Michael Liut

Yuri Noviello, Naaz Sibia, Anastasiia Birillo et al.

Introductory programming (CS1) courses often struggle to support students' understanding of program execution. While visualizations can make execution processes explicit, their effectiveness depends on design and context, and empirical evidence for AI-generated visualizations remains limited. We propose Generated Animated Traces (GATs), AI-generated, analogy-based, narrated animations that coordinate source code, execution state, and conceptual analogies. We conduct a study at two institutions in CS1 courses (Python, N=961; Java N=151) comparing GATs to textual explanations. We measure immediate learning performance and experience, end-of-course engagement and exam performance. Results show that GATs can yield selective benefits for immediate learning, but benefits are context-dependent and short-term. We observe that GATs' influence on performance is moderated by learner engagement profiles. This finding underscores the importance of personalized approaches.

Naaz Sibia, Jessica Wen, Amber Richardson et al.

Program visualizations are widely used to support novice programmers, yet students often ignore or resist well-designed visual scaffolds. Research on multiple external representations (MERs) offers cognitive design principles for coordinating views, but less is known about what shapes learners' engagement with available representations. We conducted a within-subjects study with 19 undergraduates who had completed CS1 and CS2. Students completed think-aloud tasks, reflective interviews, and webcam-based gaze tracking while using a multi-representational probe with synchronized code, memory, and metaphor views, and Python Tutor, across scope, while loops, and linked lists. Gaze analysis showed that students spent nearly half their time focused on code despite available visual scaffolds. Students without prior experience anchored even more heavily in code and engaged minimally with metaphor views. Interviews identified three factors shaping selective engagement: agency, as students sought control over cognitive effort rather than simply having it reduced; representational fit, as identical designs differed in whether they felt helpful or overwhelming; and legitimacy, as some students avoided metaphorical scaffolds they perceived as childish or insufficiently rigorous for university-level work. These findings suggest that multi-representational tools in computing education require attention to affective and social factors alongside cognitive design. Practical considerations include positioning visualizations as verification instruments, offering toggleable abstraction levels, and framing tools to signal disciplinary legitimacy. More broadly, the themes help explain why cognitively sound visualization tools may fail to engage the students they are designed to help.