More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Assessing Student Behavior in Computer Science Education with an fsQCA Approach: The Role of Gains and Barriers

Authors:

Ilias O. Pappas,

Michail N. Giannakos,

Letizia Jaccheri,

Demetrios G. SampsonAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 17, Issue 2

Article No.: 10, Pages 1 - 23

https://doi.org/10.1145/3036399

Published: 23 May 2017 Publication History

Abstract

This study uses complexity theory to understand the causal patterns of factors that stimulate students’ intention to continue studies in computer science (CS). To this end, it identifies gains and barriers as essential factors in CS education, including motivation and learning performance, and proposes a conceptual model along with research propositions. To test its propositions, the study employs fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis on a data sample from 344 students. Findings indicate eight configurations of cognitive and noncognitive gains, barriers, motivation for studies, and learning performance that explain high intention to continue studies in CS. This research study contributes to the literature by (1) offering new insights into the relationships among the predictors of CS students’ intention to continue their studies and (2) advancing the theoretical foundation of how students’ gains, barriers, motivation, and learning performance combine to better explain high intentions to continue CS studies.

References

[1]

ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. Technical report. Association for Computing Machinery/IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[2]

S. Angelaina and A. Jimoyiannis. 2012. Analysing students’ engagement and learning presence in an educational blog community. Educ. Media Int. 49, 3 (2012), 183--200.

[3]

F. Araque, C. Roldan, and A. Salguero. 2009. Factors influencing university dropout rates. Comput. Educ. 53, 3 (2009), 563--574.

Digital Library

[4]

L. Barker, C. L. Hovey, and Thompson, L. D. 2014. Results of a large-scale, multi-institutional study of undergraduate retention in computing. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE 2014). IEEE 1--8.

[5]

L. J. Barker, C. McDowell, and K. Kalahar. 2009. Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1 (2009), 153--157.

Digital Library

[6]

M. Biggers, A. Brauer, and T. Yilmaz. 2008. Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors with CS leavers. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (2008), 402--406.

Digital Library

[7]

S. A. Bjorklund, J. M. Parente, and D. Sathianathan. 2004. Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. J. Eng. Educ. 93, 2 (2004), 153--160.

[8]

J. C. Blickenstaff. 2005. Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender Educ. 17, 4 (2005), 369--386

[9]

L. Carter. 2006. Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don't choose to major in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (2006), 27--31.

Digital Library

[10]

D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

[11]

A. Chow, J. S. Eccles, and K. Salmela-Aro. 2012. Task value profiles across subjects and aspirations to physical and IT-related sciences in the United States and Finland. Dev. Psychol. 48, 6 (2012), 1612.

[12]

J. Cohoon. 2006. Just get over it or get on with it: Retaining women in undergraduate computing. Women and Information Technology, 205--238.

[13]

P. C. Fiss. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 2 (2011), 393--420.

[14]

G. J. Fitzsimons. 2008. Death to dichotomizing. J. Cons. Res. 35, 1 (2008), 5--8.

[15]

C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18, 1 (1981), 39--50.

[16]

M. N. Giannakos, I. O. Pappas, L. Jaccheri, and D. G. Sampson. 2016. Understanding student retention in computer science education: The role of environment, gains, barriers and usefulness. Education and Information Technologies, 1--18.

Digital Library

[17]

G. Gigerenzer and H. Brighton. 2009. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 1 (2009), 107--143.

[18]

J. Glaesser and B. Cooper. 2012. Gender, parental education, and ability: Their interacting roles in predicting GCSE success. Cambr. J. Educ. 42, 4 (2012), 463--480.

[19]

S. Grover, R. Pea, and S. Cooper. 2014. Remedying misperceptions of computer science among middle school students. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 343--348. ACM.

Digital Library

[20]

G. L. Hein, K. J. Bunker, N. Onder, R. R. Rebb, L. E. Brown, and L. J. Bohmann. 2012. University studies of student persistence in engineering and computer science. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC.

[21]

M. Hewner. 2013. Undergraduate conceptions of the field of computer science. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 107--114. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Released 2013.

Digital Library

[22]

Ireland Department of Education and Skills. 2014. ICT skills action plan 2014--2018: Government, education and industry working together to make Ireland a global leader in ICT talent. Resource document. Retrieved February 19, 2016 from http://cork.etb.ie/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2014/08/14042014-ICT_Skills_Action_Plan-Publication.pdf.

[23]

J. E. Jacobs. 2005. Twenty-five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: What have we learned? New Direct. Child Adolesc. Devel. 110 (2005), 85--94.

[24]

Y. J. Joo, K. Y. Lim, and J. Kim. 2013. Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context. Comput. Educ. 62, 149--158.

Digital Library

[25]

S. W. Y. Lee and C. C. Tsai. 2011. Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 2 (2011), 905--914.

Digital Library

[26]

A. Leischnig and K. Kasper-Brauer. 2015. Employee adaptive behavior in service enactments. J. Bus. Res. 68, 2 (2015), 273--280.

[27]

Q. Li, H. Swaminathan, and J. Tang. 2009 Development of a classification system for engineering student characteristics affecting college enrollment and retention. J. Eng. Educ. 98, 4 (2009), 361--376.

[28]

Y. Liu, J. Mezei, V. Kostakos, and H. Li. 2017. Applying configurational analysis to IS behavioural research: A methodological alternative for modelling combinatorial complexities. Inf. Syst. J. 27, 1 (2017), 59--89.

Digital Library

[29]

E. J. Maloney. 2007. What web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chron. Higher Educ. 53, 18, B26.

[30]

R. M. Marra, K. A. Rodgers, D. Shen, and B. Bogue. 2012. Leaving engineering: A multi-year single institution study. J. Eng. Educ. 101, 1 (2012), 6--27.

[31]

W. C. Mau. 2003. Factors that influence persistence in science and engineering career aspirations. Career Dev. Quart. 51, 3 (2003), 234--243.

[32]

M. M. McGill, A. Decker, and A. Settle. 2016. Undergraduate students’ perceptions of the impact of pre-college computing activities on choices of major. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 16, 4 (2016), 15.

Digital Library

[33]

J. M. Mendel and M. M. Korjani. 2012. Charles ragin's fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) used for linguistic summarizations. Inf. Sci. 202 (2012), 1--23.

Digital Library

[34]

E. Morton. 2005. Beyond the barriers: What women want in IT. Resource document. TechRepublic. Retrieved from http://www.techrepublic.com/article/beyond-the-barriers-what-women-want-in-it/.

[35]

R. M. O’Brien. 2007. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41, 5 (2007), 673--690.

[36]

A. Ordanini, A. Parasuraman, and G. Rubera. 2014. When the recipe is more important than the ingredients: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. J. Serv. Res. 17, 2 (2014), 134--149.

[37]

I. O. Pappas, P. E. Kourouthanassis, M. N. Giannakos, and V. Chrissikopoulos. 2016a. Explaining online shopping behavior with fsQCA: The role of cognitive and affective perceptions. J. Bus. Res. 69, 2 (2016a), 794--803.

[38]

I. O. Pappas, P. E. Kourouthanassis, M. N. Giannakos, and G. Lekakos. 2017. The interplay of online shopping motivations and experiential factors on personalized e-commerce: A complexity theory approach. Telematics and Informatics.

Digital Library

[39]

I. O. Pappas, M. Giannakos, and L. Jaccheri. 2016b. Investigating factors influencing students’ intention to dropout computer science studies. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’16). ACM Press.

Digital Library

[40]

I. O. Pappas, M. N. Giannakos, and D. Sampson. 2016c. Making sense of learning analytics with a configurational approach. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Smart Environments and Analytics in Video-Based Learning (SE@ VBL), LAK2016.

[41]

G. R. Pike, G. D. Kuh, A. C. McCormick, C. A. Ethington, and J. C. Smart. 2011. If and when money matters: The relationships among educational expenditures, student engagement and students’ learning outcomes. Res. High. Educ. 52, 1 (2011), 81--106.

[42]

J. Pirker, M. Riffnaller-Schiefer, and C. Gütl. 2014. Motivational active learning: Engaging university students in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation 8 Technology in Computer Science Education. 297--302.

Digital Library

[43]

P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 5 (2003), 879.

[44]

C. C. Ragin. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press.

[45]

C. C. Ragin. 2006. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Polit. Anal. 14, 3 (2006), 291--310.

[46]

C. C. Ragin. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

[47]

C. C. Ragin and S. Davey. 2014. fs/QCA computer programme, version 2.5. University of California, Irvine, CA.

[48]

M. B. Rosson, J. M. Carroll, and H. Sinha. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 3 (2011), 14.

Digital Library

[49]

P. Sankar, J. Gilmartin, and M. Sobel. 2015. An examination of belongingness and confidence among female computer science students. ACM SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 45, 2 (2015), 7--10.

Digital Library

[50]

K. R. Schmitt, A. H. A. Badawy, S. Kramer, K. Hrapczynski, E. Larsen, A. Andrew, and M. Miller. 2013. Student expectations from CS and other stem courses: they aren't like CS-majors&excl; or (CS&excl;= Stem-CS). J. Comput. Sci. Colleg. 28, 6 (2013), 100--108.

Digital Library

[51]

E. Seymour and N. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

[52]

W. R. Shadish. 2010. Campbell and rubin: A primer and comparison of their approaches to causal inference in field settings. Psychol. Methods 15, 1 (2010), 3.

[53]

R. Suresh. 2006. The relationship between barrier courses and persistence in engineering. J. College Stud. Reten. 8, 2 (2006), 215--239.

[54]

R. K. Toutkoushian and J. C. Smart. 2001. Do institutional characteristics affect student gains from college? Rev. High. Educ. 25 (2001), 39--61.

[55]

H. Trætteberg, A. Mavroudi, M. Giannakos, and J. Krogstie. 2016. Adaptable learning and learning analytics: A case study in a programming course. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer International Publishing, 665--668.

[56]

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Employment Projections 2010--2020. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/.

[57]

N. Venkatraman. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 3 (1989), 423--444.

[58]

I. Utting, A. E. Tew, M. McCracken, L. Thomas, D. Bouvier, R. Frye, J. Paterson, M. Caspersen, Y. B. D. Kolikant, J. Sorva, and T. Wilusz. 2013. A fresh look at novice programmers’ performance and their teachers’ expectations. In Proceedings of the ITiCSE Working Group Reports Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education-Working Group Reports. ACM, 15--32.

Digital Library

[59]

B. Vis. 2012. The comparative advantages of fsQCA and regression analysis for moderately large-N analyses. Sociol. Methods Res. 41, 1 (2012), 168--198.

[60]

S. E. Walden and C. Foor. 2008. What's to keep you from dropping out? Student immigration into and within engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 97, 2 (2008), 191--205.

[61]

H. M. Watt, J. D. Shapka, Z. A. Morris, A. M. Durik, D. P. Keating, and J. S. Eccles. 2012. Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Dev. Psychol. 48, 6 (2012), 1594.

[62]

E. Wiebe, L. Williams, K. Yang, and C. Miller. 2003. Computer Science Attitude Survey. Technical Report. North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Raleigh, NC.

[63]

A. G. Woodside. 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 66, 4 (2013), 463--472.

[64]

A. G. Woodside. 2014. Embrace • perform • model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. J. Bus. Res. 67, 12 (2014), 2495--2503.

[65]

M. Xenos, C. Pierrakeas, and P. Pintelas. 2002. A survey on student dropout rates and dropout causes concerning the students in the Course of Informatics of the Hellenic Open University. Comput. Educ. 39, 4 (2002), 361--377.

[66]

T. Yu and I. H. Jo. 2014. Educational technology approach toward learning analytics: Relationship between student online behavior and learning performance in higher education. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. ACM, 269--270.

Digital Library

[67]

L. A. Zadeh. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 3 (1965), 338--353.

[68]

S. Zweben. 2014. Computing degrees and enrollment trends: From the 2012--2014 CRA Taulbee Survey. Washington, DC: Computing Research Association.

Cited By

Chanda RVafaei-Zadeh AHanifah HNikbin D(2025)Assessing cybersecurity awareness among bank employees: A multi-stage analytical approach using PLS-SEM, ANN, and fsQCA in a developing country contextComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.104208149(104208)Online publication date: Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.104208
Chang RChanda RVafaei-Zadeh AHanifah HGui A(2024)Assessing Green Practices on Eco-Friendly Hotel Customer Loyalty: A Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis Hybrid ApproachSustainability10.3390/su1609383416:9(3834)Online publication date: 2-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093834
Zhang LGu FHe M(2024)The Influence of Digital Transformation on the Reconfigurability and Performance of Supply Chains: A Study of the Electronic, Machinery, and Home Appliance Manufacturing Industries in ChinaSustainability10.3390/su1607268916:7(2689)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072689
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Assessing Student Behavior in Computer Science Education with an fsQCA Approach: The Role of Gains and Barriers
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education

Recommendations

Understanding student retention in computer science education: The role of environment, gains, barriers and usefulness

Researchers have been working to understand the high dropout rates in computer science (CS) education. Despite the great demand for CS professionals, little is known about what influences individuals to complete their CS studies. We identify gains of ...
Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the initial perceptions of students
Abstract
The study adopted a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology2(UTAUT2) as a theoretical foundation to investigate students’ initial perceptions of Google Classroom as a mobile learning platform. By including six non-linear ...
Gen-AI integration in higher education: Predicting intentions using SEM-ANN approach
Abstract
This research delves into the multifaceted landscape of various factors that influence the adoption of Generation-Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) in Higher Education. By employing a comprehensive framework that includes perceived risk, perceived ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 17, Issue 2

June 2017

107 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3090098

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 May 2017

Accepted: 01 December 2016

Revised: 01 October 2016

Received: 01 July 2016

Published in TOCE Volume 17, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics
Norwegian Research Council

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

39
Total Citations
View Citations
728
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)82
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11

Reflects downloads up to 19 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Chanda RVafaei-Zadeh AHanifah HNikbin D(2025)Assessing cybersecurity awareness among bank employees: A multi-stage analytical approach using PLS-SEM, ANN, and fsQCA in a developing country contextComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.104208149(104208)Online publication date: Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.104208
Chang RChanda RVafaei-Zadeh AHanifah HGui A(2024)Assessing Green Practices on Eco-Friendly Hotel Customer Loyalty: A Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling and Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis Hybrid ApproachSustainability10.3390/su1609383416:9(3834)Online publication date: 2-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093834
Zhang LGu FHe M(2024)The Influence of Digital Transformation on the Reconfigurability and Performance of Supply Chains: A Study of the Electronic, Machinery, and Home Appliance Manufacturing Industries in ChinaSustainability10.3390/su1607268916:7(2689)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072689
Arias-Oliva MGené-Albesa JAndrés-Sánchez JLlorens-Marín M(2024)Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Loyalty Programmes Powered with Blockchain via an UTAUT2 FrameworkInformation10.3390/info1512075715:12(757)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/info15120757
Zhang RHao G(2024)Predictive analysis algorithm in educational technology: student behavior prediction and intervention strategy designApplied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences10.2478/amns-2024-10689:1Online publication date: 15-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-1068
Putra HOctoyuda EAfif Hasibuan M(2024)Decoding Arabica Coffee Purchase Intention: Exploring the Role of Product Origin Through Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis2024 12th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM)10.1109/CITSM64103.2024.10775358(1-6)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/CITSM64103.2024.10775358
Chanda RVafaei-Zadeh AHanifah HRamayah T(2024)Modelling eco-friendly smart home appliances’ adoption intention from the perspective of residents: a comparative analysis of PLS-SEM and fsQCAOpen House International10.1108/OHI-07-2023-0178Online publication date: 21-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-07-2023-0178
Wu QBo QLuo LYang CWang J(2024)Influencing factors and governance strategies of megaproject complexity based on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysisEngineering, Construction and Architectural Management10.1108/ECAM-12-2022-1203Online publication date: 2-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2022-1203
Ma YZuo MYan YLuo HWang K(2024)An fsQCA approach to identifying pathways to K-9 students’ online learning engagementDistance Education10.1080/01587919.2024.2338704(1-25)Online publication date: 9-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2024.2338704
Yadav RChatterjee SGiri A(2024)Understanding the factors influencing the continuous usage intention of healthcare apps: analysing the moderating impact of psychological distance and health consciousnessBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2024.2333945(1-19)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2333945
Show More Cited By

View Options

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 Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents