Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Flowcode shows that AI-generated flowcharts plus deliberate friction in explanations let novices understand and extend found creative code by writing it themselves instead of vibe-coding complete solutions.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 22:42 UTC pith:XPQUZTMP

load-bearing objection Solid iterative design paper that ships usable multi-file flowchart + friction scaffolds for creative-coding remix; qualitative traces support engagement but not learning outcomes. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06721 v1 pith:XPQUZTMP submitted 2026-07-07 cs.HC

Flowcode: An AI-Powered Programming Environment for Scaffolding Iteration in Creative Computing Education

Tiffany Tseng , Liliana Hanem Seoror , Jeevika Adda , Meitalia Factor , Rona Darabi , Kiley R Matschke , Tiffany Fu , Annie Lin
show 2 more authors
Alekhya Maram Arya Sinha
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords creative codingcomputing educationcode assistantslarge language modelscode comprehensionremixingfrictionvisualization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Remixing found examples is a common way people learn creative coding, yet beginners struggle both to understand multi-file code and to extend it with their own ideas. Flowcode addresses this with an LLM-generated flowchart that breaks a project into semantic feature nodes linked to the exact HTML, CSS, and JS lines that implement them, plus a chat interface that forces step-by-step reading and fill-in-the-blank coding rather than dumping finished solutions. Across a pilot workshop and a lab study with new creative coders, participants used the flowchart for orientation and navigation and engaged more deeply with explanations once auto-insertion and one-click copy were removed. The work argues that visualization and carefully engineered friction can make AI a learning scaffold rather than a replacement for writing code. A sympathetic reader cares because creative-coding communities already live on remixing, and the same pattern could reduce over-reliance on generative tools in other programming education settings.

Core claim

When an LLM produces a hierarchical flowchart that maps high-level visual features onto the concrete multi-language code fragments that implement them, and when explanations are delivered one step at a time with blanks the learner must complete, novice creative coders can orient themselves in found projects, navigate across files, and iterate productively while still writing the critical lines themselves.

What carries the argument

The dual mechanism of (1) an auto-generated multi-level flowchart whose nodes highlight corresponding HTML/CSS/JS lines and (2) step-by-step, fill-in-the-blank explanations that deliberately withhold complete solutions and require manual insertion.

Load-bearing premise

That the short interaction patterns and self-reported gains seen in a few dozen minutes of use will translate into lasting learning and reduced dependence on AI when students remix full projects over longer periods.

What would settle it

A longer controlled study in which half the beginners remix the same CodePen projects with Flowcode and half with an ordinary chat-plus-IDE setup; if the Flowcode group shows no measurable gain in independent code comprehension or feature implementation after several sessions, the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Creative-coding classrooms can adopt flowchart-plus-friction interfaces to keep students writing code while still receiving AI help.
  • The same dual scaffolding can be applied to multi-file web or collaborative repositories where newcomers must understand code written by others.
  • Removing auto-insertion and copy buttons becomes a practical design lever for any educational code assistant that wants to reduce vibe-coding.
  • LLM prompts for pedagogical code generation can be engineered to place blanks on conceptually important parameters rather than trivial ones.
  • Community galleries such as CodePen become more usable learning resources once every project can be unpacked into a navigable semantic flowchart.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same friction pattern could transfer to non-creative domains such as introductory data-science notebooks where students currently paste full solutions.
  • If the flowchart is regenerated after every substantial edit, it may serve as a live ‘diff’ that makes collaborative code reviews faster for mixed-experience teams.
  • Persistent failure rates of ~20 % on fill-in-the-blank generation suggest that fine-tuning or retrieval-augmented prompting will be needed before the technique can be deployed at scale.
  • Over longer horizons the flowchart itself may become a lightweight curriculum map that surfaces just-beyond-current concepts for adaptive scaffolding.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Flowcode, an AI-powered creative-coding environment that pairs an LLM-generated multi-level flowchart (linking semantic nodes to HTML/CSS/JS fragments) with a chat interface that deliberately introduces friction via progressive step-by-step reveals and fill-in-the-blank code snippets. The goal is to support novices in understanding found Anime.js animations and iterating on them by writing code themselves rather than vibe-coding complete solutions. Design is refined across a pilot workshop (n=7) and a think-aloud lab study (n=9); qualitative analysis of logs, screen recordings, and interviews shows participants using the flowchart for orientation/navigation and engaging the stepped explanations after Iteration-2 changes (manual flowchart updates, no auto-insert/copy button).

Significance. If the observed patterns hold, the work supplies concrete, transferable design patterns for pedagogically oriented code assistants in open-ended creative domains: semantic multi-file visualization plus engineered friction that prioritizes active code writing over solution dumping. Strengths include transparent iterative design, detailed interaction traces (Figure 5), explicit reporting of residual LLM failure rates (~22% full snippets for JS/CSS in Appendix A.4), and a clear focus on remixing community examples rather than closed exercises. These are useful contributions to HCI and computing-education research on productive AI use, even without controlled learning-outcome data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3 Results / §7 Discussion] §6.3 and §7 frame the flowchart and friction features as enabling understanding and reducing vibe-coding. Evidence is limited to engagement logs (node clicks, next-step advances, blank fills), interaction traces (Figure 5), and post-session self-reports from short sessions. No direct measures of comprehension (e.g., explain-in-plain-English, re-implementation without the LLM), transfer, retention, or comparative reduction in full-solution pasting versus a baseline (plain ChatGPT or no-friction editor) are reported. The central educational claim therefore rests on interpretation of short-term use rather than outcome data; either add such measures or substantially qualify the “enable” language.
  2. [Appendix A.4 / §6.1.3] Appendix A.4 reports a 22–23% rate of full (non-blank) JS/CSS snippets even after the 2724-word prompt refinement. Because the friction mechanism depends on blanks that force active editing, this residual failure rate is load-bearing: it undercuts the claim that the interface reliably prevents vibe-coding. The paper notes the issue but does not analyze how often participants still received and used complete solutions, nor how this affected the observed “deeper engagement.” Quantify impact on the study data or strengthen the reliability discussion.
  3. [§5–§6 Study design / §8 Limitations] Both studies are single-condition design explorations (workshop n=7, lab n=9, total ~16 beginners, 40-minute main tasks). §8 correctly notes that patterns may differ over full project remixes, yet the abstract and discussion still present the features as scaffolding productive iteration. Without a control or longer-term deployment, claims about reduced LLM dependence and learning-oriented prompting shifts (e.g., P1 vignette) remain provisional. Either run a comparative condition or reframe contributions strictly as design insights from iterative prototyping.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5] Figure 5 caption and axis labels contain rendering artifacts (“이 5”, “P4-”); clean for camera-ready.
  2. [§5.3] §5.3: “using the it frequently” is a typo; several other small grammatical slips appear in results (e.g., “the Flowchart’s ability”).
  3. [§6.2] Lab sample is entirely female (explicitly noted); a brief sentence on implications for generalizability would be useful, especially given creative-coding diversity goals stated in the introduction.
  4. [§2] Related-work coverage of multi-file web animation communities and of other friction/guardrail systems is solid but could more explicitly contrast Flowcode’s visual modality against purely textual guardrails (CodeAid, CodeHelp).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical HCI design paper whose claims rest on observed user behavior, not on self-referential definitions, fitted parameters re-labeled as predictions, or load-bearing self-citation chains.

full rationale

Flowcode is a systems/HCI paper that iterates a programming environment (flowchart visualization + frictionful step-by-step fill-in-the-blank explanations) across a pilot workshop (n=7) and lab study (n=9), then reports qualitative themes and interaction logs. There are no equations, no fitted parameters presented as first-principles predictions, and no uniqueness theorems. Self-citations (e.g., Keyframer [57,58]) appear only in Related Work as prior creative-coding tools; they do not underwrite the central empirical claims about orientation, navigation, or reduced vibe-coding. Those claims are grounded in the two studies’ logs, think-alouds, and interviews. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own observational evidence; no step reduces by construction to its inputs. Score 0 is the correct honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

As an HCI design paper the central claims rest on standard qualitative-methods assumptions plus a small set of domain premises about creative coding and LLM behavior; no free parameters are fitted and the only invented entity is the system itself.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Remixing found examples is a primary pathway by which novices learn creative coding and that multi-file HTML/CSS/JS projects are especially hard to orient within.
    Stated in Introduction and Design Goals; underpins the choice of target domain and the need for the flowchart.
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis of think-alouds, screen recordings and interaction logs from small convenience samples yields transferable design insights.
    Standard HCI methodology invoked throughout Sections 5–6; no quantitative validation is offered.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o can be steered by long natural-language prompts to produce pedagogically useful fill-in-the-blank snippets and hierarchical flowcharts with acceptable reliability.
    Technical Implementation and Appendix A.4; residual 22% error rate is acknowledged but treated as non-fatal.
invented entities (1)
  • Flowcode (flowchart + friction chat environment) no independent evidence
    purpose: Concrete embodiment of the visualization-plus-friction design pattern for creative-coding education.
    The system is the primary research artifact; independent evidence is limited to the two reported studies.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 24077 in / 2529 out tokens · 29790 ms · 2026-07-10T22:42:24.207542+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Building upon found examples is a popular way people learn to code, especially in creative coding communities where sharing projects and remixing are common practices. But effectively doing so requires being able to 1) understand how existing code works, and 2) extend it by writing code that implements your own ideas, practices that can be challenging for new creative coders. We explored how to support these two processes through the design of Flowcode, a creative coding programming environment that integrates a flowchart for visualizing code structure and a chat interface tailored to support learning to code over vibe coding. We share how we iterated on the design of Flowcode over two studies with new creative coders, reflecting on the roles visualization and friction may play in enabling productive AI-use in computing education.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06721 by Alekhya Maram, Annie Lin, Arya Sinha, Jeevika Adda, Kiley R Matschke, Liliana Hanem Seoror, Meitalia Factor, Rona Darabi, Tiffany Fu, Tiffany Tseng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Flowcode programming environment user successfully integrates the code snippet, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Generated explanations in Flowcode display fill-in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (A) Explanations broken into steps. Users must click the ‘Show Next Step’ button to progress to the next step, rather [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stages of P1’s process of remixing a card flip animation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Interaction traces of how users navigated across features of the Flowchart editor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Switch by kalyada. A toggle switch whose toggle changes face when clicked and animates position horizon￾tally. T he background color also changes on switch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Color Changin’ by Alex Zaworski. Clicking any￾where on the canvas changes the canvas background color and adds a particle system animation effect where particles disperse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Card Flip by Marcos Paulo. Clicking on the card flips it, with the card zooming in and out when animating. A.4 Quality of Generated Explanations For our second iteration, the LLM’s ability to generate fill-in-the￾blank code snippets was more consistent compared to our pilot, while not being fully eliminated. Users saw on average 15.8 code snippets over the course of the activity with 77, 41, and 26 code sn… view at source ↗

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

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. p5.js Community Sketches. https://p5js.org/sketches/

    work page

  2. [2]

    Tyler Angert, Miroslav Ivan Suzara, Jenny Han, Christopher Lawrence Pondoc, and Hariharan Subramonyam. 2023. Spellburst: A Node-based Interface for Exploratory Creative Coding with Natural Language Prompts.UIST(2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    William Bares, Bill Manaris, and Renée McCauley. 2018. Gender equity in computer science through computing in the arts–a six-year longitudinal study. Computer Science Education28, 3 (2018), 191–210

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Shraddha Barke, Michael B James, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2023. Grounded copilot: How programmers interact with code-generating models.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages7, OOPSLA1 (2023), 85–111. doi:10.1145/ 3586030

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Joel Brandt, Mira Dontcheva, Marcos Weskamp, and Scott R Klemmer. 2010. Example-centric programming: integrating web search into the development environment. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 513–522

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Joel Brandt, Philip J Guo, Joel Lewenstein, Mira Dontcheva, and Scott R Klemmer

    work page

  7. [7]

    InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1589–1598

    work page

  8. [8]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psy- chology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Peter Brusilovsky. 2001. WebEx: Learning from Examples in a Programming Course.. InWebNet, Vol. 1. 124–129

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    Teresa Busjahn and Carsten Schulte. 2013. The use of code reading in teaching programming. InProceedings of the 13th Koli Calling international conference on computing education research. 3–11

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374(2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Michelle Craig, Phill Conrad, Dylan Lynch, Natasha Lee, and Laura Anthony

    work page

  13. [13]

    Listening to early career software developers.J. Comput. Sci. Coll.33, 4 (2018), 138–149

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Sayamindu Dasgupta, William Hale, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Ben- jamin Mako Hill. 2016. Remixing as a pathway to computational thinking. InProceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 1438–1449

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Nicholas Davis. 2013. Human-computer co-creativity: Blending human and computational creativity. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment, Vol. 9. 9–12

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Paul Denny, Stephen MacNeil, Jaromir Savelka, Leo Porter, and Andrew Luxton- Reilly. 2024. Desirable characteristics for AI teaching assistants in programming education. InProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 408–414

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Francis Geng, Anshul Shah, Haolin Li, Nawab Mulla, Steve Swanson, Gerald Soosai Raj, Daniel Zingaro, and Leo Porter. 2026. Exploring student-AI interac- tions in vibe coding. InProceedings of the 28th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 45–54

    work page 2026

  18. [18]

    Scarlett R Herring, Chia-Chen Chang, Jesse Krantzler, and Brian P Bailey. 2009. Getting inspired! Understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 87–96

    work page 2009

  19. [19]

    Cruz Izu and Claudio Mirolo. 2020. Comparing small programs for equivalence: A code comprehension task for novice programmers. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 466–472

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Hyoungwook Jin, Seonghee Lee, Hyungyu Shin, and Juho Kim. 2024. Teach ai how to code: Using large language models as teachable agents for program- ming education. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–28

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Martin Jonsson and Jakob Tholander. 2022. Cracking the code: Co-coding with AI in creative programming education. InProceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition(Venice, Italy)(C&C ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5–14. doi:10.1145/3527927.3532801

    work page doi:10.1145/3527927.3532801 2022

  22. [22]

    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 and individual differences103 (2023), 102274

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Justin Chow, Carl Ka To Ma, Barbara J Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Studying the effect of AI code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–23

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    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. InProceedings of the 2024 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–20

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Amy J Ko, Brad A Myers, Michael J Coblenz, and Htet Htet Aung. 2006. An exploratory study of how developers seek, relate, and collect relevant information during software maintenance tasks.IEEE Transactions on software engineering 32, 12 (2006), 971–987

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    Chinmay Kulkarni, Steven P Dow, and Scott R Klemmer. 2013. Early and repeated exposure to examples improves creative work. InDesign thinking research: Building innovation eco-systems. Springer, 49–62

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    Ban it till we understand it

    Sam Lau and Philip Guo. 2023. From" Ban it till we understand it" to" Resistance is futile": How university programming instructors plan to adapt as more students use AI code generation and explanation tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1. 106–121

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Brian Lee, Savil Srivastava, Ranjitha Kumar, Ronen Brafman, and Scott R Klem- mer. 2010. Designing with interactive example galleries. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2257–2266

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    Teemu Lehtinen, Aleksi Lukkarinen, and Lassi Haaranen. 2021. Students struggle to explain their own program code. InProceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 206–212

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    2021.Code as creative medium: a handbook for computational art and design

    Golan Levin and Tega Brain. 2021.Code as creative medium: a handbook for computational art and design. MIT Press

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Colleen M Lewis. 2023. Examples of unsuccessful use of code comprehen- sion strategies: A resource for developing code comprehension pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Tseng, T., Seoror, L.H., Adda, J., Factor, M., Darabi, R., Matschke, K.R., Fu, T. Lin, A., Maram, A., Sinha, A. Research-Volume 1. 15–28

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Mark Liffiton, Brad E Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2023. Codehelp: Using large language models with guardrails for scalable support in program- ming classes. InProceedings of the 23rd Koli calling international conference on computing education research. 1–11

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Raymond Lister, Elizabeth S Adams, Sue Fitzgerald, William Fone, John Hamer, Morten Lindholm, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Kate Sanders, Otto Seppälä, et al. 2004. A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers.Acm sigcse bulletin36, 4 (2004), 119–150

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    Rongxin Liu, Carter Zenke, Charlie Liu, Andrew Holmes, Patrick Thornton, and David J Malan. 2024. Teaching CS50 with AI: leveraging generative artificial intelligence in computer science education. InProceedings of the 55th ACM technical symposium on computer science education V. 1. 750–756

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Vivian Liu, Rubaiat Habib Kazi, Li-Yi Wei, Matthew Fisher, Timothy Langlois, Seth Walker, and Lydia Chilton. 2025. Logomotion: Visually-grounded code synthesis for creating and editing animation. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Emily Lovell and James Davis. 2021. Craft of Computing: Using a Novel Domain to Broaden Undergraduate Participation and Perceptions of Computing at the CS0 Level. In2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Andrew M McNutt, Sam Cohen, and Ravi Chugh. 2025. Slowness, Politics, and Joy: Values That Guide Technology Choices in Creative Coding Classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Andrew M Mcnutt, Anton Outkine, and Ravi Chugh. 2023. A study of editor features in a creative coding classroom. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Kasia Muldner, Jay Jennings, and Veronica Chiarelli. 2022. A review of worked examples in programming activities.ACM Transactions on Computing Education 23, 1 (2022), 1–35

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Laurie Murphy, Renée McCauley, and Sue Fitzgerald. 2012. ’Explain in plain English’questions: implications for teaching. InProceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. 385–390

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    Daye Nam, Andrew Macvean, Vincent Hellendoorn, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Brad Myers. 2024. Using an llm to help with code understanding. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1–13

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Kush Patel, Seth Bernstein, Rayhona Nasimova, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, and Stephen MacNeil. 2026. Assessing the Role of Diversity in LLM Explanations for Enhancing Student Understanding. InProceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1469–1470

    work page 2026

  43. [43]

    William Christopher Payne, Yoav Bergner, Mary Etta West, Carlie Charp, R Ben- jamin Shapiro, Danielle Albers Szafir, Edd V Taylor, and Kayla DesPortes. 2021. Danceon: Culturally responsive creative computing. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Adriana Picoral. 2026. Code Reading Instruction: Essential in the Age of Gen- erative AI. InProceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1727–1727

    work page 2026

  45. [45]

    James Prather, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, Brett A Becker, Ibrahim Albluwi, Michelle Craig, Hieke Keuning, Natalie Kiesler, Tobias Kohn, Andrew Luxton- Reilly, et al. 2023. The robots are here: Navigating the generative ai revolution in computing education. InProceedings of the 2023 working group reports on innovation and technology in computer science edu...

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    James Prather, Brent N Reeves, Juho Leinonen, Stephen MacNeil, Arisoa S Randri- anasolo, Brett A Becker, Bailey Kimmel, Jared Wright, and Ben Briggs. 2024. The widening gap: The benefits and harms of generative ai for novice programmers. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1. 469–486

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Yunhan Qiao, Md Istiak Hossain Shihab, and Christopher Hundhausen. 2026. A systematic literature review of the use of genai assistants for code comprehension: implications for computing education research and practice.ACM Transactions on Computing Education26, 2 (2026), 1–33

    work page 2026

  48. [48]

    Casey Reas. 2028. The history of Processing. https://medium.com/processing- foundation/a-modern-prometheus-59aed94abe85

    work page 2028

  49. [49]

    Mitchel Resnick and Eric Rosenbaum. 2013. Designing for tinkerability. InDesign, make, play. Routledge, 163–181

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Martin P Robillard, Wesley Coelho, and Gail C Murphy. 2005. How effective developers investigate source code: An exploratory study.IEEE Transactions on software engineering30, 12 (2005), 889–903

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    Michael P Rogers, Hannah Miller Hillberg, and Christopher L Groves. 2024. Attitudes towards the use (and misuse) of ChatGPT: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 1147–1153

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Sara Sáez-Velasco, Mario Alaguero-Rodríguez, Vanesa Delgado-Benito, and Sonia Rodríguez-Cano. 2024. Analysing the impact of generative AI in arts education: A cross-disciplinary perspective of educators and students in higher education. InInformatics, Vol. 11. MDPI, 37

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Hauke Sandhaus, Qiuquan Gu, Maria Teresa Parreira, and Wendy Ju. 2025. Co- designing with transformers: Unpacking the complex role of GenAI in interactive system design education. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1228–1243

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Anshul Shah, Thomas Rexin, Anya Chernova, Gonzalo Allen-Perez, William G Griswold, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj. 2025. Needles in a Haystack: Student Struggles with Working on Large Code Bases. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V. 1. 27–40

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Simon, Mike Lopez, Ken Sutton, and Tony Clear. 2009. Surely we must learn to read before we learn to write!. InProceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 95. 165–170

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    Simon and Susan Snowdon. 2014. Multiple-choice vs free-text code-explaining examination questions. InProceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Con- ference on computing education research. 91–97

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Blair Subbaraman, Shenna Shim, and Nadya Peek. 2023. Forking a sketch: How the openprocessing community uses remixing to collect, annotate, tune, and extend creative code. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 326–342

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    2026.Stack Overflow Is Dying

    Atiar Talukdar. 2026.Stack Overflow Is Dying. Here’s What Nobody’s Talking About. https://medium.com/@aayan.talukdar/stack-overflow-is-dying-heres- what-nobody-s-talking-about-e0646d45cc65 Medium article, accessed March 20, 2026

    work page 2026

  59. [59]

    Tiffany Tseng, Ruijia Cheng, and Jeffrey Nichols. 2024. Keyframer: Empowering animation design using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06071 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Tiffany Tseng, Ruijia Cheng, and Jeffrey Nichols. 2025. Keyframer: Empowering Animation Design using Large Language Models. InIEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). https://arxiv.org/abs/2402. 06071

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Reflection

    Anqi Wang, Zhizhuo Yin, Yulu Hu, Yuanyuan Mao, Lei Han, Xin Tong, Keqing Jiao, and Pan Hui. 2025. Pinning “Reflection” on the Agenda: Investigating Reflection in Human–LLM Co-Creation for Creative Coding. InCompanion Publication of the 2025 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 249–255

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Wengran Wang, Archit Kwatra, James Skripchuk, Neeloy Gomes, Alexandra Milliken, Chris Martens, Tiffany Barnes, and Thomas Price. 2021. Novices’ learning barriers when using code examples in open-ended programming. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 394–400

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Matthew Woerner, David Socha, and Mark Kochanski. 2023. Code reading: How students and professionals differ.Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges39, 1 (2023), 28–37

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Zoe J Wood, Paul Muhl, and Katelyn Hicks. 2016. Computational art: Introduc- ing high school students to computing via art. InProceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 261–266

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    Dianna Xu, Aaron Cadle, Darby Thompson, Ursula Wolz, Ira Greenberg, and Deepak Kumar. 2016. Creative computation in high school. InProceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 273–278

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Dianna Xu, Ursula Wolz, Deepak Kumar, and Ira Greenburg. 2018. Updating introductory computer science with creative computation. InProceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 167–172

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Litao Yan, Alyssa Hwang, Zhiyuan Wu, and Andrew Head. 2024. Ivie: Lightweight anchored explanations of just-generated code. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–15

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Junran Yang, Andrew M McNutt, and Leilani Battle. 2024. Considering visu- alization example galleries. In2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 329–343

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Omran Zailuddin, Mohd Firdaus Naif, Nik Ashri Nik Harun, Haris Abadi Abdul Rahim, Azmul Fadhli Kamaruzaman, Muhammad Hawari Berahim, Mohd Hilmi Harun, and Yuhanis Ibrahim. 2024. Redefining creative education: a case study analysis of AI in design courses.Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning17, 2 (2024), 282–296

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Yangtian Zi, Luisa Li, Arjun Guha, Carolyn Anderson, and Molly Q Feldman. 2025. “I Would Have Written My Code Differently’: Beginners Struggle to Understand LLM-Generated Code. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 1479–1488. A Appendix A.1 Pilot Workshop Study Recruitment Details For our pilot ...

    work page 2025