Özgen KORKMAZ, Halis ALTUN

6754

Adapting Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale and Engineering Students’ Self-Efficacy Perceptions

Students might have different type and different level of perceptions: Positive or negative perceptions on programming; a perception on benefit of programming, perceptions related to difficulties of programming process etc.  The perception of student on their own competence is defined as self-efficacy. Based on the discussions reported in literature, measuring self-efficacy is certainly necessary and, in this context, is highly important in order to develop new pedagogical methods to address the problems related to computer programming. The purpose of this study is to adapt a well-known self-efficacy scale and determine engineering student’s C++ computer programming self-efficacy levels. The sample group consists of 378 engineering students. In order to test the validity of the scale, an exploratory factor analysis has been conducted and item discriminative power has been evaluated. The reliability of the scale, on the other hand, has been justified using the internal consistency level. The results indicate that the scale is reliable and valid, and it can be used to measure the self-efficacy of the engineering student in Turkish cultural environment. Furthermore, it is revealed that the level of self-efficacy perception of the students is middling and it does not show any meaningful difference between genders. On the other hand, self-efficacy perception of students in computer engineering is found to be higher than that of the students in electrical-electronics engineering.
Keywords:

Self-efficacy, computer programming, engineering education validity, reliability,

PDF

___

  • Anastasiadou, S.D., & Karakos, A.S. (2011). The beliefs of electrical and computer engineering students’ regarding computer programming. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 7(1):37-51.
  • 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
  • Austin, H.S. (1987). Predictors of Pascal Programming Achievement for Community College Students. Proceedings of the eighteenth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Missouri, United States, 161-164.
  • Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  • Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2005). The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program. In University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
  • Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software engineering economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Brooks, F. P. (1995). The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering anniversary edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Ankara: PegemA Press.
  • Caspersen, M.E., & Kolling M. (2009). STREAM: A first programming process. ACT Transaction on Computing Education, 9,1-29.
  • Deniz, K.Z. (2007). The adaptation of psychological scales. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(1), 1-16.
  • Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.
  • Erdogan, Y., Aydin, E., & Kabaca, YT. (2008). Exploring the Psychological Predictors of Programming Achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(3), 264-270.
  • Eroglu, A. (2008). Faktör analizi [Factor Analyze]. Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [Applied multivariate statistical technique] (ss. 321-331). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Fang, X. (2012). Application of the participatory method to the computer fundamentals course, Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction. Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, 137, 185-189.
  • Garner, S. (2009). Learning to program from Scratch. 9th IEEE Int. Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 451-452, Doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2009.50.
  • Gomes, A., & Mendes, A., J.(2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. International Conference on Engineering Education, ICEE. 3-7 Temmuz, Coimbra, Portugal. Available at http://ineer.org/Events/ICEE2007/papers/411.pdf
  • Gülbahar, Y. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Değerlendirme tercihleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması [Adaptation of evaluation choices scale into Turkish]. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 35, 148-161.
  • Hambleton, R.K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: myths to be avoided an guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology,1(1), 1-30.
  • Hawi, N. (2010). Causal attributions of success and failure made by undergraduate students in an introductory-level computer programming course. Computers & Education 54, 1127–1136, Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.020.
  • Hernane, B., P., Gilney F., Z., & Marcelo A., M.(2010). Learning computer programming: Implementing a fractal in a Turing machine. Computers & Education 55 767-776 Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.009
  • Humphrey, W.S. (1999). Introduction to the team software process. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley/Longman.
  • Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Koohang, A. A., (1989). A Study of Attitudes Toward Computers: Anxiety, Confidence, Liking, and Perception of Usefulness. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20, 137-151.
  • Korkmaz, Ö. (2011). Study of validity and reliability of self-efficacy scale of teaching material utilization. Educational Research and Review (ERR). 6(15),843-853. Doi: 10.5897/ERR11.174
  • Korkmaz, Ö. (2013). Students’ Difficulties in and Opinions about Designing Algorithms According to Different Instructional Applications. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies , 5(1), 209-218.
  • Lau, W.W. F., & Yuen, A.H.K (2009). Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: implications for programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 696–712. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00847.x
  • Lee, J., & Cheng, Y.C. (2011). Change the face of software engineering education: A field report from Taiwan. Information and Software Technology 53, 51–57.
  • Levine, T., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1998). Computer use, confidence, attitudes, and knowledge: a causal analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 125–146.
  • Mcdowell, C.E., Werner, L., Bullocki H. E., & Fernald, J. (2003). The Impact of Pair Programming on Student Performance and Pursuit of Computer Science Related Majors. International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, Oregon. Available at: http://wenku.baidu.com/view/09432408f78a6529647d53be.html
  • Milne, I., & G. Rowe. (2002). Difficulties in Learning and Teaching Programming—Views of Students and Tutors. Education and Information Technologies, 7(1), 55-66.
  • Nikula, U., Gotel, O., & Kasurinen J. (2011). A Motivation Guided Holistic Rehabilitation of the First Programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(4). Doi: /10.1145/2048931.2048935.
  • Nilsen H., & Larsen A. (2011) Using the personalized system of instruction in an introductory programming course, NOKOBIT, 27-38. November 21-23.
  • Pioro, B. T. (2004). Performance in an introductory computer programming course as a predictor of future success for engineering and computer science majors. International Conference on Engineering Education, Gainesville, FL.
  • 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.
  • Robins, A (2010). Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education, 20( 1), 37–71.
  • Robins, A. Rountree, J., & Rountree, N.(2003). Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion. Computer Science Education, 13( 2), 137–172.
  • Sacks, C., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J., (1993). Attitudes toward computers and computer use: the issue of gender. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 257-269.
  • Scherer, R. F., Wiebe F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of Coping: Factor Stability Using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Psychological Reports 62(3), 763-770. PubMed PMID: 3406294.
  • Sivasakthi, M. & Rajendran, R. (2012). Learning Difficulties of OOP Paradigm Using Java: Students’ Perspective, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 4 (8), 983-985.
  • Tan, P.H., Ting C.Y., & Ling, S.W. (2009). Learning Difficulties in Programming Courses: Undergraduates’ Perspective and Perception. International Conference on Computer Technology and Development, 42-46. DOI: 10.1109/ICCTD.2009.188
  • Winslow, L., E. (1996). Programming pedagogy–A psychological overview. SIGCSE Bulletin, 28, 17–22.
Participatory Educational Research-Cover
  • ISSN: 2148-6123
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 6 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2014
  • Yayıncı: Özgen KORKMAZ
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Özgen KORKMAZ, Ertuğrul USTA, İbrahim KURT

Norma M NEL

Gülşah KÜLEKÇİ

Özgen KORKMAZ, Halis ALTUN

Bülent ALTUNKAYA, Cahit AYTEKİN, Bekir Kürşat DORUK, Bilal ÖZÇAKIR

Norma M NEL, Norma ROMM