Program a Hit - Using Music as Motivator for IntroducingProgramming Concepts

Christian Köppec.koppe@uu.nl

Utrecht UniversityUtrecht, the Netherlands

ABSTRACTPeople with no prior experience or a low self-efficacy in computingare less likely to choose Computer Science (CS) as a study subject.This especially has an impact on young women and is thereforeone of the reasons for the prevalent gender imbalance in CS studentpopulations. We designed a workshop that addresses this issueand uses music as motivating context. It introduces a variety ofessential programming concepts in a fun and engaging way andresults in creative artifacts programmed by the participants. Firstexperiences show that this approach leads to promising results andmight therefore contribute in the longer term to a more diverse CSstudent population.

CCS CONCEPTS• Social andprofessional topics→Computing education;Gen-der; • Applied computing → Sound and music computing; •Software and its engineering→ Software development tech-niques.

KEYWORDSintroductory programming, music, gender diversityACM Reference Format:Christian Köppe. 2020. Program a Hit - Using Music as Motivator for Intro-ducing Programming Concepts. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conferenceon Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’20),June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages.https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387377

1 INTRODUCTIONComputer Science (CS) is an established field of study which alsooffers good job opportunities for graduates in various areas. Ex-pectations about the development of the CS job market vary butin general predict a growth, in some cases of up to 12-16% overthe next ten years (see e.g. [6, 20]). However, it has been widelydiscussed that the CS student population suffers from a low diver-sity with respect to women and other underrepresented groups[7, 9, 13]. Addressing this issue likely has several benefits: it broad-ens participation of a more diverse population in CS and might

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than theauthor(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, orrepublish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permissionand/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway© 2020 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6874-2/20/06. . . $15.00https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387377

therefore also attract a larger population in total which would helpto fulfill the needs of the job market.

The reasons for this underrepresentation are manyfold, varyingfrom stereotypical images of computer scientists and what one cando with CS, to a geek culture which does not attract women [13].On the other hand, people who choose CS reported that they oftenhad prior experiences with it, mainly programming, or had a highself efficacy regarding math and science subjects [16]. The latterwas likely also due to being supported by feedback from teachersand parents. Research on why girls did choose to study CS showsthat the same reasons are also valid for them [4].

Eccles describes personal and collective identities as motivatorsfor actions such as choice of field of study [8]. These identities de-velop over a lifetime, among other factors also based on social expe-riences individuals have and their own agency in both interpretingand creating these experiences. Translated to CS, this means thata positive first experience with programming can be a small-scaleidentity-shaping event for young students, hopefully encouragingthem to further continue exploring the world of computer science.

These identities can also be related to stereotypes. A mis-matchbetween a personal or collective identity and persistent existingstereotyical images about CS influences the career decisions ofstudents and leads to declining participation of women in CS andSTEM [5].

According to Eccles, another influence on behavorial choicessuch as those related to education are two sets of beliefs:

“the individual’s expectations for success and the im-portance or value the individual attaches to the vari-ous options perceived by the individual as available.”[8]

This is in line with research on the reasons why girls and otherunderrepresented groups do not choose CS: they tend to have alow self-efficacy with respect to CS and programming (see e.g.[5, 14, 15]). Furthermore, CS does not seem to be perceived as avaluable option or an option that is available at all.

One way of affecting these identities and beliefs is to provideopportunities for positive experiences with CS in general and morespecifically with programming as one of the most essential elementsof CS. This positivity can be either in the form of realizing that oneis able to code, which might lead to a higher self-efficacy regardingCS. The other experience can be that it becomes obvious to thesegroups that one can use programming to create interesting and/orfun things and express creativity. Such experience can also help tocorrect misconceptions about what programming is and what onecan do with it.

There are many initiatives which provide such experiences, suchas the Hour of Code [1] or various introductory Scratch projects

Session: Creative Computing ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway

266

[2]. Another approach for adding value is the use of contexts for in-troducing programming concepts. Using such a motivating contexthelps students with understanding the value of what they are learn-ing and makes them therefore likely to stick around [11]. Art canbe such a context in general, which is also reflected in the transitionfrom STEM to STEAM. But especially music as context qualifies asexcellent motivator for introducing basic programming concepts,as nearly everybody1 likes music and has a personal connectionwith it (whatever style it is).

Early experiences with using music as context for teaching pro-gramming were made by Guzdial [10]. Even though the emphasisin his course was on music learning, the students learned a goodbit of Logo, as well concepts such as subprocedures and the repeatstatement [10]. He also notes that programming and music fit natu-rally, as both are dynamic processes and have a clear order. Aspectsof this match can also be found in the Songwriting Unplugged ac-tivity2. Interestingly, it is also mentioned that perhaps animationcould be used in the same way as music, because it shares the samecharacteristic (unfolding over time). This idea was also included inour workshop, which will be introduced later in this work.

Another context-driven approach was Media Computation: in-troducing programming with a media-focused context [12]. MediaComputation uses the exploration of data abstraction related todigital medial for introducing computing concepts, mainly throughdata manipulation. Results show that such media-focused contextleads to positive effects with respect to gender diversity, follow-upactivities in computer science, and similar learning results com-pared to classical introductory computing courses.

A further initiative was Performamatics, “a series of coursesintended to attract students to computer science (CS) by tappingtheir inherent interest in Performance and the arts.” [19]. One ofthe courses is Sound Thinking, which includes the creation of com-puter programs that play music using the sound facilities of theScratch environment. Concepts such as looping, initialization, use ofvariables, changing variables algorithmically, modularization, andevent processing were introduced. In general, this course requiresadvanced skills, but the authors state that “they can be learnedthrough experimentation and exploration that is both educationaland fun.” [19]

Allison et al. describe the design of a Programming Music Camp,an outreach activity to teach computer programming conceptsthrough the activity of music-making [3]. The successful campattracted students with diverse backgrounds and with little or noprogramming or musical experience. They emphasize that digitalaudio techniques can serve as an audible and real-time introductionto computation (and mathematics). Computational processes arebrought into a dynamic, interactive, and fun environment withinstant feedback which can be immediately heard and evaluated byear and revised leading to immediate iterative development [3].

EarSketch is another project intended to engage students in com-puting concepts. The focus is on composing and remixing compu-tational music, using samples, beats, and effects [17]. The studentscan use Python or Javascript to develop or manipulate their musicalcreations.1Research shows that there is only a small portion of people who actually dislike musicbecause of musical anhedonia [18]2https://curriculum.code.org/csf-1718/coursee/15/

Even though most of the above mentioned approaches are imple-mented as complete courses, we believe that some of the positiveeffects might also be partly achieved with a similar but shorterworkshop approach: a more gender-diverse group of participants, amotivating opportunity for being creative and understanding andapplication of several basic programming concepts in the contextof music and animation creation.

2 WORKSHOP DESIGNAs mentioned earlier, certain musical elements are well-suited tointroduce related programming concepts. The basic idea of ourworkshop was therefore to have students produce a piece of musicby programming it, hereby introducing a set of basic programmingconcepts which all were relevant in the context of creating a pieceof music in effective way.

The only official objectives of the workshop were to have funand to produce something which sounds good or interesting. Af-ter the first implementation of the basic one-hour workshop, wedecided to also design a two-day version which adds the creationof an animation. This animation had to be combined with the cre-ated music, similar to a music video, and presented at the end ofthe second day on a larger screen with an audio installation. Theofficial objectives therefore changed to having fun and producingan artifact that sounds and looks good and/or interesting.

However, unofficially we had these goals inmindwhen designingthe workshop:

(1) Introduce a set of basic programming concepts in a fun andengaging way.

(2) Attract a diverse group of participants.(3) Stimulate creative use of programming tools.(4) Provide a positive (first) experience with programming.We chose to design an extendable workshop. There is a basic

version which can be held in about one hour and which containsthe creation of a pre-defined piece of music only. Even though thereis not much creativity directly involved, the workshop shows theparticipants the necessary tools to explore their personal creativ-ity. Observations during the held workshops revealed that someparticipants already started exploring other possibilities in SonicPi, which shows that some students want to start expressing theircreativity immediately.

Then there is a complete workshop version which lasts two daysand contains music and animation creation. The basic idea behindthis addition was to introduce the same concepts again in a differentprogramming language and environment, thereby putting morefocus on the programming concepts than only on the programminglanguage itself. We were also interested to find out whether thisapproach could be helpful with knowledge transfer, as studentsimmediately experience that the material learned (the programmingconcepts) is also applicable in other contexts.

The tool used for programming music is Sonic Pi3, implementedby SamAaron fromCambridge University. This tool was chosen as itprovides an easy to install and use editor and is freely available. Fur-thermore, it uses text-based instead of block-based programming,thereby exposing the workshop participants to an environmentwhich is similar to other professionally used tools. Even though3http://sonic-pi.net/

Session: Creative Computing ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway

267

Sonic Pi is mainly used for live-coding, it also offers more simplepossibilities for structured programming. The tool used for pro-gramming the graphical animation is Processing4, a project initiatedby Ben Fry and Casey Reas, which was selected for mainly the samereasons as Sonic Pi. It also offers an easy way of playing sound filesin a program which makes it easy to combine both programs intoone musical video animation.

Even though the workshop is designed so that it can be givenout-of-the-box, there are some necessary preparations: computersneed to be available with an installation of Sonic Pi and optionallyProcessing (only for the complete version). The participants shoulduse headphones, optionally with using headphone splitters whenworking in pairs or small groups. We also used two projectors, oneof them for the live demos we gave and one of them containingadditional information and the current assignment the students hadto work on. This way they knew what to do and they could makeuse of the provided demo examples and translate them into theirown implementation. We also provided hand-outs (a cheat sheet)which contained the information on the introduced programmingconcepts.

2.1 Basic WorkshopThe core design of the basic one-hour workshop version is as fol-lows:

• The students work step-by-step towards the final product:an implementation of the round (or canon) Brother John5,including multiple voices, adaptable tone height, speed, anddifferent synthesizers.

• Each step consists of a new challenge which needs to betackled. A live demo is given (using a different song) as intro-duction of new challenges and followed by the programmingconcepts needed for solving them. These concepts are alsoexplicitly named and highlighted again in the cheat sheet(based on the slides). An example is the challenge of beingable to easily change the tone height of the whole song. Thiscan be addressed by using a variable for storing the firsttone and use this for setting all other tones relative to thisfirst tone. Figure 1 shows an example of an intermediateimplementation after adding this challenge.

• The programming concepts which were introduced step-wise like this are:– Calling functions (incl. parameters)– Language syntax– Order of statement execution– Loops/iterations (counting and infinite)– Code blocks– Variables (incl. name, datatype and values)– Variable scope– Defining functions (without and with one or more param-eters)

– Modularization (using functions)– Error messages– Simple threading

4https://processing.org/5This canon/round is very suitable as it is known worldwide by nearly everyone, inthe Netherlands it is called Vader Jacob, in German it is Bruder Jakob, in French it isFrere Jacques...

Figure 1: Implementation of changeable tone height using avariable for first line of canon Brother John

– Arithmetic calculations– Comments.

At the end of the one-hour workshop all participants have cre-ated a canon-version of Brother John. See Figure 2 for an exemplary(shortened) implementation including most of the covered concepts.

Figure 2: Partial implementation of canon Brother John in-cluding multiple ‘voices’

Session: Creative Computing ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway

268

2.2 Complete WorkshopThe longer version (usually run over two days and also includingsome homework) includes the introduction of the same concepts inProcessing. Here, the participants created a puppet which danceson grass and lets balloons in various colors fly as the end product ofall sub-assignments. An exemplary end product is shown in Figure3. The concepts introduced in Processing where mostly the same,with the exception that we additionally introduced conditionalstatements and did not make use of threads. See Figure 4 for a codeexample in Processing. After the concepts have been introducedand applied in both environments, the students had to choose aproject of their own which combines both music and an animation,similar to a music video. This time, they had to apply the conceptsagain on their own for creating both the music and the animation.At the end, the audio file was played in Processing while executingthe animation.

We explicitly let the participants themselves decide what theywanted to realize to stimulate creativity and ensure that final ar-tifacts would be related to the interests or preferences of the par-ticipants. Please note that, even if we actually gave the studentscomplete freedom in what they wanted to realize, we added thesmall requirement that it had to contain some kind of animated ele-ments instead of being just a static graphic. This was important asit required the students to work with self-defined functions, param-eters and arithmetic operations for changing positions of objectson the screen, as they had to use the dynamic mode of Processing.

The results varied from implementing a favorite or well-knownsong6 to composing completely new music or developing interest-ing musical effects.

3 FIRST EXPERIENCESThe workshop has been held a few times already in both versions,with students of secondary education:

• The one-hour version was given 3 times with a total of appr.85 participants aged 12-15, including one time successfullygiven as part of a girls day.

• The complete version was given 3 times with a total of appr.90 participants aged 15-17.

All workshops started with the question about prior experienceswith programming and making music. Usually, more participants(30-50%) indicated some experience with playing instruments suchas guitar, piano, or drums. On average, only 10 - 20% of the par-ticipants had any prior programming experience (mostly Scratch,Python, Javascript and some HTML/CSS). Most participants weretriggered to participate because of the creation of music. Equallyimportant is the diversity of the participants: on average 50% ofthe participants were girls, who showed the same enthusiasm asthe boys, an effect that was also observed at hour-of-code events[21]. This workshop can contribute to providing a more diversegroup with such a positive first programming experience. Manyparticipants indicated that they will continue using Sonic Pi forthemselves.

The students were enthusiastic and had fun. They ALL man-aged to implement the canon Brother John by themselves in one6The workshop was given twice in the beginning of December, so some studentsimplemented Christmas songs.

Figure 3: Example animation in Processing with flying bal-loons and dancing person

hour (independent of the workshop version, as both start with thiscanon).

All three basic workshops and the first two complete workshopswere given in settings where no formal evaluation was possible.The reported experiences from these workshops are therefore onlybased on the personal impressions of the workshop facilitator. Dur-ing the third implementation of the complete workshop, we wereable to collect some more data to evaluate the intended goals ofthe workshop in more detail. The results are presented in the nextsection.

3.1 Results Complete WorkshopThe third complete workshop took place on 2 days in December2019. There were 18 participants, 9 girls and 9 boys. The participantage ranged from 15 to 17 years, all participants followed upper sec-ondary education. Participation in this workshop was self-selected,the participants were free to choose which workshops to follow(in total there were 41 workshops offered as part of a universityoutreach program with a wide range of topics). Only 4 of the 21participants had prior experience with programming (3 boys, 1 girl);this experience was in Python, JavaScript and Scratch.

Regarding the first goal of the workshop, we asked the partici-pants to hand in their end products by email after the final presen-tations. We analyzed these programs with respect to the introducedprogramming concepts, but omitted code blocks and syntax as thesehad to be used anyway. The most interesting results we found were:

Session: Creative Computing ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway

269

Figure 4: Example of the Processing source code (functiondrawBalloons() is ommitted)

• All students made use of the functions introduced in theexamples, additionally 28% of the students used new func-tions in Sonic Pi and 94% used new functions in Processing(mainly for drawing other geometrical objects or changingtheir appearance, e.g. using noStroke()). This indicates that,especially in Processing, they explored new functionalityby themselves and applied it, thereby learning how to usethe reference and/or finding and reusing examples from theinternet.

• Self-defined Functions with parameters were created by 61%in Sonic Pi and 44% in Processing; self-defined functionswithout parameters were defined less often with only 17%and 39% respectively.

• 94% created a real animation in Processing, effectively usingthe dynamic mode of Processing.

Figure 5: Final presentations

Sonic Pi Processingcomplexity all boys girls all boys girls

high 7 5 2 3 2 1medium 8 3 5 4 3 1low 3 1 2 11 4 7

Table 1: Complexity levels of final programs

• 89% used threading in Sonic Pi to create their music withmultiple simultaneous elements.

• 55% of the participants implemented a well-known song,ranging from popular music to Christmas songs to the be-ginning of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5. 45% implementedown compositions.

We also judged the delivered programs on their complexity, us-ing these classifications: low (single use of function, simple flow, nonesting), medium (multiple use of functions, simply nested struc-tures, e.g., one function for song and all parts in separate functions),and high (multiple use of functions, complex structure, multipleelements in music/animation etc.). The results, shown in Table 1,show that 83% of the Sonic Pi programs were of medium or highcomplexity, which is remarkable given that only 22% of the par-ticipants had prior programming experience. In Processing, only39% were of medium or high complexity. One potential reason isthat the participants had mostly to finish the music first beforestarting with programming the animation, as they wanted to havethis matching certain elements of the music, such as beginning ofthe chorus. This distribution is also reflected in the average linesof code of the programs, which is 209 for Sonic Pi and 98 for theProcessing programs.

In general, we were quite impressed with these results for largelyfirst time programmers. It also can be seen that the boys’ results areof slightly more complexity than the programs of the girls. We donot have information anymore onwhich of the participantswere theones with prior experience, but it is likely that these delivered someof the more complex programs. Removing these from the analyzedset would likely lead to a more evenly distributed complexity, whichmeans that there likely are no significant differences in performancebetween boys and girls.

Session: Creative Computing ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway

270

3.2 Results questionnaireAfter the workshop, we also collected feedback from the partici-pants with an online questionnaire. 14 of 18 participants filled it in(8 girls and 6 boys); the most interesting results are as follows:

• 35% stated that this workshop has helped them with theirchoice of study (4 girls and 1 boy).

• On the question what they had learned, 43% stated that theylearned what programming in general is (4 girls and 2 boys)and 57% stated they learned how to program music andvisualizations (4 girls and 4 boys).

• The workshop was rated with an average score of 7,6 (ona scale of 1 to 10), the girls scored it with 7,8 and the boyswith 7,3.

• 12 out of 14 respondents found the workshop interestingand challenging.

4 SUMMARY AND FUTUREWORKIn this work, we described the design of a workshop that usesmusic as motivating context for introducing programming concepts.Experiences with the last implementation of the workshop showthat the goals have been at least partially achieved:

(1) Basic programming concepts were introduced and success-fully applied by the participants in two different environ-ments and with varying degrees of complexity. The intro-duction was done in a fun and engaging way, as the goodevaluations by the participants and personal impressions ofthe atmosphere during the workshops show.

(2) The workshops attracted a diverse group of participants withusually an equal distribution of female and male participants.

(3) The results of the full workshop versions showed a varietyof creative solutions for both the music and the animationparts.

(4) All participants managed to create artifacts which they wereproud of at the end of the workshop and had fun doingso. So, this was therefore likely a positive (first) experiencewith programming for the participants without any priorexperience in programming.

However, these are only results of the last implementation ofthe complete workshop. Future implementations have to show thatthese results indeed are reproducible.

There are some further questions of interest which will be partof future research:

• What is the effectiveness of introducing the same program-ming concepts in two different environments with respectto understanding the concepts instead of just applying themthrough copy & adapt?

• What is the time-on-task which is spent between day 1 andday 2 of the complete workshop? The participants are ex-pected to spend 2-4 hours, but based on the programs theparticipants started with on the second day, we assume thatsome of them spent more than this time. This is anotherindicator for the motivating effect of the workshop approachwith impact on learning.

• Does participation in the workshop have an effect on thestereotypical image students have of CS?

• Does participation in the workshop have an effect on self-efficacy regarding CS and programming?

• The workshop was now held with participants of age 12-17;is it also suitable for even younger children?

Summarized, the current experiences with this workshop arepromising. The workshop might therefore be one of the activitieswhich help to make students enthusiast about CS and to addressthe issue of gender imbalance in Computer Science education. Inorder to make the workshop more broadly applicable, the workshopmaterial (teacher’s guide, slides, worked out examples, etc.) will bepublished as open educational resource. If interested, please contactthe author for further details.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThanks to Felienne Hermans, who inspired me with her NIOC 2018keynote to develop this workshop. And of course a big thank youto Sam Aaron who developed Sonic Pi!

REFERENCES[1] [n.d.]. Hour of Code. Retrieved 2019-11-13 from https://hourofcode.com/[2] [n.d.]. Scratch. Retrieved 2019-11-13 from https://scratch.mit.edu/[3] Jesse Allison, Daniel Holmes, Zachary Berkowitz, Andrew Pfalz, William Conlin,

Nick Hwang, and Benjamin Taylor. 2016. Programming Music Camp: Using WebAudio to Teach Creative Coding. InWeb Audio Conference WAC-2016. Atlanta,USA. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/54601

[4] Anne Bartilla. 2014. "Je mannetje staan": Kwalitatief onderzoek naar vrouwelijkeinformatica studenten in het hoger beroepsonderwijs. master thesis. University ofAmsterdam, Amsterdam, NL. 116 pages.

[5] Philipp Brauner, Martina Ziefle, Ulrik Schroeder, Thiemo Leonhardt, NadineBergner, and Birgit Ziegler. 2018. Gender Influences On School Students’ MentalModels of Computer Science: A Quantitative Rich Picture Analysis with SixthGraders. In Proceedings of Gender \& IT, Heilbronn, Germany, May 14-15, 2018(GenderIT). Association for Computing Machinery, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196839.3196857

[6] U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019. Computerand Information Research Scientists. In Occupational Outlook Hand-book. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm

[7] J. McGrath Cohoon and William Aspray (Eds.). 2008. Women and InformationTechnology: Research on Underrepresentation. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/women-and-information-technology

[8] Jacquelynne Eccles. 2009. Who Am I and What Am I Going to Do With MyLife? Personal and Collective Identities as Motivators of Action. EducationalPsychologist 44, 2 (may 2009), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368

[9] Allan Fisher and Jane Margolis. 2002. Unlocking the clubhouse: the CarnegieMellon Experience. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 34, 2 (jun 2002), 79–83. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=543812.543836

[10] Mark Guzdial. 1991. Teaching Programming with Music: An Approch to TeachingYoung Students About Logo. Technical Report. https://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/resources/papers/pdf/teaching_progr.pdf

[11] Mark Guzdial. 2010. Does contextualized computing education help? ACMInroads 1, 4 (2010), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/1869746.1869747

[12] Mark Guzdial. 2013. Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In ICER 2013- Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on International Computing EducationResearch. 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493394.2493397

[13] Catherine Hill, Christianne Corbett, and Andresse St. Rose. 2009. Why So Few?Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. American Associ-ation of University Women (nov 2009). http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509653

[14] Jung Won Hur, Carey E. Andrzejewski, and Daniela Marghitu. 2017. Girls andcomputer science: experiences, perceptions, and career aspirations. ComputerScience Education 27, 2 (apr 2017), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2017.1376385

[15] Maria Kallia and Sue Sentance. 2018. Are boys more confident than girls? Therole of calibration and students’ self-efficacy in programming tasks and computerscience. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary ComputingEducation (WiPSCE’18), , October 4–6, 2018, Potsdam, Germany. ACM, New York,NY, USA, 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265757.3265773

[16] Christian Köppe and Anne Bartilla. 2017. Towards a pattern language for in-creasing gender diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the

Session: Creative Computing ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway

271

VikingPLoP 2017 Conference on Pattern Languages of Program - VikingPLoP. ACMPress, New York, New York, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3158491.3158501

[17] Brian Magerko, Jason Freeman, Tom McKlin, Mike Reilly, Elise Livingston, ScottMcCoid, and Andrea Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-based approachfor underrepresented populations in high school computer science education.ACM Transactions on Computing Education 16, 4 (sep 2016), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2886418

[18] Noelia Martínez-Molina, Ernest Mas-Herrero, Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells,Robert J. Zatorre, and Josep Marco-Pallarés. 2016. Neural correlates of spe-cific musical anhedonia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 113, 46 (nov 2016), E7337–E7345. https://doi.org/10.

1073/pnas.1611211113[19] Alex Ruthmann, Jesse M. Heines, Gena R. Greher, Paul Laidler, and Charles

Saulters. 2010. Teaching computational thinking through musical live codingin Scratch. In SIGCSE’10 - Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium onComputer Science Education. 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734384

[20] H Shapiro, S. F Østergård, and K. F. Hougard. 2015. Does the EU need more STEMgraduates? Technical Report 120. 81 pages. https://doi.org/10.2766/000444

[21] Cameron Wilson. 2014. Hour of Code: We can solve the diversity problem incomputer science. ACM Inroads 5, 4 (dec 2014), 22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2684721.2684725

Session: Creative Computing ITiCSE ’20, June 15–19, 2020, Trondheim, Norway

272