research-article

Open access

Meet MicroCode: a Live and Portable Programming Tool for the BBC micro:bit

Authors:

Lorraine Underwood,

Peli De Halleux,

Michał MoskalAuthors Info & Claims

IDC '24: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

Pages 355 - 370

https://doi.org/10.1145/3628516.3656995

Published: 17 June 2024 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Physical computing has emerged as an effective approach to introducing computing and coding to students. One of the most popular enabling tools is the BBC micro:bit, well-known for its positive impact on teaching programming and driving engagement in the classroom. We extend these benefits by developing a new approach to coding with micro:bit: MicroCode. Unlike other experiences, MicroCode couples the micro:bit with a low-cost handheld accessory to enable live and portable programming via an on-device visual programming language; no separate host computer is needed. We present the design of MicroCode and the findings of a study in which we interviewed five primary school teachers and 60 children aged 10-11 working with MicroCode. The outcomes of the study show that MicroCode raised children’s engagement and stimulated the development of a strong sense of agency on coding activities, while teachers felt empowered to adopt situated and cross-curricular learning approaches.

References

[1]

Jonny Austin, Howard Baker, Thomas Ball, James Devine, Joe Finney, Peli De Halleux, Steve Hodges, Michał Moskal, and Gareth Stockdale. 2020. The BBC micro:bit- from the UK to the world. Commun. ACM 63 (2 2020), 62–69. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368856

Digital Library

[2]

Thomas Ball, Shannon Kao, Richard Knoll, and Daryl Zuniga. 2020. TileCode: Creation of Video Games on Gaming Handhelds. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1182–1193. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379337.3415839

Digital Library

[3]

Ayah Bdeir. 2009. Electronics as material: LittleBits. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, 397–400. https://doi.org/10.1145/1517664.1517743

Digital Library

[4]

Madhav Biros, David Ayyalasomayajula, Surya Dalal, and Nikunj Sharma. 2020. Teaching programming to the post-millennial generation: Pedagogic considerations for an is course.Journal of Information Systems Education 31 (6 2020). Issue 2. https://jise.org/Volume31/n2/JISEv31n2p96.html

[5]

Paulo Blikstein, Arnan Sipitakiat, Jayme Goldstein, João Wilbert, Maggie Johnson, Steve Vranakis, Zebedee Pedersen, and Will Carey. 2016. Project Bloks: designing a development platform for tangible programming for children. Position paper, retrieved online on (2016), 06–30.

[6]

Monique Boekaerts. 2016. Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learning and Instruction 43 (2016), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.001

[7]

Naomi R. Boyer, Sara Langevin, and Alessio Gaspar. 2008. Self direction; constructivism in programming education. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education, 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414558.1414585

Digital Library

[8]

Anke Brocker, René Schäfer, Christian Remy, Simon Voelker, and Jan Borchers. 2023. Flowboard: How Seamless, Live, Flow-Based Programming Impacts Learning to Code for Embedded Electronics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30 (2 2023), 1–36. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533015

Digital Library

[9]

Joshua Chan, Tarun Pondicherry, and Paulo Blikstein. 2013. LightUp: An Augmented, Learning Platform for Electronics. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 491–494. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485812

Digital Library

[10]

Patricia Charlton and Katerina Avramides. 2016. Knowledge Construction in Computer Science and Engineering when Learning Through Making. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 9 (10 2016), 379–390. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2627567

Digital Library

[11]

Paul Cobb and Janet Bowers. 1999. Cognitive and Situated Learning Perspectives in Theory and Practice. Educational Researcher 28 (1999), 4–15. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002004

[12]

Bettina Conradi, Verena Lerch, Martin Hommer, Robert Kowalski, Ioanna Vletsou, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2011. Flow of electrons: an augmented workspace for learning physical computing experientially. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Kobe, Japan) (ITS ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1145/2076354.2076389

Digital Library

[13]

Stephen Coy. 2013. Kodu game lab, a few lessons learned. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 19 (6 2013), 44–47. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460436.2460450

Digital Library

[14]

James Devine, Joe Finney, Peli de Halleux, Michał Moskal, Thomas Ball, and Steve Hodges. 2018. MakeCode and CODAL: intuitive and efficient embedded systems programming for education. Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED International Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3211332.3211335

Digital Library

[15]

Griffin Dietz, Zachary Pease, Brenna McNally, and Elizabeth Foss. 2020. Giggle Gauge: A Self-Report Instrument for Evaluating Children’s Engagement with Technology. Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, 614–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394393

Digital Library

[16]

Stefania Druga, Thomas Ball, and Amy Ko. 2022. How families design and program games: a qualitative analysis of a 4-week online in-home study. Interaction Design and Children, 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3529724

Digital Library

[17]

Caitlin Duncan, Tim Bell, and Steve Tanimoto. 2014. Should your 8-year-old learn coding?Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670774

Digital Library

[18]

Grace Fayombo. 2012. Active Learning: Creating Excitement and Enhancing Learning in a Changing Environment of the 21st Century. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3 (9 2012), 107 – 128. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n16p107

[19]

Phil Frei, Victor Su, Bakhtiar Mikhak, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2000. Curlybot: designing a new class of computational toys. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332416

Digital Library

[20]

Anna Gardeli and Spyros Vosinakis. 2019. ARQuest: A Tangible Augmented Reality Approach to Developing Computational Thinking Skills. 2019 11th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-Games.2019.8864603

[21]

Alessio Gaspar and Sarah Langevin. 2007. Active learning in introductory programming courses through student-led “live coding” and test-driven pair programming. In International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications, Orlando, FL.

[22]

Rosella Gennari, Alessandra Melonio, Mehdi Rizvi, and Andrea Bonani. 2017. Design of IoT Tangibles for Primary Schools. Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125571.3125591

Digital Library

[23]

Yen Air Caballero González and Ana García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso. 2018. A robotics-based approach to foster programming skills and computational thinking. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284188

Digital Library

[24]

Luisa Greifenstein, Isabella Graßl, Ute Heuer, and Gordon Fraser. 2022. Common Problems and Effects of Feedback on Fun When Programming Ozobots in Primary School. Proceedings of the 17th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3556787.3556860

Digital Library

[25]

Steve Hodges, James Scott, Sue Sentance, Colin Miller, Nicolas Villar, Scarlet Schwiderski-Grosche, Kerry Hammil, and Steven Johnston. 2013. .NET gadgeteer. Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445315

Digital Library

[26]

Steve Hodges, Sue Sentance, Joe Finney, and Thomas Ball. 2020. Physical Computing: A Key Element of Modern Computer Science Education. Computer 53 (4 2020), 20–30. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2019.2935058

[27]

Steve Hodges, Nicolas Villar, Nicholas Chen, Tushar Chugh, Jie Qi, Diana Nowacka, and Yoshihiro Kawahara. 2014. Circuit stickers: Peel-and-Stick Construction of Interactive Electronic Prototypes. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1743–1746. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557150

Digital Library

[28]

Michael S. Horn, R. Jordan Crouser, and Marina U. Bers. 2012. Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16 (4 2012), 379–389. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2

Digital Library

[29]

Michael S. Horn and Robert J. K. Jacob. 2007. Designing tangible programming languages for classroom use. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227003

Digital Library

[30]

Felix Hu, Ariel Zekelman, Michael Horn, and Frances Judd. 2015. Strawbies. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 410–413. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771866

Digital Library

[31]

Christopher D. Hundhausen and Jonathan L. Brown. 2007. What You See Is What You Code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 18 (2 2007), 22–47. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2006.03.002

Digital Library

[32]

James A. Jerkins, Yasmeen Rawajfih, and Cynthia L. Stenger. 2022. Exploring the impact of CS makers on teachers in Alabama. Proceedings of the ACM Southeast Conference, 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476883.3520219

Digital Library

[33]

K Kahn, R Megasari, E Piantari, and E Junaeti. 2018. AI programming by children using Snap! block programming in a developing country. Thirteenth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning 11082.

[34]

Sema A. Kalaian and Rafa M. Kasim. 2015. Small-Group vs. Competitive Learning in Computer Science Classrooms. 46–64. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-7304-5.ch003

[35]

Sara Kalantari, Elisa Rubegni, Laura Benton, and Asimina Vasalou. 2023. “When I’m writing a story, I am really good” Exploring the use of digital storytelling technology at home. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (2023), 100613.

[36]

Filiz Kalelioglu and Yasemin Gulbahar. 2014. The Effects of Teaching Programming via Scratch on Problem Solving Skills: A Discussion from Learners’ Perspective. Informatics in Education 13 (4 2014), 33–50.

[37]

Eva-Sophie Katterfeldt, Mutlu Cukurova, Daniel Spikol, and David Cuartielles. 2018. Physical computing with plug-and-play toolkits:Key recommendations for collaborative learning implementations. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 17 (9 2018), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.03.002

[38]

Eva-Sophie Katterfeldt, Nadine Dittert, and Heidi Schelhowe. 2015. Designing Digital Fabrication Learning Environments for Bildung. Int. J. Child-Comp. Interact. 5 (9 2015), 3–10. Issue C.

[39]

Greg Kearsley and Ben Shneiderman. 1998. Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology 38 (1998), 20–23. Issue 5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428478

[40]

David Kolb. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience As The Source Of Learning And Development. Vol. 1.

[41]

Tiina Korhonen, Laura Salo, and Kati Sormunen. 2019. Making with Micro:bit: Teachers and Students Learning 21st Century Competences through the Innovation Process. Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311906

Digital Library

[42]

Ilya Levin and Dina Tsybulsky. 2017. The Constructionist Learning Approach in the Digital Age. Creative Education 08 (2017), 2463–2475. Issue 15. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.815169

[43]

Matthew B. MacLaurin. 2011. The design of kodu. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 46 (1 2011), 241–246. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/1925844.1926413

Digital Library

[44]

Gayathri Manikutty. 2021. My Robot can tell stories: Introducing robotics and physical computing to children using dynamic dioaramas. 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637460

Digital Library

[45]

TimothyS. McNerney. 2004. From turtles to Tangible Programming Bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8 (9 2004). Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0295-6

[46]

Timothy McNerney. 2011. Tangible Programming Bricks: An approach to making programming accessible to everyone. (4 2011).

[47]

Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai (Moti) Ben-Ari. 2013. Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education 23 (9 2013), 239–264. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2013.832022

[48]

Oussama Metatla, Sandra Bardot, Clare Cullen, Marcos Serrano, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2020. Robots for Inclusive Play: Co-designing an Educational Game With Visually Impaired and sighted Children. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376270

Digital Library

[49]

Michal Moskal, Thomas Ball, Abhijith Chatra, James Devine, Peli de Halleux, Steve Hodges, Shannon Kao, Richard Knoll, Galen Nickel, Jacqueline Russell, Joey Wunderlich, and Daryl Zuniga. 2021. Web-based Programming for Low-cost Gaming Handhelds. The 16th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG) 2021, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472538.3472572

Digital Library

[50]

Heather L. O’Brien and Elaine G. Toms. 2008. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (4 2008), 938–955. Issue 6. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801

[51]

Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. 1991. Situating constructionism. constructionism 36, 2 (1991), 1–11.

[52]

Amanda J. Parkes, Hayes Solos Raffle, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2008. Topobo in the wild. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1129–1138. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357232

Digital Library

[53]

Radia Perlman. 2004. Using Computer Technology to Provide a Creative Learning Environment for Preschool Children. (10 2004).

[54]

Mareen Przybylla and Ralf Romeike. 2018. Impact of Physical Computing on Learner Motivation. Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3279720.3279730

Digital Library

[55]

Janet Read, Stuart MacFarlane, and Christopher Casey. 2009. Endurability, Engagement and Expectations: Measuring Children’s Fun. Interaction Design and Children (9 2009).

[56]

Patrick Rein, Stefan Ramson, Jens Lincke, Robert Hirschfeld, and Tobias Pape. 2018. Exploratory and Live, Programming and Coding. The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming 3 (7 2018). Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.22152/programming-journal.org/2019/3/1

[57]

Mitchel Resnick. 1996. Distributed Constructionism. Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences, 280–284.

[58]

Anthony Robins, Janet Rountree, and Nathan Rountree. 2003. Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion. Computer Science Education 13 (6 2003), 137–172. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200

[59]

Elisa Rubegni, Monica Landoni, Laura Malinverni, and Letizia Jaccheri. 2022. Raising Awareness of Stereotyping Through Collaborative Digital Storytelling: Design for Change with and for Children. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 157 (2022), 102727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102727

Digital Library

[60]

Theodosios Sapounidis and Stavros Demetriadis. 2013. Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: exploring cross-age children’s preferences. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17 (12 2013), 1775–1786. Issue 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0641-7

Digital Library

[61]

Albrecht Schmidt. 2016. Increasing Computer Literacy with the BBC micro:bit. IEEE Pervasive Computing 15 (4 2016), 5–7. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2016.23

Digital Library

[62]

Eric Schweikardt. 2010. Modular robotics studio. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, 353–356. https://doi.org/10.1145/1935701.1935784

Digital Library

[63]

Eric Schweikardt and Mark D. Gross. 2006. roBlocks. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, 72–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180995.1181010

Digital Library

[64]

Ana Selvaraj, Eda Zhang, Leo Porter, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj. 2021. Live Coding: A Review of the Literature. Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456382

Digital Library

[65]

Sue Sentance, Jane Waite, Steve Hodges, Emily MacLeod, and Lucy Yeomans. 2017. "Creating Cool Stuff": Pupils’ Experience of the BBC micro:bit. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 531–536. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017749

Digital Library

[66]

Jia-Sin Tan Sheng-Rong Lin, Yu-Tzu Liou. 2016. Teaching by demonstration: programming instruction by using live-coding videos.EdMedia 2016–World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, 1294–1298. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173121/

[67]

Kathryn T. Stolee and Teale Fristoe. 2011. Expressing computer science concepts through Kodu game lab. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953197

Digital Library

[68]

Claudia Szabo and Judy Sheard. 2023. Learning Theories Use and Relationships in Computing Education Research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 23 (3 2023), 1–34. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487056

Digital Library

[69]

David R Thomas. 2003. A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. (2003).

[70]

David R Thomas. 2006. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation 27 (2006), 237–246. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

[71]

Ethel Tshukudu, Quintin Cutts, Olivier Goletti, Alaaeddin Swidan, and Felienne Hermans. 2021. Teachers’ Views and Experiences on Teaching Second and Subsequent Programming Languages. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469752

Digital Library

[72]

Bret Victor. 2012. LEARNABLE PROGRAMMING - Designing a programming system for understanding programs. http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming/

[73]

Maja Videnovik, Eftim Zdravevski, Petre Lameski, and Vladimir Trajkovik. 2018. The BBC Micro:bit in the International Classroom: Learning Experiences and First Impressions. 2018 17th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2018.8424786

[74]

Peter Vinnervik. 2023. Programming in school technology education: the shaping of a new subject content. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 33 (9 2023), 1449–1470. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09773-y

[75]

Jeannette M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49 (3 2006), 33–35. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Digital Library

[76]

Peta Wyeth and Helen C. Purchase. 2002. Tangible programming elements for young children. CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 774–775. https://doi.org/10.1145/506443.506591

Digital Library

[77]

Nesra Yannier, Scott E. Hudson, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2020. Active Learning is About More Than Hands-On: A Mixed-Reality AI System to Support STEM Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 30 (3 2020), 74–96. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00194-3

[78]

Junnan Yu and Ricarose Roque. 2018. A survey of computational kits for young children. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202738

Digital Library

Cited By

Underwood LBall THodges SRubegni Ede Halleux PFinney J(2024)MicroCode: live, portable programming for children via roboticsAdjunct Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3672539.3686334(1-3)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3672539.3686334

Index Terms

Meet MicroCode: a Live and Portable Programming Tool for the BBC micro:bit
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. K-12 education

Recommendations

Imagining Inclusive Digital Maker Futures with the BBC micro:bit
IDC '24: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

This workshop will bring together researchers and educators to imagine a future of low-cost, widely-available digital making for children, both within the STEAM classroom and beyond. In particular, we are interested in expanding the reach of digital ...
Plan & Play: Supporting Intentional Media Use in Early Childhood
IDC '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children

Parental controls allow parents to set limits on children's use of technology, but prior work suggests that controlling children alone is unlikely to foster the development of healthy media habits. We took elements from evidence-based preschool ...
Investigating the Effects of Interactive Features for Preschool Television Programming
IDC '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children

As children begin to watch more television programming on systems that allow for interaction, such as tablets and videogame systems, there are different opportunities to engage them. For example, the traditional pseudo-interactive features that cue ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

IDC '24: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference

June 2024

1049 pages

ISBN:9798400704420

DOI:10.1145/3628516

Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 June 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

IDC '24

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

IDC '24: Interaction Design and Children

June 17 - 20, 2024

Delft, Netherlands

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 172 of 578 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
285
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)285
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)91

Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Underwood LBall THodges SRubegni Ede Halleux PFinney J(2024)MicroCode: live, portable programming for children via roboticsAdjunct Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3672539.3686334(1-3)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3672539.3686334

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents