skip to main content
10.1145/3159450.3159513acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Future-Oriented Motivation and Retention in Computer Science

Published: 21 February 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Retaining students in computer science (CS) courses and majors is a concern for many undergraduate CS programs in the United States. A large proportion of students who initially declare a major in CS do not complete a CS degree. The impact of future-oriented motivational constructs such as career aspirations and future connectedness on retention has received relatively little research attention, but these are potential contributors to students' retention in CS courses. The purpose of this study was to investigate how future-oriented motivation related to CS students' retention in CS courses over three consecutive semesters. Students enrolled in CS courses (four 100-level courses, one 200-level course, three 300-level courses, and five 400-level courses) completed survey measures of future-oriented motivation, and course enrollment data were collected for the three semesters. Logistic regression was used to determine whether motivation variables could distinguish between students who were enrolled in at least one CS course during a given semester and students who were not enrolled in any CS courses. Results indicate that, across all three semesters, career aspirations and knowledge of CS career paths were associated with a greater likelihood of continuing to take CS courses, and stronger future connectedness was associated with a lower likelihood of continuing to take CS courses. Implications for CS educators are discussed.

References

[1]
J. Basl. 2011. Effect of school on interest in natural sciences: A comparison of the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland and Norway based on PISA 2006. Internat. J. of Sci. Educ., 33, 145--157.
[2]
S. Beyer. 2014. Why are women underrepresented in Computer Science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Compu. Sci. Education, 24(2--3), 153--192.
[3]
W. M. Dubow, B. A. Quinn, G. Childress Townsend, R. Robinson, and V. Barr. 2016. Efforts to make computer science more inclusive of women. ACM Inroads, 7(4), 74--80.
[4]
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.
[5]
A. F. Hayes and J. Matthes. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924--936.
[6]
J. C. Hilpert, J. Husman, G. S. Stump, W. Kim, W. Chung, and M. A. Duggan. 2012. Examing students' future time perspective: Pathways to knowledge building. Japanese Psychological Research, 54, 229--240.
[7]
J. Husman, S. K. Brem, S. Banegas, D. W. Duchrow, and S. Haque. 2015. Learning and future time perspective: The promise of the future--rewarding in the present. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), Time perspective theory; Review, research and application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 131--141), Springer International Publishing.
[8]
J. Husman, J. Hilpert, and S. Brem. 2016. Future time perspective connectedness to a career: The contextual effects of classroom knowledge building. Psychologica Belgica, 56, 210--225.
[9]
J. Husman and D. F. Shell. 2008. Beliefs and perceptions about the future: A measurement of future time perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 166--175.
[10]
S. Katz, D. Allbritton, J. Aronis, C. Wilson, M. J. and Soffa. 2006, fall. Gender, achievement, and persistence in an undergraduate computer science program. The DATA Base for Advances in Information Systems, 37(4), 42--57.
[11]
D. Langdon, G. McKittrick, D. Beede, B. Khan, and M. Doms. 2011, July. STEM: Good jobs now and for the future (Issue Brief #03--11). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.
[12]
L. S. Liben and E. F. Coyle. 2014. Developmental interventions to address the STEM gender gap: Exploring intended and unintended consequences. In L. S. Liben & R. S. Bigler (Vol. Eds.) The Role of Gender in Educational Contexts and Outcomes. In J. B. Benson (Series Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior: Vol. 47 (pp. 77--116). London: Elsevier.
[13]
H. Markus and P. Nurius. 1986. Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954--969.
[14]
B. Nagengast and H. W. Marsh. 2012. Big fish in little ponds aspire more: Mediation and cross-cultural generalizability of school-average ability effects on self-concept and career aspirations in science. J. of Educational Psychol., 104, 1033--1054.
[15]
Organisation (sic) for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2009. PISA 2006 technical report. Paris, France.
[16]
Organisation (sic) for Economic Co-operation and Development. Programme for International Student Assessment: About PISA. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/.
[17]
L. Porter and B. Simon. 2013. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1, SIGCSE'13, 165--170.
[18]
L. J. Sax, K. J. Lehman, J. A. Jacobs, M. A. Kanny, G. Lim, L. Monje-Paulson, and H. B. Zimmerman. 2017. Anatomy of an enduring gender gap: The evolution of women's participation in computer science. The J. of Higher Education, 88(2), 258--293.
[19]
E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
[20]
D. F. Shell, D. W. Brooks, G. Trainin, K. Wilson, D. F. Kauffman, and L. Herr. 2010. The Unified Learning Model: How Motivational, Cognitive, And Neurobiological Sciences Inform Best Teaching Practices. Springer, the Netherlands.
[21]
D. Shell and J. Husman. 2001. The multivariate dimensionality of personal control and future time perspective in achievement and studying. Contemporary Educational Psychol., 26, 481--506.
[22]
D. F. Shell, L.-K. Soh, A. E. Flanigan, and M. S. Peteranetz., 2016. Students' initial course motivation and their achievement and retention in college CS1 courses. In Proc. SIGCSE 2016 (Memphis, TN), 639--644.
[23]
J. Simons, M. Vansteenkiste, W. Lens, and M. Lacante. 2004. Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychol. Review, 16, 121--139.
[24]
J. Watkins and E. Mazur. 2013. Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. J. of College Sci. Teaching, 42(5), 36--41.
[25]
P. G. Zimbardo and J. N. Boyd. 2009. The time paradox: The new psychology of time that will change your life. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Strategies for Recruitment and Retention in Computer ScienceJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3717781.371780040:5(149-158)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2024
  • (2021)Pengaruh motivasi dan persepsi dalam penyelesaian studi mahasiswa Fakultas Ilmu Komputer di BatamJurnal Pendidikan Informatika dan Sains10.31571/saintek.v10i1.264010:1(11-27)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2021
  • (2021)Digital imaging and vision analysis in science project improves the self-efficacy and skill of undergraduate students in computational workPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.024194616:5(e0241946)Online publication date: 5-May-2021
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 2018
1174 pages
ISBN:9781450351034
DOI:10.1145/3159450
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: 21 February 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. computer science education
  2. future time perspective
  3. future-oriented motivation
  4. retention

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

SIGCSE '18
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

SIGCSE '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 161 of 459 submissions, 35%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,787 of 5,146 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025
The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 26 - March 1, 2025
Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)88
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)17
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Strategies for Recruitment and Retention in Computer ScienceJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3717781.371780040:5(149-158)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2024
  • (2021)Pengaruh motivasi dan persepsi dalam penyelesaian studi mahasiswa Fakultas Ilmu Komputer di BatamJurnal Pendidikan Informatika dan Sains10.31571/saintek.v10i1.264010:1(11-27)Online publication date: 30-Jun-2021
  • (2021)Digital imaging and vision analysis in science project improves the self-efficacy and skill of undergraduate students in computational workPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.024194616:5(e0241946)Online publication date: 5-May-2021
  • (2021)Computing Educational Activities Involving People Rather Than Things Appeal More to Women (CS1 Appeal Perspective)Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research10.1145/3446871.3469761(145-156)Online publication date: 16-Aug-2021
  • (2021)Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in Computer Science: Lessons Learned From a Multiyear Program of Classroom ResearchIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2021.304972164:3(317-326)Online publication date: Aug-2021
  • (2020)What are We Asking our Students? A Literature Map of Student Surveys in Computer Science EducationProceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3341525.3387383(418-424)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2020
  • (2020)A Multi-level Analysis of the Relationship between Instructional Practices and Retention in Computer ScienceProceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education10.1145/3328778.3366812(37-43)Online publication date: 26-Feb-2020
  • (2020)Upper- and Lower-Secondary Students’ Motivation to Study Computer ScienceInformatics in Schools. Engaging Learners in Computational Thinking10.1007/978-3-030-63212-0_6(69-78)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2020

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media