CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Teaching and Learning ProgrammingGender and Technology in EducationEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

Theories and Models of Emotions, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy in the Context of Programming Education

Open access
Malmi, Lauri, Sheard, Judy, Kinnunen, Päivi, Simon, Sinclair, Jane·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
DOI 10.1145/3372782.3406279
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research into the relationship between learning computing and students' attitudes, beliefs, and emotions often builds on theoretical frameworks from the social sciences in order to understand how these factors influence, for example, students' motivation, study practices, and learning results. In this paper we explore the computing education research literature to identify new theoretical constructs that have emerged from this research. We focus on empirical work in programming education that extends or adapts theories or instruments from the social sciences or that independently develops theories specific to programming. From an initial data set of more than 3800 papers published in the years 2010--2019, we identify 50 papers that present a range of domain-specific theoretical constructs addressing emotions, affect, beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy. They include 11 validated instruments and a number of statistical models, but also grounded theories and pedagogical models. We summarize the main results of many of these constructs and provide references for all of them. We also investigate how these constructs have informed further research by analysing over 850 papers that cite these 50 papers. We categorize the ways that theories can inform further research, and give examples of papers in each of these categories. Our findings indicate that among these categories, instruments have been most widely used in further research, thus affirming their value in the field.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3372782.3406279

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. [2]2. Albert Bandura. 1994. Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, VS Ra- machandran (Ed.). Vol. 4. Academic Press, 71-81. Reprinted in H Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mental Health. Academic Press, 1998.
  2. [4]4. Ashok Ram Basawapatna, Alexander Repenning, and Kyu Han Koh. 2015. Clos- ing the cyberlearning loop: enabling teachers to formatively assess student programming projects. In 46th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Sci- ence Education (SIGCSE 2015). 12-17.
  3. [10]10. Pierre Bourdieu. 2011. The forms of capital (1986). Cultural theory: an anthology 1 (2011), 81-93.
  4. [13]13. Dan Cernusca and Clayton E Price. 2013. Can undergraduates learn program- ming with a "virtual professor"? Findings from a pilot implementation of a blended instructional strategy. The ASEE Computers in Education Journal 4, 4 (2013).
  5. [20]20. Benjamin Clement. 2018. Adaptive Personalization of Pedagogical Sequences using Machine Learning. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bordeaux.
  6. [36]36. Daniel Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2014. Software developers, moods, emotions, and performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.4422 (2014). · arXiv
  7. [41]41. Shirley Gregor. 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly (2006), 611-642.
  8. [42]42. Melih Derya Gurer, Ibrahim Cetin, and Ercan Top. 2019. Factors affecting students' attitudes toward computer programming. Informatics in Education 18, 2 (2019).
  9. [43]43. Kevin Hedberg Griffith and Erik Nguyen. 2018. Sampling Affects of Software De- velopers to Understand Individual & Team Performance. Master's thesis. Chalmers University of Technology.
  10. [63]63. Feng Li, Xinwen Bai, and Yong Wang. 2013. The scale of positive and negative experience (SPANE): psychometric properties and normative data in a large Chinese sample. PloS one 8, 4 (2013).
  11. [67]67. Alex Lishinski and Aman Yadav. 2019. Motivation, attitudes, and dispositions. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally A Fincher and Anthony V Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 801-826.
  12. [72]72. Brian Magerko, Jason Freeman, Tom McKlin, Mike Reilly, Elise Livingston, Scott McCoid, and Andrea Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: a STEAM-based approach for underrepresented populations in high school computer science education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 16, 4 (2016), 1-25.
  13. [75]75. Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Päivi Kinnunen, Simon, and Jane Sinclair. 2019. Com- puting education theories: what are they and how are they used?. In 15th International Computing Education Research Conference (ICER 2019). 187-197.
  14. [81]81. Robert McCartney, Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Kate Sanders, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2016. Why computing students learn on their own: motiva- tion for self-directed learning of computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 16, 1, Article 2 (Jan. 2016), 18 pages.
  15. [86]86. Mogens Niss. 2007. The concept and role of theory in mathematics education. Relating practice and research in mathematics education. Norma 5 (2007), 97-110.
  16. [90]90. Reinhard Pekrun, Thomas Goetz, Wolfram Titz, and Raymond P Perry. 2002. Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational psychologist 37, 2 (2002), 91-105.
  17. [96]96. Mary Beth Rosson, John M Carroll, and Hansa Sinha. 2011. Orientation of un- dergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 11, 3, Article 14 (2011), 23 pages.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Kinnunen, P., Simon, & Sinclair, J.
Affiliations
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-08-07
Pages
36-47
DOI
10.1145/3372782.3406279
OpenAlex
W3047718235
Cited by
60
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9
FWCI
10.45
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
programming education, affective learning, attitudes toward computers, self-efficacy, affect, theoretical constructs, validated instruments, teaching model, grounded theory, student motivation, computing education research

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