What do Students Want to Know About the Digital World?: Investigating Students’ Interest in CS through self-generated Questions
Article No.: 12, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
Interest affects not only a person’s personality development and professional career, but it is also an important motivator in the learning process. Despite this, in computer science education, there is a lack of empirical studies on student-specific interests. With this study, we hope to bridge some of the gaps by analyzing the interests of 7th to 10th grade students based on 252 self-generated questions about the digital world. These questions were categorized using four separate category systems derived in part from other research: fields of the digital world, thematic content, type of information requested, and motivation for asking the question. In addition, an analysis of gender and age differences was carried out. The findings suggest that data security and privacy are topics of great concern to students of this age group. Furthermore, students are interested in learning how to program apps or software. This also refers to students who have never taken a computer science class in school. Significant differences were found between boys’ and girls’ motivation for raising questions. For instance, boys asked significantly more questions about applicative knowledge that they could put to use. Finally, we discuss how self-generated questions and interests of students can enhance computer science education.
References
[1]
Alan Agresti. 2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (second ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[2]
Glen Aikenhead. 1994. What Is STS Science Teaching?In STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform. Ways of Knowing Science Series, Joan Solomon and Glen Aikenhead (Eds.). Teachers College Press, New York, 47–59.
[3]
Mary Ainley, Suzanne Hidi, and Dagmar Berndorff. 2002. Interest, Learning, and the Psychological Processes That Mediate Their Relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology 94, 3 (2002), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
[4]
Patricia A. Alexander and P. Karen Murphy. 1998. Profiling the Differences in Students’ Knowledge, Interest, and Strategic Processing. Journal of Educational Psychology 90, 3 (1998), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.435
[5]
Joseph P. Allen. 2008. The Attachment System in Adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (2nd editioned.), Jude Cassidy and Phillip R. Shaver (Eds.). The Guilford Press, New York, NY, US, 419–435.
[6]
Catherine Ashcraft, Elizabeth K. Eger, and Michelle Friend. 2012. Girls in IT: The Facts. National Center for Women & Information Technology, Boulder, CO.
[7]
Ayelet Baram-Tsabari, Ricky J. Sethi, Lynn Bry, and Anat Yarden. 2006. Using Questions Sent to an Ask-A-Scientist Site to Identify Children’s Interests in Science. Science Education 90, 6 (2006), 1050–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20163
[8]
Ayelet Baram-Tsabari and Anat Yarden. 2005. Characterizing Children’s Spontaneous Interests in Science and Technology. International Journal of Science Education 27, 7 (2005), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038389
[9]
Ayelet Baram-Tsabari and Anat Yarden. 2007. Interest in Biology: A Developmental Shift Characterized Using Self-Generated Questions. The American Biology Teacher 69, 9 (2007), 532–540. https://doi.org/10.2307/4452223
[10]
Ayelet Baram-Tsabari and Anat Yarden. 2011. Quantifying the Gender Gap in Science Interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 9, 3(2011), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9194-7
[11]
T. Mark Beasley and Randall E. Schumacker. 1995. Multiple Regression Approach to Analyzing Contingency Tables: Post Hoc and Planned Comparison Procedures. Journal of Experimental Education 64, 1 (1995), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1995.9943797
[12]
Judith Bennett. 2003. Teaching and Learning Science: A Guide to Recent Research and Its Applications. Continuum, London, UK.
[13]
Judith Bennett. 2016. Bringing Science to Life. In Teachers Creating Context-Based Learning Environments in Science, R. Taconis, P. den Brok, and A. Pilot (Eds.). SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-684-2_2
[14]
Lars H. Bodenstein, Christian Borowski, and Ira Diethelm. 2016. Was Schüler Über Informatik Fragen Und Was Ihre Lehrkräfte Dazu Vermuten. In Informatik für Kinder - 7. Münsteraner Workshop Zur Schulinformatik. Books on Demand, Norderstedt, Germany, 1–8.
[15]
Maria Vetleseter Bøe. 2012. Science Choices in Norwegian Upper Secondary School: What Matters?Science Education 96, 1 (2012), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20461
[16]
Christian Borowski, Ira Diethelm, and Henning Wilken. 2016. What Children Ask About Computers, the Internet, Robots, Mobiles, Games Etc. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education(WiPSCE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 72–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/2978249.2978259
[17]
Robert L. Brennan and Dale J. Prediger. 1981. Coefficient Kappa: Some Uses, Misuses, and Alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement 41, 3 (1981), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
[18]
Rodger Bybee and Barry McCrae. 2011. Scientific Literacy and Student Attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 Science. International Journal of Science Education 33, 1 (2011), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
[19]
Stephanie Carretero, Riina Vuorikari, and Yves Punie. 2017. DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with Eight Proficiency Levels and Examples of Use. Technical Report JRC106281. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
[20]
Christine Chin and Jonathan Osborne. 2008. Students’ Questions: A Potential Resource for Teaching and Learning Science. Studies in Science Education 44, 1 (2008), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101
[21]
Vasilia Christidou. 2011. Interest, Attitudes and Images Related to Science: Combining Students’ Voices with the Voices of School Science, Teachers, and Popular Science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 6, 2(2011), 141–159.
[22]
Jorge Costa, Helena Caldeira, Juan R. Gallástegui, and José Otero. 2000. An Analysis of Question Asking on Scientific Texts Explaining Natural Phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37, 6 (2000), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<602::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-N
[23]
European Council. 2006. Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Technical Report 2006/962/EC. Council of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium.
[24]
Betul Demirdogen and Gultekin Cakmakci. 2014. Investigating Students’ Interest in Chemistry through Self-Generated Questions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 15, 2 (2014), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00037D
[25]
Ira Diethelm, Christian Borowski, and Thomas Weber. 2010. Identifying Relevant CS Contexts Using the Miracle Question. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research(Koli Calling ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 74–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/1930464.1930477
[26]
Daniel Ebbert. 2019. Chisq.Posthoc.Test: A Post Hoc Analysis for Pearson’s Chi-Squared Test for Count Data.
[27]
Ridvan Elmas, Fatma Akın Çelebi, and Ömer Geban. 2013. Ask a Scientist Website: Trends in Chemistry Questions in Turkey. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 22, 4 (2013), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0058-0
[28]
John K. Gilbert. 2006. On the Nature of “Context” in Chemical Education. International Journal of Science Education 28, 9 (2006), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
[29]
Shawn M. Glynn, Gita Taasoobshirazi, and Peggy Brickman. 2009. Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct Validation with Nonscience Majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46, 2 (2009), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20267
[30]
Frederick J. Gravetter and Larry B. Wallnau. 2020. Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (tenth ed.). Cengage Learning, Boston, MA, USA.
[31]
Andreas Grillenberger and Ralf Romeike. 2018. Developing a Theoretically Founded Data Literacy Competency Model. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education(WiPSCE ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9:1–9:10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265757.3265766
[32]
Galit Hagay and Ayelet Baram-Tsabari. 2015. A Strategy for Incorporating Students’ Interests into the High-School Science Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52, 7 (2015), 949–978. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21228
[33]
Bettina Hannover. 1998. The Development of Self-Concept and Interests. In Interest and Learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, Lore Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, and Jürgen Baumert (Eds.). Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN), Kiel, Germany, 105–125.
[34]
Judith M. Harackiewicz, Amanda M. Durik, Kenneth E. Barron, Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia, and John M. Tauer. 2008. The Role of Achievement Goals in the Development of Interest: Reciprocal Relations between Achievement Goals, Interest, and Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 100, 1 (2008), 105–122.
[35]
Peter Häußler, Wolfgang Bünder, Reinders Duit, Wolfgang Gräber, and Jürgen Mayer. 1998. Naturwissenschaftsdidaktische Forschung - Perspektiven für die Unterrichtspraxis. Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN), Kiel.
[36]
Lore Hoffmann and Peter Häussler. 1998. An Intervention Project Promoting Girls’ and Boys’ Interest in Physics. In Interest and Learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, Lore Hoffmann, Andreas Krapp, K. Ann Renninger, and Jürgen Baumert (Eds.). Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN), Kiel, Germany, 301–316.
[37]
Alboukadel Kassambara. 2021. Rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests.
[38]
Olaf Köller, Jürgen Baumert, and Kai-Uwe Schnabel. 2001. Does Interest Matter? The Relationship between Academic Interest and Achievement in Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 32, 5 (2001), 448–470. https://doi.org/10.2307/749801
[39]
Andreas Krapp. 2000. Individuelle Interessen als Bedingung lebenslangen Lernens. In Lebenslanges Lernen im Beruf — seine Grundlegung im Kindes- und Jugendalter: Band 3: Psychologische Theorie, Empirie und Therapie, Frank Achtenhagen and Wolfgang Lempert (Eds.). Springer, Wiesbaden, 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11200-6_5
[40]
Andreas Krapp. 2002. An Educational-Psychological Theory of Interest and Its Relation to SDT. In The Handbook of Self-Determination Research, Edward Deci and Richard M. Ryan (Eds.). University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, US, 405–427.
[41]
Andreas Krapp and Manfred Prenzel. 2011. Research on Interest in Science: Theories, Methods, and Findings. International Journal of Science Education 33, 1 (2011), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518645
[42]
Udo Kuckartz. 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. Sage Publications, London.
[43]
Udo Kuckartz and Stefan Rädiker. 2019. Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA: Text, Audio, and Video. Springer, Cham.
[44]
Allison Master, Sapna Cheryan, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 2016. Computing Whether She Belongs: Stereotypes Undermine Girls’ Interest and Sense of Belonging in Computer Science.Journal of Educational Psychology 108, 3 (2016), 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000061
[45]
David Meyer, Achim Zeileis, Kurt Hornik, Florian Gerber, and Michael Friendly. 2020. Vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data.
[46]
OECD. 2007. PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World: Volume 1: Analysis. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
[47]
Ofcom. 2021. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2020/21. Technical Report. Ofcom, London, UK.
[48]
Helena Pedrosa De Jesus, José J. C. Teixeira-Dias, and Mike Watts. 2003. Questions of Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 25, 8 (2003), 1015–1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305022
[49]
Sören Podschuweit and Sascha Bernholt. 2018. Composition-Effects of Context-Based Learning Opportunities on Students’ Understanding of Energy. Research in Science Education 48, 4 (2018), 717–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9585-z
[50]
Patrice Potvin and Abdelkrim Hasni. 2014. Interest, Motivation and Attitude towards Science and Technology at K-12 Levels: A Systematic Review of 12 Years of Educational Research. Studies in Science Education 50, 1 (2014), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
[51]
Manfred Prenzel, Kerstin Schütte, and Oliver Walter. 2007. Interesse an den Naturwissenschaften. In PISA 2006: die Ergebnisse der dritten internationalen Vergleichsstudie, Manfred Prenzel, Cordula Artelt, Jürgen Baumert, Werner Blum, Marcus Hammann, Eckhard Klieme, and Reinhard Pekrun (Eds.). Waxmann, Münster, New York, München, Berlin, 107–124.
[52]
Hermann Puhlmann, Torsten Brinda, Michael Fothe, Steffen Friedrich, Bernhard Koerber, Gerhard Röhner, and Carsten Schulte. 2008. Grundsätze Und Standards Für Die Informatik in Der Schule: Bildungsstandards Informatik Für Die Sekundarstufe I [Principles and Standards for Computer Science in Schools: Educational Standards for Computer Science Lower Secondary]. Supplement to LOG IN 28, 150/151 (2008), 1–73.
[53]
Brian J. Reiser, Lisa Brody, Michael Novak, Tipton Keetra, and Leeann Adams. 2017. Asking Questions. In Helping Students Make Sense of the World Using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices, Christina V. Schwarz, Cynthia Passmore, and Brian J. Reiser(Eds.). NSTA Press, Arlington, Virginia, 87–108.
[54]
Charles J. Rop. 2003. Spontaneous Inquiry Questions in High School Chemistry Classrooms: Perceptions of a Group of Motivated Learners. International Journal of Science Education 25, 1 (2003), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126496
[55]
Ulrich Schiefele, Andreas Krapp, and Inge Schreyer. 1993. Metaanalyse Des Zusammenhangs von Interesse Und Schulischer Leistung. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 25, 2(1993), 120–148.
[56]
Sigrid Schubert and Andreas Schwill. 2011. Didaktik der Informatik(second ed.). Spektrum, Akademischer Verl, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8274-2653-6
[57]
Svein Sjøberg. 2000. Science and scientists: the SAS-study : cross-cultural evidence and perspectives on pupils’ interests, experiences and perceptions : background, development and selected results. Technical Report. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
[58]
Svein Sjøberg and Camilla Schreiner. 2010. The ROSE Project An Overview and Key Findings. Technical Report. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 31 pages.
[59]
VERBI Software. 2019. MAXQDA 2020. VERBI Software.
[60]
Hani Swirski, Ayelet Baram-Tsabari, and Anat Yarden. 2018. Does Interest Have an Expiration Date? An Analysis of Students’ Questions as Resources for Context-Based Learning. International Journal of Science Education 40, 10 (2018), 1136–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470348
[61]
R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
[62]
Ming-Te Wang and Jessica Degol. 2013. Motivational Pathways to STEM Career Choices: Using Expectancy–Value Perspective to Understand Individual and Gender Differences in STEM Fields. Developmental Review 33, 4 (2013), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
[63]
Franz E. Weinert. 2014. Leistungsmessungen in Schulen(3 ed.). Beltz, Weinheim [u.a.].
[64]
Sevda Yerdelen-Damar and Ali Eryılmaz. 2010. Questions About Physics: The Case of a Turkish ‘Ask a Scientist’ Website. Research in Science Education 40, 2 (2010), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9119-4
Index Terms
- What do Students Want to Know About the Digital World?: Investigating Students’ Interest in CS through self-generated Questions
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Closing the Gender and Underrepresented Minority Gap in CS: UTeach Computer Science Principles AP Assessment Results (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationGender and racial/ethnic participation gaps in computing is a well-documented problem motivating several interventions aimed at attracting and retaining women and underrepresented students (Black or African American, Latinx, and Native American students)...
Gender Analysis of a Large Scale Survey of Middle Grades Students' Conceptions of Computer Science Education
GenderIT '15: Proceedings of the Third Conference on GenderITThis paper summarizes findings from a Student Motivation Survey (SMS) developed to monitor students' dispositions toward CS education. This survey was administered as part of the iDREAMS project, which involved creating in-school computer programming ...
Digital Native Students: Gender Differences in Mathematics and Gaming
The purpose of this study was to explore gender differences among digital native students in mathematics learning and gaming. A quantitative dominant mixed methods approach was employed in which quantitative surveys [174 students] and qualitative ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2021
119 pages
Copyright © 2021 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: 19 October 2021
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
WiPSCE '21
WiPSCE '21: The 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education
October 18 - 20, 2021
Virtual Event, Germany
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 104 of 279 submissions, 37%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 140Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)42
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 21 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format