CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 220Teaching and Learning ProgrammingVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesData Visualization and Analytics

Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education

Naps, Thomas L., Rößling, Guido, Almstrum, Vicki, Dann, Wanda, Fleischer, Rudolf, Hundhausen, Chris, Korhonen, Ari, Malmi, Lauri +3 more·2002·Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education
DOI 10.1145/960568.782998
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Visualization technology can be used to graphically illustrate various concepts in computer science. We argue that such technology, no matter how well it is designed, is of little educational value unless it engages learners in an active learning activity. Drawing on a review of experimental studies of visualization effectiveness, we motivate this position against the backdrop of current attitudes and best practices with respect to visualization use. We suggest a new taxonomy of learner engagement with visualization technology. Grounded in Bloom's well-recognized taxonomy of understanding, we suggest metrics for assessing the learning outcomes to which such engagement may lead. Based on these taxonomies of engagement and effectiveness metrics, we present a framework for experimental studies of visualization effectiveness. Interested computer science educators are invited to collaborate with us by carrying out studies within this framework.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/960568.782998

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., Korhonen, A., Malmi, L., McNally, M., Rodger, S., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh (US)
  • Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Ithaca College (US)
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
  • University of Hawaii System (US)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Alma College (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • U Rey Juan Carlos, Spain
ORCID
Venue
Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education
Publisher
ACM
Published
2002-06-24
Pages
131-152
DOI
10.1145/960568.782998
OpenAlex
W4245927651
Cited by
220
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.20
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) (publishedVersion)
  • TUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
visualization in education, student engagement, active learning, computer science education, Bloom's taxonomy, visualization effectiveness, learning outcome assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review