[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3587102.3588856acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Variables Affecting Students' Success in CS2

Published: 30 June 2023 Publication History

Abstract

When trying to understand student success in computer science, much of the attention has been focused on CS1, leaving follow-up courses such as CS2 less researched. Prior studies of CS2 have often taken a deductive approach by focusing on predetermined variables such as CS1 grades, the impact of different paths from CS1 to CS2, gender and race. Although this has resulted in a better insight into these variables, we wonder if there might be another way of viewing which variables affect the students' success in the course. We have therefore chosen an inductive approach to better understand what these variables might be and how they interplay. This was done by analysing 16 semi-structured interviews with students enrolled in CS2 who have another speciality than computer science. The interviews focused mainly on the students' methods for succeeding in the course, experiences of the course and programming background. Through a thematic analysis of the interviews, we found the following five main success variables for CS2: programming competence, computer literacy, opportunity to receive help, ability to help oneself and teaching. These variables can in several cases be related to the ones previously addressed, however, they can also offer a different perspective on student success in the course.When trying to understand student success in computer science, much of the attention has been focused on CS1, leaving follow-up courses such as CS2 less researched. Prior studies of CS2 have often taken a deductive approach by focusing on predetermined variables such as CS1 grades, the impact of different paths from CS1 to CS2, gender and race. Although this has resulted in a better insight into these variables, we wonder if there might be another way of viewing which variables affect the students' success in the course. We have therefore chosen an inductive approach to better understand what these variables might be and how they interplay. This was done by analysing 16 semi-structured interviews with students enrolled in CS2 who have another speciality than computer science. The interviews focused mainly on the students' methods for succeeding in the course, experiences of the course and programming background. Through a thematic analysis of the interviews, we found the following five main success variables for CS2: programming competence, computer literacy, opportunity to receive help, ability to help oneself and teaching. These variables can in several cases be related to the ones previously addressed, however, they can also offer a different perspective on student success in the course.

References

[1]
Carol Ann Alspaugh. 1972. Identification of some components of computer programming aptitude. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 3, 2 (1972), 89--98.
[2]
Leland Beck, Patty Kraft, and Alexander W. Chizhik. 2022. Predicting Student Success in CS2: A Study of CS1 Exam Questions. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1 (Providence, RI, USA) (SIGCSE 2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 140--146. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499276
[3]
Halil Bisgin, Murali Mani, and Suleyman Uludag. 2018. Delineating Factors that Influence Student Performance in a Data Structures Course. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1--9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8659300
[4]
Camilla Björn. 2022. Non-CS Students' Progression from CS1 to CS2. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 2 (Dublin, Ireland) (ITiCSE '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 612. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502717.3532139
[5]
Nick Black. 1994. Why we need qualitative research. Journal of epidemiology and community health, Vol. 48, 5 (1994), 425.
[6]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, Vol. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.
[7]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, Vol. 11, 4 (2019), 589--597.
[8]
Tracy Camp, W. Richards Adrion, Betsy Bizot, Susan Davidson, Mary Hall, Susanne Hambrusch, Ellen Walker, and Stuart Zweben. 2017. Generation CS: The Growth of Computer Science. ACM Inroads, Vol. 8, 2 (may 2017), 44--50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084362
[9]
Swedish Research Council. 2017. Good Research Practice. Swedish Research Council, Stockholm.
[10]
Holger Danielsiek and Jan Vahrenhold. 2016. Stay on These Roads: Potential Factors Indicating Students' Performance in a CS2 Course. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (Memphis, Tennessee, USA) (SIGCSE '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12--17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844591
[11]
Varvara Garneli, Michail N. Giannakos, and Konstantinos Chorianopoulos. 2015. Computing education in K-12 schools: A review of the literature. In 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). 543--551. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2015.7096023
[12]
Arto Hellas, Petri Ihantola, Andrew Petersen, Vangel V. Ajanovski, Mirela Gutica, Timo Hynninen, Antti Knutas, Juho Leinonen, Chris Messom, and Soohyun Nam Liao. 2018. Predicting Academic Performance: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Larnaca, Cyprus) (ITiCSE 2018 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 175--199. https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295783
[13]
Dean Hendrix, Lakshman Myneni, Hari Narayanan, and Margaret Ross. 2010. Implementing Studio-Based Learning in CS2. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) (SIGCSE '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 505--509. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734433
[14]
Sara Hooshangi, Margaret Ellis, and Stephen H. Edwards. 2022. Factors Influencing Student Performance and Persistence in CS2. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1 (Providence, RI, USA) (SIGCSE 2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 286--292. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499272
[15]
Cecilia Kilhamn, Lennart Rolandsson, and Kajsa Bråting. 2021. Programmering i svensk skolmatematik: Programming in Swedish school mathematics. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, Vol. 9, 1 (2021), 283--312.
[16]
KTH. 2021. DD1320 Applied Computer Science 6.0 credits. https://www.kth.se/student/kurser/kurs/DD1320?l=en
[17]
Lucas Layman, Yang Song, and Curry Guinn. 2020. Toward Predicting Success and Failure in CS2: A Mixed-Method Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Southeast Conference (Tampa, FL, USA) (ACM SE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 218--225. https://doi.org/10.1145/3374135.3385277
[18]
Mark C. Lewis and Berna Massingill. 2006. Graphical Game Development in CS2: A Flexible Infrastructure for a Semester Long Project. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Houston, Texas, USA) (SIGCSE '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 505--509. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121341.1121499
[19]
Joseph A Maxwell. 2021. Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 8, 1 (2021), 111.
[20]
Sander Valstar, William G. Griswold, and Leo Porter. 2019. The Relationship between Prerequisite Proficiency and Student Performance in an Upper-Division Computing Course. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (SIGCSE '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 794--800. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287419
[21]
Christopher Watson, Frederick W.B. Li, and Jamie L. Godwin. 2014. No Tests Required: Comparing Traditional and Dynamic Predictors of Programming Success. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (SIGCSE '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 469--474. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538930
[22]
Brenda Cantwell Wilson and Sharon Shrock. 2001. Contributing to Success in an Introductory Computer Science Course: A Study of Twelve Factors. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Charlotte, North Carolina, USA) (SIGCSE '01). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 184--188. https://doi.org/10.1145/364447.364581
[23]
Travis T York, Charles Gibson, and Susan Rankin. 2015. Defining and measuring academic success. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, Vol. 20, 1 (2015), 5.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Introducing a High School Student to Systems Programming Via Bare Machine ComputingIntelligent Computing10.1007/978-3-031-62273-1_14(201-213)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ITiCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1
June 2023
694 pages
ISBN:9798400701382
DOI:10.1145/3587102
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 June 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. CS2
  2. computer literacy
  3. help
  4. programming competence
  5. student performance

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ITiCSE 2023
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

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

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)124
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)17
Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Introducing a High School Student to Systems Programming Via Bare Machine ComputingIntelligent Computing10.1007/978-3-031-62273-1_14(201-213)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2024

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media