Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3632620.3671107acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploring the Effects of Grouping by Programming Experience in Q&A Forums

Published: 12 August 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Motivation: Q&A forums are a critical resource for supporting students in large educational environments, yet students often perceive these forums as stressful and report discomfort in participating visibly, especially in classes that are large and have students with varying levels of prior programming experience (PE). Method: We divided students in a CS1 Q&A forum into smaller, homogenous groups based on their PE. We use a mixed-methods approach to compare data from this experience to data from a setting where all students shared a single, large Q&A forum (a “mixed” setting). We quantitatively analyze measures of student engagement and use an open-ended qualitative approach to examine responses about student experience on the forums. This approach helps us identify the motivation behind student decisions to participate in visible or non-visible ways and to evaluate their alignment with theoretical frameworks. Results: In the mixed setting, students frequently use anonymity, with students without PE using anonymity more than students with PE and women using anonymity more than men. In contrast, in the homogenous groups, novices used anonymity less than novices in the mixed setting, while the students in higher-experience groups tended to use it more. We also observe a reduced anonymity usage among women in the homogenous experience groups, suggesting that PE plays a critical role in the observed gender disparities in forum participation. The qualitative analysis provides additional evidence that social status issues and confidence may explain these behavioral patterns. Conclusion: This study highlights the potential benefits and consequences of grouping students by experience. Homogenous PE groups foster increased student comfort and engagement within the Q&A forum for students with less experience, but students with more experience are exposed to more perceived status threats. We discuss how these results align with the theories we used to design the homogenous group setting. This exploration contributes to a deeper understanding of the underlying dynamics shaping student behavior in online learning communities. Educators and platform designers can use these lessons to more effectively create inclusive environments that accommodate diverse student needs and preferences.

References

[1]
[n. d.]. Piazza Technologies, Inc.https://www.piazza.com/
[2]
Lecia J Barker, Charlie McDowell, and Kimberly Kalahar. 2009. Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 1 (2009), 153–157.
[3]
Michael F Beaudoin. 2002. Learning or lurking?: Tracking the “invisible” online student. The Internet and Higher Education 5, 2 (2002), 147–155.
[4]
Jyoti Belur, Lisa Tompson, Amy Thornton, and Miranda Simon. 2021. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological methods & research 50, 2 (2021), 837–865.
[5]
J. Berger, M.H. Fisek, and R.Z. Norman. 1977. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-states Approach. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
[6]
Annika Bergström. 2015. Online privacy concerns: A broad approach to understanding the concerns of different groups for different uses. Computers in human behavior 53 (2015), 419–426.
[7]
Maureen Biggers, Anne Brauer, and Tuba Yilmaz. 2008. Student Perceptions of Computer Science: A Retention Study Comparing Graduating Seniors vs. CS Leavers. ACM SIGCSE bulletin 40, 1 (2008), 402–406.
[8]
Nicholas A Bowman, Lindsay Jarratt, KC Culver, and Alberto Maria Segre. 2019. How prior programming experience affects students’ pair programming experiences and outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 170–175.
[9]
Madison Brigham and Joël Porquet-Lupine. 2021. Gender Differences in Class Participation in Core CS Courses. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 478–483.
[10]
SJ Brooke. 2021. Trouble in programmer’s paradise: gender-biases in sharing and recognising technical knowledge on Stack Overflow. Information, Communication & Society 24, 14 (2021), 2091–2112.
[11]
Giang Bui, Naaz Sibia, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy, Michael Liut, and Andrew Petersen. 2023. Prior Programming Experience: A Persistent Performance Gap in CS1 and CS2. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 889–895.
[12]
Linda L Carli. 1990. Gender, language, and influence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 5 (1990), 941.
[13]
Joanne Cohoon and William Aspray. 2008. Just get over it or just get on with it: Retaining women in undergraduate computing. MIT Press.
[14]
Karen Cook and Eric Rice. 2006. Social Exchange Theory. Vol. 68. 53–76.
[15]
April R Crockett, Gerald C Gannod, and Moumita Kamal. 2023. Improving Student Success and Retention in CS1 Through Self-Selection into Experience-Based Groups. In Proceedings of the 2023 Frontiers in Education Conference. 1–9.
[16]
Jill Denner, Linda Werner, Lisa O’Connor, and Jill Glassman. 2014. Community college men and women: A test of three widely held beliefs about who pursues computer science. Community College Review 42, 4 (2014), 342–362.
[17]
Vitaly J Dubrovsky, Sara Kiesler, and Beheruz N Sethna. 1991. The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups. Human-computer interaction 6, 2 (1991), 119–146.
[18]
Aviv Emanuel, Maayan Katzir, and Nira Liberman. 2022. Why do people increase effort near a deadline? An opportunity-cost model of goal gradients.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 151, 11 (2022), 2910.
[19]
Leon Festinger. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations 7, 2 (1954), 117–140.
[20]
Andrew J Flanagin, Vanessa Tiyaamornwong, Joan O’Connor, and David R Seibold. 2002. Computer-mediated group work: The interaction of sex and anonymity. Communication Research 29, 1 (2002), 66–93.
[21]
Mark Freeman and Anne Bamford. 2004. Student choice of anonymity for learner identity in online learning discussion forums. In International Journal on E-learning, Vol. 3. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 45–53.
[22]
Yvonne YH Fung*. 2004. Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 19, 2 (2004), 135–149.
[23]
Francis Galton. 1886. Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature.The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 15 (1886), 246–263.
[24]
Kathy Garvin-Doxas and Lecia J Barker. 2004. Communication in Computer Science Classrooms: Understanding Defensive Climates as a Means of Creating Supportive Behaviors. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) 4, 1 (2004), 2–es.
[25]
Janette R Hill, Liyan Song, and Richard E West. 2009. Social Learning Theory and Web-Based Learning Environments: A Review of Research and Discussion of Implications. The American Journal of Distance Education 23, 2 (2009), 88–103.
[26]
M. Johnson. 2010. Anonymity in online discussion forums – does it promote connections?. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. 198–206.
[27]
David A. Joyner, Lily Bernstein, Ian Bolger, Maria-Isabelle Dittamo, Stephanie Gorham, and Rachel Hudson. 2022. Anonymity: A Double-Edged Sword for Gender Equity in a CS1 Forum?. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 766–772.
[28]
Steven J Karau and Kipling D Williams. 2014. Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. In Groups at work. Psychology Press, 127–156.
[29]
Sara Kiesler, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication.American psychologist 39, 10 (1984), 1123.
[30]
Jungjoo Kim. 2013. Influence of group size on students’ participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education 62 (2013), 123–129.
[31]
Alison King. 1990. Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American educational research journal 27, 4 (1990), 664–687.
[32]
Michael S Kirkpatrick and Chris Mayfield. 2017. Evaluating an Alternative CS1 for Students with Prior Programming Experience. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 333–338.
[33]
Robert E Kraut and Paul Resnick. 2012. Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. MIT Press.
[34]
Mestan Küçük. 2010. Lurking in online asynchronous discussion. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 2 (2010), 2260–2263.
[35]
Daniel La Vista, Nickolas Falkner, and Claudia Szabo. 2017. Understanding the Effects of Intervention on Computer Science Student Behaviour in On-line Forums. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 200–205.
[36]
David Lake. 1999. Reducing Isolation for Distance Students: An On‐line Initiative. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 14, 3 (1999), 14–23.
[37]
Ryan Lenfant, Alice Wanner, John R Hott, and Raymond Pettit. 2023. Project-Based and Assignment-Based Courses: A Study of Piazza Engagement and Gender in Online Courses. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 138–144.
[38]
Colleen M Lewis, Ken Yasuhara, and Ruth E Anderson. 2011. Deciding to major in computer science: a grounded theory of students’ self-assessment of ability. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research. 3–10.
[39]
David Liben-Nowell and Anna N Rafferty. 2022. Student Motivations and Goals for CS1: Themes and Variations. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 237–243.
[40]
H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney. 1947. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18, 1 (1947), 50 – 60.
[41]
Anna May, Johannes Wachs, and Anikó Hannák. 2019. Gender Differences in Participation and Reward on Stack Overflow. Empirical Software Engineering 24, 4 (2019), 1997–2019.
[42]
Cath Mazuro and Namrata Rao. 2011. Online Discussion Forums in Higher Education: Is ‘Lurking’ Working?International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education 2, 2 (2011), 364–371.
[43]
Christopher Mendez, Hema Susmita Padala, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Claudia Hilderbrand, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill, Logan Simpson, Nupoor Patil, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2018. Open source barriers to entry, revisited: A sociotechnical perspective. In Proceedings of the 40th International conference on software engineering. 1004–1015.
[44]
Radu P Mihail, Beth Rubin, and Judy Goldsmith. 2014. Online discussions: Improving education in CS?. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 409–414.
[45]
Eni Mustafaraj and Jessica Bu. 2015. The Visible and Invisible in a MOOC Discussion Forum. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. 351–354.
[46]
Dip Nandi, Margaret Hamilton, James Harland, and Geoff Warburton. 2011. How active are students in online discussion forums?. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 114. 125–134.
[47]
G. Pask. 1976. Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Elsevier.
[48]
Jimmy Patel and Abi Aghayere. 2006. Students’ perspective on the impact of a web-based discussion forum on student learning. In Proceedings of the 36th annual Frontiers in Education conference. IEEE, 26–31.
[49]
Tom Postmes, Russell Spears, Antonia T Lee, and Rosemary J Novak. 2005. Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity.Journal of personality and social psychology 89, 5 (2005), 747.
[50]
Jenny Preece, Blair Nonnecke, and Dorine Andrews. 2004. The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in human behavior 20, 2 (2004), 201–223.
[51]
Lynne D Roberts and Camilla J Rajah-Kanagasabai. 2013. "I’d be so much more comfortable posting anonymously": Identified versus anonymous participation in student discussion boards. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 29, 5 (2013), 612–625.
[52]
Anita Ryle and Kaye Cumming. 2007. Reflections on Engagement in Online Learning Communities. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 3, 3 (2007), 35–46.
[53]
Kai Sassenberg. 2002. Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6, 1 (2002), 27.
[54]
Kai Sassenberg and Margarete Boos. 2003. Attitude change in computer-mediated communication: Effects of anonymity and category norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 6, 4 (2003), 405–422.
[55]
Joseph Seering, Felicia Ng, Zheng Yao, and Geoff Kaufman. 2018. Applications of social identity theory to research and design in computer-supported cooperative work. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–34.
[56]
Guogen Shan and Shawn Gerstenberger. 2017. Fisher’s exact approach for post hoc analysis of a chi-squared test. PloS one 12, 12 (2017), e0188709.
[57]
Mrinal Sharma, Hayden McTavish, Zimo Peng, Anshul Shah, Vardhan Agarwal, Caroline Sih, Emma Hogan, Ismael Villegas Molina, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj, and Kristen Vaccaro. 2023. Engagement and Anonymity in Online Computer Science Course Forums. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1. 48–62.
[58]
Ruey-Shiang Shaw. 2013. The relationships among group size, participation, and performance of programming language learning supported with online forums. Computers & Education 62 (2013), 196–207.
[59]
Naaz Sibia, Giang Bui, Bingcheng Wang, Yinyue Tan, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy, Christina Bauer, Joseph Jay Williams, Michael Liut, and Andrew Petersen. 2024. Examining Intention to Major in Computer Science: Perceived Potential and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Vol. 1. 7.
[60]
Naaz Sibia and Michael Liut. 2022. The Positive Effects of using Reflective Prompts in a Database Course. In 1st International Workshop on Data Systems Education. 32–37.
[61]
Naaz Sibia, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy, Joseph Jay Williams, Michael Liut, and Andrew Petersen. 2023. Student Usage of Q&A Forums: Signs of Discomfort?. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 33–39.
[62]
Jane Siegel, Vitaly Dubrovsky, Sara Kiesler, and Timothy W McGuire. 1986. Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 37, 2 (1986), 157–187.
[63]
Melissa Sobel, Jessica Gilmartin, and Pooja Sankar. 2016. Class size and confidence levels among female STEM students [Impact]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 35, 1 (2016), 23–26.
[64]
Omid Reza Bolouki Speily, Alireza Rezvanian, Ardalan Ghasemzadeh, Ali Mohammad Saghiri, and S Mehdi Vahidipour. 2020. Lurkers versus posters: Investigation of the participation behaviors in online learning communities. In Educational Networking. Springer, 269–298.
[65]
Peter Sprent. 2011. Fisher exact test. In International encyclopedia of statistical science. Springer, 524–525.
[66]
Na Sun, Patrick Pei-Luen Rau, and Liang Ma. 2014. Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior 38 (2014), 110–117.
[67]
Anya Tafliovich, Jennifer Campbell, and Andrew Petersen. 2013. A student perspective on prior experience in CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 239–244.
[68]
Josh Terrell, Andrew Kofink, Justin Middleton, Clarissa Rainear, Emerson Murphy-Hill, Chris Parnin, and Jon Stallings. 2017. Gender differences and bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Computer Science 3 (2017), e111.
[69]
Adrian Thinnyun, Ryan Lenfant, Raymond Pettit, and John R Hott. 2021. Gender and Engagement in CS Courses on Piazza. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 438–444.
[70]
Mickey Vellukunnel, Philip Buffum, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Jeffrey Forbes, Sarah Heckman, and Ketan Mayer-Patel. 2017. Deconstructing the discussion forum: Student questions and computer science learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. 603–608.
[71]
Jennifer Wang, Hai Hong, Jason Ravitz, and Marielena Ivory. 2015. Gender differences in factors influencing pursuit of computer science and related fields. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. 117–122.
[72]
David Wong-Aitken, Diana Cukierman, and Parmit K. Chilana. 2022. "It Depends on Whether or Not I’m Lucky" How Students in an Introductory Programming Course Discover, Select, and Assess the Utility of Web-Based Resources. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1. 512–518.
[73]
Dezhi Wu and Starr Roxanne Hiltz. 2004. Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of asynchronous learning networks 8, 2 (2004), 139–152.
[74]
Kimberly Michelle Ying, Fernando J Rodríguez, Alexandra Lauren Dibble, Alexia Charis Martin, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Sanethia V Thomas, and Juan E Gilbert. 2021. Confidence, Connection, and Comfort: Reports from an All-Women’s CS1 Class. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 699–705.

Index Terms

  1. Exploring the Effects of Grouping by Programming Experience in Q&A Forums
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ICER '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1
    August 2024
    539 pages
    ISBN:9798400704758
    DOI:10.1145/3632620
    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 the author(s) 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].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 12 August 2024

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Anonymity
    2. Confidence
    3. Prior Experience
    4. Q&A Forums

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    ICER 2024
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 68
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)68
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16
    Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media