"Computer Science for all": Concepts to engage teenagers and non-CS students in technology

Bernadette Spieler; Maria Grandl; Martin Ebner; Wolfgang Slany

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 6 references

"Computer Science for all": Concepts to engage teenagers and non-CS students in technology

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A voluntary smartphone game-building course can draw a broad mix of non-CS students into programming, and the same approach is being scaled into a MOOC for teenagers, women, and teachers.

desk verdict Useful experience report with an intriguing diversity data point, but the voluntary/obligatory mismatch and missing evaluation data undercut the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06637 v2 pith:IURFGZDD submitted 2019-08-19 cs.CY

Bernadette Spieler , Maria Grandl , Martin Ebner , Wolfgang Slany This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CY

keywords computerscienceeducationdigitalliteracygamedevelopmentbasedlearningPocketCodeMOOCcomputationalthinkinggenderdisparityinCSnon-CSstudents

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a playful, low-threshold introduction to programming can reach people who normally stay away from computer science, and that the same design can be scaled from a university lecture to a massive open online course. In 2018, 202 students from over 120 degree programs took a voluntary lecture in which they built games directly on smartphones with the visual coding tool Pocket Code; the authors report positive evaluations and call the mix of majors impressive. That experience led them to design the MOOC titled Get FIT in Computer Science, a seven-module course that teaches CS fundamentals through game-design exercises in Pocket Code, aimed at young women, teenagers, teachers, and the general public. If the paper is right, a short, game-centered course, and its MOOC equivalent, can act as an alternative entry point into computing for people with no prior CS background.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Game Development-Based Learning (GDBL) carried by Pocket Code, a visual block-based programming environment that runs directly on smartphones and lets learners assemble games without typing syntax. The lecture structure turns this into a repeatable format: 30 minutes of theory, 15 minutes of guided hands-on challenges, small homework tasks, and a final project in which pairs from different majors design a game with specified genre, theme, goal, and extra elements such as sensors or quizzes. The planned MOOC transfers this format into seven modules combining videos, interactive exercises, self-assessment questions, and a final Pocket Code game, with presentation choices such as female narrators and a module on famous women in computing meant to counter stereotypes.

What would settle it

Run the lecture or MOOC with a pre-test and post-test of computational thinking, track MOOC completion rates and gender balance, and follow participants to see whether they enroll in further CS courses; if the game-development group shows no greater learning or later CS enrollment than a conventional introductory session, or if the MOOC reproduces the usual dropout and gender skew, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a playful, hands-on introduction to programming built around making games on a smartphone can bring computer science within reach of people who would not otherwise study it. In 2018, 202 students from 120 different degree programs enrolled in a voluntary lecture that used the visual coding tool Pocket Code, after which students built their own games in mixed-major pairs for a final project; the authors report positive evaluations and use this experience to argue that the same design can be transferred to a seven-module MOOC aimed at young women, teenagers, teachers, and anyone who wants a more realistic picture of what CS is. The paper presents both the lecture and the planned MOOC as promising concepts for overcoming low CS knowledge in schools and the gender disparity in technology fields.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that high enrollment and positive evaluations show the approach helps overcome low CS knowledge and gender disparity, even though the paper reports no measurement of learning, attitude change, or later CS choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single elective course can draw hundreds of students from more than 120 majors, including teacher-training, business, law, and psychology students.
Game-development-based exercises can be delivered entirely on smartphones, making the approach feasible on hardware students already own.
The same materials, released as open educational resources, give high-school teachers a ready-made way to bring CS concepts into class.
Putting women on camera and discussing women in computing are concrete, low-cost design choices aimed at countering stereotype-based disinterest.

Reading between the lines

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

If the effect is real rather than novelty, this lecture format could become a reusable CS-literacy elective at other universities; the experiment that would show this is the pre/post computational-thinking test the authors say they have planned.
The MOOC's stereotype-countering choices could be tested against an otherwise identical version without female narrators and without the women-in-CS video, isolating whether representation drives engagement.
Because the MOOC materials are open educational resources, their largest long-term effect may come through teachers who reuse them, a channel the paper mentions but does not measure.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a short experience report from ECGBL about a university lecture and a planned MOOC, not a controlled study. The genuinely useful part is the observation that a game-development-based elective using Pocket Code attracted 202 students from over 120 degree programs, with a large share from non-CS fields. That kind of cross-disciplinary pull is worth knowing about, and the paper describes the course structure and final project requirements in enough detail to be replicable. The MOOC design, with female explainers and OER materials, is a reasonable extension.

The paper's weaknesses are real but mostly addressable. The abstract says the lecture was voluntary; Section 3 calls it 'obligatory' and Section 4 repeats that. That is not a minor wording issue. The entire claim that the course successfully engaged non-CS students depends on students choosing to attend. If the course was required, the enrollment numbers are less meaningful. The authors need to clarify this. Also, while the paper mentions 'positive evaluations' and shows a figure of student expectations, it never presents the evaluation instrument or results, and there is no gender breakdown of the 202 participants. So the gender-disparity part of the argument is largely assertion. The MOOC had not launched when the paper was written, so its described impact is prospective.

The literature review is adequate, and the authors are transparent that pre/post testing and MOOC evaluation are planned. I don't see a hidden agenda or overclaiming beyond what experience reports usually do. The main fix is to resolve the voluntary/obligatory contradiction and include whatever 2018 evaluation data they actually have. If they cannot show that attendance was voluntary, they should soften the conclusion accordingly.

This paper deserves a serious referee because the intervention is concrete and the diversity data, if confirmed, would be a useful data point for broadening participation. I would not cite it yet, but I might bring it to a reading group to discuss reporting standards in CS education research.

Recommendation: send it out, but the reviewers should ask for a clear statement on the course's formal status and for the underlying evaluation numbers.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports on two educational interventions aimed at broadening participation in computer science: a 2018 university lecture called 'Design your own App' that used the Pocket Code visual programming tool, and a planned MOOC, 'Get FIT in Computer Science', to be launched on the Austrian iMooX platform. The authors report that 202 students from over 120 degree programs attended the lecture, with 135 completing an initial survey, and they argue that the lecture's success motivated the MOOC design. The MOOC is described as a seven-module course with videos, exercises, and a final Pocket Code game-design project, targeting young women, teenagers, teachers, and the general public. The central claim is that these two concepts are 'promising' ways to address low CS knowledge and gender disparity in technology fields.

Significance. If the empirical claims were properly supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to CS-education practice: it documents a concrete, transferable course design (Game Development-Based Learning with Pocket Code), integrates a voluntary university course with a national MOOC platform (iMooX), and explicitly targets under-represented groups including women and non-CS students. The planned MOOC is a concrete artifact with clearly specified modules and open educational resources. However, the paper's current evidentiary basis is thin: the key evaluation results are not shown, the course status is described inconsistently, and no learning, attitude, or gender-outcome data are reported. The design and rationale are plausible, but the central claims of success and promise are not yet established.

major comments (4)

[Abstract, Section 1, Section 3, Section 4] The intervention is described with contradictory terms: the abstract calls the lecture 'voluntary', Section 1 calls it an 'elective lecture', but Section 3 states 'we introduced for the first time the obligatory lecture ... for all bachelor's, master's, and doctoral students at the University of Graz', and Section 4 refers to the 'obligatory lecture'. This is not a terminological nuance: if the lecture was obligatory, the observed enrollment of 202 students measures administrative compulsion rather than voluntary interest, and the claimed demonstration of appeal to non-CS students is not supported. If it was voluntary, then Section 3 must be corrected. The distinction is load-bearing for the paper's central claim and must be resolved, with a precise statement of which students were required or encouraged to attend.
[Section 3, Figure 3] The abstract states that the course 'received positive evaluations', but the body of the paper does not present any evaluation instrument, scale, results, or statistical summary. The only quantitative evidence is Figure 3, labeled 'Expectations of the course', but the figure has no axis labels, no legend, and no accompanying explanation of what the plotted values represent. The reader cannot verify the 'positive evaluations' claim or the claim that the lecture was 'very successful'. The authors should include the actual evaluation questionnaire and its results, with a breakdown by gender and major, as well as outcome measures such as learning gains, attitude change, or subsequent enrollment in CS courses.
[Section 3] The paper's stated motivation includes the gender disparity in CS, yet no gender distribution is reported for the 202 participants or for the 135 survey respondents. Without this data, the claim that the lecture engaged 'a diversity of students' with respect to gender, and the implicit claim that the approach helps address gender disparity, is unsupported. The MOOC section describes design choices meant to attract women (all explanations by women, a video on female scientists), but these are not evaluated. The authors should at minimum report the gender breakdown of participants and, ideally, pre/post measures related to interest, self-efficacy, or sense of belonging in CS.
[Section 4] The MOOC is described entirely prospectively: at the time of writing it had not been launched, and no enrollment, retention, or learning data are reported. This is acceptable for a concept paper, but the paper's conclusion calls the MOOC and the lecture 'two promising concepts' and asserts they are 'based on the experiences and feedback gained from the obligatory lecture' (Section 4). Since the lecture feedback is never presented, the claimed evidentiary link from the lecture to the MOOC design is not verifiable. The authors should either present the lecture feedback that informed the MOOC, or explicitly frame the MOOC section as design rationale rather than as an empirically validated result.

minor comments (6)

[Figure 1] The caption contains a typo: 'Percentage if of Computer Science degree programs' should read 'Percentage of Computer Science degree programs'. The figure's y-axis label and source should be clarified, and the data range (2003/04 to 2017/18) should be reconciled with the text that says 'winter term 2017/18'.
[Section 3] The sentence '20 hours per student was allotted' should be rephrased for agreement, e.g., '20 hours per student were allotted' or 'Students were allotted 20 hours'.
[Section 3 and 2.2] The paper uses both 'Bebras' and 'Brebas'; the correct spelling is 'Bebras'. Also, the reference to the 'Brebas Challenge Austria' URL should be checked, as the contest is typically titled 'Biber' in Austria and Germany.
[References] The reference 'Pappana, L. (2012)' should be 'Pappano, L.' The New York Times article is by Laura Pappano. Also, the reference 'Khaleel et. al.' uses an inconsistent abbreviation style; this should be harmonized with the other references.
[Section 4] The paragraph describing the one-week September lecture says 'the goal to do programming lessons together, ask questions and to work on their final submission'; this should be rephrased for parallelism, e.g., 'to do programming lessons together, to ask questions, and to work on their final submission'.
[Figure 3] Figure 3 lacks a description of the survey items, response scale, and sample size in the caption. Please add these details and, ideally, the exact question wording, so readers can interpret the plotted values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are empirical and programmatic, and its author self-citations are prior-work dependencies rather than reductions of the conclusions to their inputs.

full rationale

This paper contains no mathematical or quantitative derivation whose output could be shown to equal its input by construction. The central claims are that a 2018 lecture attracted 202 students from diverse degree programs, that it received positive evaluations, and that a planned MOOC built on the lecture's experience is a promising way to broaden CS participation. These are empirical and prospective claims, not derived predictions. The only author self-citations are to Spieler and Slany (2018) for the final-project task requirements and to prior iMooX/MOOC publications by the same research group for platform context; neither citation functions as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as a definitional basis for the success claim. The paper does contain an internal inconsistency worth noting for correctness review: the abstract says the lecture was 'voluntary,' while Sections 3 and 4 describe it as 'obligatory,' and the abstract's 'positive evaluations' are not reported in the body. Those are evidence-quality concerns, not circularity, because nothing in the paper reduces the conclusion to its own assumptions by definition or by self-citation. The design of the MOOC is explicitly based on the lecture, but that is a design lineage, not a circular argument. Therefore, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear in this education paper. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the value of CS education, the malleability of the gender gap through outreach, and the efficacy of game-based learning, all of which are borrowed from the cited literature rather than derived or tested here.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The demand for IT professionals is growing and many jobs remain unfilled.
Cited to Cuff (2015) and Informatics Europe (2015) in the introduction. Used as motivation for the importance of CS education, not derived in the paper.
domain assumption Gender disparity in technology fields is a serious problem that educational interventions can influence.
Supported by Eurostat statistics and Cheryan et al. (2013). The paper assumes that outreach courses and MOOCs can help reduce this disparity, but provides no causal evidence.
domain assumption Computational thinking is an essential skill and coding activities can train it.
Based on Wing (2006, 2010). The paper relies on this to justify using Pocket Code and game development as a learning vehicle.
domain assumption Game Development Based Learning is an effective way to engage novices in programming.
From the literature review in Section 2.3 (Wu and Wang, 2012; Romero, 2012). The course design depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Computer Science for all": Concepts to engage teenagers and non-CS students in technology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IURFGZDD

@misc{pith2026190806637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Computer Science for all": Concepts to engage teenagers and non-CS students in technology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IURFGZDD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06637}
}

read the original abstract

Knowledge in Computer Science (CS) is essential, and companies have increased their demands for CS professionals. Despite this, many jobs remain unfilled. Furthermore, employees with computational thinking (CT) skills are required, even if they are not actual technicians. Moreover, the gender disparity in technology related fields is a serious problem. Even if companies want to hire women in technology, the number of women who enter these fields is remarkably low. In high schools, most teenagers acquire only low-level skills in CS. Thus, they may never understand the fundamental concepts of CS, have unrealistic expectations or preconceptions, and are influenced by stereotype-based expectations. Consequently, many teenagers exclude computing as a career path. In this research study, we present two promising concepts to overcome these challenges. First, we consider alternative paths to enter the field of CS. In 2018, a voluntary lecture "Design your own app" at the University of Graz for students of all degree programs was introduced. In total, 202 students participated. We applied a Game Development-Based Learning (GDBL) approach with the visual coding tool Pocket Code, a mobile app developed at Graz University of Technology. The students were supposed to create simple games directly on smartphones. The course received positive evaluations and led to our second concept; In January 2019, we started to design a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) with the title "Get FIT in Computer Science". First, this course can be used to encourage young women who have little to no previous knowledge in CS. Second, it should help all teenagers to get a more realistic picture of CS to its basic concepts. Third, teachers can use the course materials to lead high school classes (Open Educational Resources). Finally, the MOOC can be accessed by everyone interested in this topic.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

6 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

(2017) Gender Differences in Students’ Behaviors in CS Classes throughout the CS Major

Alvardo, C., Cao, Y., and Minnes, M. (2017) Gender Differences in Students’ Behaviors in CS Classes throughout the CS Major. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Educa- tion, pp. 27–32. Baumeister, R. and Leary, M. (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In...

work page 2017
[8]

Computer Science for all

Ya-Ting, C.Y. and Chao-Hsiang, C. (2013) Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. In Computers & Education. 68, pp. 334–344. Young, D.M., Rudman, L.A., Buettner, H.M., and McLean, M.C. (2013) The Inﬂuence of Female Role Models on Women’s Implicit Science Cognitions. In Psych...

work page 2013
[58]

(2012) Understanding the paradox in math-related ﬁelds: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? In Commentary

Cheryan, S. (2012) Understanding the paradox in math-related ﬁelds: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? In Commentary. Sex Roles 66, pp. 184–190. Committee on European Computing Education (CECE) (2017) Informatics Education in Europe: Are We All In The Same Boat? Report by The Committee on European Computing Education (CECE) . Jointly esta...

work page 2012
[137]

Computational Thinking: What and Why?

Walton, G.M. and Cohen, G.L. (2007) A Question of Belonging: Race, Social Fit, and Achievement. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 92 (1), pp. 82–96. Wing, J. (2010) “Computational Thinking: What and Why?” [online] Available at: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf. Last access: 04.05.2019 Wing, J.M. (2006) Computation...

work page 2007
[625]

and Camp, T

Stout, J. and Camp, T. (2014) Now what?: Action items from social science research to bridge the gender gap in computing research. In SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 44 (4), pp. 5–8. Tumlin, N. (2017) Teacher Conﬁgurable Coding Challenges for Block Languages. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pp. 783–784. Veille...

work page 2014
[2012]

Last access: 04.05.2019 Romero, M

[online] Available at: http://www.egymodern.com/2011/07/al-nahar-chaneel.html. Last access: 04.05.2019 Romero, M. (2012) Learning through playing for or against each other?. In Promoting collaborative learning in digital game based learning. 5, pp. 15-28. Singer, N. (2019) The Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting Into Class. [online] Available at: https...

work page 2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(2017) Gender Differences in Students’ Behaviors in CS Classes throughout the CS Major

Alvardo, C., Cao, Y., and Minnes, M. (2017) Gender Differences in Students’ Behaviors in CS Classes throughout the CS Major. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Educa- tion, pp. 27–32. Baumeister, R. and Leary, M. (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In...

work page 2017

[2] [8]

Computer Science for all

Ya-Ting, C.Y. and Chao-Hsiang, C. (2013) Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. In Computers & Education. 68, pp. 334–344. Young, D.M., Rudman, L.A., Buettner, H.M., and McLean, M.C. (2013) The Inﬂuence of Female Role Models on Women’s Implicit Science Cognitions. In Psych...

work page 2013

[3] [58]

(2012) Understanding the paradox in math-related ﬁelds: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? In Commentary

Cheryan, S. (2012) Understanding the paradox in math-related ﬁelds: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? In Commentary. Sex Roles 66, pp. 184–190. Committee on European Computing Education (CECE) (2017) Informatics Education in Europe: Are We All In The Same Boat? Report by The Committee on European Computing Education (CECE) . Jointly esta...

work page 2012

[4] [137]

Computational Thinking: What and Why?

Walton, G.M. and Cohen, G.L. (2007) A Question of Belonging: Race, Social Fit, and Achievement. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 92 (1), pp. 82–96. Wing, J. (2010) “Computational Thinking: What and Why?” [online] Available at: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf. Last access: 04.05.2019 Wing, J.M. (2006) Computation...

work page 2007

[5] [625]

and Camp, T

Stout, J. and Camp, T. (2014) Now what?: Action items from social science research to bridge the gender gap in computing research. In SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 44 (4), pp. 5–8. Tumlin, N. (2017) Teacher Conﬁgurable Coding Challenges for Block Languages. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , pp. 783–784. Veille...

work page 2014

[6] [2012]

Last access: 04.05.2019 Romero, M

[online] Available at: http://www.egymodern.com/2011/07/al-nahar-chaneel.html. Last access: 04.05.2019 Romero, M. (2012) Learning through playing for or against each other?. In Promoting collaborative learning in digital game based learning. 5, pp. 15-28. Singer, N. (2019) The Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting Into Class. [online] Available at: https...

work page 2012