Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 7 minor 99 references

Post-hoc pauses after each coding step cut ADHD learners' errors by 87% and hesitations by 79%, closing the gap with peers without ADHD.

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 ↗

Post-hoc temporal segmentation of Scratch instructional videos with fixed 4-second pauses substantially reduces errors and hesitations for ADHD novices and narrows the gap with non-ADHD peers.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-31 challenge →

load-bearing objection Segmentation clearly helps ADHD novices on Scratch tasks; the abstract’s “equalizing” story is not statistically established. the 6 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24612 v1 pith:Z22MI7FE submitted 2026-07-27 cs.HC

Leveling the Playing Field: Temporal Video Segmentation for Individuals with ADHD in Computing Education

Veronica Pimenova , Chris Lee , Baramee Bhakdibhumi , Simon Chu , Andrew Begel This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords ADHDCognitive LoadAccessibilityProgramming EducationUniversal Design for LearningVideo SegmentationWorking Memory
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.

The reading

Instructional coding videos often stream steps too fast for working memory, especially for people with ADHD. This paper tests a simple fix applied after recording: break each video into single-instruction chunks and insert a fixed 4-second pause after every logical step. In a within-subjects study of 27 adult novices learning Scratch (17 with ADHD, 10 without), the segmented videos improved everyone, but the gains were larger for the ADHD group. Their errors fell about 87% and hesitations about 79% on medium and hard tasks, bringing performance in line with peers without ADHD under the same condition. The authors present this as a Universal Design for Learning move: one post-production change can shrink performance disparities without requiring diagnosis disclosure or instructor redesign.

Core claim

A lightweight, post-hoc temporal segmentation of learn-by-doing programming videos—single-instruction chunks followed by fixed 4-second pauses—has an equalizing effect. It reduces errors and hesitations for all learners, with substantially larger gains for participants with ADHD, bringing their medium/hard-task performance to levels comparable to participants without ADHD under the same intervention.

What carries the argument

Logic-aware system-paced segmentation: after each complete semantic unit (e.g., snapping a Scratch block), insert a fixed 4-second pause before the next instruction. The pause is meant to give the phonological loop and dual-channel processing time to catch up, lowering extraneous cognitive load without student-initiated controls.

Load-bearing premise

That larger simple-effect gains and effect sizes for the ADHD group are enough to claim an equalizing benefit even though the statistical interaction between segmentation and ADHD status was not significant and the non-ADHD control group was small.

What would settle it

A larger, fully powered replication with balanced ADHD and non-ADHD groups that still finds no reliable Seg×ADHD interaction on errors or hesitations for medium/hard tasks, or that finds the ADHD advantage disappears when pause length or segmentation granularity is varied.

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

If this is right

  • Existing programming tutorial libraries can be made more accessible by post-production insertion of short pauses after each instructional step, without re-recording or instructor retraining.
  • Platforms can ship default segmented playback modes that reduce performance gaps across neurocognitive profiles while still helping learners without ADHD.
  • Medication status need not gate access to the benefit: both medicated and unmedicated ADHD participants improved under segmentation.
  • Designers can treat fixed micro-pauses as an external executive-function scaffold that targets structural working-memory limits rather than attention alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If logic-aware pauses generalize beyond Scratch, the same post-hoc pipeline could be applied to text-based live-coding lectures and MOOC libraries at low marginal cost.
  • Closed-loop variants that auto-resume only after the learner completes the matching action in their own workspace would convert the fixed pause into adaptive pacing.
  • Subjective reports of focus loss during silence, despite objective gains, suggest future designs should let users tune or disable pause length to avoid trading one friction for another.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

6 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates a post-hoc video segmentation intervention for programming instruction: instructional Scratch videos are split into single-instruction chunks separated by 4-second system-defined pauses. In a within-subjects study with 27 adult programming novices (17 with ADHD, 10 controls), participants completed six Scratch tasks of graded difficulty after watching segmented or non-segmented videos. Poisson and negative-binomial GLMMs with participant random intercepts show: (H1) harder tasks produce more errors and hesitations; (H2) segmentation reduces errors (~87%) and hesitations (~79%) for ADHD participants on Medium/Hard tasks; (H3) the reduction is numerically larger for the ADHD group than controls, though the Seg×ADHD interaction is non-significant; (H4) medication status does not significantly moderate the effect. The authors frame the result as an 'equalizing' intervention consistent with Universal Design for Learning, and release a full replication package.

Significance. If the core result holds, this is a useful and practical contribution: a purely post-hoc, low-cost video modification (logic-aware chunking + 4 s pauses) that instructors or platforms can apply without re-recording, with demonstrated large performance gains for ADHD learners (H2, Table 6) and qualitative evidence of mechanism (§6.7). The explicit grounding in UDL and the social model of disability, the documented pilot-based choice of pause duration, and the public replication package (data, scripts, instruments on Zenodo) are genuine strengths that raise the paper's value and verifiability. The weaker 'equalizing' claim, if appropriately hedged or properly tested, would still be an interesting and honest finding: a curb-cut style intervention that helps everyone without stigmatizing accommodation. The venue fit (ASSETS) is natural.

major comments (6)
  1. [§6.4, Table 7, Table 8] The paper's headline claim (abstract, intro, §7 'H3: Segmentation as an Equalizing Intervention') is that gains were larger for ADHD participants. But the direct test — the Seg×ADHD interaction in Table 7 — is non-significant for both errors (β=−0.84, p=.232) and hesitations (β=−0.55, p=.242). The authors instead compare simple-effect rate ratios (7.75 vs 3.33) and Cohen's d (0.85 vs 0.66) estimated separately per group; a difference between two separately significant estimates is not itself a tested difference (Gelman & Stern 2006). With n=10 controls contributing 40 observations, the control simple effect is imprecisely estimated — report the CI for the interaction contrast, or reframe H3 as unsupported-but-suggestive and soften the abstract/title claims accordingly.
  2. [§6.4, Table 7 (ADHD Status rows)] The 'leveling the playing field' narrative presupposes a baseline performance gap that segmentation closes. Yet in the H3 model itself, the ADHD main effect — evaluated at the non-segmented reference condition — is non-significant for both errors (β=−0.18, p=.709) and hesitations (β=0.26, p=.385). On the analytic subset (Medium/Hard tasks), the model detects no disparity under unsegmented video, so there is no demonstrated gap for the intervention to close. If the equalizing claim is to be retained, the authors need to (a) show a baseline gap somewhere (e.g., descriptive or modeled group difference in the non-segmented condition, possibly including Easy tasks), and (b) show it shrinks under segmentation, ideally with an equivalence test on the segmented-condition group contrast. As written, the abstract's central sentence is not supported by the paper's own model.
  3. [§6.2 / §5.6] The exclusion of Easy tasks from the H2–H4 models (N=162→104) is a post-hoc decision announced after H1 was analyzed, justified by floor effects (§6.2). The floor-effect rationale is plausible, but the exclusion also removes precisely the conditions where groups differed least, and it was not pre-registered. Because the differential-benefit claim depends on this restricted dataset, the authors should report a sensitivity analysis of H2/H3 including Easy tasks (or with difficulty as a full covariate), and state explicitly whether the exclusion decision was made before or after examining group differences. This is load-bearing because the equalizing narrative survives only on the trimmed data.
  4. [§5.6, Tables 8 & 10] H3's interpretation leans on Cohen's d values (0.85 vs 0.66; 1.14 vs 0.72) derived by converting GLMM rate ratios via the thresholds 1.68/3.47/6.71 (§5.6). Those conversions (Chinn 2000 via Chen et al. 2010; Hosmer & Lemeshow) are derived for odds ratios from logistic models, not incidence-rate ratios from Poisson/NB count models; applying the ln(OR)/1.81 transformation to a rate ratio assumes a rare-event binary outcome that does not hold here. The d values and their 'large/medium' labels in Tables 8 and 10 are therefore not interpretable as stated. Either compute standardized mean differences on an appropriate scale (e.g., from model-based means and residual SD on the log scale with proper justification) or drop the d conversions and report rate ratios with confidence intervals only.
  5. [§5.4, §4.1] The primary outcomes (errors, hesitations) were coded live by two authors who necessarily knew the condition (pauses are visible/audible in the segmented videos) and presumably the participant's group and the hypotheses. The 3-second pause rule is objective, but 'verbal demonstration of confusion' (§4.1) requires judgment, and consensus coding among involved experimenters does not address expectancy effects. The claim that consensus 'obviates the need' for reliability statistics is contested even by the cited McDonald et al. norms. At minimum, report how many hesitations were coded via the subjective 'verbal confusion' route vs the temporal rule, and ideally re-code a subset of recordings blind to condition to estimate robustness of the H2/H3 effects.
  6. [§6.5, Tables 9–10, §7] H4 splits 17 ADHD participants into medicated (8), unmedicated (6), and unknown (3, later dropped), yielding very small cells; unsurprisingly both Seg×Med interactions are non-significant. More concerning, the simple effects point in opposite directions across outcomes — medicated participants benefit more for errors (14.0 vs 5.0) but less for hesitations (3.12 vs 7.58) — and §7's discussion builds a mechanistic story (structural vs behavioral constraints) on the hesitation direction alone. Given the cell sizes and the same non-significant-interaction problem as H3, H4 should be presented as exploratory descriptive observation, and the mechanistic interpretation in §7 (H4 paragraph, §7.1) should be removed or heavily hedged.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5.4] §5.4 refers to 'the 4-second hesitation threshold' — the threshold defined in §4.1 is 3 seconds; 4 seconds is the pause duration. Please correct.
  2. [§7] §7 (H1 discussion) refers to 'overlapping marginal means in Table 8', but Table 8 contains rate ratios and effect sizes, not marginal means. The EMMs appear not to be reported anywhere; either add them or fix the reference.
  3. [§6.3, Table 8] Terminology: 'Incident Rate Ratio' (§6.3) should be 'incidence rate ratio'; Table 8's 'Rate Ratio' and the IRR of §6.3 are the same quantity (e^β vs its reciprocal) — define the direction once (e.g., non-segmented/segmented) and use it consistently.
  4. [§5.1, Table 3] Groups differ in demographics beyond ADHD status: the control group is 7F/3M with two 55+ participants, while the ADHD group is more gender-balanced and tops out at 45–54. Age and gender are plausible confounds for hesitation/error baselines; acknowledge and, if possible, include age as a covariate in a robustness check.
  5. [§5.6] Multiple hypotheses/outcomes are tested (H1–H4 × 2 outcomes plus simple effects) with no multiplicity control beyond Tukey within pairwise contrasts; a brief statement of the inferential strategy (confirmatory H1/H2 vs exploratory H3/H4) would clarify the evidentiary status of each claim.
  6. [§6.6] The quiz results (§6.6) are reported only in aggregate; since the quiz is a retention measure relevant to the learning (not just performance) claims, report it by group and note that the within-subjects design precludes a by-condition quiz analysis.
  7. [Abstract, §3, §6.7] Small presentational items: 'ad-hoc' vs 'post-hoc' used interchangeably (§3 title vs abstract); 'we surmise' (§6.7) is informal for results; abstract has a spacing artifact ('highextraneouscognitive load').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical within-subjects comparison of observed error/hesitation counts under segmented vs continuous video; nothing reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a standard controlled HCI experiment. The load-bearing claims (H2/H3 equalizing effect; ~87% error and ~79% hesitation reductions) are statistical summaries of independently coded behavioral counts under two video conditions, not quantities defined to equal the intervention. Segmentation (logic-aware cuts + fixed 4 s pauses chosen in a pilot) is a design treatment; errors and hesitations are observer-coded outcomes with explicit operational definitions separate from the treatment. Exponentiating GLMM coefficients to obtain IRRs is ordinary effect-size reporting on the same fitted data, not an out-of-sample “prediction” forced by a fitted input. Pause length and the 3 s hesitation threshold are design/coding choices, not self-definitional loops. Theory citations (CLT, CTML segmenting principle, working-memory models) are external and not uniqueness theorems by the present authors. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggled as theorem, or renaming of a known result as a derived prediction appears. Statistical concerns about non-significant Seg×ADHD interactions, baseline ADHD main effects, Easy-task exclusion, and small control n affect evidential strength of the equalizing narrative but are correctness/power issues, not circularity. Derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on standard cognitive-load/working-memory framing, author-chosen operational definitions (4 s system pauses; ≥3 s or verbal-confusion hesitations; error = deviation from demonstrated steps), post-hoc exclusion of Easy tasks, and interpretation of non-significant interactions via effect sizes. No new physical entities; free parameters are design thresholds fitted or chosen from pilot/consensus rather than predicted from theory.

free parameters (3)
  • pause_duration_seconds = 4 s
    Fixed system pause length inserted after each logical segment; chosen from pilot comparing 2/4/6 s with 13 participants, not derived from a WMC model.
  • hesitation_threshold_seconds = 3 s
    Behavioral hesitation coded as pause ≥3 s or verbal confusion; threshold set by five-author consensus on pilot recordings.
  • task_difficulty_tiers = button-count bins
    Easy/Medium/Hard labels from count of new buttons (1–2 / 3 / ≥4); author-agreed classification that drives which tasks enter H2–H4 analyses.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Extraneous cognitive load from continuous dual-channel instructional video is a primary barrier for ADHD learners and is reduced by temporal segmentation (CLT / CTML segmenting principle).
    Invoked throughout Introduction and §2.1–2.5 to motivate the intervention; treated as established rather than re-tested with direct load instruments.
  • domain assumption Errors and hesitations as defined are valid behavioral proxies for cognitive overload / working-memory strain during learn-by-doing tasks.
    §4.1 operational definitions; no concurrent dual-task, EEG, or pupillometry validation in this study (acknowledged in Threats).
  • domain assumption System-defined pauses improve outcomes more reliably than learner-initiated pausing for lower working-memory capacity learners.
    Cited from Spanjers et al. / Merkt et al. and used to justify non-interactive fixed pauses (§3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Easy tasks can be dropped from confirmatory H2–H4 models because floor effects prevent measuring intervention impact.
    §6.2 post-validation refinement reducing N to 104 Medium/Hard observations after inspecting performance.
  • ad hoc to paper Effect-size magnitude and simple-effect ratios can support differential-benefit claims when interaction p-values are non-significant in small samples.
    Explicit interpretive stance in §5.6 and §6.4 citing sensitivity of p-values; load-bearing for H3 equalizing narrative.
  • standard math GLMMs with participant random intercepts (Poisson errors; Negative Binomial hesitations) appropriately model repeated count outcomes.
    §5.6 analysis plan; standard hierarchical count modeling.
invented entities (1)
  • logic-aware post-hoc segmentation intervention (single-instruction chunks + fixed pauses) no independent evidence
    purpose: Name the concrete video-editing treatment under test as a lightweight ADHD-supportive UDL modification.
    Methodological construct rather than a new cognitive mechanism; boundaries (cut after logical action, before next explanation) are author-defined.

reviewed 2026-07-31 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveling the Playing Field: Temporal Video Segmentation for Individuals with ADHD in Computing Education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z22MI7FE

@misc{pith2026260724612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveling the Playing Field: Temporal Video Segmentation for Individuals with ADHD in Computing Education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z22MI7FE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24612}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Individuals with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often face significant barriers in computing education. In asynchronous learning environments, instructional videos can impose high extraneous cognitive load, often relying on assumptions about sustained attention and working memory that do not align with ADHD neurocognitive profiles. In this work, we evaluate a post-hoc video processing intervention that segments instructional content into single-instruction chunks followed by fixed-length pauses to reduce cognitive load. In a within-participants controlled study with 17 individuals with ADHD and 10 without, we find that the intervention has an equalizing effect. Although it improved performance for all participants, gains were larger for those with ADHD, reducing their errors and hesitations to levels comparable to those of participants without ADHD under the same intervention. These results align with the goals of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), by showing that cognitively-aligned, post-hoc instructional video modifications can reduce performance disparities across diverse neurocognitive profiles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24612 by Andrew Begel, Baramee Bhakdibhumi, Chris Lee, Simon Chu, Veronica Pimenova.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Still from instructional video V2 used in the study, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Study procedure outlining participant workflow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] 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

99 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Siti-Soraya Abdul-Rahman and Benedict du Boulay. 2014. Learning program- ming via worked-examples: Relation of learning styles to cognitive load.Com- puters in Human Behavior30 (2014), 286–298. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.007 2014

  2. [2]

    2026.Udacity

    Accenture. 2026.Udacity. https://www.udacity.com/

    2026

  3. [3]

    Claire Advokat. 2010. What are the cognitive effects of stimulant med- ications? Emphasis on adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews34, 8 (jul 2010), 1256–1266. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.03.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.03.006 2010

  4. [4]

    American Psychiatric Association. 2025. What is ADHD? Psychiatry.org. https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/adhd/what-is-adhd

    2025

  5. [6]

    Alan Baddeley. 2000. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences4, 11 (November 2000), 417–423. doi:10.1016/s1364- 6613(00)01538-2

    doi:10.1016/s1364- 2000

  6. [7]

    Baddeley

    Alan D. Baddeley. 1992. Working memory.Science255, 5044 (1992), 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1736359 1992

  7. [9]

    David Bau, Jeff Gray, Caitlin Kelleher, Josh Sheldon, and Franklyn Turbak. 2017. Learnable Programming: Blocks and Beyond.Commun. ACM60, 6 (may 2017), 72–80. doi:10.1145/3015455

    work page doi:10.1145/3015455 2017

  8. [10]

    Andrew Begel and Amy Ko. 2019. Learning Outside the Classroom. InThe Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally A. Fincher and An- thony V. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Chapter 26, 753–772. doi:10.1017/9781108654555.027

    work page doi:10.1017/9781108654555.027 2019

  9. [11]

    Andrew Begel and Beth Simon. 2008. Novice software developers, all over again. InProceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3–14. doi:10.1145/1404520.1404522

    arXiv 2008

  10. [13]

    Simon Betz, Nataliya Bryhadyr, Olcay Türk, and Petra Wagner. 2023. Cognitive Load Increases Spoken and Gestural Hesitation Frequency.Languages8, 1 (2023),

    2023

  11. [14]

    Bolker, Mollie E

    Benjamin M. Bolker, Mollie E. Brooks, Connie J. Clark, Shane W. Geange, John R. Poulsen, M. Henry H. Stevens, and Jada-Simone S. White. 2009. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution.Trends in Ecology & Evolution24, 3 (2009), 127–135

    2009

  12. [15]

    Valeria Borsotti, Andrew Begel, and Pernille Bjørn. 2024. Neurodiversity and the Accessible University: Exploring Organizational Barriers, Access Labor and Opportunities for Change.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 172 (April 2024), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3641011

    doi:10.1145/3641011 2024

  13. [16]

    Vassiliki Bouki, Daphne Economou, and Anastassia Angelopoulou. 2011. Cogni- tive theory of multimedia learning and learning videos design: the redundancy principle. InProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication(Pisa, Italy)(SIGDOC ’11). Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 271–278. doi:10.1145/20384...

    arXiv 2011

  14. [17]

    Simon Brisenden. 1986. Independent Living and the Medical Model of Dis- ability.Disability, Handicap & Society1, 2 (1986), 173–178. doi:10.1080/ 02674648666780171

    1986

  15. [18]

    Roland Ed Brünken, Jan L Plass, and Roxana Ed Moreno. 2010. Current issues and open questions in cognitive load research. InCognitive load theory, Jan L. Plass, Roxana Moreno, and Roland Brünken (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 253–272

    2010

  16. [19]

    CAST. 2024. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. https: //udlguidelines.cast.org

    2024

  17. [20]

    Henian Chen, Patricia Cohen, and Sophie Chen. 2010. How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation39, 4 (2010), 860–864. doi:10.1080/03610911003650383

    work page doi:10.1080/03610911003650383 2010

  18. [21]

    Coursera

    Inc. Coursera. 2026.Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/

    2026

  19. [23]

    Ringland, and Anne Marie Piper

    Maitraye Das, John Tang, Kathryn E. Ringland, and Anne Marie Piper. 2021. Towards Accessible Remote Work: Understanding Work-from-Home Practices of Neurodivergent Professionals.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 183 (April 2021), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3449282

    doi:10.1145/3449282 2021

  20. [24]

    Shivangi Dhawan. 2020. Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID- 19 Crisis.Journal of Educational Technology Systems49, 1 (sep 2020), 5–22. doi:10.1177/0047239520934018

    work page doi:10.1177/0047239520934018 2020

  21. [25]

    Adele Diamond. 2013. Executive functions.Annual Review of Psychology64 (2013), 135–168. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 2013

  22. [26]

    DuPaul and Robert J

    George J. DuPaul and Robert J. Volpe. 2009. ADHD and learning disabilities: Research findings and clinical implications.Current Attention Disorders Reports 1 (2009), 152–155. doi:10.1007/s12618-009-0021-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12618-009-0021-4 2009

  23. [27]

    edX LLC. 2026. edX. https://www.edx.org/

    2026

  24. [28]

    B. S. Everitt and A. Skrondal. 2010.The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics(4th ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    2010

  25. [30]

    Joana Ferreira de Raposo, Dennis Paulino, and Hugo Paredes. 2024. Human- Computer Interaction: empowering adults with Autism and ADHD in higher education and employability. InProceedings of the 11th International Con- ference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibil- ity and Fighting Info-exclusion (DSAI ’24). ACM, Abu Dhabi, UAE,...

    arXiv 2024

  26. [31]

    Fleming and Robert J

    Andrew P. Fleming and Robert J. McMahon. 2012. Developmental Context and Treatment Principles for ADHD Among College Students.Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review15, 4 (December 2012), 303–329. doi:10.1007/s10567- 012-0121-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10567- 2012

  27. [32]

    Matthew Fyfield, Michael Henderson, and Michael Phillips. 2022. Improving instructional video design: A systematic review.Australasian Journal of Educa- tional Technology38, 3 (2022), 155–183. doi:10.14742/ajet.7296

    work page doi:10.14742/ajet.7296 2022

  28. [33]

    T. R. G. Green and M. Petre. 1996. Usability Analysis of Visual Programming En- vironments: A ‘Cognitive Dimensions’ Framework.Journal of Visual Languages & Computing7, 2 (1996), 131–174. doi:10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009

    arXiv 1996

  29. [34]

    Rashmi Gunawardana, Michelle Perera, Rashini Lakshika, Chaminda Ranas- inghe, and Kasun Karunanayaka. 2025. Enhancing Adaptive Personalized Learning Interfaces with Generative AI for Individuals with ADHD. InPro- ceedings of the 16th International Conference of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Design & Research (IndiaHCI ’25). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 131–...

    arXiv 2025

  30. [35]

    Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob Rubin

    Philip J. Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob Rubin. 2014. How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos. InProceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference(Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (L@S ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 41–50. doi:10.1145/2556325.2566239

    arXiv 2014

  31. [36]

    Jessica Rose Hirst, Eleni Akrida, and Steven Bradley. 2025. Neurodivergence in Computing Education: Prevalence and Future Research Directions. InKoli Calling ’25: Proceedings of the 25th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. Association for Computing Machinery, Koli, Finland, 3 pages. doi:10.1145/3769994.3770053

    arXiv 2025

  32. [37]

    Josephine Holland and Kapil Sayal. 2019. Relative age and ADHD symptoms, diagnosis and medication: a systematic review.European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry28, 11 (Nov 2019), 1417–1429. doi:10.1007/s00787-018-1229-6 Leveling the Playing Field: Temporal Video Segmentation for Individuals with ADHD in Computing Education ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vi...

    work page doi:10.1007/s00787-018-1229-6 2019

  33. [38]

    Hilton, Maurice Place, Tracy P

    Joni Holmes, Kerry A. Hilton, Maurice Place, Tracy P. Alloway, Julian G. Elliott, and Susan E. Gathercole. 2014. Children with low working memory and children with ADHD: same or different?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience8 (2014), 976. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00976

    arXiv 2014

  34. [39]

    Chiara Horlin, Barbora Hronska, and Emily Nordmann. 2024. I can be a “normal” student: The role of lecture capture in supporting disabled and neurodivergent students’ participation in higher education.Higher Education88 (2024), 2075–

    2024

  35. [40]

    2013.Applied logistic regression

    David W Hosmer Jr, Stanley Lemeshow, and Rodney X Sturdivant. 2013.Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ

    2013

  36. [41]

    Hundhausen, Sarah

    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

    arXiv 2002

  37. [42]

    Maya Israel, Moon Y Chung, Quentin M Wherfel, and Saadeddine Shehab. 2020. A descriptive analysis of academic engagement and collaboration of students with autism during elementary computer science.Computer Science Education 30, 4 (2020), 444–468. doi:10.1080/08993408.2020.1779521

    arXiv 2020

  38. [43]

    Maya Israel, Gakyung Jeong, Meg Ray, and Todd Lash. 2020. Teaching Elemen- tary Computer Science through Universal Design for Learning. InProceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’20). ACM, Portland, OR, USA, 1220–1226. doi:10.1145/3328778.3366823

    arXiv 2020

  39. [44]

    Interaction Design Foundation IxDF. 2016. What is Negative Space? https: //www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/negative-space

    2016

  40. [45]

    L. M. Jonkman, C. Kemner, M. N. Verbaten, H. S. Koelega, G. Camfferman, R. J. van der Gaag, J. K. Buitelaar, and H. van Engeland. 1997. Effects of methylphenidate on event-related potentials and performance of attention- deficit hyperactivity disorder children in auditory and visual selective attention tasks.Biological Psychiatry41, 6 (March 1997), 690–70...

    doi:10.1016/s0006- 1997

  41. [46]

    Vseslav Kasatskii, Agnia Sergeyuk, Anastasiia Serova, Sergey Titov, and Timofey Bryksin. 2023. The Effect of Perceptual Load on Performance Within IDE in People with ADHD Symptoms. InAugmented Cognition: 17th International Conference, AC 2023, Held as Part of the 25th HCI International Conference, HCII 2023(Copenhagen, Denmark). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, H...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35017-7_9 2023

  42. [47]

    Kofler, Mark D

    Michael J. Kofler, Mark D. Rapport, Jennifer Bolden, Dustin E. Sarver, and Joseph S. Raiker. 2010. ADHD and working memory: the impact of central exec- utive deficits and exceeding storage/rehearsal capacity on observed inattentive behavior.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology38, 2 (February 2010), 149–161. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9357-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9357-6 2010

  43. [48]

    Thomas Kosch, Jakob Karolus, Johannes Zagermann, Harald Reiterer, Albrecht Schmidt, and Paweł W. Woźniak. 2023. A Survey on Measuring Cognitive Workload in Human-Computer Interaction.ACM Comput. Surv.55, 13s, Article 283 (jul 2023), 39 pages. doi:10.1145/3582272

    doi:10.1145/3582272 2023

  44. [49]

    Anne-Laure Le Cunff, Eleanor Dommett, and Vincent Giampietro. 2022. Sup- porting Neurodiversity in Online Education: A Systematic Review. InThe Future of Online Education, S.P. McKenzie, L. Arulkadacham, J. Chung, et al. (Eds.). Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, 1–20. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/ZEUC3

    work page doi:10.17605/osf.io/zeuc3 2022

  45. [50]

    Franklin Mingzhe Li, Jamie Dorst, Peter Cederberg, and Patrick Carrington. 2021. Non-Visual Cooking: Exploring Practices and Challenges of Meal Preparation by People with Visual Impairments. InThe 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 11 pages. doi:10.1145/3441852.3471215

    arXiv 2021

  46. [51]

    Panhapiseth Lim, Priyanka Kumar, and Hortense Gerardo. 2026. PyPal: Support- ing Middle Schoolers with ADHD in Computing Education. InProceedings of the 2026 Conference on Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineer- ing, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT 2026). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27–34. doi:10.1145/379...

    arXiv 2026

  47. [52]

    Miloš Ljubojević, Mihajlo Savić, Danijel Mijić, and Grujica Vico. 2025. Improving the Efficiency of Multimedia Learning and the Quality of Experience by Reducing Cognitive Load.Applied Sciences15, 3 (2025), 1054. doi:10.3390/app15031054

    work page doi:10.3390/app15031054 2025

  48. [53]

    2026.YouTube

    Google LLC. 2026.YouTube. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com

    2026

  49. [54]

    Malan and Henry H

    David J. Malan and Henry H. Leitner. 2007. Scratch for budding computer scientists. InProceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(Covington, Kentucky, USA)(SIGCSE ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 223–227. doi:10.1145/1227310. 1227388

    work page doi:10.1145/1227310 2007

  50. [55]

    Daniel Manesh, Tong Wu, Yan Chen, and Sang Won Lee. 2025. Understanding and Improving Student Note-Taking in Live Coding Lectures. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1 (ICER ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3702652.3744224

    arXiv 2025

  51. [56]

    Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz

    Jennifer Mankoff, Gillian R. Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz. 2010. Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. InProceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Orlando, Florida, USA)(ASSETS ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3–10. doi:10.1145...

    arXiv 2010

  52. [57]

    Deborah Marks. 1997. Models of disability.Disability and Rehabilitation19, 3 (1997), 85–91. doi:10.3109/09638289709166831

    doi:10.3109/09638289709166831 1997

  53. [58]

    Martinelli, Stewart H

    Megan K. Martinelli, Stewart H. Mostofsky, and Karl S. Rosch. 2017. Investigating the Impact of Cognitive Load and Motivation on Response Control in Relation to Delay Discounting in Children with ADHD.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology45 (2017), 1339–1353. doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0237-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0237-6 2017

  54. [59]

    Rhonda Martinussen, Jill Hayden, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, and Rosemary Tan- nock. 2005. A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry44, 4 (April 2005), 377–384. doi:10.1097/01.chi. 0000153228.72591.73

    arXiv 2005

  55. [60]

    Richard E. Mayer. 2014.The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learn- ing(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781139547369

    2014

  56. [61]

    Mayer and Roxana Moreno

    Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno. 2003. Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning.Educational Psychologist38, 1 (2003), 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

    doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6 2003

  57. [62]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 72 (Nov. 2019), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3359174

    doi:10.1145/3359174 2019

  58. [63]

    Barbara Means, Yukie Toyama, Robert Murphy, and Marianne Bakia. 2013. The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature.Teachers College Record115, 3 (2013), 1–47. https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/10.1177/016146811311500307

    doi:10.1177/016146811311500307 2013

  59. [64]

    Martin Merkt, Anne Ballmann, Julia Felfeli, and Stephan Schwan. 2018. Pauses in educational videos: Testing the transience explanation against the structuring explanation.Computers in Human Behavior82 (2018), 165–175. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2018.01.013

    doi:10.1016/j 2018

  60. [65]

    Roxana Moreno. 2001. Designing for Understanding: A Learner-Centered Ap- proach to Multimedia Learning. InEducational Psychology. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Albuquerque, NM

    2001

  61. [66]

    Morrison, Brian Dorn, and Mark Guzdial

    Briana B. Morrison, Brian Dorn, and Mark Guzdial. 2014. Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: adaptation of an instrument. InProceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research(Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom)(ICER ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 131–138. doi:10.1145/2632320.2632348

    arXiv 2014

  62. [67]

    Can you help me?

    Makayla Moster, Ella Kokinda, Matthew Re, James Dominic, Jason Lehmann, Andrew Begel, and Paige Rodeghero. 2022. "Can you help me?": an experience report of teamwork in a game coding camp for autistic high school students. InProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engi- neering: Software Engineering Education and Training(Pit...

    arXiv 2022

  63. [68]

    Kaia Newman, Sarah Snay, Madeline Endres, Manasvi Parikh, and Andrew Begel

  64. [69]

    Claes Nilholm. 2014. ADHD: An educational challenge.Emotional and Be- havioural Difficulties19, 3 (2014), 324–326. doi:10.1080/13632752.2014.883791

    arXiv 2014

  65. [70]

    Giovanni Orru and Luca Longo. 2019. The Evolution of Cognitive Load Theory and the Measurement of Its Intrinsic, Extraneous and Germane Loads: A Review. InHuman Mental Workload: Models and Applications, Luca Longo and Maria Leva (Eds.). Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1012. Springer, Cham, Cham, Switzerland, 23–48. doi:10.1007/978...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14273-5_3 2019

  66. [71]

    doi:10.3390/languages8010071

    work page doi:10.3390/languages8010071

  67. [72]

    Veronica Pimenova, Yotam Sechayk, Fabricio Murai, Andrew Hundt, and Shiri Dori-Hacohen. 2025. A Longitudinal Autoethnography of Email Access for a Professional with Chronic Illness and ADHD: Preliminary Insights. InProceed- ings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). ACM, Denver, CO, 1–4. doi:10.114...

    arXiv 2025

  68. [73]

    Mathieu Pinelli and Salomé Cojean. 2025. A working memory reversal effect on design principles? Evidence on pauses in video among children.Education and Information Technologies30 (2025), 18955–18973. doi:10.1007/s10639-025- 13545-1

    doi:10.1007/s10639-025- 2025

  69. [74]

    Pramod Pawar. 2025. Khan Academy Statistics And Facts (2025). Electro IQ. https://electroiq.com/khan-academy-statistics/

    2025

  70. [75]

    Kavita Rao. 2021. Inclusive Instructional Design: Applying UDL to Online Learning.The Journal of Applied Instructional Design10, 1 (2021), 83–96. doi:10. 59668/223.3753

    2021

  71. [76]

    Blake E. Reid. 2024. The Curb-Cut Effect and the Perils of Accessibility without Disability. InFeminist Cyberlaw, Meg Leta Jones and Amanda Lev- endowski Tepski (Eds.). University of California Press, Oakland, CA, USA. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4262991 ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal Pimenova et al

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4262991 2024

  72. [77]

    Norman Powell, David Moore, John Gray, Janet Finlay, and John Reaney. 2004. Dyslexia and learning computer programming.Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences3, 2 (2004), 1–12. doi:10.11120/ ital.2004.03020005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  73. [78]

    David Rose. 2000. Universal Design for Learning.Journal of Special Education Technology15, 4 (2000), 47–51. doi:10.1177/016264340001500407

    work page doi:10.1177/016264340001500407 2000

  74. [79]

    Sheila R. Ross. 2019. Supporting your neurodiverse student population with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. In2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, Covington, KY, USA, 1–5. doi:10.1109/ FIE43999.2019.9028693

    arXiv 2019

  75. [80]

    Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Eve- lyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch: programming for all.Commun. ACM52, 11 (Nov. 2009), 60–67. doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779

    arXiv 2009

  76. [81]

    Neil J. Salkind. 2010.Encyclopedia of Research Design. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. doi:10.4135/9781412961288

    work page doi:10.4135/9781412961288 2010

  77. [82]

    Julio Sánchez-Meca, Fulgencio Marín-Martínez, and Salvador Chacón-Moscoso

  78. [83]

    Orbeck, and Eugene Syriani

    Jean Michel Rouly, Jonathan D. Orbeck, and Eugene Syriani. 2014. Usability and Suitability Survey of Features in Visual IDEs for Non-Programmers. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools (PLATEAU ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31–42. doi:10. 1145/2688204.2688207

    arXiv 2014

  79. [84]

    Yotam Sechayk, Ariel Shamir, and Takeo Igarashi. 2024. SmartLearn: Visual- Temporal Accessibility for Slide-based e-learning Videos. InCHI EA ’24: Ex- tended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Honolulu, HI, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3613905.3650883

    arXiv 2024

  80. [86]

    Griswold, Leo Porter, and Gerald Soosai Raj

    Anshul Shah, Thomas Rexin, Fatimah Alhumrani, William G. Griswold, Leo Porter, and Gerald Soosai Raj. 2025. An Empirical Evaluation of Active Live Coding in CS1.ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)25, 3 (2025), 1–33. doi:10.1145/3743686

    work page doi:10.1145/3743686 2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 31, 2026.