CS minors in a CS1 course

ABSTRACT

The focus of this paper is on science students (CS minors) in a CS1 Java course at a technical university. The following three questions are discussed: 1) Which programming related topics the students at the target CS1 course find difficult to learn, and what is the difference between the students that passed the course and the students that dropped out of the course. 2) What kind of strategies both the passed and the dropout students used when they faced a difficult programming related topic. 3) Why some students decided to drop out of the course.

The research questions are tackled with a quantitative approach. 459 students that passed the CS1 course and 119 dropout students answered the questionnaire. The most difficult topics to learn were finding runtime errors and planning one's own code. Inheritance & abstract classes, and handling files were also regarded as difficult topics. The open-ended question in the questionnaire revealed six viable strategies the students used when they faced difficult topics. The factor analysis elicited five dropout reasons: course arrangements, difficulty to understand course topics, time management and preferences, lack of consequences of dropping out, and effect of other courses.

The results are discussed in the light of the general system theory that highlights the multi-dimensionality of the dropout phenomenon.

References

1. K. Agarwal, K. and A. Agarwal, Python for CS1, CS2 and beyond, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20 (2005), pp. 262--270.
2. R. Bennett, Determinants of undergraduate student drop out rates in a university businss studies department, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27 (2003), pp. 123--141.
3. L. V. Bertalanffy, The History and Status of General Systems Theory, The Academy of Management Journal, 15 (1972), pp. 407--426.
4. R. Boyle, J. Carter and M. Clark, What Makes Them Succeed? Entry, progression and graduation in Computer Science, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26 (2002), pp. 3--18.
5. D. Chen and W. Stroup, General System Theory: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Science and Technology Education for All, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2 (1993), pp. 447--459.
6. N. Dale, B. , Most difficult topics in CS1: results of an online survey of educators, SIGCSE Bull., 38 (2006), pp. 49--53.
7. K. Goldman, P. Gross, C. Heeren, G. Herman, L. Kaczmarczyk, M. Loui, C. and C. Zilles, Identifying important and difficult concepts in introductory computing courses using a delphi process: selective compression of unicode arrays in java, Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM, Portland, OR, USA, 2008.
8. P. Kinnunen and L. Malmi, Why students drop out CS1 course?, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Computing education research, ACM, Canterbury, United Kingdom, 2006.
9. N. Luhmann, Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 2002.
10. N. Luhmann, Insistence on Systems Theory: Perspectives from Germany - An Essay, Social Forces 61 (1993/2001), pp. 987--998.
11. V. Meisalo, Futurology and education of physics and chemistry teachers, in E. Thulstrup, ed., Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Science and technology Education: The Challenge of the Future, Royal Danish School of Educational Studies, Copenhagen, 1985, pp. 251--260.
12. V. Meisalo, E. Sutinen and J. Tarhio, Modernit oppimisympäristöt, RT-Print Oy, Pieksämäki, 2003.
13. I. Milne and G. Rowe, Difficulties in Learning and Teaching Programming-Views of Students and Tutors, Education and Information Technologies, 7 (2002), pp. 55--66.
14. H. Patterson-McNeill, Experience: from C++ to Python in 3 easy steps, J. Comput. Small Coll., 22 (2006), pp. 92--96.
15. A. Radenski, "Python first": a lab-based digital introduction to computer science, SIGCSE Bull., 38 (2006), pp. 197--201.
16. A. Robins, J. Rountree and N. Rountree, Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion, Computer Science Education, 13 (2003), pp. 137--172.
17. G. Ryan and R. Bernard Data Management and Analysis Methods, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds., Collecting and Interpretting Qualitative Materials, SAGE Publication, London, 2003.
18. C. Schulte and J. Bennedsen, What do teachers teach in introductory programming?, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Computing education research, ACM, Canterbury, United Kingdom, 2006.
19. C. Shannon, Another breadth--first approach to CS I using python, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM, Reno, Navada, USA, 2003.
20. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddle, Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, SAGE Publications, London, 2003.
21. V. Tinto, Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research, Review of Educational Research 45 (1975), pp. 89--125.
22. P. R. Ventura, Identifying Predictors of Success for an Object-First CS1, Computer Science Education, 15 (2005), pp. 223--243.
23. S. Winn, Student motivation: a socio-economic perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2002), pp. 445--457.
24. C. P. M. Xenos and P. Pintelas, A survey on student dropout rates and dropout causes concerning the students in the course of informatics of the hellenic open university, Computers & Education, 39 (2002), pp. 361--194.
25. T. Yuen, Novices' knowledge construction of difficult concepts in CS1, SIGCSE Bull., 39 (2007), pp. 49--53.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Computing education programs

        • Computer science education