research-article

Contrasting CS student and academic perspectives and experiences of student engagement

Authors:

Michael Morgan,

Matthew Butler,

Christabel Gonsalvez,

Neena ThotaAuthors Info & Claims

ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Pages 1 - 35

https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295777

Published: 02 July 2018 Publication History

Abstract

There is widespread acceptance of the use of national benchmarks to measure student engagement, including the North American National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the USA and Canada, the Student Experience Survey (SES) in Australia, and the United Kingdom Engagement Survey (UKES). The performance of Computer Science (CS) on these benchmarks has generally been poor over a number of years and is consistently low across a range of instruments with little sign of improvement. It is difficult to argue that the technical nature of the CS discipline is the issue as related STEM disciplines consistently rate higher on many measures. Given the deteriorating performance of CS across multiple student engagement instruments, the urgency of addressing this issue is increasing. Missing from computing education research on this issue to date is the CS student voice and a deeper understanding of why CS students rate their experience so poorly. It is essential to seek the perspectives of both sides of the dialogue primarily responsible for creating the student experience. We carried out an in-depth analysis of student perspectives and experiences relating to their engagement in CS courses and compared it to the perspectives and experiences of CS academics. The outcome of this Working Group was a better understanding of areas of difference between CS students and academics on: what constitutes student engagement; who is responsible for student engagement; examples of both positive and negative engagement experiences in the classroom; and current initiatives to improve student engagement in their CS courses.

References

[1]

2018. Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) Home. (2018). http://fsse. indiana.edu/ 2018. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) Home. (2018). http: //stelar.edc.org/instruments/motivated-strategies-learning-questionnaire-mslq 2018. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Home. (2018). http: //nsse.indiana.edu/ 2018. Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) Home. (2018). https: //salgsite.net/ 2018. Student Experiences Survey (SES) Home. (2018). http://www.liberalarts. wabash.edu/study-instruments/#stsurvey)

[2]

Alexander W Astin. 1984. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25, 4 (1984), 297–308.

[3]

Rick D Axelson and Arend Flick. 2010. Defining student engagement. Change: The magazine of higher learning 43, 1 (2010), 38–43.

[4]

Susan Bergin and Ronan Reilly. 2005. The influence of motivation and comfortlevel on learning to program. (2005).

[5]

Lisa Bomia, Lynne Beluzo, Debra Demeester, Keli Elander, Mary Johnson, and Betty Sheldon. 1997. The Impact of Teaching Strategies on Intrinsic Motivation. (1997).

[6]

Maura Borrego, Jeffrey E Froyd, and T Simin Hall. 2010. Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education 99, 3 (2010), 185–207.

[7]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.

[8]

Matthew Butler, Jane Sinclair, Michael Morgan, and Sara Kalvala. 2016. Comparing international indicators of student engagement for computer science. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference. ACM, 6.

Digital Library

[9]

Social Research Centre. 2017. 2016 Student Experience Survey - National Report. (2017). Available from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gos-reports/ 2017/2016-ses-national-report-final.pdf.

[10]

Social Research Centre. 2017. Student Experience Survey - National Report. (2017).

[11]

https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/ ues-national-report/2017-student-experience-survey-national-report/ 2017-ses-national-reportb27e8791b1e86477b58fff00006709da.pdf

[12]

Kathy Charmaz. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

[13]

Valerie A Clarke and G Joy Teague. 1996. Characterizations of computing careers: Students and professionals disagree. Computers & education 26, 4 (1996), 241–246.

Digital Library

[14]

Hamish Coates. 2005. The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education 11, 1 (2005), 25–36. org/10.1080/13538320500074915

[15]

Juliet M Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology 13, 1 (1990), 3–21.

[16]

Melissa Dancy and Charles Henderson. 2010. Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics 78, 10 (2010), 1056–1063.

[17]

Russell Edgerton. 2001. Education White Paper. (2001).

[18]

American Association for the Advancement of Science et al. 2012. Describing and measuring undergraduate STEM teaching practices. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[19]

Jennifer A Fredricks, Phyllis C Blumenfeld, and Alison H Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74, 1 (2004), 59–109.

[20]

Jennifer A Fredricks and Wendy McColskey. 2012. The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, 763–782.

[21]

Michael Goldweber. 2015. Computer Science Education for Social Good. SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 45, 2 (July 2015), 29–30.

Digital Library

[22]

Michael Goldweber, John Barr, Tony Clear, Renzo Davoli, Samuel Mann, Elizabeth Patitsas, and Scott Portnoff. 2013. A framework for enhancing the social good in computing education: a values approach. ACM Inroads 4, 1 (2013), 58–79.

Digital Library

[23]

Jonathan Gordon, Joe Ludlum, and J Joseph Hoey. 2008. Validating NSSE against student outcomes: Are they related? Research in Higher Education 49, 1 (2008), 19–39.

[24]

John Hamer, Quintin Cutts, Jana Jackova, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Robert McCartney, Helen Purchase, Charles Riedesel, Mara Saeli, Kate Sanders, and Judithe Sheard. 2008. Contributing Student Pedagogy. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 4 (Nov. 2008), 194–212.

Digital Library

[25]

Lois Ruth Harris. 2008. A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning. The Australian Educational Researcher 35, 1 (2008), 57–79.

[26]

Rachelle S Heller, Cheryl Beil, Kim Dam, and Belinda Haerum. 2010. Student and faculty perceptions of engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 99, 3 (2010), 253–261.

[27]

Charles Henderson and Melissa H Dancy. 2009. Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 5, 2 (2009), 020107.

[28]

Rosario Hernández. 2012. Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher education 64, 4 (2012), 489–502.

[29]

Ella R Kahu. 2013. Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38, 5 (2013), 758–773.

[30]

Heinz K. Klein and Michael D. Myers. 1999. A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 23, 1 (1999), 67–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/249410

Digital Library

[31]

George D Kuh. 2001. Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 33, 3 (2001), 10–17.

[32]

George D Kuh. 2003. What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 35, 2 (2003), 24–32.

[33]

George D Kuh, Thomas F Nelson Laird, and Paul D Umbach. 2004. Aligning Faculty Activities & Student Behavior: Realizing the Promise of Greater Expectations. Liberal education 90, 4 (2004), 24–31.

[34]

Susie D Lamborn, Fred M Newmann, and Gary G Wehlage. 1992. The significance and sources of student engagement. Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools (1992), 11–39.

[35]

Heather P Libbey. 2004. Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health 74, 7 (2004), 274–283.

[36]

Heather R Macdonald, Cathryn A Manduca, David W Mogk, and Barbara J Tewksbury. 2005. Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 On the Cutting Edge survey of US faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education 53, 3 (2005), 237–252.

[37]

Raymond B Miller, Barbara A Greene, Gregory P Montalvo, Bhuvaneswari Ravindran, and Joe D Nichols. 1996. Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, 4 (1996), 388–422.

[38]

Michael Morgan, Matthew Butler, Neena Thota, and Jane Sinclair. 2018. How CS academics view student engagement. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 284–289.

Digital Library

[39]

Michael Morgan, Jane Sinclair, Matthew Butler, Neena Thota, Janet Fraser, Gerry Cross, and Jana Jackova. 2017. Understanding International Benchmarks on Student Engagement: Awareness and Research Alignment from a Computer Science Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports (ITiCSE-WGR ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–24. org/10.1145/3174781.3174782

Digital Library

[40]

Harry G Murray. 1987. Acquiring student feedback that improves instruction. Number 32. Wiley Online Library, 85–96.

[41]

Jonathan Neves. 2017. Student Engagement and Skills Development: The UK Engagement Survey 2017. (2017).

[42]

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/ ukes-2017-report

[43]

Uolevi Nikula, Orlena Gotel, and Jussi Kasurinen. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 11, 4 (2011), 24.

Digital Library

[44]

A. Pears, A. NylÃľn, and M. Daniels. 2016. A critical analysis of trends in studentcentric engineering education and their implications for learning. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–7.

[45]

7757715

[46]

Stephen R Porter, Corey Rumann, and Jason Pontius. 2011. The validity of student engagement survey questions: can we accurately measure academic challenge? New Directions for Institutional Research 2011, 150 (2011), 87–98.

[47]

J. Poza-Lujan, C. T. Calafate, J. Posadas-YagÃĳe, and J. Cano. 2016. Assessing the Impact of Continuous Evaluation Strategies: Tradeoff Between Student Performance and Instructor Effort. IEEE Transactions on Education 59, 1 (Feb 2016), 17–23.

Digital Library

[48]

Ali Radloff, Hamish Coates, Richard James, and Kerri-Lee Krause. 2011. Report on the development of the University Experience Survey. (2011).

[49]

Jane Sinclair, Matthew Butler, Michael Morgan, and Sara Kalvala. 2015. Measures of student engagement in computer science. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 242–247.

Digital Library

[50]

Klaas-Jan Stol, Paul Ralph, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2016. Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines. In Software Contrasting CS Student and Academic Perspectives... ITiCSE ’18 Companion, July 2–4, 2018, Larnaca, Cyprus Engineering (ICSE), 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on. IEEE, 120– 131.

Digital Library

[51]

Eileen Trotter. 2006. Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31, 5 (2006), 505–521.

[52]

Vicki Trowler. 2010. Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy 11 (2010), 1–15.

[53]

Paul D Umbach and Matthew R Wawrzynski. 2005. Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education 46, 2 (2005), 153–184.

[54]

Fredericks J Volkwein, Lisa R Lattuca, Patrick T Terenzini, Linda C Strauss, and Javzan Sukhbaatar. 2004. Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000.

Cited By

Griswold WStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Experience Report: Meet the Professor - A Large-Course Intervention for Increasing RapportProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630844(415-421)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630844
Lenfant RWanner AHott JPettit RLaakso MMonga MSimon Sheard J(2023)Project-Based and Assignment-Based Courses: A Study of Piazza Engagement and Gender in Online CoursesProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3587102.3588833(138-144)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3587102.3588833
Albakri SAda MMorrison A(2023)Exploring Student Engagement, Confidence, and Usefulness for Female Students in CS Class at High School Using Machine Learning2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343402(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343402
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Contrasting CS student and academic perspectives and experiences of student engagement
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education

Recommendations

How CS academics view student engagement
ITiCSE 2018: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

There are several national benchmarks used to measure student engagement, including the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the USA and Canada, the Student Experience Survey (SES) in Australia, and the UK Engagement Survey (UKES). For a ...
Understanding International Benchmarks on Student Engagement: Awareness and Research Alignment from a Computer Science Perspective
ITiCSE-WGR '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports

There is an increasing trend to use national survey instruments to measure student engagement. Unfortunately, Computer Science (CS) rates poorly on a number of measures in these surveys, even when compared to related STEM disciplines. Initial research ...
Contrasting CS student and academic perspectives and experiences of student engagement
ITiCSE 2018: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

The performance of Computer Science (CS) on a range of international student engagement benchmarks, including the North American National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the USA and Canada, Student Experience Survey (SES) in Australia, and the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ITiCSE 2018 Companion: Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 2018

235 pages

ISBN:9781450362238

DOI:10.1145/3293881

Program Chairs:
Guido Rößling
TU Darmstadt, Germany
,
Bruce Scharlau
University of Aberdeen, UK

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 July 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ITiCSE '18

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

ITiCSE '18: 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 2 - 4, 2018

Larnaca, Cyprus

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
378
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)62
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 07 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Griswold WStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Experience Report: Meet the Professor - A Large-Course Intervention for Increasing RapportProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630844(415-421)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630844
Lenfant RWanner AHott JPettit RLaakso MMonga MSimon Sheard J(2023)Project-Based and Assignment-Based Courses: A Study of Piazza Engagement and Gender in Online CoursesProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3587102.3588833(138-144)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3587102.3588833
Albakri SAda MMorrison A(2023)Exploring Student Engagement, Confidence, and Usefulness for Female Students in CS Class at High School Using Machine Learning2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343402(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343402
Bhardwaj JCarter JBecker BBrown N(2019)Pulling your weight?Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research10.1145/3351287.3351294(1-7)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3351287.3351294

View Options

Get Access

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents