[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3372782.3406263acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing?: Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming

Published: 07 August 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Metacognition and self-regulation are popular areas of interest in programming education, and they have been extensively researched outside of computing. While computing education researchers should draw upon this prior work, programming education is unique enough that we should explore the extent to which prior work applies to our context. The goal of this systematic review is to support research on metacognition and self-regulation in programming education by synthesizing relevant theories, measurements, and prior work on these topics. By reviewing papers that mention metacognition or self-regulation in the context of programming, we aim to provide a benchmark of our current progress towards understanding these topics and recommendations for future research. In our results, we discuss eight common theories that are widely used outside of computing education research, half of which are commonly used in computing education research. We also highlight 11 theories on related constructs (e.g., self-efficacy) that have been used successfully to understand programming education. Towards measuring metacognition and self-regulation in learners, we discuss seven instruments and protocols that have been used and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. To benchmark the current state of research, we examined papers that primarily studied metacognition and self-regulation in programming education and synthesize the reported interventions used and results from that research. While the primary intended contribution of this paper is to support research, readers will also learn about developing and supporting metacognition and self-regulation of students in programming courses.

References

[1]
Onni Aarne, Petrus Peltola, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2018. A Study of Pair Programming Enjoyment and Attendance Using Study Motivation and Strategy Metrics. In Proc. of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 759--764. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159493
[2]
Khuloud Ahmad and Paul Gestwicki. 2013. Studio-Based Learning and App Inventor for Android in an Introductory CS Course for Non-Majors. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Denver, Colorado, USA) (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 287--292. https://doi. org/10.1145/2445196.2445286
[3]
Thomas A. Angelo and K. Patricia Cross. 1988. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for Faculty. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCRIPT, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
[4]
Carole A. Bagley and C. Candace Chou. 2007. Collaboration and The Importance for Novices in Learning Java Computer Programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 39, 3 (jun 2007), 211. https://doi.org/10.1145/1269900.1268846
[5]
Albert Bandura. 1986. The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-efficacy Theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology 4, 3 (1986), 359--373.
[6]
Albert Bandura and Richard H Walters. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Vol. 1. Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
[7]
Brett A. Becker, Paul Denny, Raymond Pettit, Durell Bouchard, Dennis J. Bouvier, Brian Harrington, Amir Kamil, Amey Karkare, Chris McDonald, Peter-Michael Osera, and et al. 2019. Compiler Error Messages Considered Unhelpful: The Landscape of Text-Based Programming Error Message Research. In Proc. of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Aberdeen, Scotland Uk) (ITiCSE-WGR '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177--210. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372508
[8]
Susan Bergin, Ronan Reilly, and Desmond Traynor. 2005. Examining the Role of Self-Regulated Learning on Introductory Programming Performance. In Proc. of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Seattle, WA, USA) (ICER '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81--86. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1089786.1089794
[9]
Aaron E. Black and Edward L. Deci. 2000. The Effects of Instructors' Autonomy Support and Students' Autonomous Motivation on Learning Organic Chemistry: A Self-determination Theory Perspective. Science Education 84, 6 (2000), 740--756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
[10]
Benjamin Samuel Bloom. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
[11]
Monique Boekaerts and Lyn Corno. 2005. Self-Regulation in the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and Intervention. Applied Psychology 54, 2 (2005), 199--231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
[12]
J. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
[13]
Jennifer Campbell, Diane Horton, and Michelle Craig. 2016. Factors for Success in Online CS1. In Proc. of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Arequipa, Peru) (ITiCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 320--325. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899457
[14]
Geraldine Clarebout, Jan Elen, Lieve Luyten, and Hadewych Bamps. 2001. Assessing Epistemological Beliefs: Schommer's Questionnaire Revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation 7, 1 (2001), 53--77. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.7.1.53.6927
[15]
Savia Coutinho. 2008. Self-efficacy, Metacognition, and Performance. North American Journal of Psychology 10, 1 (2008).
[16]
Michelle Craig, Diane Horton, Daniel Zingaro, and Danny Heap. 2016. Introducing and Evaluating Exam Wrappers in CS2. SIGCSE 2016 - Proc. of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (2016), 285--290. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844561
[17]
John Dalbey and Marcia C Linn. 1985. The Demands and Requirements of Computer Programming: A Literature Review. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1, 3 (1985), 253--274.
[18]
Daniel L. Dinsmore, Patricia A. Alexander, and Sandra M. Loughlin. 2008. Focusing the Conceptual Lens on Metacognition, Self-regulation, and Self-regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review 20, 4 (01 Dec 2008), 391--409. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
[19]
Adam Eck, Leen-Kiat Soh, and Duane F. Shell. 2016. Investigating Differences in Wiki-Based Collaborative Activities between Student Engagement Profiles in CS1. In Proc. of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (Memphis, Tennessee, USA) (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 36--41. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844615
[20]
Anastasia Efklides. 2008. Metacognition: Defining its Facets and Levels of Functioning in Relation to Self-regulation and Co-regulation. European Psychologist 13, 4 (2008), 277--287.
[21]
Andrew J Elliot and Holly A McGregor. 2001. A 2× 2 Achievement Goal Framework. Journal of personality and social psychology 80, 3 (2001), 501.
[22]
Peggy A. Ertmer and Timothy J. Newby. 1996. Expert Learner: Strategic, self regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science 24, 1 (1996), 1--24.
[23]
Katrina Falkner, Rebecca Vivian, and Nickolas J.G. Falkner. 2014. Identifying Computer Science Self-Regulated Learning Strategies. In Proc. of the 2014 Conference on Innovation Technology in Computer Science Education (Uppsala, Sweden) (ITiCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 291--296. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591715
[24]
John H Flavell. 1979. Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. American psychologist 34, 10 (1979), 906.
[25]
Allyson Fiona Hadwin, Sanna Järvelä, and Mariel Miller. 2011. Self-regulated, Coregulated, and Socially Shared Regulation of Learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance 30 (2011), 65--84.
[26]
Dean Hendrix, Lakshman Myneni, Hari Narayanan, and Margaret Ross. 2010. Implementing Studio-Based Learning in CS2. In Proc. of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) (SIGCSE '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 505--509. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734433
[27]
Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, Dana Fairbrother, and Michael Trevisan. 2010. Does Studio-Based Instruction Work in CS 1? An Empirical Comparison with a Traditional Approach. In Proc. of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) (SIGCSE '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 500--504. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734432
[28]
Kalle Ilves, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2018. Supporting Self-Regulated Learning with Visualizations in Online Learning Environments. In Proc. of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 257--262. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3159450.3159509
[29]
Viggo Kann and Anna-Karin Högfeldt. 2016. Effects of a Program Integrating Course for Students of Computer Science and Engineering. In Proc. of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (Memphis, Tennessee, USA) (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 510--515. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2839509.2844610
[30]
Ada S. Kim and Amy J. Ko. 2017. A Pedagogical Analysis of Online Coding Tutorials. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Seattle, Washington, USA) (SIGCSE '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 321--326. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017728
[31]
Michael S. Kirkpatrick and Samantha Prins. 2015. Using the Readiness Assurance Process and Metacognition in an Operating Systems Course. In Proc. of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Vilnius, Lithuania) (ITiCSE '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183--188. https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742594
[32]
Stan Kurkovsky, Stephanie Ludi, and Linda Clark. 2019. Active Learning with LEGO for Software Requirements. In Proc. of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (SIGCSE '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 218--224. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287444
[33]
Einari Kurvinen, Rolf Lindén, Teemu Rajala, Erkki Kaila, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, and Tapio Salakoski. 2012. Computer-assisted Learning in Primary School Mathematics Using ViLLE Education Tool. In Proc. of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research - Koli Calling '12. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 39--46. https://doi.org/10.1145/2401796.2401801
[34]
Leo Leppänen, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2016. Pauses and Spacing in Learning to Program. In Proc. of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41--50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999549
[35]
Alex Lishinski, Aman Yadav, Jon Good, and Richard Enbody. 2016. Learning to Program: Gender Differences and Interactive Effects of Students' Motivation, Goals, and Self-Efficacy on Performance. In Proc. of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 211--220. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960329
[36]
Dastyni Loksa and Amy J. Ko. 2016. The Role of Self-Regulation in Programming Problem Solving Process and Success. In Proc. of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - ICER '16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 83--91. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960334
[37]
Dastyni Loksa, Amy J Ko, Will Jernigan, Alannah Oleson, Christopher J Mendez, and Margaret M Burnett. 2016. Programming, Problem Solving, and Selfawareness: Effects of Explicit Guidance. In Proc. of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1449--1461.
[38]
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Päivi Kinnunen, Simon, and Jane Sinclair. 2019. Computing Education Theories: What Are They and How Are They Used?. In Proc. of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Toronto ON, Canada) (ICER '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 187--197. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339409
[39]
Murali Mani and Quamrul Mazumder. 2013. Incorporating Metacognition into Learning. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Denver, Colorado, USA) (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 53--58. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445218
[40]
Linda Mannila, Lars-Åke Nordén, and Arnold Pears. 2018. Digital Competence, Teacher Self-Efficacy and Training Needs. In Proc. of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Espoo, Finland) (ICER '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 78--85. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230993
[41]
Joshua Martin, Stephen H. Edwards, and Clfford A. Shaffer. 2015. The Effects of Procrastination Interventions on Programming Project Success. In Proc. of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (Omaha, Nebraska, USA) (ICER '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3--11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787730
[42]
Roger McDermott, Iain Pirie, Åsa Cajander, Mats Daniels, and Cary Laxer. 2013. Investigation into the Personal Epistemology of Computer Science Students. In Proc. of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Canterbury, England, UK) (ITiCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 231--236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2465589
[43]
Trevor T Moores, Jerry Cha-Jan Chang, and Deborah K Smith. 2006. Clarifying the Role of Self-efficacy and Metacognition as Predictors of Performance: Construct Development and Test. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 37, 2--3 (2006), 125--132.
[44]
Laurie Murphy, Timothy Fossum, Susan Haller, Kate Sanders, Renée McCauley, Briana B. Morrison, Carol Zander, Suzanne Westbrook, Brad Richards, and Ruth E. Anderson. 2005. A multi-institutional investigation of computer science seniors' knowledge of programming concepts. Proc. of the Thirty-Sixth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2005 (2005), 510--514. https: //doi.org/10.1145/1047124.1047505
[45]
Laurie Murphy and Josh Tenenberg. 2005. Do Computer Science Students Know What They Know?: A Calibration Study of Data Structure Knowledge. Proc. of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (2005), 148--152.
[46]
Jennifer Parham, Leo Gugerty, and D. E. Stevenson. 2010. Empirical Evidence for the Existence and Uses of Metacognition in Computer Science Problem Solving. SIGCSE'10 - Proc. of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2010), 416--420. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734406
[47]
Miranda C. Parker, Kantwon Rogers, Barbara J. Ericson, and Mark Guzdial. 2017. Students and Teachers Use An Online AP CS Principles EBook Differently: Teacher Behavior Consistent with Expert Learners. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Tacoma, Washington, USA) (ICER '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 101--109. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106189
[48]
Markeya S. Peteranetz, Shiyuan Wang, Duane F. Shell, Abraham E. Flanigan, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2018. Examining the Impact of Computational Creativity Exercises on College Computer Science Students' Learning, Achievement, Self-Efficacy, and Creativity. In Proc. of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 155--160. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159459
[49]
Paul R. Pintrich. 2000. Chapter 14 - The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. In Handbook of Self-Regulation, Monique Boekaerts, Paul R. Pintrich, and Moshe Zeidner (Eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, 451--502. https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
[50]
Paul R Pintrich et al. 1991. A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). (1991).
[51]
Paul R Pintrich and Elisabeth V De Groot. 1990. Motivational and Self-regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of educational psychology 82, 1 (1990), 33--40.
[52]
Paul R. Pintrich, David A. F. Smith, Teresa Garcia, and Wilbert J. Mckeachie. 1993. Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 3 (1993), 801--813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
[53]
James Prather, Raymond Pettit, Brett A. Becker, Paul Denny, Dastyni Loksa, Alani Peters, Zachary Albrecht, and Krista Masci. 2019. First Things First: Providing Metacognitive Scaffolding for Interpreting Problem Prompts. In Proc. of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (SIGCSE '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 531--537. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3287324.3287374
[54]
James Prather, Raymond Pettit, Kayla McMurry, Alani Peters, John Homer, and Maxine Cohen. 2018. Metacognitive Difficulties Faced by Novice Programmers in Automated Assessment Tools. In Proc. of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - ICER '18 (ICER '18), Vol. 95. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 41--50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230981
[55]
Keith Quille, Natalie Culligan, and Susan Bergin. 2017. Insights on Gender Differences in CS1: A Multi-Institutional, Multi-Variate Study. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Bologna, Italy) (ITiCSE '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 263--268. https://doi. org/10.1145/3059009.3059048
[56]
Vennila Ramalingam and Susan Wiedenbeck. 1998. Development and Validation of Scores on a Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale and Group Analyses of Novice Programmer Self-Efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research 19, 4 (1998), 367--381. https://doi.org/10.2190/C670-Y3C8-LTJ1-CT3P
[57]
Alexander Ruf, Andreas Mühling, and Peter Hubwieser. 2014. Scratch vs. Karel: Impact on Learning Outcomes and Motivation. In Proc. of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (Berlin, Germany) (WiPSCE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 50--59. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670772
[58]
Richard Ryan and James Connell. 1989. Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, 5 (1989), 749--761.
[59]
Marlene Schommer. 1990. Effects of Beliefs About the Nature of Knowledge on Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 3 (1990), 498--504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
[60]
Dale H Schunk. 2008. Metacognition, Self-regulation, and Self-regulated Learning: Research Recommendations. Educational psychology review 20, 4 (2008), 463--467.
[61]
Sarah Schwarm and Tammy VanDeGrift. 2003. Making Connections: Using Classroom Assessment to Elicit Students' Prior Knowledge and Construction of Concepts. In Proc. of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Thessaloniki, Greece) (ITiCSE '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65--69. https://doi.org/10.1145/961511.961532
[62]
Ralf Schwarzer and Matthias Jerusalem. 1995. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, J. Weinman, S. Wright, and M. Johnston (Eds.). NFER-NELSON, Windsor, UK, 35--37.
[63]
Duane F. Shell, Jenefer Husman, D. M. Droesch, Indira Nath, N. Wall, and Jeannine E. Turner. 1995. Project CIRCLE: First Year Evaluation Report (Grant #R215D30195). Technical Report. U.S. Department of Education: Secretary's Fund for Innovation in Education and University of Texas, College of Education, Learning Technology Center. Washington, DC.
[64]
Duane F. Shell, Jenefer Husman, Jeannine E. Turner, Deborah M. Cliffel, Indira Nath, and Noelle Sweany. 2005. The Impact of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Communities on High School Students' Knowledge Building, Strategic Learning, and Perceptions of the Classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research 33, 3 (2005), 327--349. https://doi.org/10.2190/787L-BCBQ-20FN-FW6C
[65]
Ben Stephenson, Michelle Craig, Daniel Zingaro, Diane Horton, Danny Heap, and Elaine Huynh. 2018. Exam Wrappers: Not a Silver Bullet. In Proc. of the 23rd Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (Victoria, BC, Canada) (WCCCE '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article Article 1, 1 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3209635.3209655
[66]
Jeffrey A. Stone and Elinor M. Madigan. 2007. Integrating Reflective Writing in CS/IS. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2 (June 2007), 42--45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1272848. 1272881
[67]
Claudia Szabo, Nickolas Falkner, Andrew Petersen, Heather Bort, Kathryn Cunningham, Peter Donaldson, Arto Hellas, James Robinson, and Judy Sheard. 2019. Review and Use of Learning Theories within Computer Science Education Research: Primer for Researchers and Practitioners. In Proc. of the WG Reports on Innovation and Technology in Comp Sci Education (Aberdeen, Scotland Uk) (ITiCSEWGR '19). ACM, NY, USA, 89--109. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372504
[68]
Laura Toma and Jan Vahrenhold. 2018. Self-Efficacy, Cognitive Load, and Emotional Reactions in Collaborative Algorithms Labs - A Case Study. In Proc. of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Espoo, Finland) (ICER '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--10. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230980
[69]
Tammy VanDeGrift, Tamara Caruso, Natalie Hill, and Beth Simon. 2011. Experience Report: Getting Novice Programmers to THINK about Improving Their Software Development Process. In Proc. of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Dallas, TX, USA) (SIGCSE '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493--498. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953307
[70]
Arto Vihavainen, Craig S. Miller, and Amber Settle. 2015. Benefits of Selfexplanation in Introductory Programming. In Proc. of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE '15, Vol. 68. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 284--289. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677260
[71]
Christopher Watson, Frederick W.B. Li, and Jamie L. Godwin. 2014. No Tests Required: Comparing Traditional and Dynamic Predictors of Programming Success. In Proc. of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (SIGCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 469--474. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538930
[72]
Philip H Winne and Allyson F Hadwin. 1998. Studying as Self-Regulated Engagement in Learning. Metacognition in educational theory and practice (1998), 277--304.
[73]
Lisa Yan, Annie Hu, and Chris Piech. 2019. Pensieve: Feedback on Coding Process for Novices. SIGCSE 2019 - Proc. of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 2 (2019), 253--259. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287483
[74]
Barry J. Zimmerman. 1990. Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview. Educational Psychologist 25, 1 (1990), 3--17. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s15326985ep2501_2
[75]
Barry J. Zimmerman. 2000. Chapter 2 - Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In Handbook of Self-Regulation, Monique Boekaerts, Paul R. Pintrich, and Moshe Zeidner (Eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, 13--39. https: //doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
[76]
Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Peer Instruction Contributes to Self-Efficacy in CS1. In Proc. of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (SIGCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373--378. https://doi. org/10.1145/2538862.2538878

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Sustaining Undergraduate Students’ Metacognitive Regulatory Actions During Online Flipped Programming CourseJournal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age10.53850/joltida.13910399:2(111-128)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Assessing the combined effect of metacognitive skills and scientific attitudes as catalysts for gender-specific academic achievement in scienceJournal of Research in Didactical Sciences10.51853/jorids/156093:1(4)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Programar en la universidad. Cuadernillo de apoyo cognitivo para el análisis de los procesosRevista Colombiana de Computación10.29375/25392115.446325:1(1-18)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICER '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 2020
364 pages
ISBN:9781450370929
DOI:10.1145/3372782
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

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 August 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Badges

  • Best Paper
  • Chair's Award

Author Tags

  1. cognition
  2. cognitive control
  3. cs1
  4. metacognition
  5. metacognitive awareness
  6. programming
  7. self-regulation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ICER '20
Sponsor:
ICER '20: International Computing Education Research Conference
August 1 - 5, 2020
Virtual Event, New Zealand

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

ICER 2025
ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 3 - 6, 2025
Charlottesville , VA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)455
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)67
Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Sustaining Undergraduate Students’ Metacognitive Regulatory Actions During Online Flipped Programming CourseJournal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age10.53850/joltida.13910399:2(111-128)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Assessing the combined effect of metacognitive skills and scientific attitudes as catalysts for gender-specific academic achievement in scienceJournal of Research in Didactical Sciences10.51853/jorids/156093:1(4)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Programar en la universidad. Cuadernillo de apoyo cognitivo para el análisis de los procesosRevista Colombiana de Computación10.29375/25392115.446325:1(1-18)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Examining the Foreign Language Writing Experiences of Computer Engineering StudentsAmerican Journal of Qualitative Research10.29333/ajqr/143968:2(116-135)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Can metacognition predict your success in solving problems? An exploratory case study in programmingProceedings of the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3699538.3699593(1-12)Online publication date: 12-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Test Anxiety and Self-Efficacy in a Computer-Based Test EnvironmentProceedings of the 26th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education10.1145/3660650.3660651(1-7)Online publication date: 2-May-2024
  • (2024)Computational Thinking for Self-Regulated LearningProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653565(640-645)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)An Empirical Study of the Content and Quality of Sprint Retrospectives in Undergraduate Team Software ProjectsProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training10.1145/3639474.3640074(104-114)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Novice programmers inaccurately monitor the quality of their work and their peers’ work in an introductory computer science courseProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3636555.3636848(35-45)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
  • (2024)The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice ProgrammersProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671116(469-486)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media