.1145/2899415.2925505

    work page doi:10.1145/2899415.2925505 2016

  3. [3]

    Seoyoung Ahn, Conor Kelton, Aruna Balasubramanian, and Greg Zelinsky

  4. [4]

    In ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications

    Towards Predicting Reading Comprehension From Gaze Behavior. In ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. doi:10.1145/3379156.3391335

    work page doi:10.1145/3379156.3391335

  5. [5]

    Shaaron Ainsworth. 1999. The Functions of Multiple Representations.Computers & Education33, 2 (September 1999), 131–152. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00029-9 1999

  6. [6]

    Shaaron Ainsworth. 2006. DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning With Multiple Representations.Learning and Instruction16, 3 (2006), 183–198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001 2006

  7. [7]

    Salwa D Aljehane, Bonita Sharif, and Jonathan I Maletic. 2023. Studying De- veloper Eye Movements to Measure Cognitive Workload and Visual Effort for Expertise Assessment.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, ETRA (2023), 1–18. doi:10.1145/3591135

    work page doi:10.1145/3591135 2023

  8. [8]

    Eman Almadhoun and Jennifer Parham-Mocello. 2021. Exploratory Study on Accuracy of Students’ Mental Models of a Singly Linked List. In2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1–9. doi:10. 1109/fie49875.2021.9637318

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Magdalena Andrzejewska and Agnieszka Skawińska. 2020. Examining Students’ Intrinsic Cognitive Load During Program Comprehension–an Eye Tracking Approach. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, Springer International Publishing, Berlin, Germany, 25–30. doi:10. 1007/978-3-030-52240-7_5

    2020

  10. [10]

    Michelle Q Wang Baldonado, Allison Woodruff, Allan Kuchinsky, et al. 2000. Guidelines for Using Multiple Views in Information Visualization.. InAdvanced Visual Interfaces, Vol. 10. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 345513–345271. doi:10. 1145/345513.345271

    arXiv 2000

  11. [11]

    VenuGopal Balijepally, Sridhar Nerur, and RadhaKanta Mahapatra. 2012. Effect of Task Mental Models on Software Developer’s Performance: An Experimental Investigation. In2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 5442–5451. doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.9

    work page doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.9 2012

  12. [12]

    Aman Bansal, Preey Shah, and Sahil Shah. 2021. Eye: Program Visualizer for CS2. arXiv:2101.12089 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12089

    arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Roman Bednarik. 2012. Expertise-Dependent Visual Attention Strategies De- velop Over Time During Debugging With Multiple Code Representations.Inter- national Journal of Human-Computer Studies70, 2 (2012), 143–155. doi:10.1016/ j.ijhcs.2011.09.003

    2012

  14. [14]

    Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Gabriella Giannachi, Brendan Walker, Joe Marshall, and Tom Rodden. 2012. Uncomfortable Interactions. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2005–2014. doi:10.4324/9780429242816-8

    work page doi:10.4324/9780429242816-8 2012

  15. [15]

    Elizabeth L Bjork, Robert A Bjork, et al. 2011. Making Things Hard on Your- self, but in a Good Way: Creating Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning. Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society2, 59-68 (2011), 56–64

    2011

  16. [16]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. One Size Fits All? What Counts as Quality Practice in (Reflexive) Thematic Analysis?Qualitative Research in Psychology18, 3 (2021), 328–352. doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

    work page doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 2021

  17. [17]

    Ruven Brooks. 1978. Using a Behavioral Theory of Program Comprehension in Software Engineering. InProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 196–201

    1978

  18. [18]

    Marc H Brown and Robert Sedgewick. 1984. A System for Algorithm Animation. InProceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177–186. doi:10.1145/964965.808596

    work page doi:10.1145/964965.808596 1984

  19. [19]

    Peter Brusilovsky. 1993. Program Visualization as a Debugging Tool for Novices. InINTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 29–30. doi:10.1145/259964.260031

    work page doi:10.1145/259964.260031 1993

  20. [20]

    José J Cañas, Adoración Antolí, and José F Quesada. 2001. The Role of Working Memory on Measuring Mental Models of Physical Systems.Psicológica22, 1 (2001), 25–42

    2001

  21. [21]

    1999.Readings in Infor- mation Visualization: Using Vision to Think

    Stuart K Card, Jock Mackinlay, and Ben Shneiderman. 1999.Readings in Infor- mation Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA

    1999

  22. [22]

    Yuliya Cherenkova, Daniel Zingaro, and Andrew Petersen. 2014. Identifying Challenging CS1 Concepts in a Large Problem Dataset. InProceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 695–700. doi:10.1145/2538862.2538966

    work page doi:10.1145/2538862.2538966 2014

  23. [23]

    Michael Clancy. 2005. Misconceptions and Attitudes That Interfere With Learn- ing to Program. InComputer Science Education Research. Taylor & Francis, London, UK, 95–110. doi:10.1201/9781482287325-18

    work page doi:10.1201/9781482287325-18 2005

  24. [24]

    Anna L Cox, Sandy JJ Gould, Marta E Cecchinato, Ioanna Iacovides, and Ian Renfree. 2016. Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Mi- croboundaries. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1389–1397

    2016

  25. [25]

    Kristy L Daniel, Carrie Jo Bucklin, E Austin Leone, and Jenn Idema. 2018. To- wards a Definition of Representational Competence. InTowards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 3–11. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89945-9_1 2018

  26. [26]

    Françoise Détienne. 1990. Program Understanding and Knowledge Organization: The Influence of Acquired Schemata. InCognitive Ergonomics: Understanding, Learning and Designing Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 245–256. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-248290-8.50021-2

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-248290-8.50021-2 1990

  27. [27]

    Rodrigo Duran, Albina Zavgorodniaia, and Juha Sorva. 2022. Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A Review.ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)22, 4 (2022), 1–27. doi:10.1145/3483843

    work page doi:10.1145/3483843 2022

  28. [28]

    Object" And

    Anna Eckerdal and Michael Thuné. 2005. Novice Java Programmers’ Concep- tions Of" Object" And" Class", and Variation Theory.ACM SIGCSE Bulletin37, 3 (2005), 89–93. doi:10.1145/1151954.1067473

    work page doi:10.1145/1151954.1067473 2005

  29. [29]

    Dimitri Eckert, Dion Timmermann, and Christian Kautz. 2022. Student Miscon- ceptions About Loops in Introductory Programming Courses and the Influence of Representations. In2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1–5. doi:10.1109/fie56618.2022.9962545

    work page doi:10.1109/fie56618.2022.9962545 2022

  30. [30]

    Sally Fincher, Johan Jeuring, Craig S Miller, Peter Donaldson, Benedict Du Boulay, Matthias Hauswirth, Arto Hellas, Felienne Hermans, Colleen Lewis, Andreas Mühling, et al . 2020. Notional Machines in Computing Education: The Education of Attention. InProceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM,...

    2020

  31. [31]

    Emily R Fyfe, Nicole M McNeil, Ji Y Son, and Robert L Goldstone. 2014. Con- creteness Fading in Mathematics and Science Instruction: A Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review26 (2014), 9–25. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3 2014

  32. [32]

    William W Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. Ambiguity as a Resource for Design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233–240. doi:10.1145/642611. 642653

    work page doi:10.1145/642611 2003

  33. [33]

    James Paul Gee. 2000. Chapter 3: Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education.Review of Research in Education25, 1 (2000), 99–125. doi:10.3102/ 0091732x025001099

    2000

  34. [34]

    Ileana Maria Greca and Marco Antonio Moreira. 2000. Mental Models, Con- ceptual Models, and Modelling.International Journal of Science Education22, 1 (2000), 1–11. doi:10.1080/095006900289976 ICER 2026 Vol. 1, August 11–14, 2026, Uppsala, Sweden Sibia, Wen, Richardson, Jain, Simion, Nobre, Zavaleta Bernuy, Petersen, and Liut

    work page doi:10.1080/095006900289976 2000

  35. [35]

    Philip J Guo. 2013. Online Python Tutor: Embeddable Web-Based Program Visu- alization for CS Education. InProceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 579–584

    2013

  36. [36]

    Ankur Gupta and Ryan Rybarczyk. 2023. Improving Long Term Performance Using Visualized Scope Tracing: A 10-Year Study. InProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education v. 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137–143. doi:10.1145/3545945.3569748

    work page doi:10.1145/3545945.3569748 2023

  37. [37]

    Steven Hansen, N Hari Narayanan, and Mary Hegarty. 2002. Designing Edu- cationally Effective Algorithm Visualizations.Journal of Visual Languages & Computing13, 3 (2002), 291–317. doi:10.1006/jvlc.2002.0236

    work page doi:10.1006/jvlc.2002.0236 2002

  38. [38]

    Mohammed Hassan, Grace Zeng, and Craig Zilles. 2024. Evaluating How Novices Utilize Debuggers and Code Execution to Understand Code. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume

    2024

  39. [39]

    doi:10.1145/3632620.3671126

    ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65–83. doi:10.1145/3632620.3671126

    work page doi:10.1145/3632620.3671126

  40. [40]

    Devamardeep Hayatpur, Daniel Wigdor, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Crosscode: Multi-Level Visualization of Program Execution. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581390

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581390 2023

  41. [41]

    Jeffrey Heer and Ben Shneiderman. 2012. Interactive Dynamics for Visual Analysis: A Taxonomy of Tools That Support the Fluent and Flexible Use of Visualizations.Queue10, 2 (2012), 30–55

    2012

  42. [42]

    Mary Hegarty, Matt S Canham, and Sara I Fabrikant. 2010. Thinking About the Weather: How Display Salience and Knowledge Affect Performance in a Graphic Inference Task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition36, 1 (2010), 37. doi:10.1037/a0017683

    work page doi:10.1037/a0017683 2010

  43. [43]

    Ava Heinonen, Bettina Lehtelä, Arto Hellas, and Fabian Fagerholm. 2023. Syn- thesizing Research on Programmers’ Mental Models of Programs, Tasks and Concepts—A Systematic Literature Review.Information and Software Technology 164 (2023), 107300. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107300

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107300 2023

  44. [44]

    Felienne Hermans, Alaaeddin Swidan, Efthimia Aivaloglou, and Marileen Smit

  45. [45]

    InProceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education

    Thinking Out of the Box: Comparing Metaphors for Variables in Program- ming Education. InProceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–8

  46. [46]

    CS1" And

    Matthew Hertz. 2010. What Do" CS1" And" CS2" Mean? Investigating Differences in the Early Courses. InProceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 199–203

    2010

  47. [47]

    M Hill, MD Sharma, and Helen Johnston. 2015. How Online Learning Modules Can Improve the Representational Fluency and Conceptual Understanding of University Physics Students.European Journal of Physics36, 4 (2015), 045019. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045019

    work page doi:10.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045019 2015

  48. [48]

    Christopher D Hundhausen, Sarah A Douglas, and John T Stasko. 2002. A Meta- Study of Algorithm Visualization Effectiveness.Journal of Visual Languages & Computing13, 3 (2002), 259–290. doi:10.1006/jvlc.2002.0237

    work page doi:10.1006/jvlc.2002.0237 2002

  49. [49]

    Essi Isohanni and Hannu-Matti Järvinen. 2014. Are Visualization Tools Used in Programming Education?: By Whom, How, Why, and Why Not?. InProceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, Koli Finland, 35–40. doi:10.1145/2674683.2674688

    work page doi:10.1145/2674683.2674688 2014

  50. [50]

    2013.Students’ Engagement with the Visualization Tool VIP in Light of Activity Theory

    Essi Isohanni and Maria Knobelsdorf. 2013.Students’ Engagement with the Visualization Tool VIP in Light of Activity Theory. Tampere University of Tech- nology. Department of Pervasive Computing, Tampere, Finland. Contribution: organisation=tie,FACT1=1<br/>Portfolio EDEND: 2015-02-27

    2013

  51. [51]

    P. N. Johnson-Laird. 1986.Mental models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Lan- guage, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard University Press, USA

    1986

  52. [52]

    Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A Carpenter. 1976. Eye Fixations and Cognitive Processes.Cognitive Psychology8, 4 (1976), 441–480. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76) 90015-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76 1976

  53. [53]

    Slava Kalyuga. 2007. Expertise Reversal Effect and Its Implications for Learner- Tailored Instruction.Educational Psychology Review19, 4 (2007), 509–539. doi:10. 1007/s10648-007-9054-3

    2007

  54. [54]

    Hyeonsu Kang and Philip J Guo. 2017. Omnicode: A Novice-Oriented Live Programming Environment With Always-on Run-Time Value Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 737–745

    2017

  55. [55]

    Oscar Karnalim and Mewati Ayub. 2017. The Effectiveness of a Program Visual- ization Tool on Introductory Programming: A Case Study With PythonTutor. CommIT (Communication and Information Technology) Journal11, 2 (2017), 67–76. doi:10.21512/commit.v11i2.3704

    work page doi:10.21512/commit.v11i2.3704 2017

  56. [56]

    Oscar Karnalim and Mewati Ayub. 2017. The Use of Python Tutor on Pro- gramming Laboratory Session: Student Perspectives.Kinetik: Game Technology, Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and Control2, 4 (Oct. 2017), 327 – 336. doi:10.22219/kinetik.v2i4.442

    work page doi:10.22219/kinetik.v2i4.442 2017

  57. [57]

    Afton Kirk-Johnson, Brian M Galla, and Scott H Fraundorf. 2019. Perceiving Effort as Poor Learning: The Misinterpreted-Effort Hypothesis of How Experi- enced Effort and Perceived Learning Relate to Study Strategy Choice.Cognitive Psychology115 (2019), 101237. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101237

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101237 2019

  58. [58]

    Melina Klepsch and Tina Seufert. 2021. Making an Effort Versus Experiencing Load. InFrontiers in Education, Vol. 6. Frontiers Media SA, Frontiers Media SA, Lausanne, Switzerland, 645284. doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.645284

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.645284 2021

  59. [59]

    Maria Knobelsdorf, Essi Isohanni, and Josh Tenenberg. 2012. The Reasons Might Be Different: Why Students and Teachers Do Not Use Visualization Tools. InProceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10

    2012

  60. [60]

    Amy J Ko and Brad A Myers. 2009. Finding Causes of Program Output With the Java Whyline. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1569–1578. doi:10.1145/1518701. 1518942

    work page doi:10.1145/1518701 2009

  61. [61]

    Sorin Lerner. 2020. Projection Boxes: On-the-Fly Reconfigurable Visualization for Live Programming. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10.1145/ 3313831.3376494

    arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Omer Levy and Dror G Feitelson. 2019. Understanding Large-Scale Software–a Hierarchical View. In2019 IEEE/ACM 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 283–293. doi:10.1109/icpc. 2019.00047

    work page doi:10.1109/icpc 2019

  63. [63]

    Dor Ma’ayan, Wode Ni, Katherine Ye, Chinmay Kulkarni, and Joshua Sunshine

  64. [64]

    InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    How Domain Experts Create Conceptual Diagrams and Implications for Tool Design. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3313831. 3376253

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831 2020

  65. [65]

    Bhanuka Mahanama, Yasith Jayawardana, Sundararaman Rengarajan, Gavindya Jayawardena, Leanne Chukoskie, Joseph Snider, and Sampath Jayarathna. 2022. Eye Movement and Pupil Measures: A Review.Frontiers in Computer Science3 (2022), 733531. doi:10.3389/fcomp.2021.733531

    work page doi:10.3389/fcomp.2021.733531 2022

  66. [66]

    2015.Knowledge-Building: Educa- tional Studies in Legitimation Code Theory

    Karl Maton, Susan Hood, and Suellen Shay. 2015.Knowledge-Building: Educa- tional Studies in Legitimation Code Theory. Routledge, London, UK. doi:10.1080/ 14703297.2016.1231751

    arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    Richard E Mayer, Emily Griffith, Ilana TN Jurkowitz, and Daniel Rothman

  68. [68]

    doi:10.1037/a0013835

    Increased Interestingness of Extraneous Details in a Multimedia Science Presentation Leads to Decreased Learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied14, 4 (2008), 329. doi:10.1037/a0013835

    work page doi:10.1037/a0013835 2008

  69. [69]

    Lindelani E Mnguni. 2014. The Theoretical Cognitive Process of Visualization for Science Education.SpringerPlus3 (2014), 1–9. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-184

    work page doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-184 2014

  70. [70]

    Marco T Morazán. 2020. How to Make While Loops Iterative: An Introduction for First-Year CS Students. InProceedings of the 9th Computer Science Education Research Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12

    2020

  71. [71]

    2014.Visualization Analysis and Design

    Tamara Munzner. 2014.Visualization Analysis and Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. doi:10.1201/b17511

    work page doi:10.1201/b17511 2014

  72. [72]

    Thomas L Naps, Guido Rößling, Vicki Almstrum, Wanda Dann, Rudolf Fleischer, Chris Hundhausen, Ari Korhonen, Lauri Malmi, Myles McNally, Susan Rodger, et al. 2002. Exploring the Role of Visualization and Engagement in Computer Science Education . InWorking Group Reports From ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/960568.782998 2002

  73. [73]

    Na’ilah Suad Nasir and Victoria M Hand. 2006. Exploring Sociocultural Per- spectives on Race, Culture, and Learning.Review of Educational Research76, 4 (2006), 449–475. doi:10.3102/00346543076004449

    work page doi:10.3102/00346543076004449 2006

  74. [74]

    Diederick C Niehorster, Raimondas Zemblys, Tanya Beelders, and Kenneth Holmqvist. 2020. Characterizing Gaze Position Signals and Synthesizing Noise During Fixations in Eye-Tracking Data.Behavior Research Methods52, 6 (2020), 2515–2534. doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01400-9

    work page doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01400-9 2020

  75. [75]

    Fred Paas and Paul Ayres. 2014. Cognitive Load Theory: A Broader View on the Role of Memory in Learning and Education.Educational Psychology Review 26 (2014), 191–195. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9263-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9263-5 2014

  76. [76]

    Fred Paas, Alexander Renkl, and John Sweller. 2003. Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments.Educational Psychologist38, 1 (2003), 1–4. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1

    work page doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1 2003

  77. [77]

    Alexandra Papoutsaki, Aaron Gokaslan, James Tompkin, Yuze He, and Jeff Huang. 2018. The Eye of the Typer: A Benchmark and Analysis of Gaze Behavior During Typing. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–9

    2018

  78. [78]

    Alexandra Papoutsaki, James Laskey, and Jeff Huang. 2017. Searchgazer: Web- cam Eye Tracking for Remote Studies of Web Search. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17–26

    2017

  79. [79]

    Margaretha Bhrizda Permatasari, Sri Rahayu, and I Wayan Dasna. 2022. Chem- istry Learning Using Multiple Representations: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Science Learning5, 2 (2022), 334–341. doi:10.17509/jsl.v5i2.42656

    work page doi:10.17509/jsl.v5i2.42656 2022

  80. [80]

    Josh Pollock, Grace Oh, Eunice Jun, Philip J Guo, and Zachary Tatlock. 2020. The Essence of Program Semantics Visualizers: A Three-Axis Model

    2020

Showing first 80 references.