research-article

A Real-world Approach to Motivate Students on the First Class of a Computer Science Course

Authors:

Alessio Bellino,

Valeria Herskovic,

Jorge Munoz-GamaAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 21, Issue 3

Article No.: 22, Pages 1 - 23

https://doi.org/10.1145/3445982

Published: 10 May 2021 Publication History

Abstract

A common belief among students is that computing is a boring subject that lacks a connection to the real world. The first class (one 80-minute session) in an introductory computer science course may be an appropriate instance to combat such a belief. Previous studies have used coursewide interventions, e.g., games and physical/tangible devices to improve students’ motivation. However, although other approaches help motivate students, they may lack real-world context or have a high cost of deployment. This article proposes a novel real-world based approach to introduce programming concepts in the first class of the introductory computer science course. This approach, called Protobject based, is applicable to courses with over 100 students, has a low deployment entry barrier, requires low investment, and may be used creatively to implement different experiences. Furthermore, the Protobject-based approach has an equivalent motivational effect—at least in the short-term—to a Game-based approach even if it is entirely focused on the real world. The low requirements of the approach make it especially suitable for an 80-minute first class in an introductory computer science course. The Protobject-based approach has been preliminarily validated and compared to a pure game-based approach with a study with 376 participants, and we present the analysis of motivation questionnaires, a pre-test and post-test, and a homework assignment given to the students. We posit that more research into initiatives such as this one—that can show students how computer science can impact the real world around them—is warranted.

References

[1]

[n.d.]. QS World University Rankings by Region 2019. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from https://www.topuniversities.com/regional-rankings.

[2]

Stephen M. Alessi and Stanley R. Trollip. 2000. Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development. Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

Digital Library

[3]

Denise M. Anderson, Francis A. Mcguire, and Lynne Cory. 2011. The first day: It happens only once. Teach. High. Educ. 16, 3 (2011), 293–303. arXiv: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.546526

[4]

John R. Anderson, Lynne M. Reder, and Herbert A. Simon. 1996. Situated learning and education. Educ. Res. 25, 4 (1996), 5–11.

[5]

Neil Anderson, Colin Lankshear, Carolyn Timms, and Lyn Courtney. 2008. Because its boring, irrelevant and I dont like computers: Why high school girls avoid professionally-oriented ICT subjects. Comput. Educ. 50, 4 (2008), 1304–1318.

Digital Library

[6]

Charoula Angeli, Joke Voogt, Andrew Fluck, Mary Webb, Margaret Cox, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Jason Zagami. 2016. A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge.J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19, 3 (2016), 47--57.

[7]

David Bau, Jeff Gray, Caitlin Kelleher, Josh Sheldon, and Franklyn Turbak. 2017. Learnable programming: Blocks and beyond. Commun. ACM 60, 6 (May 2017), 72–80.

Digital Library

[8]

Alessio Bellino. 2016. Protobject: A sensing tool for the rapid prototyping of UbiComp systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. ACM, 257–260.

Digital Library

[9]

Maureen Biggers, Anne Brauer, and Tuba Yilmaz. 2008. Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors with Cs leavers. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’08). ACM, New York, NY, 402–406.

Digital Library

[10]

Kim B. Bruce, Andrea P. Danyluk, and Thomas P. Murtagh. 2001. Event-driven programming is simple enough for CS1. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’01). ACM, New York, NY, 1–4.

Digital Library

[11]

Alexandre Cabral, Rolland Viau, and Denis Bédard. 1997. Situated learning and motivation strategies to improve cognitive learning in CE. In 1997 Annual Conference. 2.362.1--2.362.13

[12]

Sarah Dahlby Albright, Titus H. Klinge, and Samuel A. Rebelsky. 2018. A functional approach to data science in CS1. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1035–1040.

Digital Library

[13]

Thomas M. Duffy and Donald J. Cunningham. 1996. Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Simon & Schuster/Macmillan, 170--198.

[14]

Francisco Buitrago Florez, Rubby Casallas, Marcela Hernandez, Alejandro Reyes, Silvia Restrepo, and Giovanna Danies. 2017. Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 4 (2017), 834–860.

[15]

V. Garneli, M. N. Giannakos, and K. Chorianopoulos. 2015. Computing education in K-12 schools: A review of the literature. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON’15). 543–551.

[16]

Ira Greenberg, Deepak Kumar, and Dianna Xu. 2012. Creative coding and visual portfolios for CS1. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 247–252.

Digital Library

[17]

Michael S. Horn, R. Jordan Crouser, and Marina U. Bers. 2012. Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 16, 4 (01 Apr 2012), 379–389.

Digital Library

[18]

Yasmin Kafai and Quinn Burke. 2013. Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan 95 (09 2013), 61–65.

[19]

Dennis Kafura and Deborah Tatar. 2011. Initial experience with a computational thinking course for computer science students. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 251–256.

Digital Library

[20]

Michael Kölling and Poul Henriksen. 2005. Game programming in introductory courses with direct state manipulation. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’05). ACM, New York, NY, 59–63.

Digital Library

[21]

Brian Krupp and Andrew Watkins. 2019. CS0: Introducing computing with raspberry pis. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 832–838.

Digital Library

[22]

Susan M. Land and Michael J. Hannafin. 2000. Student-centered learning environments. In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, David H. Jonassen and Susan M. Land (Eds.). Routledge, New York and London.

[23]

Scott Leutenegger and Jeffrey Edgington. 2007. A games first approach to teaching introductory programming. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 1 (Mar. 2007), 115–118.

Digital Library

[24]

Les M. Lunce. 2006. Simulations: Bringing the benefits of situated learning to the traditional classroom. J. Appl. Educ. Technol. 3, 1 (2006), 37–45.

[25]

Sze Yee Lye and Joyce Hwee Ling Koh. 2014. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Comput. Hum. Behav. 41 (2014), 51–61.

Digital Library

[26]

Pablo Martin-Ramos, Maria Joo Lopes, M. Margarida Lima da Silva, Pedro E. B. Gomes, Pedro S. Pereira da Silva, Jos P. P. Domingues, and Manuela Ramos Silva. 2018. Reprint of first exposure to arduino through peer-coaching. Comput. Hum. Behav. 80, C (Mar. 2018), 420–427.

Digital Library

[27]

Jared J. McGinley and Brett D. Jones. 2014. A brief instructional intervention to increase students’ motivation on the first day of class. Teach. Psychol. 41, 2 (2014), 158–162.

[28]

Alexandros Merkouris and Konstantinos Chorianopoulos. 2015. Introducing computer programming to children through robotic and wearable devices. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE’15). ACM, New York, NY, 69–72.

Digital Library

[29]

Iwona Miliszewska and Grace Tan. 2007. Befriending computer programming: A proposed approach to teaching introductory programming. Inf. Sci.: Int. J. Emerg. Transdisc. 4, 1 (2007), 277–289.

[30]

Shitanshu Mishra, Sudeesh Balan, Sridhar Iyer, and Sahana Murthy. 2014. Effect of a 2-week scratch intervention in CS1 on learners with varying prior knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 45–50.

Digital Library

[31]

Jackie O’Kelly and J. Paul Gibson. 2006. RoboCode & problem-based learning: A non-prescriptive approach to teaching programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE’06). ACM, New York, NY, 217–221.

Digital Library

[32]

Vasileios Orfanakis and Stamatios Papadakis. 2017. Using Raspberry Pi and Wyliodrin for teaching novice programmers in secondary education. In 5th Panhellenic Conference: Inclusion and use of ICT in the Educational Process.

[33]

G. E. Palaigeorgiou, P. D. Siozos, N. I. Konstantakis, and I. A. Tsoukalas. 2005. A computer attitude scale for computer science freshmen and its educational implications. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21, 5 (2005), 330–342.

[34]

Julie Pallant. 2013. SPSS Survival Manual. McGraw–Hill Education (UK).

[35]

Stamatios Papadakis, Michail Kalogiannakis, Nicholas Zaranis, and Vasileios Orfanakis. 2016. Using scratch and app inventor for teaching introductory programming in secondary education. A case study. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 8, 3-4 (2016), 217–233.

Digital Library

[36]

J. Parham-Mocello, M. Erwig, and E. Dominguez. 2019. To code or not to code? Programming in introductory CS courses. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC’19). 187–191.

[37]

Rathika Rajaravivarma. 2005. A games-based approach for teaching the introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 4 (Dec. 2005), 98–102.

Digital Library

[38]

Samuel A. Rebelsky, Janet Davis, and Jerod Weinman. 2013. Building knowledge and confidence with mediascripting: A successful interdisciplinary approach to CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 483–488.

Digital Library

[39]

Marcos Román-Gonzalez, Juan Carlos Pérez-González, and Carmen Jiménez-Fernández. 2015. Test de pensamiento computacional: diseño y psicometría general. In Proceedings of the III Congreso Internacional sobre Aprendizaje, Innovación y Competitividad (CINAIC’15).

[40]

Theodosios Sapounidis and Stavros Demetriadis. 2013. Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: Exploring cross-age children’s preferences. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 17, 8 (Dec. 2013), 1775–1786.

Digital Library

[41]

Stephen Schaub. 2009. Teaching CS1 with web applications and test-driven development. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 2 (Jun. 2009), 113–117.

Digital Library

[42]

Christina Silver and Ann Lewins. 2014. Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-step Guide. Sage.

Digital Library

[43]

David Stein. 1998. Situated Learning in Adult Education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

[44]

Arto Vihavainen, Jonne Airaksinen, and Christopher Watson. 2014. A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 19–26.

Digital Library

[45]

Jacques Wainer and Eduardo C. Xavier. 2018. A controlled experiment on Python vs C for an introductory programming course: Students & outcomes. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 3, Article 12 (Aug. 2018), 16 pages.

Digital Library

[46]

Arthur L. Wilson. 1993. The promise of situated cognition. New Direct. Adult Contin. Educ. 1993, 57 (1993), 71–79.

[47]

Janie H. Wilson and Shauna B. Wilson. 2007. Methods and techniques: The first day of class affects student motivation: An experimental study. Teach. Psychol. 34, 4 (2007), 226–230.

[48]

Pat Wolfe and Ron Brandt. 1998. What do we know from brain research? Educ. Leader. 56, 3 (1998), 8–13.

[49]

Zoë J. Wood, John Clements, Zachary Peterson, David Janzen, Hugh Smith, Michael Haungs, Julie Workman, John Bellardo, and Bruce DeBruhl. 2018. Mixed approaches to CS0: Exploring topic and pedagogy variance after six years of CS0. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 20–25.

Digital Library

[50]

Sarita Yardi and Amy Bruckman. 2007. What is computing?: Bridging the gap between teenagers’ perceptions and graduate students’ experiences. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’07). ACM, New York, NY, 39–50.

Digital Library

Cited By

Köhler JHidalgo LJara J(2023)Predicting Students’ Outcome in an Introductory Programming Course: Leveraging the Student BackgroundApplied Sciences10.3390/app13211199413:21(11994)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111994
Riese EStenbom S(2023)Engineering Students’ Experiences of Assessment in Introductory Computer Science CoursesIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2023.323889566:4(350-359)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TE.2023.3238895
Bellino ADe Michelis GDe Paoli F(2023)Design and Evaluation of Protobject: A Tool for Rapid Prototyping of Interactive ProductsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2023.324287311(13280-13292)Online publication date: 2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3242873
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A Real-world Approach to Motivate Students on the First Class of a Computer Science Course
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computational science and engineering education

Recommendations

A comparison of the effects on students' attitudes toward computers of a computer programming course versus a computer programming and awareness course
Evaluation of college students' attitudes toward computers before and after taking a computer literacy course
Utilization of Rubrics for Self-assessment of Computer Science Students Enrolled in a Research Writing Course
WCCCE '17: Proceedings of the 22nd Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education

This study 1 determined the utilization of rubrics in self-assessment of Computer Science students who underwent research writing course. Two sections with a total of 69 students served as participants of the study. The grades of the teacher in the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 21, Issue 3

September 2021

188 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3452111

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 May 2021

Accepted: 01 December 2020

Revised: 01 September 2020

Received: 01 July 2019

Published in TOCE Volume 21, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tag

cs1

Qualifiers

Research-article
Refereed

Funding Sources

CONICYT/FONDECYT (Chile)
Engineering Postdoc UC 2018
Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación UC/Fond-DCC 2017-0001

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
470
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)69
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

Reflects downloads up to 17 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Köhler JHidalgo LJara J(2023)Predicting Students’ Outcome in an Introductory Programming Course: Leveraging the Student BackgroundApplied Sciences10.3390/app13211199413:21(11994)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111994
Riese EStenbom S(2023)Engineering Students’ Experiences of Assessment in Introductory Computer Science CoursesIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2023.323889566:4(350-359)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TE.2023.3238895
Bellino ADe Michelis GDe Paoli F(2023)Design and Evaluation of Protobject: A Tool for Rapid Prototyping of Interactive ProductsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2023.324287311(13280-13292)Online publication date: 2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3242873
Kohler JHidalgo LJara J(2022)Using machine learning techniques to predict academic success in an introductory programming course2022 41st International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC)10.1109/SCCC57464.2022.10000360(1-8)Online publication date: 21-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC57464.2022.10000360

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents