Failure rates in introductory programming revisited

ITICSE 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 39-44

  Watson, Christopher ^a   Li, Frederick W B ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CS1; Failure rate; Introductory programming; Pass rate; Programming; Statistics

Indexed keywords

FAILURE ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING; MOTIVATION; STATISTICS;

CS1; FAILURE RATE; INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMMING; INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMMING COURSE; MODERATOR ANALYSIS; PASS RATE; PROGRAMMING PERFORMANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

EID: 84904502429     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2591708.2591749     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. T. Beaubouef and J. Mason. Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: some thoughts and observations. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2):103-106, 2005.
2. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. Failure rates in introductory programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2):32-36, 2007.
3. R. Bornat, S. Dehnadi, and . Simon. Mental models, consistency and programming aptitude. In Proc. Australasian Computing Education, pages 53-61, 2008.
4. K. B. Bruce. Controversy on how to teach cs 1: a discussion on the sigcse-members mailing list. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2):111-117, 2005.
5. D. Crookes. Educators call for reform in how programming is taught in schools, 2013. Retrieved Nov. 19, 2013 from http://ind.pn/1evOJgl.
6. A. Ehlert and C. Schulte. Comparison of oop first and oop later: first results regarding the role of comfort level. In Proc. ITiCSE, pages 108-112. ACM, 2010.
7. Higher Education Funding Council. Data about demand and supply in higher education subjects, 2013. Retrieved Jan. 5, 2013 from http://bit.ly/19WRiLi.
8. T. Jenkins. On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, volume 4, pages 53-58, 2002.
9. C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8):90-95, 2006.
10. A. J. Mendes, L. Paquete, A. Cardoso, and A. Gomes. Increasing student commitment in introductory programming learning. In Proc. Frontiers in Education, pages 1-6. IEEE, 2012.
11. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Computer and information technology occupations, 2013. Retrieved Nov. 19, 2013 from http://1.usa.gov/1a63neI.
12. C. Watson, F. W. Li, and J. L. Godwin. Bluefix: using crowd-sourced feedback to support programming students in error diagnosis and repair. In Proc. ICWL, pages 228-239. Springer, 2012.
13. C. Watson, F. W. Li, and J. L. Godwin. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In Proc. ICALT, pages 319-323. IEEE, 2013.
14. C. Watson, F. W. Li, and J. L. Godwin. No tests required: comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. In Proc. SIGCSE, pages 469-474. ACM, 2014.
15. C. Watson, F. W. Li, and R. W. Lau. Learning programming languages through corrective feedback and concept visualisation. In Proc. ICWL, pages 11-20. Springer, 2011.
16. S. Zweben. Computing degree and enrollment trends. Computing Research Association, 2011.