A study of the impact of student background and preparedness on outcomes in CS I
Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education
Predictors of success and failure in a CS1 course
ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
Case studies in admissions to and early performance in computer science degrees
Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education
The effectiveness of innovative approaches to CSI: comparing opinion to outcome
ACSC '04 Proceedings of the 27th Australasian conference on Computer science - Volume 26
Development of a computer-based interviewing tool to enhance the requirements gathering process
Requirements Engineering
Programming: factors that influence success
Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
Learning styles across the curriculum
ITiCSE '05 Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
Successful students' strategies for getting unstuck
Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
From Limen to Lumen: computing students in liminal spaces
Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research
Analysis of research into the teaching and learning of programming
ICER '09 Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computing education research workshop
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Identifying and managing students who experience difficulty with learning to program is a challenge for CS educators. In an attempt to answer the familiar question "What makes for success in CS1?" we have investigated student approaches to learning using the ASSIST measure of learning approach. This measure considers three dimensions related to studying - deep (related to meaning), surface (reproducing) and strategic (achieving).Two cohorts of CS1 students completed an online ASSIST questionnaire midway through their first semester. Their three ASSIST scores were analysed together with their CS1 performance. The strongest relationships were a significant, negative correlation between a surface approach to learning and CS1 performance and a significant positive correlation between a strategic approach to learning and CS1 performance. Participants were classified via a cluster analysis according to the extent to which they showed deep, strategic, and surface learning profiles. Members of the cluster favouring a surface approach had the poorest performances, whereas members of the cluster favouring strategic or deep approaches rather than a surface approach had the best performances.