Theoretical Underpinnings of Learner Engagement in Software Visualization System: A Systematic Literature Review Protocol
Keywords:Engagement, Introductory programming education, Software visualization, Program visualization.
Having a solid theoretical foundation is essential for designing an effective software visualization (SV) tool. Despite the decades of developing different SV tools, there are still doubts about their effectiveness. Furthermore, learner engagement plays an important role in building a successful SV tool. In programming education, the problem of the high failure rates among students is still unresolved. Therefore, there is a need to understand the theories behind the exciting SV tools from the engagement perspective in order to have a road map for future tool construction. Yet the factors influencing learner engagement in SV tools are still unclear. This study set out to determine how to develop an SV design model to enhance student engagement in an introductory programming course. A systematic literature review (SLR) was used to obtain an overview of the current theoretical foundation used. The search identified a total of 432 papers between 2011 and 2017. This study examined 58 papers selected based on a well-defined selection process. In this paper, the contribution in constructing the protocol for SLR is presented as well as the preliminary results of the study. The researchers were in the process of data extraction phase to address the research questions. The expected outcomes of this review became the identification of a theoretical background used to construct and explain engagement in software visualization. The expected output of this study was a list of the factors that have a positive impact on learner engagement in SV tools.
 A. Vihavainen, J. Airaksinen, and C. Watson, â€œA Systematic Review of Approaches for Teaching Introductory Programming and Their Influence on Success,â€ in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, 2014, pp. 19â€“26.
 B. A. Price, R. M. Baecker, and I. S. Small, â€œA Principled Taxonomy of Software Visualization,â€ J. Vis. Lang. Comput., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 211â€“266, 1993.
 J. Hidalgo-CÃ©spedes, G. MarÃn-RaventÃ³s, and V. Lara-VillagrÃ¡n, â€œLearning principles in program visualizations: A systematic literature review,â€ in 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016, pp. 1â€“9.
 J. Sorva, V. Karavirta, and L. Malmi, â€œA Review of Generic Program Visualization Systems for Introductory Programming Education,â€ ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 13, no. 4, p. 15.1-15.64, 2013.
 E. Isohanni and H.-M. JÃ¤rvinen, â€œAre Visualization Tools Used in Programming Education?: By Whom, How, Why, and Why Not?,â€ in Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 2014, pp. 35â€“40.
 T. Naps, S. Rodger, Ã. VelÃ¡zquez-Iturbide, G. RÃ¶ÃŸling, V. Almstrum, W. Dann, R. Fleischer, C. Hundhausen, A. Korhonen, L. Malmi, and M. McNally, â€œExploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education,â€ SIGCSE Bull., vol. 35, no. 2, p. 131, Jun. 2003.
 N. Myller, R. Bednarik, E. Sutinen, and M. Ben-Ari, â€œExtending the Engagement Taxonomy: Software Visualization and Collaborative Learning,â€ Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 7:1-7:27, 2009.
 G. Banerjee, S. Murthy, and S. Iyer, â€œEffect of active learning using program visualization in technology-constrained college classrooms,â€ Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 15, Dec. 2015.
 L. Malmi, J. Sheard, Simon, R. Bednarik, J. Helminen, P. Kinnunen, A. Korhonen, N. Myller, J. Sorva, A. Taherkhani, J. Sheard, R. Bednarik, J. Helminen, P. Kinnunen, A. Korhonen, N. Myller, J. Sorva, Simon, R. Bednarik, J. Helminen, P. Kinnunen, A. Korhonen, N. Myller, J. Sorva, and A. Taherkhani, â€œTheoretical Underpinnings of Computing Education Research: What is the Evidence?,â€ in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, 2014, pp. 27â€“34.
 M. Knobelsdorf, E. Isohanni, and J. Tenenberg, â€œThe Reasons Might Be Different: Why Students and Teachers Do Not Use Visualization Tools,â€ in Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 2012, pp. 1â€“10.
 S. Fincher and M. Petre, Computer science education research. Taylor & Francis, 2004.
 C. A. Shaffer, M. L. Cooper, A. J. D. Alon, M. Akbar, M. Stewart, S. Ponce, and S. H. Edwards, â€œAlgorithm Visualization: The State of the Field,â€ ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1â€“22, Aug. 2010.
 J. E. Hannay, D. I. K. Sjoberg, and T. Dyba, â€œA Systematic Review of Theory Use in Software Engineering Experiments,â€ IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 87â€“107, Feb. 2007.
 A. Bikner-Ahsbahs and S. Prediger, â€œNetworking of Theoriesâ€”An Approach for Exploiting the Diversity of Theoretical Approaches,â€ in Theories of Mathematics Education, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 483â€“506.
 A. Lishinski, J. Good, P. Sands, and A. Yadav, â€œMethodological Rigor and Theoretical Foundations of CS Education Research,â€ in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - ICER â€™16, 2016, pp. 161â€“169.
 B. Hanks, S. Fitzgerald, R. McCauley, L. Murphy, and C. Zander, â€œPair programming in education: a literature review,â€ Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 135â€“173, 2011.
 L. Malmi, J. Sheard, Simon, R. Bednarik, J. Helminen, A. Korhonen, N. Myller, J. Sorva, and A. Taherkhani, â€œCharacterizing Research in Computing Education: A Preliminary Analysis of the Literature,â€ in Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, 2010, pp. 3â€“12.
 L. Malmi, â€œTheory --- what is it for?,â€ ACM Inroads, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 34â€“35, Dec. 2014.
 S. Charters and B. Kitchenham, â€œGuidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering,â€ 2007.
 S. Gregor, â€œThe Nature of Theory in Information Systems,â€ MIS Q., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 611â€“642, 2006.