research-article

Open access

Behaviors of Higher and Lower Performing Students in CS1

Authors:

Soohyun Nam Liao,

Sander Valstar,

Christine Alvarado,

Daniel Zingaro,

William G. Griswold,

Leo PorterAuthors Info & Claims

ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Pages 196 - 202

https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319740

Published: 02 July 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Although recent work in computing has discovered multiple techniques to identify low-performing students in a course, it is unclear what factors contribute to those students' difficulties. If we were able to better understand the characteristics of such students, we may be better able to help those students. This work examines the characteristics of low- and high-performing students through interviews with students from an introductory computing class. We identify a number of relevant areas of student behavior including how they approach their exam studies, how they approach completing programming assignments, whether they sought help after identifying misunderstandings, how and from whom they sought help, and how they reflected on assignments after submitting them. Particular behaviors within each area are coded and differences between groups of students are identified.

References

[1]

A. Ahadi, R. Lister, H. Haapala, and A. Vihavainen. Exploring machine learning methods to automatically identify students in need of assistance. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 121--130, 2015.

Digital Library

[2]

S. Bergin, A. Mooney, J. Ghent, and K. Quille. Using machine learning techniques to predict introductory programming performance. International Journal of Computer Science and Software, 4(12):323--328, 2015.

[3]

A. S. Carter and C. D. Hundhausen. With a little help from my friends: An empirical study of the interplay of students' social activities, programming activities, and course success. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 201--209, 2016.

Digital Library

[4]

A. S. Carter, C. D. Hundhausen, and O. Adesope. The normalized programming state model: Predicting student performance in computing courses based on programming behavior. In Proceedings of the eleventh International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 141--150, 2015.

Digital Library

[5]

K. Castro-Wunsch, A. Ahadi, and A. Petersen. Evaluating neural networks as a method for identifying students in need of assistance. In Proceedings of the 48th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 111--116, 2017.

Digital Library

[6]

S. P. M. Choi, S. Lam, K. C. Li, and B. T. M. Wong. Learning analytics at low cost: At-risk student prediction with clicker data and systematic proactive interventions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2):273--290, 2018.

[7]

relax CRA Enrollment Committee Institution Subgroup. Generation CS: Computer science undergraduate enrollments surge since 2006. Computing Research Association, 2017.

[8]

J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, Fourth Edition . Sage Publications, Inc, 2017.

[9]

L. Deslauriers, S. E. Harris, E. Lane, and C. E. Wieman. Transforming the lowest-performing students: an intervention that worked. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41:80--88, 2012.

[10]

S. H. Edwards, J. Snyder, M. A. Pérez-Qui nones, A. Allevato, D. Kim, and B. Tretola. Comparing effective and ineffective behaviors of student programmers. In Proceedings of the fifth international Conference on Computing education research, pages 3--14, 2009.

Digital Library

[11]

S. Fincher, J. Tenenberg, and A. Robins. Research design: necessary bricolage. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on Computing education research, pages 27--32, 2011.

Digital Library

[12]

B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers, 1967.

[13]

M. Guzdial. A media computation course for non-majors. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3):104--108, 2003.

Digital Library

[14]

B. Hanks and M. Brandt. Successful and unsuccessful problem solving approaches of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 40th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 24--28, 2009.

Digital Library

[15]

M. Jadud. Methods and tools for exploring novice compilation behaviour. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 73--84, 2006.

Digital Library

[16]

P. Jensen and R. Moore. What do help sessions accomplish in introductory science courses? Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(5):60, 2009.

[17]

C. M. Lewis, K. Yasuhara, and R. E. Anderson. Deciding to major in computer science: A grounded theory of students' self-assessment of ability. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 3--10, 2011.

Digital Library

[18]

S. N. Liao, D. Zingaro, M. A. Laurenzano, W. G. Griswold, and L. Porter. Lightweight, early identification of at-risk CS1 students. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 123--131, 2016.

Digital Library

[19]

D. Loksa and A. J. Ko. The role of self-regulation in programming problem solving process and success. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on International Computing Education Research, pages 83--91, 2016.

Digital Library

[20]

J. Martin, S. H. Edwards, and C. A. Shaffer. The effects of procrastination interventions on programming project success. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 3--11, 2015.

Digital Library

[21]

R. McCartney, A. Eckerdal, J. E. Mostrom, K. Sanders, and C. Zander. Successful students' strategies for getting unstuck. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pages 156--160, 2007.

Digital Library

[22]

A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, and E. Wiebe. Coding: Open coding. In Encyclopedia of case study research, 2010.

[23]

R. Moore. Who does extra-credit work in introductory science courses? Journal of College Science Teaching, pages 12--15, 2005.

[24]

J. P. Munson and J. P. Zitovsky. Models for early identification of struggling novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 49th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 699--704, 2018.

Digital Library

[25]

L. Murphy, G. Lewandowski, R. McCauley, B. Simon, L. Thomas, and C. Zander. Debugging: The good, the bad, and the quirky -- a qualitative analysis of novices' strategies. In Proceedings of the 39th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 163--167, 2008.

Digital Library

[26]

A. Petersen, M. Craig, J. Campbell, and A. Tafliovich. Revisiting why students drop CS1. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 71--80, 2016.

[27]

L. Porter, D. Bouvier, Q. Cutts, S. Grissom, C. Lee, R. McCartney, D. Zingaro, and B. Simon. A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. ACM Inroads, 7(2):76--81, 2016.

Digital Library

[28]

G. Schraw, K. J. Crippen, and K. Hartley. Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1):111--139, Mar 2006.

[29]

D. F. Shell, L.-K. Soh, A. E. Flanigan, and M. S. Peteranetz. Students' initial course motivation and their achievement and retention in college CS1 courses. In Proceedings of the 47th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 639--644, 2016.

Digital Library

[30]

B. Simon, S. Esper, L. Porter, and Q. Cutts. Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 129--136, 2013.

Digital Library

[31]

A. Vihavainen. Predicting students' performance in an introductory programming course using data from students' own programming process. In IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pages 498--499, 2013.

Digital Library

[32]

R. Vivian, K. Falkner, and N. Falkner. Computer science students' causal attributions for successful and unsuccessful outcomes in programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, pages 125--134, 2013.

Digital Library

[33]

C. Watson and F. W. Li. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pages 39--44, 2014.

Digital Library

[34]

C. Watson, F. W. Li, and J. L. Godwin. No tests required: Comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. In Proceedings of the 45th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 469--474, 2014.

Digital Library

[35]

C. Watson, F. W. B. Li, and J. L. Godwin. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pages 319--323, 2013.

Digital Library

[36]

D. Zingaro, M. Craig, L. Porter, B. A. Becker, Y. Cao, P. Conrad, D. Cukierman, A. Hellas, D. Loksa, and N. Thota. Achievement goals in CS1: Replication and extension. In Proceedings of the 49th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 687--692, 2018.

Digital Library

Cited By

Aggarwal AAdepu MGarcia-Marin AGardner-McCune CStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Do Behavioral Factors Influence the Extent to which Students Engage with Formative Practice Opportunities?Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630833(18-24)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630833
Salguero AVillegas Molina IElizabeth Margulieux LCutts QPorter LStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Applying CS0/CS1 Student Success Factors and Outcomes to Biggs' 3P Educational ModelProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630781(1168-1174)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630781
Böttcher AThurner VWalter J(2024)Problem Patterns in Study Processes and Recommended Remedies for Students2024 IEEE 3rd German Education Conference (GECon)10.1109/GECon62014.2024.10734031(1-7)Online publication date: 5-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/GECon62014.2024.10734031
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Behaviors of Higher and Lower Performing Students in CS1
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education
        CS1

Recommendations

A Quantitative Analysis of Study Habits Among Lower- and Higher-Performing Students in CS1
ITiCSE '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1

Our prior work found differences in study habits between high- and low-performers in a small-scale qualitative study, and this work seeks to verify and extend these findings by examining the study habits of a larger population of CS1 students. To do ...
First year students' impressions of pair programming in CS1
ICER '07: Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research

Pair programming, as part of the Agile Development process, has noted benefits in professional software development scenarios. These successes have led to a rise in use of pair programming in educational settings, particularly in CS1. Specifically [6] ...
First-year students' impressions of pair programming in CS1

Pair programming, as part of the Agile Development process, has noted benefits in professional software development scenarios. These successes have led to a rise in use of pair programming in educational settings, particularly in Computer Science 1 (CS1)...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 2019

583 pages

ISBN:9781450368957

DOI:10.1145/3304221

General Chairs:
Bruce Scharlau
University of Aberdeen, UK
,
Roger McDermott
Robert Gordon University, UK
,
Program Chairs:
Arnold Pears
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
,
Mihaela Sabin
University of New Hampshire, USA

Copyright © 2019 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 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

ITiCSE '19

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

ITiCSE '19: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 15 - 17, 2019

Aberdeen, Scotland Uk

Acceptance Rates

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

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
1,195
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)206
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22

Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Aggarwal AAdepu MGarcia-Marin AGardner-McCune CStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Do Behavioral Factors Influence the Extent to which Students Engage with Formative Practice Opportunities?Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630833(18-24)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630833
Salguero AVillegas Molina IElizabeth Margulieux LCutts QPorter LStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Applying CS0/CS1 Student Success Factors and Outcomes to Biggs' 3P Educational ModelProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630781(1168-1174)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630781
Böttcher AThurner VWalter J(2024)Problem Patterns in Study Processes and Recommended Remedies for Students2024 IEEE 3rd German Education Conference (GECon)10.1109/GECon62014.2024.10734031(1-7)Online publication date: 5-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/GECon62014.2024.10734031
Zhang YPaquette LHu X(2024)Academic procrastination, incentivized and self-selected spaced practice, and quiz performance in an online programming problem systemComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105029214:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105029
Hellas ALeinonen JSarsa SKoutcheme CKujanpää LSorva J(2023)Exploring the Responses of Large Language Models to Beginner Programmers’ Help RequestsProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600139(93-105)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568813.3600139
Salguero A(2023)Establishing an Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Student Learning and Success in CS1Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 210.1145/3568812.3603444(52-54)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568812.3603444
Alvarez CSamary MWise A(2023)Modularization for mastery learning in CS1: a 4-year action research studyJournal of Computing in Higher Education10.1007/s12528-023-09366-136:2(546-589)Online publication date: 16-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09366-1

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents