International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcci

Augmented Reality and programming education: A systematic review

∗
Anastasios Theodoropoulos , George Lepouras
HCI-VR Lab, University of Peloponnese, Greece

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years, Augmented Reality (AR) usage in the learning process has been growing. AR tools and
Received 1 December 2020 environments lead to a variety of positive outcomes and impacts for educational purposes. Similarly, AR
Received in revised form 23 May 2021 is changing the learning process in the Computer Science (CS) Education domain. There are numerous
Accepted 24 May 2021
studies that adopt the immersive AR technology in order to improve Computational Thinking (CT)
Available online 6 June 2021
or programming skills, in several contexts. However, there are not sufficient studies that analyze the
Keywords: meaningful characteristics or the advantages and disadvantages of AR in the field. In order to better
Augmented Reality (AR) understand the impact of AR in programming education we performed a systematic literature review.
Programming learning This review analyzes 31 studies in the field. It explores the evolution of this developing technology,
Coding learning the challenges and issues that AR offers and discusses how this work can benefit student learning and
CS education further research.
Review study © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Background.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. AR technology features ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2. AR as a medium with children ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1. Review questions ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2. Search strategy and data collection..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.3. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.4. Quality assessment ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.5. Coding scheme - data extraction strategy .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
4. Results.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
5. Discussion............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
5.1. Positive and negative impacts of AR (RQ1) ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
5.1.1. Children engagement & experiences with AR .................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1.2. Motivation impacts & AR games .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1.3. Pedagogical aspects & learning gains .................................................................................................................................................. 10
5.1.4. Direct feedback & teachers’ access to activities ................................................................................................................................. 10
5.1.5. Prior programming knowledge & interest towards coding .............................................................................................................. 10
5.1.6. Collaborative & creative environments ............................................................................................................................................... 10
5.1.7. Negative effects/considerations ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
5.1.8. RQ1 synopsis-implication ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2. Learner interaction in AR based environments (RQ2) ...................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2.1. AR functionality ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2.2. AR architecture and implementation................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2.3. Children interaction with AR environments ....................................................................................................................................... 12
5.2.4. RQ2 synopsis-implication ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12
5.3. Learning concepts and processes of AR and programming (RQ3)................................................................................................................... 12
5.3.1. Programming concepts and languages ................................................................................................................................................ 12

∗ Correspondence to: HCI-VR Lab, Department of Informatics & Telecommunications, University of Peloponnese, Tripolis, Greece.
E-mail address: ttheodor@uop.gr (A. Theodoropoulos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100335
2212-8689/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335

5.3.2. Pedagogical processes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12

5.3.3. Cognitive load, mental methods........................................................................................................................................................... 13
5.3.4. Additional factors ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
5.3.5. AR as a medium with children............................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.3.6. RQ3 synopsis-implication ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
5.4. Challenges to the use of AR in CS education ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
6. Limitations - threads to validity....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Declaration of competing interest.................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
References ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

studies based on specific age-ranges, we focus on AR interven-

1. Introduction
Learning programming is considered a skill that can enhance
and encourage students’ potential in the 21st century. World-
wide, researchers, curriculum designers and educators use sev-
eral programming environments and tools (de Paula, Burn, Noss,
& Valente, 2018; Gomes, Falcão, & Tedesco, 2018; Katterfeldt,
Cukurova, Spikol, & Cuartielles, 2018; Papavlasopoulou, Sharma,
& Giannakos, 2018), in order to implement the essential nowa-
days skills of Computational Thinking (CT) in education. However,
acquiring CT skills is a dynamic process and requires continuous
engagement from students. Learners have to write code and find
ways to apply instructions and present them in order to solve
a problem and not simply use a programming tool or environ-
ment (Wing, 2006). Furthermore, problem-solving skills are not
something that can be mastered by any child within limited time
or under the same circumstances, since they have to learn and
think about the consequences of their actions. Especially, when it
comes to young children, immersive and engaging ways to enrich
interactions with computational tools should be considered (Yu
& Roque, 2019). This takes time, planning and dedication, which
school time and place sometimes do not allow. Although, children
use computers fluently, they continue to face difficulties in CS ed-
ucation. Previous research (Buitrago Flórez et al., 2017) indicates
that these challenges are still present and that students appear to
be becoming less involved in programming.
Emerging and engaging interfaces that can enrich children’s
interactions can be used such us Augmented Reality (AR) tools (Yu
& Roque, 2019). AR technology results in a number of positive
outcomes and impacts for educational purposes. There are several
works that utilize AR tools and environments in order to develop
CT skills or to acquire programming knowledges, in a variety of
contexts (e.g. Chung and Hsiao (2020), Dass, Kim, Ford, Agarwal,
and (Polo) Chau (2018), Sittiyuno and Chaipah (2019)). Though,
there are not sufficient studies that analyze the meaningful char-
acteristics or the advantages and disadvantages of AR in the field.
The literature on the subject is also considered to be scattered
and lacking in coherence. This absence is seen as a barrier to the
advancement in the identification of the influence of AR, in the
creation of more successful approaches and in the proposal of
guidelines of how to best use them in CS education.
Considering the aforementioned findings, this study researches
ways to effectively use AR in CS education through a systematic
review of AR in the learning process of programming. The review
aims to examine the literature on AR studies with programming-
coding interventions, especially with respect to learning, skills,
motivation and engagement. As far as we know through lit-
erature, there are no systematic reviews that investigate the
intersection of AR and programming learning in children level. A
recent study (Larson & Chambers, 2020) by Larson and Chambers,
presents a literature review on the use of AR-based methods in
the computer programming classroom. This work focus solely
on higher education, and although we do not exclude previous
2
tions for learning purposes with children. Our study investigates
how AR can be utilized to benefit children programming learning
and we review the range of indicators and measures used in
previous empirical research papers, together with methodological
limitations and suggestions for further work in this field. Fur-
thermore this paper discusses recent data about the beneficial
influences and effects of AR in programming learning, or also the
limitations that prohibit this technology from further adoption.
Positively, there are many studies incorporating AR tools within
CS education. Furthermore, a study by Fernando Batista, Thiry,
Queiroz Gonçalves, and Fernandes (2020), discusses the usage of
AR, VR and MR technologies in the learning process of CS, but
apart from the fact that it is a more general review, it also focuses
on the application of these technologies and how they allow
reproducing a virtual environment in CS domain (in general). We
distinguish this review by focusing on the results that come out
from previous papers with AR usage for learning programming
(and not on just categorizing these papers). This differentiation
helped us to synthesize the findings of the studies and to evaluate
and view these results in a meaningful way.
Findings show that AR settings are connected to a variety of
perceptual, cognitive and motivational impacts and outcomes.
The analysis discusses gaps and offers a basis for future field
studies. Consequently, this review may be useful for students,
schoolteachers, policymakers, curriculum designers and AR tech-
nology developers. It can also provide guidance to researchers
and practitioners and enhance further research on the field for
academics.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The
related work section offers a brief introduction of learning ex-
periences with AR on education and more specifically on pro-
gramming learning. The methodology section explains the pro-
tocol for the execution of this study. A quantitative as well as
qualitative analysis of the chosen studies is provided in the find-
ings and discussion sections. Finally, the conclusion, sets out
recommendations for future studies based on existing study gaps.
2. Background
This section presents basic aspects of the AR technology and
common information around its practice as a medium in educa-
tional settings.
2.1. AR technology features
AR can be defined as the ability to overlay computer graph-
ics onto the real world, by adding layers of digital information
to the physical environment (Billinghurst, 2002). According to
Azuma (1997), AR is a variation of Virtual Reality (VR) and its
main feature is that it allows the user to combine virtual in-
formation with physical objects. An AR environment has three
key-characteristics (Azuma, 1997): (i) it combines real and virtual
content, (ii) it offers interactivity in real time and, (iii) it renders
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
in 3D. In another widely accepted study, by Milgram and Kishino
(1994), the concept of Mixed Reality (MR) continuum was intro-
duced, where at the one end of the continuum lies the reality and
at the other end lies the VR (Fig. 1). Dissimilar to VR, AR does not
create the complete artificial worlds to replace existing ones with
virtual ones. AR appears in direct view of an existing environment
and augments it with graphics, videos and sounds. Moreover,
Augmented Virtuality (Milgram & Kishino, 1994) (Fig. 1), refers
to augmentation of the virtual world with real objects.
Technologically, AR information is conveyed through a variety
of medium e.g., screens, mobile devices, cameras, headsets and
glasses. In general, an AR application may involve tools like real-
time localization and mapping and depth tracking (e.g. sensor
data that calculates the distance to the objects), and the following
components (Carmigniani et al., 2011):
• cameras (able to track the user movement for merging the
virtual objects),
• sensors (e.g., geospatial datum with gyroscope, compass and
accelerometer),
• processing (for graphics, animation and merging of images),
• projections (the surface to project virtual elements to the
user),
• reflection (the mean that the user can see the virtual objects
overlaying to the physical world).
As, for the registration method (the procedure that merges virtual
objects with real world images, Fig. 2) the following approaches
are used (Katiyar, Kalra, & Garg, 2015; Poghosyan, 2018):
• marker-based (image recognition-based, requires a special
visual object and a camera to scan it, e.g., a printed QR code
or special signs or even a set of object’s photos),
• marker-less (location-based or position-based, provides data
based on user’s location utilizing sensors like GPS, gyro-
scope, compass and accelerometer),
• projection-based (projecting synthetic light to physical sur-
faces and in some cases allows interaction with it),
• superimposition-based (replaces the real view with an aug-
mented, it can be fully or partly).
Furthermore, the manipulation in virtual worlds such as AR
applications can be: (a) Direct (Mine, 1995): The user manipu-
lates the virtual augmentations in the same way as in the real
world, (b) Physical handling (Mine, 1995): The user manipulates
the virtual augmentations through physical devices (e.g. buttons,
switches and feedback devices, which allow the user to feel the
physical properties of the virtual), (c) Virtual handling (Mine,
1995): The user manipulates the virtual augmentations through
virtual representations of physical feedback devices (e.g. virtual
buttons that can be pressed in the virtual world), and (d) Repre-
sentation handling (Sherman & Craig, 2018): The user commands
a virtual character, which executes actions on behalf of the user
in the virtual world.
Although most current AR applications are one-user experi-
ences, they can be used with more than one participants
(Billinghurst, Kato, & Myojin, 2009; López-Faican & Jaen, 2020).
In a sense, any AR application that is being executed in a place
where several people are located, it is an experience for many,
by taking into account that only one user may interact with the
application and the rest may only interact with the real world.
2.2. AR as a medium with children
AR technology can be used effectively with children, both for
entertainment and for learning purposes. Today’s children are
growing up with exceptional access to information and media
via several digital mediums and the Internet. Additionally, the
3
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
video game industry has incorporated AR technology in their
design, with new potential and implications for children (Das,
Zhu, McLaughlin, Bilgrami, & Milanaik, 2017). It is easier for kids
to interact with a virtual world themselves, than simply watching
an avatar move across a screen. Actually, more children than
ever are learning how to use AR tech in their everyday lives by
playing games (López-Faican & Jaen, 2020). AR is a technology
that superposes complex digital content in the physical environ-
ment, thereby providing children with a tangible and immersive
viewpoint (Di Serio, Ibáñez, & Kloos, 2013; Wu, Hwang, Yang, &
Chen, 2018), while also visualizing ideas or artifacts that are not
real visible.
In educational settings, AR learning interactions have been
investigated thoroughly, like in mathematics (Bujak et al., 2013),
science (Cheng & Tsai, 2013) or STEM related fields (Ibáñez &
Delgado-Kloos, 2018). Combining physical and virtual objects,
provides children with immersive and interactive experiences
(Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). AR technology allows them to
participate in authentic learning experiences and explore real en-
vironments with many positive results, especially for young ages
(Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Wu et al., 2013). From a learn-
ing perspective, AR can motivate and help understanding and
strengthen the learner’s experiences in the real world by us-
ing additional visual senses (Bujak et al., 2013; Cheng & Tsai,
2013; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018). It can also include multiple
immersion levels and engagement that can help children par-
ticipate in the learning process (Saadon, Ahmad, Pee, & Hanapi,
2020). With AR, they can take an active part in the lesson and
experiment with real-time visualizations, observing the dynamic
properties of the studied phenomenon at their own pace (Akçayır,
Akçayır, Pektaş, & Ocak, 2016).
However, AR is still a novelty and thus, its usage in the class-
room is usually restricted (Jesionkowska, Wild, & Deval, 2020). A
systematic review on AR in STEM learning, reveals that few AR
works provide students with assistance in carrying out learning
activities (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018). Most previous studies,
evaluate the effects of the AR medium in fostering students’
conceptual understanding (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018) and
learning motivation (Khan, Johnston, & Ophoff, 2019; Saadon
et al., 2020). Nevertheless, AR educational activities should de-
signed carefully, focusing on pedagogical and learning theories
since the educational value of AR are not solely based on its
features (Nincarean, Alia, Halim, & Rahman, 2013).
Next, we present our research method and then our results,
examining whether the AR medium can be used in an efficient
and engaging way, as a means of learning programming especially
with children.
3. Methodology
As stated in above, this work aims to perform a Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) in order to detect, assess and under-
stand relevant researches in the field of programming education
with AR. Our research methodology is based on the most gener-
ally accepted recommendations for SLR, by Kitchenham, Budgen,
and Brereton (2015). For optimal search results, we followed a
quasi-gold standard-based search refinement approach according
to SLR: Initially, we recognized the need for this review, then
we established the review procedure, next we conducted auto-
mated searches, then we evaluated the accuracy of the discovered
studies and finally we performed the extraction of data.
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
Fig. 1. Simplified representation of Reality-Virtuality Continuum, by Milgram and Kishino (1994).
Fig. 2. Examples of different AR registration methods. See Sittiyuno and Chaipah (2019); Poghosyan (2018).
3.1. Review questions
Since this study is a systematic review, our review/research
questions focus on the results of the papers (and not on catego-
rizing papers). We have identified the following three target sub-
areas in our review, in order to highlight the existing evidence,
gaps and future paths in the field:
RQ1: To what extent can the AR technology be used as an
effective method/tool to learn programming in CS education?
Rationale: Highlight the positive or negative impacts and ef-
fects of the inclusion of AR in CS education, and present ways
that it is achievable in interventions with children.
RQ2: How can we make usage of AR technology to support CS
and programming learning?
Rationale: Highlight the elements with which the children/
learners interact in an AR based environment and present im-
plications for research and practice and present functionality,
architecture and tools for AR development.
RQ3: What are the learning processes and gains of using AR
to teach and learn programming?
Rationale: Explore the learning processes (cognitive and/or
pedagogical) that occur most through the development of stu-
dents’ learning outcomes between the beginning and the end
of the intervention with AR activities and present programming
concepts and languages taught. Moreover, identify additional fac-
tors (e.g., the level of education) that affect the learning process.
The actions carried out in each step of this literature review
are listed below.
3.2. Search strategy and data collection
Initially, generic terms were used in order to ensure that the
analysis covered most of the related research papers. ‘‘Augmented
4
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
Reality’’ and ‘‘Programming’’ were the key search words. In order
to finalize our the search string (Table 1), we used the following
steps described in Kitchenham et al. (2015) :
• Find major terms from the questions by identifying the main
concepts.
• Identify alternative spellings and synonyms for major terms.
• Check the keywords in any relevant papers.
• Boolean OR usage to add alternatives spellings and syn-
onyms.
• Boolean AND usage to link the major terms.
To gather high-quality data, we searched in the following on-
line bibliographic databases: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore,
Springer Connect, Science Direct, ERIC and Wiley Online. In ad-
dition, we looked independently in key educational papers and
conferences in the fields of Computing Educations and CS Educa-
tion, including: Computers and Education (Elsevier), International
Child–Computer Interaction Journal (Elsevier), ACM Transactions
on Computing Education (TOCE), ACM’s Conference on CS Educa-
tion (SIGCSE), ACM’s Conference on Innovation and Technology
in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE), ACM’s Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (SIGCHI) and ACM’s Work-
shop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE).
3.3. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion
The data extraction process took place in three stages: (1)
Initially, a primary review was carried out to collect data types
based on standard information and inclusion–exclusion criteria.
To identify important articles, the search results were carefully
checked based on the paper’s title, summary, keywords and con-
clusions. (2) A more careful review was then carried out over each
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335

Table 1
Search procedure performed in databases.
Database Search terms protocol Additional information
ACM Digital Library [[Abstract: ‘‘augmented reality’’] OR [Abstract: AR]] AND – searched in the ACM Full-Text
[[Abstract: programming] OR [Abstract: coding] OR Collection
[Abstract: ‘‘computational thinking’’]] AND [[Abstract: – search in the field ‘‘Abstract’’
learning] OR [Abstract: teaching] OR [Abstract: learn] OR – search in all publication dates
[Abstract: teach]] – 68 initial results
IEEE Xplore ((‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘augmented reality’’ AND – search in the field ‘‘Abstract’’
(‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘programming’’ OR ‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘coding’’ OR – search in all publication dates
‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘computational thinking’’) AND – 51 initial results
(‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘teach’’ OR ‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘teaching’’ OR
‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘learning’’ OR ‘‘Abstract’’:‘‘learn’’)))
ScienceDirect ‘‘augmented reality’’ AND (coding OR programming OR – search in the fields ‘‘Title’’, ‘‘abstract’’
‘‘computational thinking’’) AND (teaching OR learning OR or ‘‘author-specified keywords’’
teach OR learn) – search in all publication dates
– 42 initial results
Springer Link ‘‘augmented reality’’ NEAR (programming OR coding OR – Search in all fields
‘‘computational thinking’’) NEAR (teaching OR learning OR – search for all content types
teach OR learn) – search in all publication dates
– 43 initial results
ERIC ‘‘augmented reality’’ AND (programming OR coding OR – search in all fields
‘‘computational thinking’’) AND (teaching OR learning OR – full text available
teach OR learn) – search in all publication dates
– 22 initial results
Wiley Online Library ‘‘’’augmented reality‘‘’’ in Abstract AND ‘‘programming OR – search in the field ‘‘Abstract’’
coding’’ in Abstract AND ‘‘learning OR teaching OR teach – search for articles
OR learn ’’ in Abstract – search in all publication dates
– 20 initial results

Table 2 the methodology followed by the chosen studies as well as their

Extracted primary studies results.
methodological rigor and the parameters were:
Type Data
Standard details Title, Authors, Publication year, Journal or 1. How well was the research conducted in terms of design
Conference and structure?
name, Publisher, Paper Type, Number of 2. Is the research methodology transparently reported (par-
Citations, Average Citations per year, Date of
Extraction
ticipants, instruments, data collection and analysis)?
3. How clear and consistent have the relations between re-
Inclusion & Exclusion 1. Available online
Criteria 2. Described activities irrelevant with AR sults, analysis and conclusions been?
3. Did not combine AR with programming 4. How generalizable are the findings of the study and to what
learning or CT acquiring degree would be applicable across different stakeholders
4. Learning-Educational Intervention
5. Empirical research or AR technology
(e.g., researchers, educators, developers)?
presentation In addition, the chosen works, were evaluated as follows:
6. Did not follow well-structured research 5. Does the research design enable us to find relevant infor-
methods
mation to answer RQs of this study?
7. Inadequate evaluation methods
8. Insufficient data or unclear findings
The assessment was carried out independently by two
9. Language
10. Peer-reviewed researchers, and each paper was evaluated on a scale of 1 to 3
Research Questions Extent to which each review question is
(low, moderate and high). In cases where the ratings varied from
addressed two points, the assessment process was conducted by a third
(RQ1, RQ2, RQ3) researcher and the two biggest scores were eventually adopted.
Answers to research’s Usage of AR in teaching and learning, effects By applying scores on each of the five factors, the cumulative
purpose of AR technology, benefits reported, challenges weight of proof (woe) for each publication was considered. The
reported
ratings ranged from 5 to 15, with a low of 5 and a high of 15.
In Fig. 3, the histogram indicates the apparent differences in
the adopted threshold ratings. Since they have been published in
of the papers to gather the level of the research issue, answers scientific peer-reviewed conferences and journals, most studies
to research questions and basic AR and programming learning obtained a good ranking, which was expected. For the selected
related data. (3) Finally, in the third round of review, we defined articles, the mean ranking was 11.25.
papers that contributed positively to the field through a full-
text analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria as
presented in Table 2. 3.5. Coding scheme - data extraction strategy

3.4. Quality assessment
We conducted a quality assessment process based on selected
criteria adapted from Kitchenham et al. (2015) to determine the
consistency of the selected studies. The procedure reflected on
5
For each selected study, basic information was extracted for
references, such as authors name, paper title, type of publication,
year of publication and publisher. In addition, based on RQ1, RQ2
and RQ3, which characterize the usage of AR in the educational
context of CS, we extracted the features shown at Table 3.
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335

Fig. 3. Histogram of the ratings for quality assessment of included articles.

Fig. 4. Flowchart with the search method, indicating the quantity of papers (a study may be excluded for many reasons).

Table 3
The coding scheme used during the data extraction process.
Feature Description
Research Purpose what is intended to be achieved by employing AR technology in the learning process of programming

Technology - Tools indicates technologies and tools used in the design and presentation of the AR environment e.g., a framework or a library,
such as Unity3D and Vuforia

Application Type indicates the form of user interaction with the AR environment e.g., game or simulator

Augmented Functionality highlights the main feature of the AR technology employed e.g., identify if the environment is immersive or uses markers

Educational Intervention characterizes the strategies used to provide information and how it is absorbed by learners interacting with AR
(instructional strategies and techniques)

Learning Gains - Effects identifies learning effects observed or reported by learners e.g., engagement, increased motivation and performance

Programming Course - Subject identifies the programming concepts in which the research was applied

Research Design identifies the means that were used to evaluate the AR intervention

Participants reports the participants that used AR applications by educational level e.g., primary education students

6
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
Fig. 5. List of publication venues.
4. Results
After searching in the digital databases/libraries, 246 scientific
publications were found to match the searching terms. Then, the
duplicates were removed and therefore continued 236 works. The
next step in this process was to operate filters and the first one
(screening) was about reading the title, abstract, and keywords,
where it concluded into 59 selected. During the screening filter-
phase the inter-rater reliability revealed strong agreement in the
field of title (κ = 53.7%), abstract (κ = 61.2%) and full-text (κ
= 54.9%). During the second phase (eligibility) of the filtering
process, the 59 papers were screened based on their full-text and
this concluded to 36 studies. Then, applying the exclusion criteria,
7 more works were removed and 29 papers were accepted for the
data extraction stage. Finally, 2 more papers were added via the
snowball process (in selected venues and journals as presented
above), so 31 selected works were included in the final list. The
selection and filtering process are presented in Fig. 4. The selected
works are listed in Table 4.
Most works were published in conference proceedings n = 24
(77,42%), while only n = 7 (22,58%) were published in
peer-reviewed journals. They come from multiple research do-
mains, including but not limited to educational technologies
(e.g., R08, R09, R31), tangibles (e.g., R01, R02, R07, R22), serious
games (e.g., R14, R19, R22, R29), HCI-user experience (e.g., R11,
R18) and educational robotics (e.g., R05, R09). Fig. 5 presents the
detailed list of publication venues. Most of them appeared in the
ACM IDC conference proceedings (n = 4).
The analysis indicates that there was a large increase in num-
ber of publications after 2018 (Fig. 6). It is important to mention
7
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
here, that we searched the databases (Table 1), in every publi-
cation date and not in a specific range. Not surprisingly the first
publication used in our review was in Radu and MacIntyre (2009),
while most studies (n = 18) were published during 2019 and
2020. AR technology in CS education is a quite new approach, but
the distribution of the selected works (Fig. 6) shows a growing
interest in using AR to augment coding concepts.
The largest number of studies (n = 23) included an experimen-
tal situation in order to test the AR tools (Table 5). There are a few
studies (n = 8) that aim to test AR with users in a future work
and they just presented AR technology without experimental
research.
5. Discussion
This section presents the answers to the review questions of
this study, based on the 31 extracted articles (Table 2).
5.1. Positive and negative impacts of AR (RQ1)
In order to comprehend the role of AR in CS Education and its
impacts, we found that AR technology clearly has a number of
positive effects in programming learning (Table 8). This section
highlights these effects as well the negative impacts (Table 9) of
the inclusion of AR in CS education. Table 7 presents the mea-
surements of the empirical/experimental studies and the most
common outcomes for employing AR activities in the selected 31
studies. Most of them measured motivation and engagement (n
= 14) and user experience concepts (n = 14) of students through
the AR activities. Moreover, the learners’ performance or other
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335

Table 4
Selected works for this review.

ID Research Purpose/AR intervention Reference

R01 AR-Maze, a novel tangible programming tool using Augmented Reality Jin, Wang, Deng,
Zheng, and Chiu
(2018)
R02 tangible programming tool designed to help children learn Depth First Search algorithm Deng, Wang, Jin, and
Sun (2019)
R03 an experiment of augmentation of primitive data types of C programming language in mobile platform Rahman, Rahman,
Chowdhury, and
Zaman (2020)
R04 evaluated two interactive AR coding environments: a head-mounted AR with Microsoft HoloLens and a Dass et al. (2018)
mobile AR with ARKit on an iPhone
R05 CS concept of event-handling by integrating AR into activities with the Thymio robot Magnenat, Ben-Ari,
Klinger, and Sumner
(2015)
R06 StoryMakAR, an integrated AR environment that brings stories to life Glenn, Ipsita,
Carithers, Peppler,
and Ramani (2020)
R07 MR coding learning platform with a physical user-configurable coding game board Kim et al. (2019)
R08 AR/TUI-supported debugging-teaching prototype with physical markers Resnyansky,
Billinghurst, and Dey
(2019)
R09 a deep learning recommendation system was developed, which includes AR technology Lin and Chen (2020)
R10 AR Bot, an AR based virtual educational robotics learning system, which aims to support the learning Ou Yang (2019)
activities of CT and STEM
R11 a mobile AR-enabled that can contextualize a programming debugging task and support program editing & Chung and Hsiao
CT learning (2020)
R12 an AR app that further facilitates the collaborative learning activity by bringing the analogy to life for parallel Abernethy, Sinnen,
programming Adams, De Ruvo, and
Giacaman (2018)
R13 AR environment, that helps students to learn OpenGL programming in a visual and interactive way Teng and Chen (2012)
R14 ARCode, a game-based learning system that shows how each command works by using AR animations, and Sittiyuno and Chaipah
focuses on the logical order of commands (2019)
R15 ShapeMaker utilizes a table-based tactile interface that bridges physical actions with digital results, allowing Masso and Grace
players to learn basic concepts in programming by playing a card game (2011)
R16 AST[AR] is an AR based software application that teaches data structures with the help of Abstract Syntax Agrahari and
Trees Chimalakonda (2020)
R17 EPRA, a series of collaborative experiences carried out using hypermedia educational material that includes Mesia, Sanz, and
AR activities to teach control structures Gorga (2016)
R18 active Learning for the teaching of STEAM subjects, using a format where students are tasked with building Jesionkowska et al.
an AR application as part of their learning (2020)
R19 AR enhanced learning system that offers visual representation and interactivity to help students learn Teng, Chen, and Chen
programming for 3D applications (2018)
R20 AR and ARIS, an interactive storytelling programming platform, with mobile games, to share stories and Litts, Lewis, and
experiences about local environmental or civic issues Mortensen (2020)
R21 learning activities undertaken with an AR tool, based on the principles of game theory, in the subject of Del Bosque, Martinez,
structured programming and Torres (2015)
R22 compared a tangible AR game with the same game in an unplugged version, to examine the effect of the Gardeli and Vosinakis
interface on student motivation, effectiveness and teaching practice (2018)
R23 RoboTIC, a serious game with AR that uses a novel set of visual metaphors derived from a notation of roads Schez-Sobrino,
and traffic signs Vallejo, Glez-Morcillo,
Redondo, and
Castro-Schez (2020a)
R24 AR mobile application to teach mobile programming at an undergraduate level and features a game-based Kazanidis, Tsinakos,
collaborative learning scenario and Lytridis (2017)
R25 COLLECE-2.0. introduces a 2-D graphic notation to a 3-D environment, which represents an improvement to a Schez-Sobrino et al.
complete platform for collaborative programming learning with AR (2020b)
R26 CodeCubes, a hybrid interface that combines physical paper cubes with AR and intends to promote CT Cleto, Moura, Ferreira,
through exploration and experimentation and Sylla (2018)
R27 In order to find out if the students were motivated to use CodeCubes, it was compared with three other Cleto, Sylla, Ferreira,
programming activities that the participants usually carry out in a robotics club and Moura (2019)

(continued on next page)

8
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335

Table 4 (continued).
ID Research Purpose/AR intervention Reference
R28 AR Scratch, is an AR authoring environment designed for children Radu and MacIntyre
(2009)
R29 Code Bits, a paper based tangible CT toolkit that focuses upon very trivial concepts of programming, with AR Goyal, Vijay, Monga,
in the mobile version and Kalita (2016)
R30 ARQuest, a collaborative mobile game for developing CT skills for primary school students. The game Gardeli and Vosinakis
combines a physical board and tangible tokens with animated 3D content (2019)
R31 AR android application that tracks physical tiles and creates 3D maps, also giving a character that can be da Silva Esteves,
programmed to walk on the created map, simulating a programming toy Santana, and Lyra
(2019)

Fig. 6. Distribution of papers per year.

Table 5 Table 7
Research design in the selected studies. Measurements used in the selected studies.
Research design References Measurements References
True experiment R05, R06, R09, R11, R14, R19, R22 Motivation, Engagement R01, R04, R11, R14, R18, R19, R20, R22,
Quasi-experiment R01, R02, R16, R18, R25 R23, R24, R27, R28, R30, R31
Repeated-measures R04, R15, R17, R20, R21, R23, R24, R27, UX (satisfaction, R04, R06, R11, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18,
R28, R30, R31 enjoyment), Usability R19, R23, R25, R28, R30, R31
Nonexperimental research R03, R07, R08, R10, R12, R13, R26, R29 Pedagogical aspects R02, R04, R05, R09, R11, R14, R19, R21,
R22, R25, R31
Soft skills R07, R09, R11, R12, R14, R17, R18, R20,
Table 6
R22, R24, R25
Instruments used in the selected studies.
Research design References
Observations (audio, R01, R02, R06, R11, R20, R22, R27, R28, R31
notes, video etc.) approach. Though AR interventions students learn programming
Interviews, Discussion R11, R15, R18, R20, R22, R24 concepts in a fun and enjoyable way, like in AR-Maze (R01),
Survey, Questionnaires, R02, R05, R06, R09, R11, R14, R16, R17, where young children created programs by positioning program-
Assessment R18, R19, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25, R30, R31 ming blocks and then they had to debug or execute their code
Data logs R04, R05, R06, R11, R14, R19, R25, R30, R31 with a mobile device in a tangible environment. Learners may
AR tool presentation R03, R07, R08, R10, R12, R13, R26, R29 carry out AR tasks enthusiastically like in R27 with CodeCubes,
a hybrid interface that combines AR with physical paper cubes.
Besides satisfaction and enjoyment, children have positive per-
ceptions in terms of usability with AR environments. For example,
pedagogical aspects were measured in many cases (n = 11) and
in R19 students interacted with visual representations in order to
also soft skills like creativity and critical thinking (n = 11).
learn programming for 3D applications. Through a within-subject
In addition, multiple methods, usually in conjunction, were
experiment, they reported better learning efficiency, usability,
used by researchers of the chosen works, to gather information
and determine the result of the AR workshops/activities: a total flow experience and usage, by incorporating AR than a usual sys-
of n = 17 experiments used questionnaires, n = 9 log reports, n = tem. Likewise, in studies R14 and R17 learners found AR systems
9 observations and n = 6 interviews (Table 6). very useful and reported high levels of satisfaction. They felt that
the AR activities allowed them to understand the topic better
5.1.1. Children engagement & experiences with AR while being motivated by interacting with real objects.
In most studies (n = 19), learners assumed that AR technology
was enjoyable and enhanced their learning experiences (Table 8). 5.1.2. Motivation impacts & AR games
For example, R04 and R18 used AR to help students learn coding As it was expected, games are used as a medium in several
more easily and with more fun as an immersive and intuitive AR learning interventions (n = 12). Coding through AR games, can
9
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
Table 8
Positive impacts.
Achievable extend References
Engagement, fun/enjoyable R01, R04, R06, R11, R14, R15, R16, R17,
intervention R18, R19, R20, R22, R23, R24, R25, R27,
R28, R30, R31
Motivation impacts, games R01, R02, R07, R08, R14, R16, R20, R21,
R22, R23, R24, R30
Learning gains R02, R04, R05, R09, R11, R14, R19, R21,
R22, R25, R31
Collaboration R11, R12, R14, R17, R18, R22, R24, R25
Creativity R07, R09, R18, R20
Direct feedback R02, R07, R22
incorporate numerous elements and approaches to motivate chil-
dren, like the interactive scenario, the narrative and the players’
control. In study R20, students practiced programming through
designing mobile games about local environmental or civic issues
using the AR interactive storytelling programming platform called
ARIS. Moreover, games are especially motivating to younger ages
e.g., in study R30, with the ARQuest that develops CT skills to
primary school students. The game combines a physical board
and tangible tokens with animated 3D content and children use
them to create and solve challenges in a gamified environment,
which results high level of motivation. In addition, with AR games
the learners may overcome difficulties that coding consumes, like
the ARCode game in study R14, which increases motivation and
reduces the fear of learning coding, by using history concepts
and rewards. AR games can also give to the children the ability
to display the syntax behind their acts without pressuring them
to use it as part of gameplay, as with the ShapeMaker game,
in study R15, that utilizes a table-based tactile interface which
bridges physical actions with digital results, allowing players to
learn basic programming concepts by playing a card game. This
game simplifies coding concepts and introduces the fundamental
of programming in an intuitive setting where players are able to
obtain knowledge and accomplish objectives.
5.1.3. Pedagogical aspects & learning gains
However, the most important part of learning is to acquire
new understandings, knowledge, behaviors and skills. As shown,
AR environments can potentially promote student’s motivation
and engagement and therefore can lead to increased learning.
Many studies (n = 11) in this review provide evidence for learning
gains in terms of achievement and performance. In study R05, re-
searchers integrated AR into CS activities with the Thymio robot.
They compared students’ errors on different tasks and found that
those who used AR made fewer errors, and their performance im-
proved. In study R09, students used a learning system to explore
the impact on the learning effectiveness and CT. The experimental
group used deep learning recommendation with AR technology
and the control group used a non-deep learning system. Those
that used deep learning recommendation-based AR system were
significantly better in the part of CT ability, than those using
non-deep learning recommendation-based AR system. In another
study (R11), participants with the AR support made better quality
of programs with lower errors and less amount of code edits,
compared to those without the AR support. Similarly, in (R14) the
AR treatment group had significantly improved scores.
Also, in some works the ability to understand the logical
connection between ideas (critical thinking) is enhanced through
AR activities. In study R09, the students’ that used AR, performed
better with regards to logical computing, critical thinking, and
problem-solving skills. CT involves breaking down a complex
problem into pieces like In study R29, where children sensed
10
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
the sequence formation with AR coding activities. Moreover, the
fun and scaffolded learning, through AR challenges, can be very
helpful for children to better understand algorithmic thinking.
ARCode in study R14, focuses on the logical order of commands
and students can use an AR system with C++ programming,
where they have to logically order commands in order to solve
a problem. Similarly, in ARQuest (study R30), primary education
students, exposed in AR through a physical board and tangible
tokens with animated 3D content and solved challenges in a
gamified environment, improving their problem-solving skills. Fi-
nally, AR technology can bring effectively programming concepts
to young programmers and reduce the effort that with other
medium would be needed for the learners. Study R28 uses an AR
authoring environment designed for children, which minimizes
cognitive load by leveraging simple interaction metaphors.
5.1.4. Direct feedback & teachers’ access to activities
Another positive element that was revealed through some
studies (n = 3), is the direct feedback and the mastery in the
form of ranking with process indicators (points, level ups, badges
etc.). In study R02, children programmed by assembling physical
objects and received real-time feedback from the virtual scene.
The AR intervention used tangible programming cards to control
a search process, rather than control virtual characters directly.
Receiving direct feedback may also help students see their errors
or even make less. For example in study R05, learners used a
tablet over an image from a camera, which showed the location
of the Thymio robot when the event was executed and so they
made significantly fewer errors on the performed tasks. In study
R22, children used blocks through a game with a tangible AR ap-
proach and the direct feedback helped them to understand coding
easier. The same study, highlights also the aspect of controlling a
learning activity as an instructor. AR approaches can affect the
instructor’s role and provide helpful insights towards teaching
practice. Finally, study R07, features a physical user configurable
coding game-board, which allows the teachers to tailor the game
according to their instructional needs.
5.1.5. Prior programming knowledge & interest towards coding
In addition, AR can be used to learn coding without prior pro-
gramming experience, since it avoids the problem where learners
need a programming knowledge before they can start to de-
velop their own programs, e.g., studies R01, R02, R22, R23, R28,
R30 and R31. Another positive characteristic it that AR can in-
crease interest towards programming. In study R21, AR supported
the performance and motivation among students and influenced
them to continue with the rest of the course and they may
continue their studies by not failing their school year and their
career. Similarly, in RoboTIC (study R22), children’s motivation
and interest towards programming was increased after the AR
intervention.
5.1.6. Collaborative & creative environments
Moreover, we found evidence that AR can motivate collabo-
ration, social and communication skills and creativity. In study
R18 students worked in teams to develop a concept, reflected
this in pseudo-code and next they created a working application
prototype. This way of active learning, enhanced their learning
experience and made it enjoyable. In study R24, an AR mobile
application that featured a game-based collaborative learning
scenario was used. Similarly study R25, introduces the evolution
of a 2D graphic notation to a 3D environment and it represents
an improvement to a platform named COLLECE-2.0, which is built
for collaborative programming learning. Furthermore, many AR
activities are connected with creativity. For example, the MR
game in study R07 can trigger creativity among students, enabling
them to physically interact with a program. Also, in study R09, the
AI recommendation system that was developed, helped students
of the experimental group to be more creative.
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
Table 9
Negative impacts/considerations.
Non achievable extend References
Technology/hardware requirements R11, R31
Physical arrangements, interaction R01, R04
Learning considerations, feedback R02, R04, R24
5.1.7. Negative effects/considerations
On the other hand, there are a few considerations that may
lead to negative impacts of using AR technology for programming
learning. As reported in study R01, spatial limitations as well as
the physical arrangements should be considered in AR system
design. Specifically, the physical arrangement of the technology,
needs to be adjusted according to each user’s needs. Moreover,
in AR-maze (R01) the camera’s capture should be arranged for
programming blocks and position maps. This problem will be
enlarged exponentially as soon as the program’s complexity ex-
ceeds a certain threshold, which requires more space and a wider
interface for the experiment. A possible solution could be to use
other AR systems like projection.
Another issue may be the hardware needs and specifications.
In R31, researchers created an AR android application that tracks
physical tiles and creates 3D maps for the user. The application
simulates a programming toy, by programming a character to
walk on the created map. Authors state that the hardware limits
in this study, prevent the application from causing bigger impact
and notice in children, as such problems can create troubles in
usability. Also, in R04, a study that used holograms, students
stated that it was difficult to interact with the AR system since
gestures often required several tries before they got recognized.
Furthermore, the feedback for using AR should be properly pre-
sented. In study R01, young children are more likely to ignore
the feedback from plain text. Visual representations may provide
better understanding and engagement in littler ages.
Additionally, as many AR tasks are gamified, many elements of
the gameplay tend to be ignored, such as assessing and managing
the environment appropriately. A very critical topic to discuss,
is determining the gaming outcomes. AR gaming environment
should provide proper analytics. In study R24, the mobile AR
application was developed and used with undergraduate students
with a game-based collaborative learning scenario. However, it is
unclear how this game-based AR application can impact students’
motivation and performance in an applied course. Finally, as seen
in several studies (Table 7), ease of use, simplicity and clarity of
intent are essential factors that enable learners to efficiently use
AR. AR designers should take those factors into account when
designing innovative CS curriculum technology, and educators
should also aim to implement these variables into teaching to
improve learning efficiency and engage students to participate in
learning activities.
5.1.8. RQ1 synopsis-implication
AR tends to be a very popular immersive technology and
it can be an efficient and very stimulating technique to teach
programming concepts to students. However, in order to learn
programming, we should not generalize the positive or negative
elements of AR, as results may change under various circum-
stances, for example age or background. Consequently, AR tech-
nology has a great deal of potential to help with CS education,
especially in terms of motivation and engagement. The value of
student learning, however, is not only ensured by the easy use
of technology, since there are many variables that can affect the
outcome.
11
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
Table 10
AR functionality.
Functionality References
Marker-based R01, R06, R07, R08, R13, R14, R15, R17, R19, R20,
R21, R26
QR code R13, R15, R20, R21
Marker-less R03, R04, R09, R10, R11, R12, R16, R18, R23, R24,
R25, R28, R31
HMDs R02, R04, R07, R17, R18, R22, R24, R25
TUIs R01, R02, R07, R08, R22, R27, R29, R30
5.2. Learner interaction in AR based environments (RQ2)
For RQ2, we analyzed the AR functionality in the programming
activities of the selected studies, the AR architecture and tools
for AR development. Moreover, we highlight the elements with
which the children/learners interact in an AR based environment
and present implications for research and practice.
5.2.1. AR functionality
In terms of functionality (Table 10), many studies use markers
as images and objects in the real-world environment (e.g., a table,
a board or a cube) to trigger the appearance of the virtual content
(n = 12). For example, each surface of a physical object may have
an AR marker that represents a basic programming instruction or
movement like in study R26: e.g., start, go_forward, turn_right,
turn_left, go_back and end. Some studies use location maps as
markers like study R01, while others, require a functioning QR
code to implement AR (n = 4).
Moreover, the coding visualization can also be
displayed through AR devices like head-mounted displays (HMD)
(n = 8). Among the current HMDs, Microsoft HoloLens excels
thanks to the immersion and interaction potentials that it offers.
For these reasons, the HoloLens HMD has been selected as a
medium in many studies of this review (e.g., R02, R07, R17, R22,
R24).
Furthermore, tangible user interfaces (TUI) are used in numer-
ous studies (n = 8). TUIs have the potential to make it easier for
children to be involved in programming. For example study R22,
presents a tangible AR game for learning sequential instructions,
using mobile devices and 3D printed manipulatives. In the visual
game ARCat from study R02, tangible cards were used to help
learn coding more easily and with more fun. In study R04, authors
conducted a pilot study to evaluated two interactive AR coding
environments, a head-mounted AR and a mobile AR and found
that the tangible version was immersive and intuitive to use.
5.2.2. AR architecture and implementation
Beside the functionality and the visualization of AR, the de-
veloped architecture for implementation is independent. In terms
of tools and AR software development kits (Fig. 7), most studies
used Vuforia and Unity engines (e.g., R01, R03, R05, R08, R09, R14,
R22, R26, R29, R30). This was more or less expected, since Vuforia
SDK supports a variety of 2D and 3D target types and has many
different frame markers and image markers, while Unity3D can
be fully integrated with development engines such as Vuforia and
provides great functionality for the creation of interactive 3D con-
tent. However, it seems that there many options to develop AR
technologies in the field. Study R24 used the Aurasma platform in
order to recognize real world images and then overlay media on
top of them in the form of 3D models. Study R07, used the Apple’s
ARKit, to implement a real-time image tracking that establishes
a correspondence between real and virtual spaces while study
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
Fig. 7. Frequency word cloud with software used for AR development.
R16 generated HTML code to make use of the AR.js and A-
frame libraries for AR visualization. In study R13, researchers used
ARToolkit, for an AR-based OpenGL learning environment.
In addition, for 3D modeling and visualization, some studies
used Blender software for the (e.g., R03) and Autodesk 3ds Max
(e.g., R08). Finally, Android and Firebase SDKs were used in some
cases, in order to build the mobile applications (e.g., R09, R29).
In terms of creation and development, AR technology can be
used as an affordable learning environment. For example, in study
R22 researchers compared a tangible AR game with the same
game in an unplugged version and for that reason they built
a low-cost solution with Unity game engine and Vuforia SDK.
The application runs on Android mobile devices with printed 3D
elements as for the tangible part of the system. Another example,
is Shapemaker in study R15, with a table-based tactile interface
that bridges physical actions with digital results through two
game boards and for that reason researchers used a Plexiglas
table, a webcam and cards with QR Codes on their back.
5.2.3. Children interaction with AR environments
AR technology can bring immersive and engaging learning
experiences that combine virtual objects with the real world in a
naturally way. By just using a mobile camera, students can see the
physical world on their screen augmented with 3D virtual objects,
creating the perception that the objects really exist. Depending on
the activities, they can explore objects from different viewpoints
and interact with them using gestures and movement. Study R14,
provides a programming task and a set of paper markers. Each
marker in the set represents a coding command and the user
needs to scan the markers in a correct order to make the complete
program. In another example, in study R20, students designed
place-based mobile games and developed a storyboard of their
game idea within the platform ARIS (location-based AR). The sto-
ryboarding process included ideating with large paper, markers,
tape, and custom cards of various game objects. Sometimes, in
order to improve the detection of the objects and to minimize
possible recognition errors (e.g., in poor light conditions), the
markers may present text labels and patterns (e.g., R26, R27).
With AR, students may use visual representations to enhance
and concretize their analytical interpretation, which allows them
to imitate how programming languages work fundamentally
(study R03). They can physically interact with their code, provid-
ing real-time visual feedback that can support their understand-
ing. AR Scratch in study R28, reduces the complexity of learning
by simple interaction metaphors. Scratch content in this study is
mixed with physical objects. AR allows students to understand
computer-generated output as it is overlaid on real-world items,
for example, they can use their finger to play the Pong game and
interact with the virtual program.
12
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
Table 11
Coding concepts, tools and processes.
Programming Concepts References
CT, basic programming R01, R05, R06, R07, R11, R17, R18, R20,
concepts R21, R22, R23, R25, R26, R27, R28, R29,
R30, R31
Introductory programming R03, R09, R14, R19, R24
(e.g., C, C++)
Block-based programming R01, R06, R10, R22, R26, R28
Data structures, algorithms R02, R16
Debugging R04, R08, R11
Educational robotics R05, R10, R18
Parallel programming R12, R13
(e.g., OpenGL)
5.2.4. RQ2 synopsis-implication
The empirical researches provide valuable insights about the
elements with which the children interact in an AR based envi-
ronment and present implications for further research and prac-
tice. Moreover, it seems that the experts’ view is very important.
Experts can define the users behavior and assign the right inter-
actions to an AR environment. For example, in Shapemaker (study
R15), game designers and industry professionals played the game
and provided valuable feedback about the AR experience. Experts
can also be researchers and educators since it is also important for
the digital content to appear accurately placed in the real world.
In order to build an AR tool for usage in CS education, combined
expertise is necessary, including UX designers who will find the
best way on how users should interact and consume content, an
educational content team that will develop high quality learning
content, and an engineer team who will program the content to
do what it needs to do and appear where it needs to appear.
5.3. Learning concepts and processes of AR and programming (RQ3)
For RQ3 we explored the development of students’ learning
outcomes between the beginning and the end of the intervention
with AR activities and compared to other resources. Moreover,
we explored the learning processes (cognitive and pedagogical)
that occur most and Identified additional factors (e.g., the level of
education) that affect the learning process.
5.3.1. Programming concepts and languages
For that reason, Table 11, presents the most commonly used
programming concepts, tools and processes located in the se-
lected studies.
The majority (n = 18) of the selected studies, dealt with basic
programming concepts like variables, structured programming,
logical conditions, control structures, iteration etc. Some of them
(n = 6) used block-based programming while a few studies (n =
5) aimed at introductory programming e.g., the C programming
language. There was a small number of studies about educational
robotics (n = 3) and also some that approached programming
learning through the debugging process (n = 3). However, there
were some studies that focused on more difficult programming
concepts like data structures (n = 2) and parallel programming (n
= 2).
5.3.2. Pedagogical processes
Findings of the selected studies, reveal that AR environments
to learn programming are linked to a range of perceptual, cog-
nitive, behavioral, affective and motivational impacts and out-
comes. The most frequently occurring outcomes and impacts
seem to be knowledge acquisition/content understanding and
affective and motivational outcomes (Table 12).
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
Table 12
Pedagogical processes involved.
Effects References
Cognitive behavior R02, R07, R09, R16, R28
Learning outcomes, R02, R04, R05, R09, R11, R14, R19, R21,
knowledge acquired R22, R25, R31
Social interaction, R11, R12, R14, R17, R22, R24, R25
collaboration
Affective and motivational R01, R04, R11, R14, R18, R19, R20, R22,
R23, R24, R27, R28, R30, R31
Table 13
Categorization of selected studies based in Bloom’s taxonomy levels.
Category References
Remember - Understand R01, R04, R05, R11, R15, R16, R17, R18,
R19, R20, R24, R25, R30, R27
Apply - Analyze R02, R03, R12, R21, R22, R23, R29
Evaluate - Create R09, R28, R31
The studies reviewed were also classified into three broad
categories according to the type of cognitive outcomes measured
(Table 13), based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson &
Bloom, 2001). The first collection included research on simpli-
fied cognitive mechanisms that is remember and understand.
The second included studies dealing with more complex cogni-
tive processes involving application and analysis, while the third
category was about evaluation and creation.
The most common category was the ability to remember and
understand information (n = 14). These studies typically assessed
programming learning with pre-post questionnaires. However,
there were many studies that were categorized in the upper lev-
els of the aforementioned taxonomy. Six studies assisted students
to draw connections among programming concepts and use their
ideas in new situations, while three studies helped them to justify
their decisions in the programming AR activities.
5.3.3. Cognitive load, mental methods
As shown, AR and programming learning and can be increas-
ingly linked each other. Mental methods have to be translated
into coding in programming education (Winslow, 1996). AR in-
cludes developing mental abilities, as students need to over-
come computing challenges that mix physical and virtual in or-
der to learn code. The 31 papers presented here, offer insights
into the following: learning outcomes (programming knowledge),
cognitive outcomes (including declarative, procedural and situa-
tional knowledge) and affective outcomes (attitudes or beliefs)
(Table 12). Many works (n = 11) found statistically significant
learning outcomes between the beginning and the end of the
intervention with AR activities. Actually, AR has the potential to
help students find ways to learn. For example, in ARCat (study
R02), students Instead of using path directions mechanically, they
were provided with a simple search pattern that guided them
to program an automated search process. This procedure also
decreases the cognitive load of learning development. Some AR
tools, like AST[AR] (in study R16) were designed based on cogni-
tive load theory. The study used abstract syntax trees for teaching
data structures and the majority of the participants found the tool
exciting and enjoyable.
With AR, learners can physically interact with their code,
providing real-time visual feedback that can reduce cognitive
load (study R07). RoboTIC in study R23, uses AR to help pro-
gramming learning by using a novel set of visual metaphors
derived from a notation of roads and traffic signs. It uses a
layered architecture that is scalable enough to add new levels
and multimedia resources that make possible to address new
programming concepts and techniques.
13
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
Table 14
Sample population in the selected studies.
Age References
Preschool-Primary R01, R02, R22, R23, R28, R30, R31
Middle or High School R05, R11, R18, R20
Higher Education or Adults R04, R06, R09, R14, R15, R16, R17, R19,
R21, R24, R25
Mixed R06, R18
Unspecified R03, R07, R08, R10, R12, R13, R26, R29
Potential use with Children R01, R02, R05, R06, R07, R08, R10, R11,
R13, R18, R20, R22, R23, R26, R28, R29,
R30, R31
5.3.4. Additional factors
Another effect that comes with AR activities may be the social-
ization that arises by mixing users with different genders, classes
or intellectual levels in the same learning environment. The social
interactions through AR activities may involve aspects of collabo-
ration between users/learners in a cooperative or in a competitive
manner. Several studies reported positive effects on collaboration
through AR activities (R11, R12, R14, R17, R18, R22, R24 and R25,
shown also in Table 7). And AR environments compared to other
resources show a great potential to help CS education. In study
R11, participants with the AR support improved the consistency
of programs with lower errors and fewer code editing, compared
to those without the AR support. In study R06, through a within-
subjects study, StoryMakAR was compared with Wonderscope
with positive results. CodeCubes in study R27, was compared
with three other programming activities and could potentially in-
crease learning motivation and achievements. Yet, AR technology
can help develop systems from different learning backgrounds
like in study R09, with a deep learning recommendation system
which includes AR and learning theory.
5.3.5. AR as a medium with children
The majority of the AR tools presented in this review (n =
18), is designed or it shows potential use with/for children (Ta-
ble 14). 11 (7 preschool-primary, 4 middle-high school). This is
because, most studies and AR tools, in the long-term, they refer
to school education, either primary or secondary. However, many
AR-coding activities were tested with adults (n = 11), either from
university education or experts from the field. Many learners-
testers were young children aged 6–12 (n = 7), while there were
some cases that involved secondary education students (n = 4).
Findings may provide a basis for the analysis of the profile,
the motivations and the learning experience within an AR en-
vironment. Previous research shows that there is no important
difference in the learning process of children and adults with
differences being primarily inter-individual (Diamond & Kirkham,
2005; Kuhn & Pease, 2006), therefore findings could still be
relevant to children.
Finally, there is another important process that goes beyond
learning programming concepts. It is the process of metacogni-
tion where learners think about their learning. AR has the poten-
tial to help students to explain their answers and immediate mo-
tivate them and learn. Cognitive load is about the load we put on
working memory during the learning process. Working memory,
is a significant factor influencing learning output in AR activities
(especially in young children). If more than a few pieces of infor-
mation are stored at the same time, it can become overwhelmed.
Following cognitive load theory, Cook (2006) explained the in-
fluence of visual learning in science education (Mine, 1995). The
way the human mind works and its neural mechanisms should
be taken into account by creators of instructional technology like
AR.
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
5.3.6. RQ3 synopsis-implication
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in support-
ing the development of technologies to support literacies for chil-
dren and research in CCI (Giannakos, Horn, Read, & Markopoulos,
2020). New infrastructural developments and approaches like AR
can help us to support teaching and learning of programming.
Moreover, in a broader context, AR implies that advancing lit-
eracies for children will continue to be a central research area
in CCI, with a direct impact on both the educational society and
the information technology industry.
5.4. Challenges to the use of AR in CS education
The findings of this systematic literature review may be useful
for various stakeholders: students, educators, policymakers and
curriculum designers. They can also help further research on the
field, as well as for the design of AR technology.
Previous research has shown that there is no clear view of
how to incorporate technologies, such as AR, into the learn-
ing process in a safe manner (Martín-Gutiérrez, Mora, Añorbe
Díaz, & González-Marrero, 2017). Our findings confirm this belief,
since there are many different impacts and effects that should
be taken into account in CS education. There are several levels
on which a user interacts in an virtual environment (Martín-
Gutiérrez et al., 2017) and AR application in educational context
can have many positive impacts. It provides students’ motivation
and enjoyment while in the same time it can increase their
understanding on several programming concepts. There are also
many systemic difficulties that can prevent educators from de-
ploying AR tools (Jesionkowska et al., 2020). The curriculum
scope, restricted benchmark assessments, lack of resources and
materials, and of course economy restrictions for appropriate
supplies and materials. As previous research reports (Papanasta-
siou, Drigas, Skianis, Lytras, & Papanastasiou, 2019; Resnyansky,
Ibili, & Billinghurst, 2018), AR can increase among others: moti-
vation, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, satisfaction and
for learning the retention of content in working memory, or the
performance of physical tasks. The findings of this systematic
review encourage the incorporation of AR to positively support
CS education. Nonetheless, there is a long way to effectively
incorporate AR into the programming learning process. As a first
step, AR activities could be embedded into regular CS curricula
and not just seen as an extracurricular activity.
Furthermore, creating and deploying AR content seems a very
compound procedure. The target is not just to create an immer-
sive virtual technology to support CS, but also to produce an ef-
fective tool in terms of learning. With AR technology, students can
explore information by interaction, thus theoretically it encour-
ages their intelligence’s self-construction. Nonetheless, further
empirical research is still needed with AR technology. Especially,
it is important to decide how to build AR-based tools and activi-
ties to help students to construct knowledge (Zydney & Warner,
2016) and to discover instruments to measure whether students
are actually building knowledge (Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018).
However, in our opinion, a barrier to use of AR technology in
CS education is the lack of resources, either materials and tools
or applications and software. Future works should focus on that
and on creating appropriate lesson scenarios for the use of AR
technology. In addition, more research is required, to explore
in what ways can the AR affordances support learning experi-
ences (e.g., motivation or cognitive load) and different age groups,
educational levels and children populations (e.g., children with
special needs or gender differences). Researchers developed an
AR-based video-modeling storybook to help children with autism,
show their perceptions and judgments of facial expressions and
emotions (Chen, Lee, & Lin, 2016). The work showed that AR at-
tracts the attention of children with ASD. Finally, an opportunity
14
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
for future work may be to research children characteristics like
spatial cognition and situated cognition involved in AR. Previous
research on science education (Cheng & Tsai, 2013), highlights
the need to investigate learner characteristics like spatial ability
or perceived presence in AR environments. AR technology is
applied in many aspects of children everyday life and CS educa-
tion is no different. In any case, carefully designed interventions
should be considered e.g., mixed methods of studying learning
processes through AR activities and thorough examination of
children involvement beyond usability.
6. Limitations - threads to validity
A number of restrictions should be noted, both from the sys-
tematic review undertaken and from the studies included in
this review. While our study is focused on commonly used SLR
guidelines (Kitchenham et al., 2015), the validity of the proposed
approach could be challenged by some problems. First of all,
studies that were not included in our chosen papers could exist.
Indeed, the digital library search process may not have returned
all the related works, because each of them has unique character-
istics. In addition, we considered only complete researches, while
there could have been other forms of works (e.g., posters) in the
scientific databases that we missed. It is then likely that specific
research might have remained outside of this study’s option.
In addition, recent research
De Pace, Manuri, Sanna, and Fornaro (2020) has shown a grow-
ing interest in using AR to augment industrial robots in cor-
relation with programming. AR technology combined with the
programming domain in robotics, can be used in many areas
e.g., surgery, manufacturing, fabrication and navigation of re-
mote robots. However, this systematic review, targets AR for
educational purposes/settings only and not for industrial robotic
tasks and therefore studies around this area were not included,
although they could provide some insights for the usage of AR
technology.
Moreover, because data retrieval is a manual process, the
search strategy may often be affected by human factors and it
is possible that important information has not been considered
or misinterpreted. In order to minimize this bias, all the chosen
papers were read many times. In addition, following the general
guidelines of SLR (Kitchenham et al., 2015) we used both manual
and automatic search, followed by a snowballing process. During
that process, the papers were reviewed and validated by two
researchers, in terms of accuracy and data extraction. The inter-
rater reliability between the two scholars was 0.96 for the overall
scores (as presented in section (Section 3.4), suggesting a very
good consensus on articles’ quality. As indicated in Belur, Tomp-
son, Thornton, and Simon (2018), any problems that occurred
during the assessment process were addressed by two scholars
on a regular basis, resolved by agreement and correctly stated on
the following decisions.
Lastly, this study’s review questions require responses that
are not binary. To find answers, various initial studies used a
categorization of words. Nevertheless, it was a difficult process
to define AR for programming education since previous works
do not have classic boundaries and some words can be used by
different writers with the same definition. A more fine-tuned
approach may be useful for future reviews of the subject, in-
cluding more study studies, to analyze the results of AR studies
by also taking into account other possible differences between
situations, such as the particular instructional methods adopted,
the programming concepts being discussed and the types of AR
activities.
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
7. Conclusion
This systematic literature review offers an analysis of the state
of the art in AR and programming education. AR seems a very
promising technology to facilitate learning in CS education. It
provides considerable results that can be helpful to educational
design of AR technology. Given the increased interest of children
acquiring CT skills and the growing number of coding environ-
ments being developed and used in classrooms, immersive and
engaging AR tools are essential. This paper may enable readers
with various interests to advance their knowledge in this fresh
yet important field of AR in CS education and hopefully will help
shaping the next generation of CS learning environments.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for their
valuable feedback to improve this paper.
References
Abernethy, M., Sinnen, O., Adams, J., De Ruvo, G., & Giacaman, N. (2018).
Parallelar: An augmented reality app and instructional approach for learning
parallel programming scheduling concepts. In 2018 IEEE international parallel
and distributed processing symposium workshops (pp. 324–331). http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/IPDPSW.2018.00063.
Agrahari, V., & Chimalakonda, S. (2020). AST[AR] – Towards using augmented
reality and abstract syntax trees for teaching data structures to novice
programmers. In 2020 IEEE 20th international conference on advanced learn-
ing technologies (pp. 311–315). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.
00100.
Akçayır, M., Akçayır, G., Pektaş, H. M., & Ocak, M. A. (2016). Augmented reality in
science laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on university students’
laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Computers in
Human Behavior, 57, 334–342.
Anderson, L. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators &
Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.
Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2018). Interrater reli-
ability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder
decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, Article 0049124118799372.
Billinghurst, M. (2002). Augmented reality in education. New Horizons for
Learning, 12(5), 1–5.
Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., & Myojin, S. (2009). Advanced interaction techniques
for augmented reality applications. In International conference on virtual and
mixed reality (pp. 13–22).
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., &
Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching com-
putational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research,
87(4), 834–860.
Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., MacIntyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G.
(2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics
classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 536–544.
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M.
(2011). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multime-
dia Tools and Applications, 51(1), 341–377.
Chen, C.-H., Lee, I.-J., & Lin, L.-Y. (2016). Augmented reality-based video-modeling
storybook of nonverbal facial cues for children with autism spectrum
disorder to improve their perceptions and judgments of facial expressions
and emotions. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 477–485.
Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science
learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 22(4), 449–462.
Chung, C.-Y., & Hsiao, I.-H. (2020). Computational thinking in augmented reality:
An investigation of collaborative debugging practices. In 2020 6th inter-
national conference of the immersive learning research network (pp. 54–61).
http://dx.doi.org/10.23919/iLRN47897.2020.9155152.
15
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
Cleto, B., Moura, J. M., Ferreira, L., & Sylla, C. (2018). Codecubes-playing with
cubes and learning to code. In Interactivity, game creation, design, learning,
and innovation (pp. 538–543). Springer.
Cleto, B., Sylla, C., Ferreira, L., & Moura, J. M. (2019). ‘Play and Learn’: Ex-
ploring CodeCubes. In EAI international conference on technology, innovation,
entrepreneurship and education (pp. 34–42).
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of
prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles.
Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.
da Silva Esteves, A. M., Santana, A. L. M., & Lyra, R. (2019). Use of augmented
reality for computational thinking stimulation through virtual. In 2019 21st
symposium on virtual and augmented reality (pp. 102–106).
Das, P., Zhu, M., McLaughlin, L., Bilgrami, Z., & Milanaik, R. L. (2017). Augmented
reality video games: new possibilities and implications for children and
adolescents. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(2), 8.
Dass, N., Kim, J., Ford, S., Agarwal, S., & (Polo) Chau, D. H. (2018). Augmenting
coding: Augmented reality for learning programming. In Proceedings of the
sixth international symposium of Chinese CHI (pp. 156–159). Montreal, QC,
Canada: Association for Computing Machinery, [Online]. Available: https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3202667.3202695.
De Pace, F., Manuri, F., Sanna, A., & Fornaro, C. (2020). A systematic review of
augmented reality interfaces for collaborative industrial robots. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 149, Article 106806.
de Paula, B. H., Burn, A., Noss, R., & Valente, J. A. (2018). Playing beowulf:
Bridging computational thinking, arts and literature through game-making.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 39–46.
Del Bosque, L., Martinez, R., & Torres, J. L. (2015). Decreasing failure in
programming subject with augmented reality tool. Procedia Computer Science,
75, 221–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.241.
Deng, X., Wang, D., Jin, Q., & Sun, F. (2019). Arcat: A tangible programming
tool for DFS algorithm teaching. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international
conference on interaction design and children (pp. 533–537). Boise, ID, USA:
Association for Computing Machinery, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.
1145/3311927.3325308.
Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented
reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers
& Education, 68, 586–596.
Diamond, A., & Kirkham, N. (2005). Not quite as grown-up as we like to
think: Parallels between cognition in childhood and adulthood. Psychological
Science, 16(4), 291–297.
Fernando Batista, A., Thiry, M., Queiroz Gonçalves, R., & Fernandes, A. (2020). Us-
ing technologies as virtual environments for computer teaching: A systematic
review. Informatics in Education, 19(2), 201–221.
Gardeli, A., & Vosinakis, S. (2018). The effect of tangible augmented reality
interfaces on teaching computational thinking: a preliminary study. In
International conference on interactive collaborative learning (pp. 673–684).
Gardeli, A., & Vosinakis, S. (2019). ARQuest: A tangible augmented reality ap-
proach to developing computational thinking skills. In 2019 11th international
conference on virtual worlds and games for serious applications (pp. 1–8).
Giannakos, M. N., Horn, M. S., Read, J. C., & Markopoulos, P. (2020). Movement
forward: The continued growth of child-computer interaction research. Elsevier.
Glenn, T., Ipsita, A., Carithers, C., Peppler, K., & Ramani, K. (2020). Storymakar:
Bringing stories to life with an augmented reality & physical prototyping
toolkit for youth. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (pp. 1–14). Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for Computing
Machinery, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376790.
Gomes, T. C. S., Falcão, T. P., & Tedesco, P. C. de A. R. (2018). Exploring an
approach based on digital games for teaching programming concepts to
young children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 77–84.
Goyal, S., Vijay, R. S., Monga, C., & Kalita, P. (2016). Code bits: an inexpensive
tangible computational thinking toolkit for K-12 curriculum. In Proceedings of
the TEI’16: Tenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied
interaction (pp. 441–447).
Ibáñez, M.-B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning:
A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 109–123.
Jesionkowska, J., Wild, F., & Deval, Y. (2020). Active learning augmented reality
for STEAM education–A case study. Education Sciences, 10, 198AD.
Jin, Q., Wang, D., Deng, X., Zheng, N., & Chiu, S. (2018). AR-maze: a tangible
programming tool for children based on AR technology. In Proceedings
of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 611–
616). Trondheim, Norway: Association for Computing Machinery, [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3210784.
Katiyar, A., Kalra, K., & Garg, C. (2015). Marker based augmented reality. Advances
in Computer Science and Information Technology, 2(5), 441–445.
Katterfeldt, E.-S., Cukurova, M., Spikol, D., & Cuartielles, D. (2018). Physical com-
puting with plug-and-play toolkits: Key recommendations for collaborative
learning implementations. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction,
17, 72–82.
Kazanidis, I., Tsinakos, A., & Lytridis, C. (2017). Teaching mobile programming
using augmented reality and collaborative game based learning. In Interactive
mobile communication, technologies and learning (pp. 850–859).
A. Theodoropoulos and G. Lepouras
Khan, T., Johnston, K., & Ophoff, J. (2019). The impact of an augmented reality
application on learning motivation of students. Advances in Human-Computer
Interaction, 2019.
Kim, J., Agarwal, S., Marotta, K., Li, S., Leo, J., & Chau, D. H. (2019). Mixed
reality for learning programming. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international
conference on interaction design and children (pp. 574–579). Boise, ID, USA:
Association for Computing Machinery, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.
1145/3311927.3325335.
Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., & Brereton, P. (2015). Evidence-based software
engineering and systematic reviews (Vol. 4). CRC press.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently? Journal
of Cognition and Development, 7(3), 279–293.
Larson, K., & Chambers, R. (2020). AR in the computer programming classroom:
A review of the literature. In 2020 IEEE international conference on teaching,
assessment, and learning for engineering, (pp. 436–443).
Lin, P.-H., & Chen, S.-Y. (2020). Design and evaluation of a deep learning
recommendation based augmented reality system for teaching programming
and computational thinking. IEEE Access, 8, 45689–45699.
Litts, B. K., Lewis, W. E., & Mortensen, C. K. (2020). Engaging youth in computa-
tional thinking practices through designing place-based mobile games about
local issues. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 302–315.
López-Faican, L., & Jaen, J. (2020). Emofindar: Evaluation of a mobile multiplayer
augmented reality game for primary school children. Computers & Education,
149, Article 103814.
Magnenat, S., Ben-Ari, M., Klinger, S., & Sumner, R. W. (2015). Enhancing robot
programming with visual feedback and augmented reality. In Proceedings
of the 2015 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer sci-
ence education (pp. 153–158). Vilnius, Lithuania: Association for Computing
Machinery, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742585.
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017).
Virtual technologies trends in education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 469–486.
Masso, N., & Grace, L. (2011). Shapemaker: A game-based introduction to
programming. In 2011 16th international conference on computer games (pp.
168–171). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CGAMES.2011.6000334.
Mesia, N. S., Sanz, C., & Gorga, G. (2016). Augmented reality for programming
teaching. Student satisfaction analysis. In 2016 international conference on
collaboration technologies and systems (pp. 165–171). http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/CTS.2016.0045.
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays.
IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329.
Mine, M. R. (1995). Virtual environment interaction techniques. UNC Chapel Hill
CS Dept.
Nincarean, D., Alia, M. B., Halim, N. D. A., & Rahman, M. H. A. (2013). Mobile
augmented reality: The potential for education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 103, 657–664.
Ou Yang, F. (2019). The design of AR-based virtual educational robotics learning
system. In 2019 8th international congress on advanced applied informatics
(pp. 1055–1056). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2019.00224.
Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2019).
Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary education
students’ twenty-first century skills. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 425–436.
Papavlasopoulou, S., Sharma, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2018). How do you
feel about learning to code? Investigating the effect of children’s attitudes
towards coding using eye-tracking. International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction, 17, 50–60.
16
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021) 100335
Poghosyan, S. (2018). Learning-Oriented augmented reality technology. European
Science Review, 1(11–12), 42–46.
Radu, I., & MacIntyre, B. (2009). Augmented-reality scratch: a children’s author-
ing environment for augmented-reality experiences. In Proceedings of the 8th
international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 210–213).
Rahman, M. T., Rahman, A. T. M. A., Chowdhury, J., & Zaman, A. G. M. (2020).
Augmented primitive data types of programming language. In Proceedings
of the international conference on computing advancements (p. 87). Dhaka,
Bangladesh: Association for Computing Machinery, [Online]. Available: https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3377049.3377127.
Resnyansky, D., Billinghurst, M., & Dey, A. (2019). An AR/TUI-supported debug-
ging teaching environment. In Proceedings of the 31st Australian conference
on human-computer-interaction (pp. 590–594). Fremantle, WA, Australia:
Association for Computing Machinery, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.
1145/3369457.3369538.
Resnyansky, D., Ibili, E., & Billinghurst, M. (2018). The potential of augmented
reality for computer science education. In 2018 IEEE International conference
on teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (pp. 350–356).
Saadon, N. F. S. M., Ahmad, I., Pee, A. N. C., & Hanapi, C. (2020). The imple-
mentation of augmented reality in increasing student motivation: Systematic
literature review. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
854(1), Article 012043.
Schez-Sobrino, S., Vallejo, D., Glez-Morcillo, C., Redondo, M. Á., & Castro-Schez, J.
J. (2020a). Robotic: A serious game based on augmented reality for learning
programming. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–21.
Schez-Sobrino, S., et al. (2020b). A modern approach to supporting program
visualization: from a 2D notation to 3D representations using augmented
reality. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1–32.
Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2018). Understanding virtual reality: Interface,
application, and design. Morgan Kaufmann.
Sittiyuno, S., & Chaipah, K. (2019). Arcode: Augmented reality application for
learning elementary computer programming. In 2019 16th international joint
conference on computer science and software engineering (pp. 32–37). http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/JCSSE.2019.8864173.
Teng, C., & Chen, J. (2012). An augmented reality environment for learning
OpenGL programming. In 2012 9th international conference on ubiquitous
intelligence and computing and 9th international conference on autonomic and
trusted computing (pp. 996–1001). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/UIC-ATC.2012.
57.
Teng, C.-H., Chen, J.-Y., & Chen, Z.-H. (2018). Impact of augmented reality
on programming language learning: Efficiency and perception. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 56(2), 254–271.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3),
33–35.
Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM
Sigcse Bulletin, 28(3), 17–22.
Wu, P.-H., Hwang, G.-J., Yang, M.-L., & Chen, C.-H. (2018). Impacts of integrating
the repertory grid into an augmented reality-based learning design on
students’ learning achievements, cognitive load and degree of satisfaction.
Interactive Learning Environments, 26(2), 221–234.
Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status
opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers
& Education, 62, 41–49.
Yu, J., & Roque, R. (2019). A review of computational toys and kits for young
children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 17–36.
Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of
research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17.