CS1: how will they do? How can we help? A decade of research and practice

References

• Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., … Zheng, X. (2015). TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. Retrieved from https://www.tensorflow.org/ (Software available from tensorflow.org)
   Google Scholar
• Ahadi, A., Lister, R., Haapala, H., & Vihavainen, A. (2015). Exploring machine learning methods to automatically identify students in need of assistance. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference on international computing education research (pp. 121–130). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2787622.2787717
   Google Scholar
• Allert, J. (2004). Learning style and factors contributing to success in an introductory computer science course. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies 2004 Proceedings, 33(1), 184–188. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=364581
   Google Scholar
• Barker, L. J., Mcdowell, C., & Kalahar, K. (2009). Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(2), 282–286.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, R. J., & Unger, E. A. (1983). A predictor for success in an introductory programming class based upon abstract reasoning development. In Proceedings of the fourteenth sigcse technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 154–158). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/800038.801037
   Google Scholar
• Becker, B. A., & Quille, K. (2019). 50 years of cs1 at sigcse: A review of the evolution of introductory programming education research. In Proceedings of the 50th acm technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 338–344). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3287324.3287432
   Google Scholar
• Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2005). An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research, 155–163. doi: 10.1145/1089786.1089801
   Google Scholar
• Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2006). Abstraction ability as an indicator of success for learning object-oriented programming? SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(2), 39–43.
   Google Scholar
• Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2008). Optimists have more fun, but do they learn better? On the influence of emotional and social factors on learning introductory computer science. Computer Science Education, 18(1), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bergin, S. (2006). A computational model to predict programming performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Computer Science, Maynooth University.
   Google Scholar
• Bergin, S., Mooney, A., Ghent, J., & Quille, K. (2015a). Using machine learning techniques to predict introductory programming performance. International Journal of Computer Science and Software Engineering, 4(12), 323–328.
   Google Scholar
• Bergin, S., Mooney, A., Ghent, J., & Quille, K. (2015b). Using machine learning techniques to predict introductory programming performance. International Journal of Computer Science and Software Engineering, 4(12), 323–328.
   Google Scholar
• Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2005, February). Programming: Factors that influence success. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 411–415.
   Google Scholar
• Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2006). Predicting introductory programming performance: A multi- institutional multivariate study. Computer Science Education, 16(4), 303–323.
   Google Scholar
• Boetticher, G. D., Ding, W., Moen, C., & Yue, K.-B. (2005). Using a pre- assessment exam to construct an effective concept-based genetic program for predicting course success. In Proceedings of the 36th sigcse technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 500–504). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1047344.1047503
   Google Scholar
• Bornat, R., Dehnadi, S., & Simon. (2008). Mental models, consistency and programming aptitude. In Proceedings of the tenth conference on australasian computing education - volume 78 (pp. 53–61). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1379249.1379253
   Google Scholar
• Brownlee, J. (2016). Deep learning with python: Develop deep learning models on theano and tensorflow using keras. Melbourne: Machine Learning Mastery.
   Google Scholar
• Brownlee, J. (2017). Deep learning with python. Retrieved from https://machinelearningmastery.com/deep-learning-with-python/.
   Google Scholar
• Butcher, D. F., & Muth, W. A. (1985, March). Predicting performance in an introductory computer science course. Communications ACM, 28(3), 263–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, J., Horton, D., & Craig, M. (2016). Factors for success in online cs1. In Proceedings of the 2016 acm conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 320–325). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2899415.2899457
   Google Scholar
• Capstick, C. K., Gordon, J. D., & Salvadori, A. (1975, September). Predicting performance by university students in introductory computing courses. SIGCSE Bulletin, 7(3), 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Caspersen, M. E., Larsen, K. D., & Bennedsen, J. (2007). Mental models and programming aptitude. In Proceedings of the 12th annual sigcse conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 206–210). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1268784.1268845
   Google Scholar
• Chollet, F., et al. (2015). Keras. Retrieved from https://keras.io.
   Google Scholar
• Conroy, R. (2016). Sample Size: Introduction 1 Sample size A rough guide How to use this guide (Tech. Rep.). Retrieved from https://beaumontethics.ie/docs/application/samplesizecalculation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cukierman, D. (2015). Predicting success in university first year computing science courses: The role of student participation in reflective learning activities and in i-clicker activities. In Proceedings of the 2015 acm conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 248–253). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2729094.2742623
   Google Scholar
• Culligan, N., Quille, K., & Bergin, S. (2016). Veap: A visualisation engine and analyzer for press#. In Proceedings of the 16th koli calling international conference on computing education research (pp. 130–134). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2999541.2999553
   Google Scholar
• Cutts, Q., Cutts, E., Draper, S., O’Donnell, P., & Saffrey, P. (2010). Manipulating mindset to positively influence introductory programming performance. Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE ’10, 431. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1734263.1734409
   Google Scholar
• D’Anca, J.-A. (2017). MINDSET AND RESILIENCE: AN ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTION FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
   Google Scholar
• Dehnadi, S. (2006). Testing programming aptitude. In Proceedings of the 18th annual workshop of the psychology of programming interest group (pp. 22–37).
   Google Scholar
• Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., Hamer, J., Dahlstrom, D. B., & Purchase, H. C. (2010). Self-predicted and actual performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 118–122). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1822090.1822124
   Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Estey, A., & Coady, Y. (2016). Can interaction patterns with supplemental study tools predict outcomes in cs1? In Proceedings of the 2016 acm conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 236–241). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2899415.2899428
   Google Scholar
• Evans, G. E., & Simkin, M. G. (1989). What best predicts computer proficiency? Communications of the ACM, 32(11), 1322–1327. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=68814.68817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, G. C., & Glorfeld, L. W. (1981). Predicting aptitude in introductory computing: A classification model. AEDS Journal, 14(2), 96–109.
   Google Scholar
• Glorfeld, L. W., & Fowler, G. C. (1982). Validation of a model for predicting aptitude for introductory computing. In Proceedings of the thirteenth sigcse technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 140–143). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/800066.801355
   Google Scholar
• Golding, P., Facey-Shaw, L., & Tennant, V. (2006). Effects of peer tutoring, attitude and personality on academic performance of first year introductory programming students. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 7–12.
   Google Scholar
• Hostetler, T. R. (1983, September). Predicting student success in an introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(3), 40–43.
   Google Scholar
• Ihantola, P., Vihavainen, A., Ahadi, A., Butler, M., Börstler, J., Edwards, S. H., … Toll, D. (2015). Educational data mining and learning analytics in programming: Literature review and case studies. In Proceedings of the 2015 iticse on working group reports (pp. 41–63). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2858796.2858798
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J. O., Mooney, A., Ghent, J., Gaughran, P., Dunne, S., & Bergin, S. (2004). An overview of the integration of problem based learning into an existing computer science programming module 2 overview of our PBL implementation. Problem-Based Learning International Conference 2004: Pleasure by Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 1–15. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980
   Google Scholar
• Konvalina, J., Wileman, S. A., & Stephens, L. J. (1983, May). Math proficiency: A key to success for computer science students. Communications ACM, 26(5), 377–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, L. (2015, December). Factors that predict success in cs1. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 31(2), 165–171. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2831432.2831458
   Google Scholar
• Leeper, R. R., & Silver, J. L. (1982). Predicting success in a first programming course. In Proceedings of the thirteenth sigcse technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 147–150). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/800066.801357
   Google Scholar
• Leinonen, J., Leppänen, L., Ihantola, P., & Hellas, A. (2017). Comparison of time metrics in programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 acm conference on international computing education research (pp. 200–208). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3105726.3106181
   Google Scholar
• Liao, S. N., Zingaro, D., Laurenzano, M. A., Griswold, W. G., & Porter, L. (2016). Lightweight, early identification of at-risk cs1 students. In Proceedings of the 2016 acm conference on international computing education research (pp. 123–131). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2960310.2960315
   Google Scholar
• Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Enbody, R., & Good, J. (2016). The influence of problem solving abilities on students’ performance on different assessment tasks in cs1. In Proceedings of the 47th acm technical symposium on computing science education (pp. 329–334). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2839509.2844596
   Google Scholar
• Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Good, J., & Enbody, R. (2016). Learning to program: Gender differences and interactive effects of students ’ motivation, goals and self-efficacy on performance. Proceedings of the 12th International Computing Education Research Conference, 211–220.
   Google Scholar
• Liston, M., Frawley, D., & Patterson, V. (2016). A study of progression in irish higher education. Higher Education Authority. Retrieved from http://www.hea.ie/en/publications/2016
   Google Scholar
• Lovell, E. (2014). Promoting constructive mindsets for overcoming failure in computer science education. Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research - ICER ’14, 159–160. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2632320.2632331
   Google Scholar
• Mooney, O., Patterson, V., OConnor, M., & Chantler, A. (2010). A study of progression in irish higher education. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, L., & Thomas, L. (2008). Dangers of a fixed mindset: Implications of self-theories research for computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, (3), 271–275.
   Google Scholar
• Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B. N. (2006). Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 1(Ci), 9–14.
   Google Scholar
• Newsted, P. R. (1975). Grade and ability predictions in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 7, 87–91.
   Google Scholar
• Nolan, K., & Bergin, S. (2016). The role of anxiety when learning to program: A Systematic review of the literature. In Proceedings of the 16th koli calling international conference on computing education research (pp. 61–70). Koli, Finland: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Pioro, B. T. (2004). Estimated and actual performance scores on computer programming tasks. SoutheastCon, 2004. Proceedings. IEEE, 3–7.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, L., & Zingaro, D. (2014). Importance of early performance in CS1: Two conflicting assessment stories. Sigcse ’14, 295–300.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, L., Zingaro, D., & Lister, R. (2014). Predicting student success using fine grain clicker data. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on international computing education research (pp. 51–58). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2632320.2632354
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., & Bergin, S. (2015). Programming: Factors that influence success revisited and expanded. In Proceedings of the international conference on enguaging pedagogy (icep), 3rd and 4th december, college of computing technology, dublin, ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., & Bergin, S. (2016a). Does Scratch improve self-efficacy and performance when learning to program in C#? An empirical study. In Proceedings of the international conference on enguaging pedagogy (icep), maynooth university, Maynooth, ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., & Bergin, S. (2016b). Programming: Further factors that influence success. In Proceedings of the psychology of programming interest group (ppig), 7th to 10th spetember, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., & Bergin, S. (2018). Programming: predicting student success early in CS1. a re-validation and replication study. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (iticse'18). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/3197091
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., & Bergin, S. (2018). Programming: Predicting student success early in CS1. A re-validation and replication study. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual acm conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (iticse’18). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., Bergin, S., & Mooney, A. (2015). Press#, a web-based educational system to predict programming performance. International Journal of Computer Science and Software Engineering (IJCSSE), 4(7), 178–189. Retrieved from http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/6503/
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., Culligan, N., & Bergin, S. (2017). Insights on gender differences in cs1: A multi- institutional, multi-variate study. In Proceedings of the 2017 acm conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 263–268). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3059009.3059048
   Google Scholar
• Quille, K., Faherty, R., Bergin, S., & Becker, B. A. (2018). Second Level Computer Science: The Irish K-12 Journey Begins. In Proceedings of the 18th koli calling international conference on computing education research (koli calling ’18). Koli, Finland ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Rossum, G. (1995). Python reference manual (Tech. Rep.). The Netherlands: Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Rountree, N., Rountree, J., & Robins, A. (2002, December). Predictors of success and failure in a cs1 course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(4), 121–124.
   Google Scholar
• Rountree, N., Rountree, J., Robins, A., & Hannah, R. (2004). Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 101.
   Google Scholar
• Shell, D. F., Soh, L.-K., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2016). Students’ initial course motivation and their achievement and retention in college cs1 courses. In Proceedings of the 47th acm technical symposium on computing science education (pp. 639–644). New York, NY: ACM doi: 10.1145/2839509.2844606
   Google Scholar
• Simon, F., Robins, S., Baker, A., Box, B., Cutts, I., & Tutty, J. (2006). Predictors of success in a first programming course. Proceedings of the 8th Austalian conference on Computing education - Volume 52, 189–196.
   Google Scholar
• Tarimo, W. T., Deeb, F. A., & Hickey, T. J. (2016, June). Early detection of at-risk students in cs1 using teachback/spinoza. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 31(6), 105–111. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2904446.2904471
   Google Scholar
• Tieleman, T., & Hinton, G. (2012). Lecture 6.5 - rmsprop, coursera: Neural networks for machine learning.
   Google Scholar
• Traynor, D., Bergin, S., & Gibson, J. P. (2006). Automated Assessment in CS1 (Ace ’06), 223–228.
   Google Scholar
• Ventura, P. R. (2005). Identifying predictors of success for an objects- first CS1. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 223–243.
   Google Scholar
• Vihavainen, A. (2013). Predicting students’ performance in an introductory programming course using data from students’ own programming process. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 498–499). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2013.161
   Google Scholar
• Watson, C., Li, F. W. B., & Godwin, J. L. (2013). Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 319–323). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2013.99
   Google Scholar
• Werth, L. (1986). Predicting student performance in a beginning computer science class. SIGCSE ’86 Proceedings of the Seventeenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 138–143.
   Google Scholar
• Wiedenbeck, S. (2007). Antecedents to end users’ success in learning to program in an introductory programming course. Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC 2007, 163–170.
   Google Scholar
• Wiig, D. M. (1989, February). A bayesian probability approach to predicting student performance in introductory computer science courses. SIGSMALL/PC Notes, 15(1), 3–19.
   Google Scholar
• Wileman, S., Konvalina, J., & Stephens, L. (1981). Factors influencing success in beginning computer science courses. The Journal of Educational Research, (March), 223–226.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, B. C., & Shrock, S. (2001). Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, (1), 184–188.
   Google Scholar
• Witten, I. H., Frank, E., Hall, M. A., & Pal, C. J. (2016). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar