Individual Differences in Learning Computer Programming: A Social Cognitive Approach
Individual Differences in Learning Computer Programming: A Social Cognitive Approach
The purpose of this study is to investigate and conceptualize the ranks of importance of
social cognitive variables on university students’ computer programming performances.
Spatial ability, working memory, self-efficacy, gender, prior knowledge and the universities
students attend were taken as variables to be analyzed. The study has been conducted with
129 2nd year undergraduate students, who have taken Programming Languages-I course
from three universities. Spatial ability has been measured through mental rotation and
spatial visualization tests; working memory has been attained through the measurement of
two sub-dimensions; visual-spatial and verbal working memory. Data were analyzed
through Boosted Regression Trees and Random Forests, which are non-parametric
predictive data mining techniques. The analyses yielded a user model that would predict
students’ computer programming performance based on various social and cognitive
variables. The results yielded that the variables, which contributed to the programming
performance prediction significantly, were spatial orientation skill, spatial memory, mental
orientation, self-efficacy perception and verbal memory with equal importance weights.
Yet, the effect of prior knowledge and gender on programming performance has not been
found to be significant. The importance of ranks of variables and the proportion of predicted
variance of programming performance could be used as guidelines when designing
instruction and developing curriculum.
___
- Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Bowen, K. R. (2002). What we really know about our abilities
and our knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 587-605.
- Altun, A., & Mazman, S. G. (2012). Programlamaya iliskin oz yeterlilik algisi olceginin Turkce
formumun gecerlilik ve gvvenirlik calismasi Reliability and validity study on Turkish
version of perceived self-efficacy scale for programming. Egitimde ve Psikolojide Olcme
ve Degerlendirme Dergisi, 3(2), 297-308.
- Alwin, D. F. (1994). Aging, personality and social change: The stability of individual differences
over the adult life-span. In D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner & M. Perlmuter (Eds.),
Lifespan development and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Ambrósio, A. P., Costa, F. M., Almeida, L., Franco, A., & Macedo, J. (2011, October). Identifying
cognitive abilities to improve CS1 outcome. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE),
F3G-1.
- Askar, P. & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for Java
programming among engineering students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology - TOJET, 8(1), 26-32.
- Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
- Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
- Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Bergersen, G. R. & Gustafsson, J. E. (2011). Programming skill, knowledge, and working
memory among professional software developers from an investment theory
perspective. Journal of Individual Differences, 32(4), 201-209.
- Bergin, S. & Reilly, R. (2005). Programming: Factors that Influence Success. ACM SIGCSE
Bulletin., 37(1), 411-415.
- Bergin, S. & Reilly, R. (2006). Predicting introductory programming performance: A multiinstitutional
multivariate study. Computer Science Education, 16(4), 303-323.
- Beyer, S., DeKeuster, M., Walter, K., Colar, M., & Holcomb, C. (2005). Changes in CS students'
sttitudes towards CS over time: An examination of gender differences. SIGCSE Bull.,
37(1), 392-396.
- Blasko, D., Holliday-Darr, K., Mace, D., & Blasko-Drabik, H. (2004). VIZ: The visualization
assessment and training Web site. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(2), 256-260.
- Blustein, J. & Satel, J. (2003). Spatial Ability and Information Shape: When do individual
differences matter Technical Report CS-2003-11. Canada: Faculty of Computer Science
Dalhousie University.
- Breiman, L., (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5-32.
- Breiman, L. & Cutler, A. (2004). Random forests. Retrived on 24 August 2016 from
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm.
- Bruyer, R. & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: Is
the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction
time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)? Psychologica Belgica, 51(1), 5-13.
- Byrne, P. & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming.
SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49-52.
- Buston, P. M. & Elith, J. (2011). Determinants of reproductive success in dominant pairs of
clownfish: A boosted regression tree analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80(3), 528-538.
- Carello, C. & Moreno, M. A. (2005). Why nonlinear methods. In M. A. Riley and G. C. van Orden
(Eds.), Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences (pp.1-
25). Retrieved on 24 August 2016 from https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/pac/nmbs/nmbs.
pdf
- Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Educating novices in the skills of programming (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Aarhus, Denmark: University of Aarhus, Department of Computer Science.
Charlton, J. P. & Birkett, P. E. (1999). An integrative model of factors related to computing
course performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(3), 237-257.
- Chen, C. (2000). Individual differences in a spatial-semantic virtual environment. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 529-542.
- Cevik, V. (2012). The roles of working memory capacity and instructional strategy teaching in
complex cognitive task performances (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara,
Turkey: Hacettepe University Department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technologies.
- Daneman, M. & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A
meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422-433.
- deRaadt, M., Hamilton, M., Lister, R., Tutty, J., Baker, B., Box, I., & Tolhurs, D. (2005, July).
Approaches to learning in computer programming students and their effect on success.
Paper presented at the 28th HERDSA Annual Conference: Higher Education in a Changing
World. Sydney, Australia.
- Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R., & Hastie, T. (2008). A working guide to boosted regression
trees. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77(4), 802-813.
- Friedman, J. H. (2002). Stochastic gradient boosting. Computational Statistics & Data
Analysis, 38(4), 367-378.
- Genuer, R., Poggi, J. M., & Tuleau-Malot, C. (2010). Variable selection using random
forests. Pattern Recognition Letters, 31(14), 2225-2236.
- Hannay, J. E., Arisholm, E., Engvik, H., & Sjøberg, D. I. (2010). Effects of personality on pair
programming. Software Engineering, IEEE transactions on education, 36(1), 61-80.
- Haavisto, M.-L., & Lehto, J. E. (2005). Fluid/spatial and crystallized intelligence in relation to
domain-specific working memory: A latent-variable approach. Learning and Individual
Differences, 15(1), 1-21.
- Hoskinson, P. (2012). Brain Workshop – a Dual N-Back game. Retrieved on 20 December 2012
from http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/.
- Howard, E. V. (2002). Can we teach introductory programming as a liberal education course?
Yes, we can. The Proceedings of ISECON (Vol. 19). San Antonio, TX.
- Irons, D. M. (1982). Cognitive correlates of programming tasks in novice programmers.
Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
- Jaeggi, S. M. , Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B. (2010). The concurrent validity of the
N-back task as a working memory measure, Memory, 18(4), 394-412,
- Jegede, P. O. (2009). Predictors of Java programming self-efficacy among engineering students.
International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 4(1-2). Retrieved on
24 August 2016 from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0909/0909.0074.pdf
- Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual
Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. Loughborough
University, United Kingdom.
- Jonassen, D. H. & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences learning and
instruction. London: Routledge.
- Jones, S. J. & Burnett, G. (2008). Spatial ability and learning to program. Human Technology,
4(1), 47-61.
- Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial
ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory & Cognition, 29(5), 745-756.
- Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Modeling programming performance: Beyond the
influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 571(1), 1202-1213.
- Lawton, C. (2010). Gender, spatial abilities, and wayfinding. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary
(Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 317-341). New York: Springer.
- Lehman, S., Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (1983). A tool for improving critical thinking in web-based
instruction: Two experimental studies. The CLASS project. The Center for Instructional
Innovation of the University of Nebraska.
- Lin, Y. T., Wu, C. C., Hou, T. Y., Lin, Y. C., Yang, F. Y., & Chang, C. H. (2016). Tracking students’
cognitive processes during program debugging—An eye-movement approach. IEEE
transactions on education, 59(3), 175-186.
- Luft, C. D. B., Gomes, J. S., Priori, D., & Takase, E. (2013). Using online cognitive tasks to predict
mathematics low school achievement. Computers & Education, 67(0), 219-228.
- Mancy, R. & Reid, N. (2004). Aspects of cognitive style and programming. Paper presented at
the 16th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG 16). Carlow,
Ireland
- Mancy, R. (2007). Explicit and implicit learning: The case of computer programming
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.
- Mason, R., Seton, C., & Cooper, G. (2016). Applying cognitive load theory to the redesign of a
conventional database systems course. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 68-87.
- Mazman, S. G. & Altun, A. (2013). Individual differences in spatial orientation performances:
An eye tracking study. World Journal on Educational Technology, 5(2), 266-280.
- McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental,
genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889-918.
- Merrienboer, J. J. G. V., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1990). Automation and schema acquisition in
learning elementary computer programming: Implications for the design of practice.
Computers in Human Behavior, 6(3), 273-289.
- Milic, J. (2009). Predictors of success in solving programming tasks. . The Teaching of
Mathematics, 12(1), 25-31.
- Pak, R., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2006). Spatial ability subfactors and their influences on a
computer-based information search task. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(1), 154-165.
- Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543-578.
- Pillay, N. & Jugoo, V. R. (2005). An investigation into student characteristics affecting novice
programming performance. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(4), 107-110.
- Ramalingam, V. & Wiedenbeck, S. (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), 367-381.
- Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2016). Which cognitive
abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational
thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
- Rowan, T. C. (1957). Psychological tests and selection of computer programmers. Journal of the
ACM, 4(3), 348-353.
- Shute, V. J. (1991). Who is likely to acquire programming skills? Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 7(1), 1-24.
- Stalcup, K. A. A. (2005). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display
design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University.
- Sterling, G. D. & Brinthaupt, T. M. (2003). Faculty and industry conceptions of successful
computer programmers. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(4), 417-424.
- Svedin, M. & Balter, O. (2016). Gender neutrality improved completion rate for all. Computer
Science Education, 26(2-3), 192-207.
- Vicente, K. J. & Williges, R. C. (1988). Accommodating individual differences in searching a
hierarchical file system. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 29(6), 647-668.
- Wagenmakers, E.-J., Maas, H. J., & Grasman, R. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for
response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 3-22.
- Wiedenbeck, S. (2005). Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program.
Paper presented at the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research.
Seattle, WA, USA.
- Willman, S., Lindén, R., Kaila, E., Rajala, T., Laakso, M. J., & Salakoski, T. (2015). On study habits
on an introductory course on programming. Computer Science Education, 25(3), 276-
291.
- Wilson, B. C. (2002). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including
gender differences. Computer Science Education, 12(1-2), 141-164.
- Yurdugul, H. & Askar, P. (2013). Learning programming, problem solving and gender: A
longitudinal study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83(0), 605-610.
- Wright, R., Thompson, W., Ganis, G., Newcombe, N., & Kosslyn, S. (2008). Training generalized
spatial skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 763-771.