CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 166

Learning to Program: Gender Differences and Interactive Effects of Students' Motivation, Goals, and Self-Efficacy on Performance

Lishinski, Alex, Yadav, Aman, Good, Jon, Enbody, Richard·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
DOI 10.1145/2960310.2960329
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Previous research in computer science education has demonstrated the importance of motivation for success in introductory programming. Theoretical constructs from self-regulated learning theory (SRL), which integrates several different types of metacognitive processes, as well as motivational constructs, have proved to be important predictors of success in most academic disciplines. These individual components of self-regulated learning (e.g., self-efficacy, metacognitive strategies) interact in complex ways to influence students' affective states and behaviors, which in turn influence learning outcomes. These elements have been previously examined individually in novice programmers, but we do not have a comprehensive understanding of how SRL constructs interact to influence learning to program. This paper reports on a study that examined the interaction of self-efficacy, intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientations, and metacognitive strategies and their impact on student performance in a CS1 course. We also report on significant gender differences in the relationships between SRL constructs and learning outcomes. We found that student performance had the expected motivational and SRL precursors, but the interactions between these constructs revealed some unexpected relationships. Furthermore, we found that females' self-efficacy had a different connection to programming performance than that of their male peers. Further research on success in introductory programming should ta…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2960310.2960329

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Good, J., & Enbody, R.
Affiliations
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-08-25
Pages
211-220
DOI
10.1145/2960310.2960329
Cited by
166
References
10
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review