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

skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Study Behavior in Computing Education—A Systematic Literature Review

Published: 18 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

As the field of computing education grows and matures, it has become essential to unite computing education and higher education research. Educational research has highlighted that how students study is crucial to their learning progress, and study behaviors have been found to play an important role in students’ academic success. This article presents the main results of a systematic literature review intended to determine what we know about the study behaviors of computing students and the role of educational design in shaping them. A taxonomy of study behaviors was developed and used to clarify and classify the definitions of study behavior, process, strategies, habits, and tactics as well as to identify their relationship to the educational context. The literature search resulted in 107 included papers, which were analyzed according to defined criteria and variables. The review of study behavior terminology found that the same terms are used to describe substantially different study behaviors, and the lack of standard terminology makes it difficult to compare findings from different papers. Furthermore, it was more common for papers to use study behaviors to explain other aspects of students rather than exploring and understanding them. Additionally, the results revealed a tendency to focus on specific educational contexts, predominantly introductory programming courses. Although computing education as a field is well equipped to expand the knowledge about both study behaviors and their connection to the educational context, the lack of common terminology and theories limits the impact. The taxonomy of study behaviors in computing education proposed in this article can contribute to contextualizing the research in such a way that researchers and educators across institutional borders can compare and utilize results. Last, the article outlines some areas for future research and recommendations for practice.

References

[1]
Onni Aarne, Petrus Peltola, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2018. A study of pair programming enjoyment and attendance using study motivation and strategy metrics. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 759–764. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159493
[2]
A. Allevato and S. H. Edwards. 2013. The effects of extra credit opportunities on student procrastination. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’13). 1831–1836. DOI:DOI:
[3]
Vicki L. Almstrum, Orit Hazzan, Mark Guzdial, and Marian Petre. 2005. Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’05). ACM, New York, NY, 191–192. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047415
[4]
Christine Alvarado, Yingjun Cao, and Mia Minnes. 2017. Gender differences in students’ behaviors in CS classes throughout the CS major. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 27–32. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017771
[5]
A. P. Ambrosio, L. Almeida, A. Franco, S. Martins, and F. Georges. 2012. Assessment of self-regulated attitudes and behaviors of introductory programming students. DOI:DOI:
[6]
Oliver Au, Raymond So, and Hiu-Wing Go. 2013. Altering study habits with email reminders(Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)), Vol. 8038 LNCS, 190–198. DOI:DOI:
[7]
Oliver Au, Raymond So, and Lap Kei Lee. 2017. Prior knowledge dwarfs hard work in achieving academic performance. In Blended Learning. New Challenges and Innovative Practices (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Simon K. S. Cheung, Lam-for Kwok, Will W. K. Ma, Lap-Kei Lee, and Harrison Yang (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 139–147. DOI:DOI:
[8]
T. Auvinen. 2015. Harmful study habits in online learning environments with automatic assessment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering. 50–57. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2015.31
[9]
Albert Bandura. 1978. The self system in reciprocal determinism. Amer. Psychol. 33, 4 (1978), 344–358. DOI:DOI:
[10]
Margaret Bearman, Calvin D. Smith, Angela Carbone, Susan Slade, Chi Baik, Marnie Hughes-Warrington, and David L. Neumann. 2012. Systematic review methodology in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Devel. 31, 5 (Oct. 2012), 625–640. DOI:DOI:
[11]
Klara Benda, Amy Bruckman, and Mark Guzdial. 2012. When life and learning do not fit: Challenges of workload and communication in introductory computer science online. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 12, 4 (Nov. 2012). DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2382564.2382567
[12]
Anders Berglund and Mattias Wiggberg. 2006. Students learn CS in different ways: Insights from an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 265–269. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1140124.1140195
[13]
Naomi Berman. 2020. A critical examination of informal learning spaces. High. Educ. Res. Devel. 39, 1 (Jan. 2020), 127–140. DOI:DOI:
[14]
John Biggs. 1979. Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. High. Educ. 8, 4 (1979), 381–394.
[15]
John Biggs. 2012. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. High. Educ. Res. Devel. 31, 1 (Feb. 2012), 39–55. DOI:DOI:
[16]
John Biggs, David Kember, and Doris Y. P. Leung. 2001. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 71, 1 (2001), 133–149. DOI:DOI:
[17]
John B. Biggs. 1989. Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. High. Educ. Res. Devel. 8, 1 (Jan. 1989), 7–25. DOI:DOI:
[18]
Jürgen Börstler and Thomas B. Hilburn. 2015. Team projects in computing education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 15, 4 (Dec. 2015), 1–5. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2808079
[19]
Candido Cabo and Ashwin Satyanarayana. 2018. Promoting students’ social interactions results in an improvement in performance, class attendance and retention in first year computing courses. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.
[20]
A. Carpenter and J. R. McCusker. 2019. Retaking object-oriented programming quizzes for study habit insights and improvements. In 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
[21]
Leen Catrysse, David Gijbels, and Vincent Donche. 2019. A systematic review on the conceptualization and operationalization of students’ levels of processing in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Mind, Brain Educ. 13, 3 (2019), 198–210. DOI:DOI:
[22]
A. T. Chamillard and D. Karolick. 1999. Using learning style data in an introductory computer science course. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 291–295.
[23]
A. T. Chamillard and Ricky E. Sward. 2005. Learning styles across the curriculum. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 241–245. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1067445.1067512
[24]
Donald Chinn, Judy Sheard, Angela Carbone, and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2010. Study habits of CS1 Students: What do they do outside the classroom? In Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE’10). Australian Computer Society, Inc., 53–62.
[25]
Analía Cicchinelli, Eduardo Veas, Abelardo Pardo, Viktoria Pammer-Schindler, Angela Fessl, Carla Barreiros, and Stefanie Lindstädt. 2018. Finding traces of self-regulated learning in activity streams. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (LAK’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 191–200. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170381
[26]
Frank Coffield. 2004. Should We Be Using Learning Styles? What Research Has to Say in Practice. Technical Report. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.
[27]
Daniel Coore and Daniel Fokum. 2019. Facilitating course assessment with a competitive programming platform. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 449–455. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287511
[28]
Michelle Craig, Diane Horton, Daniel Zingaro, and Danny Heap. 2016. Introducing and evaluating exam wrappers in CS2. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 285–290. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844561
[29]
Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J. Verb. Learn. and Verb. Behav. 11, 6 (Dec. 1972), 671–684. DOI:DOI:
[30]
Marcus Credé and Nathan R. Kuncel. 2008. Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 6 (Nov. 2008), 425–453. DOI:DOI:
[31]
Diana Cukierman. 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 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 248–253. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742623
[32]
Diana R. Cukierman, Donna McGee Thompson, and Wayne Sun. 2019. The academic enhancement program: Assessing programs designed to support student success. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 686–692. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287422
[33]
Michael de Raadt, Richard Watson, and Mark Toleman. 2009. Teaching and assessing programming strategies explicitly. New Zealand 95 (2009), 10.
[34]
D. Deryakulu, S. Büyüköztürk, and H. Özçinar. 2009. Predictors of academic achievement of student ICT teachers with different learning styles. World Acad. Sci., Eng. Technol. 58 (2009), 703–709.
[35]
Cambridge Dictionary. 2021. taxonomy. Retrived 18 Feb, 2021 from https://cambridge.dictinary.com/taxonomy.
[36]
Daniel L. Dinsmore. 2017. Toward a dynamic, multidimensional research framework for strategic processing. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 2 (June 2017), 235–268. DOI:DOI:
[37]
Daniel L. Dinsmore, Patricia A. Alexander, and Sandra M. Loughlin. 2008. Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 20, 4 (Dec. 2008), 391–409. DOI:DOI:
[38]
Angela Lee Duckworth and Patrick D. Quinn. 2009. Development and validation of the short grit scale (Grit–S). J. Personal. Assess. 91, 2 (Feb. 2009), 166–174. DOI:DOI:
[39]
Tore Dybå and Torgeir Dingsøyr. 2008. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 9 (Aug. 2008), 833–859. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006
[40]
Stephen H. Edwards, Joshua Martin, and Clfford A. Shaffer. 2015. Examining classroom interventions to reduce procrastination. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 254–259. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742632
[41]
Stephen H. Edwards, Jason Snyder, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones, Anthony Allevato, Dongkwan Kim, and Betsy Tretola. 2009. Comparing effective and ineffective behaviors of student programmers. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’09). ACM, New York, NY, 3–14. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1584322.1584325
[42]
Rylan Egan, Diana Cukierman, and Donna McGee Thompson. 2011. The academic enhancement program in introductory CS: A workshop framework description and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 278–282. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999825
[43]
Noel Entwistle and Paul Ramsden. 2015. Understanding Student Learning (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. DOI:DOI:
[44]
N. J. Entwistle. 1991. Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment: Introduction to the Special Issue. High. Educ. 22, 3 (1991), 201–4.
[45]
Anthony Estey and Yvonne Coady. 2016. Can interaction patterns with supplemental study tools predict outcomes in CS1? In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 236–241. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899428
[46]
Anthony Estey and Yvonne Coady. 2017. Study habits, exam performance, and confidence: How do workflow practices and self-efficacy ratings align? In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 158–163. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3059009.3059056
[47]
Anthony Estey, Hieke Keuning, and Yvonne Coady. 2017. Automatically classifying students in need of support by detecting changes in programming behaviour. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 189–194. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017790
[48]
E. Fincham, D. Gašević, J. Jovanović, and A. Pardo. 2019. From study tactics to learning strategies: An analytical method for extracting interpretable representations. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 12, 1 (2019), 59–72. DOI:DOI:
[49]
S. Foo and G. S. Ng. 1996. Improving study methods of computer engineering undergraduates in Singapore. Qual. High. Educ. 2, 2 (1996), 131–142. DOI:DOI:
[50]
The Joint Task Force for Computing Curricula. 2005. Computing Curricula 2005 - The Overview Report. Technical Report. ACM, AIS, IEEE.
[51]
E. Fouh, D. A. Breakiron, S. Hamouda, M. F. Farghally, and C. A. Shaffer. 2014. Exploring students’ learning behavior with an interactive etextbook in computer science courses. Comput. Hum. Behav. 41 (2014), 478–485. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.061
[52]
Stephen Frezza, Mats Daniels, Arnold Pears, Åsa Cajander, Viggo Kann, Amanpreet Kapoor, Roger McDermott, Anne-Kathrin Peters, Mihaela Sabin, and Charles Wallace. 2018. Modelling competencies for computing education beyond 2020: A research based approach to defining competencies in the computing disciplines. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 148–174. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295782
[53]
Luke K. Fryer, Paul Ginns, Richard A. Walker, and Kaori Nakao. 2012. The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F to the Japanese tertiary environment. Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 4 (2012), 549–563. DOI:DOI:
[54]
Judith Gal-Ezer, Tamar Vilner, and Ela Zur. 2009. The professor on your PC: A virtual CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 191–195. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1562877.1562938
[55]
Dragan Gaševic, Jelena Jovanovic, Abelardo Pardo, and Shane Dawson. 2017. Detecting learning strategies with analytics: Links with self-reported measures and academic performance. J. Learn. Anal. 4, 2 (2017), 113–128.
[56]
Susan E. George. 2002. Learning and the reflective journal in computer science. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Computer Science (ACSC’02). Australian Computer Society, Inc., AUS, 77–86.
[57]
Maribeth Gettinger and Jill K. Seibert. 2002. Contributions of study skills to academic competence. Study Skills 31, 3 (2002), 350–365.
[58]
A. Gholami and L. Y. Zhang. 2018. Student behaviour in unsupervised online quizzes: A closer look. In Proceedings of the 23rd Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3209635.3209650
[59]
N. Gitinabard, Y. Xu, S. Heckman, T. Barnes, and C. F. Lynch. 2019. How widely can prediction models be generalized? Performance prediction in blended courses. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 12, 2 (2019), 184–197. DOI:DOI:
[60]
Seth Copen Goldstein, Hongyi Zhang, Majd Sakr, Haokang An, and Cameron Dashti. 2019. Understanding how work habits influence student performance. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’19). ACM, New York, NY, 154–160. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319757
[61]
Anabela Jesus Gomes, Alvaro Nuno Santos, and António José Mendes. 2012. A study on students’ behaviours and attitudes towards learning to program. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’12). ACM, New York, NY, 132–137. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325331
[62]
Irene Govender. 2009. The learning context: Influence on learning to program. Comput. Educ. 53, 4 (Dec. 2009), 1218–1230. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.005
[63]
Sheryl Guloy, Farimah Salimi, Diana Cukierman, and Donna McGee Thompson. 2017. Insights on supporting learning during computing science and engineering students’ transition to university: A design-oriented, mixed methods exploration of instructor and student perspectives. High. Educ. 73, 3, SI (Mar. 2017), 479–497. DOI:DOI:
[64]
Tamsin Haggis. 2003. Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into “approaches to learning” research in higher education. Brit. Educ. Res. J. 29, 1 (2003), 89–104. DOI:DOI:
[65]
R. R. Halde, A. Deshpande, and A. Mahajan. 2016. Psychology assisted prediction of academic performance using machine learning. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Recent Trends in Electronics, Information and Communication Technology (RTEICT). 431–435. DOI:DOI:
[66]
Wan Han, Ding Jun, Gao Xiaopeng, and Liu Kangxu. 2017. Supporting quality teaching using educational data mining based on OpenEDX platform. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’17). 1–7. DOI:DOI:
[67]
David Harel. 1980. On folk theorems. Commun. ACM 23, 7 (July 1980), 379–389. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/358886.358892
[68]
Michael Haungs, Christopher Clark, John Clements, and David Janzen. 2012. Improving first-year success and retention through interest-based CS0 courses. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 589–594. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157307
[69]
Matthias Hauswirth and Andrea Adamoli. 2017. Metacognitive calibration when learning to program. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 50–59. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3141880.3141904
[70]
Bjorn Hedin and Viggo Kann. 2019. Improving study skills by combining a study skill module and repeated reflection seminars. Educ. Res. Int. (2019). DOI:DOI:
[71]
Arto Hellas, Petri Ihantola, Andrew Petersen, Vangel V. Ajanovski, Mirela Gutica, Timo Hynninen, Antti Knutas, Juho Leinonen, Chris Messom, and Soohyun Nam Liao. 2018. Predicting academic performance: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’18). ACM, New York, NY, 175–199. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295783
[72]
Barbara K. Hofer. 2000. Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 4 (Oct. 2000), 378–405. DOI:DOI:
[73]
Roya Hosseini, Peter Brusilovsky, Michael Yudelson, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Stereotype modeling for problem-solving performance predictions in MOOCs and traditional courses. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 76–84. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3079628.3079672
[74]
Janet Hughes and D. Ramanee Peiris. 2006. ASSISTing CS1 students to learn: Learning approaches and object-oriented programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 275–279. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1140124.1140197
[75]
Bowen Hui and Shannon Farvolden. 2017. How can learning analytics improve a course? In Proceedings of the 22nd Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3085585.3085586
[76]
Lars Josef Höök and Anna Eckerdal. 2015. On the bimodality in an introductory programming course: An analysis of student performance factors. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering. 79–86. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2015.25
[77]
Ersun Iscioglu. 2011. Study strategies of online learners. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Learning. 358–364.
[78]
Ville Isomöttönen and Ville Tirronen. 2013. Teaching programming by emphasizing self-direction: How did students react to the active role required of them?ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 2 (July 2013). DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2483710.2483711
[79]
Ville Isomöttönen and Ville Tirronen. 2016. Flipping and Blending—An action research project on improving a functional programming course. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 17, 1 (Sept. 2016). DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2934697
[80]
Ville Isomöttönen, Ville Tirronen, and Michael Cochez. 2013. Issues with a course that emphasizes self-direction. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 111–116. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2462495
[81]
Viggo Kann and Anna-Karin Högfeldt. 2016. Effects of a program integrating course for students of computer science and engineering. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 510–515. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844610
[82]
Avi Kaplan. 2008. Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the purpose?Educ. Psychol. Rev. 20, 4 (Sept. 2008), 477. DOI:DOI:
[83]
Staffs Keele. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering.Technical report 2.3. EBSE.
[84]
Päivi Kinnunen and Lauri Malmi. 2008. CS minors in a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 79–90. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404529
[85]
Päivi Kinnunen, Robert McCartney, Laurie Murphy, and Lynda Thomas. 2007. Through the eyes of instructors: A phenomenographic investigation of student success. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’07). ACM, New York, NY, 61–72. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1288580.1288589
[86]
Barbara Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 1 (Jan. 2009), 7–15. DOI:DOI:
[87]
Alice Kolb and David Kolb. 2005. The Kolb learning style inventory—version 3.1 2005 technical specifications. (Jan. 2005). Hay Resource Direct 200, 72 (2005), 166–171.
[88]
David Kolb. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Vol. 1. FT Press.
[89]
Vitomir Kovanović, Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, Srećko Joksimović, Ryan S. Baker, and Marek Hatala. 2015. Penetrating the black box of time-on-task estimation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK’15). ACM Press, 184–193. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723623
[90]
Vitomir Kovanović, Srećko Joksimović, Oleksandra Poquet, Thieme Hennis, Pieter de Vries, Marek Hatala, Shane Dawson, George Siemens, and Dragan Gašević. 2019. Examining communities of inquiry in massive open online courses: The role of study strategies. Internet High. Educ. 40 (Jan. 2019), 20–43. DOI:DOI:
[91]
M. Kuehn, J. Estad, J. Straub, T. Stokke, and S. Kerlin. 2017. An expert system for the prediction of student performance in an initial computer science course. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology (EIT’17). 1–6. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/EIT.2017.8053321
[92]
Agnieszka Kurczewska, Paula Kyrö, Krista Lagus, Oskar Kohonen, and Tiina Lindh-Knuutila. 2018. The interplay between cognitive, conative, and affective constructs along the entrepreneurial learning process. Educ. + Train. 60, 7/8 (Jan. 2018), 891–908. DOI:DOI:
[93]
Lisa L. Lacher and Mark C. Lewis. 2015. The effectiveness of video quizzes in a flipped class. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 224–228. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677302
[94]
Leo Leppänen, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2016. Pauses and spacing in learning to program. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 41–50. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999549
[95]
Soohyun Nam Liao, Sander Valstar, Kevin Thai, Christine Alvarado, Daniel Zingaro, William G. Griswold, and Leo Porter. 2019. Behaviors of higher and lower performing students in CS1. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 196–202. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319740
[96]
Fang-Ling Lin and Chyi-In Wu. 2018. Exploring the network dynamics in a flipped classroom. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM’18). IEEE Press, 855–860.
[97]
Alf Lizzio, Keithia Wilson, and Roland Simons. 2002. University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Stud. High. Educ. 27, 1 (Feb. 2002), 27–52. DOI:DOI:
[98]
M. Lorås and T. Aalberg. 2020. First year computing study behavior: Effects of educational design. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’20). 1–9. DOI:DOI:
[99]
Jie Lu, K. L. Chin, Juan Yao, Jun Xu, and Jitian Xiao. 2010. Cross-cultural education: Learning methodology and behaviour analysis for Asian students in IT field of Australian universities. In Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE’10). Australian Computer Society, Inc., AUS, 117–126.
[100]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Simon, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A. Becker, Michail Giannakos, Amruth N. Kumar, Linda Ott, James Paterson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. Introductory programming: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’18). ACM, New York, NY, 55–106. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295779
[101]
Jian Ma. 1994. Problem-based learning with database systems. Comput. Educ. 22, 3 (Apr. 1994), 257–263. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(94)90007-8
[102]
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, and Päivi Kinnunen. 2019. Computing education theories: What are they and how are they used? In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research.
[103]
Eric D. Manley and Timothy M. Urness. 2014. Video-based instruction for introductory computer programming. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 29, 5 (May 2014), 221–227.
[104]
Delia Marshall and Jennifer Case. 2005. “Approaches to learning” research in higher education: A response to Haggis. Brit. Educ. Res. J. 31, 2 (2005), 257–267. DOI:DOI:
[105]
Joshua Martin, Stephen H. Edwards, and Clfford A. Shaffer. 2015. The effects of procrastination interventions on programming project success. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’15). ACM, New York, NY, 3–11. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787730
[106]
F. Marton and R. Säljö. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning: “outcome and process.” Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 46, 1 (Feb. 1976), 4–11. DOI:DOI:
[107]
Chris Masui, Jan Broeckmans, Sarah Doumen, Anne Groenen, and Geert Molenberghs. 2014. Do diligent students perform better? Complex relations between student and course characteristics, study time, and academic performance in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 39, 4 (Apr. 2014), 621–643. DOI:DOI:
[108]
Patrícia Gomes Fernandes Matsubara and Caroline Lima Corrundefineda da Silva. 2017. Game elements in a software engineering study group: A case study. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering and Education Track (ICSE-SEET’17). IEEE Press, 160–169. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2017.8
[109]
Robert McCartney, Anna Eckerdal, Jan Erik Mostrom, Kate Sanders, and Carol Zander. 2007. Successful students’ strategies for getting unstuck. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’07). ACM, New York, NY, 156–160. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1268784.1268831
[110]
J. H. F. Meyer and M. W. Muller. 1990. Evaluating the quality of student learning. An unfolding analysis of the association between perceptions of learning context and approaches to studying at an individual level. Stud. High. Educ. 15, 2 (Jan. 1990), 131–154. DOI:DOI:
[111]
Craig S. Miller and Amber Settle. 2011. When practice doesn’t make perfect: Effects of task goals on learning computing concepts. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 11, 4 (Nov. 2011). DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2048931.2048933
[112]
A. Moffat, B. Hughes, H. Søndergaard, and P. Gruba. 2005. Making connections: First year transition for computer science and software engineering students, Vol. 42. 229–238.
[113]
P. Mota, F. S. Melo, and L. Coheur. 2015. Modeling students self-studies behaviors, Vol. 3. 1521–1528.
[114]
Matti Nelimarkka and Arto Hellas. 2018. Social help-seeking strategies in a programming MOOC. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 116–121. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159495
[115]
Philip M. Newton. 2015. The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Front. Psychol. 6 (2015). DOI:DOI:
[116]
Philip M. Newton and Atharva Salvi. 2020. How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. Front. Educ. 5 (2020). DOI:DOI:
[117]
G. S. Ng and E. Y. K. Ng. 1997. Undergraduate students in a computer engineering course: A perspective of their learning approaches and motivation factors. Innov. Educ. Train. Int. 34, 1 (Feb. 1997), 65–69. DOI:DOI:
[118]
M. Nkhoma, N. Sriratanaviriyakul, H. P. Cong, and T. K. Lam. 2014. Examining the mediating role of learning engagement, learning process and learning experience on the learning outcomes through localized real case studies. Educ. Train. 56, 4 (2014), 287–302. DOI:DOI:
[119]
Sarath A. Nonis and Gail I. Hudson. 2006. Academic performance of college students: Influence of time spent studying and working. J. Educ. Bus. 81, 3 (Jan. 2006), 151–159. DOI:DOI:
[120]
Ezekiel Okike. 2014. Investigating’ achievements in computing science using human metric. Int. J. Advanc. Comput. Sci. Applic. 5, 4 (2014). DOI:DOI:
[121]
C. Ott, A. Robins, P. Haden, and K. Shephard. 2015. Illustrating performance indicators and course characteristics to support students’ self-regulated learning in CS1. Comput. Sci. Educ. 25, 2 (2015), 174–198. DOI:DOI:
[122]
H. Oysaed, R. Andersen, P. E. Garmannslund, A. Prinz, A. Lazareva, and M. Schmidt. 2017. Does the introduction of an overall study strategy empower students to use appropriate study strategies? In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Education, Research, and Innovation (ICERI’17). 4152–4157.
[123]
Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork. 2008. Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Pub. Int. 9, 3 (Dec. 2008), 105–119. DOI:DOI:
[124]
Arnold Pears, Philip East, Robert McCartney, Mark Bartley Ratcliffe, Ioanna Stamouli, Anders Berglund, Päivi Kinnunen, Jan-Erik Moström, Carsten Schulte, Anna Eckerdalet al.2007. What’s the problem? Teachers’ experience of student learning successes and failures. In Proceedings of the 7th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’07). Australian Computer Society, Inc., AUS, 207–211.
[125]
Andrew Petersen, Michelle Craig, Jennifer Campbell, and Anya Tafliovich. 2016. Revisiting why students drop CS1. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’16). ACM, New York, NY, 71–80. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999552
[126]
Kerstin Pettersson, Maria Svedin, Max Scheja, and Olle Bälter. 2018. Approaches to studying in first-year engineering: Comparison between inventory scores and students’ descriptions of their approaches through interviews. High. Educ. 75, 5 (May 2018), 827–838. DOI:DOI:
[127]
Maria da Graça C. Pimentel, Cristiane A. Yaguinuma, Diogo S. Martins, and Isabela Zaine. 2019. Anchoring interactive points of interest on web-based instructional video: Effects on students’ interaction behavior and perceived experience. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2445–2452. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3297280.3297521
[128]
E. Ashby Plant, K. Anders Ericsson, Len Hill, and Kia Asberg. 2005. Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30, 1 (Jan. 2005), 96–116. DOI:DOI:
[129]
Arthur E. Poropat. 2009. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol. Bull. 135, 2 (Mar. 2009), 322–338. DOI:DOI:
[130]
James Prather, Brett A. Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Dastyni Loksa, and Lauren Margulieux. 2020. What do we think we think we are doing? Metacognition and self-regulation in programming. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2–13. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406263
[131]
James Prather, Raymond Pettit, Kayla McMurry, Alani Peters, John Homer, and Maxine Cohen. 2018. Metacognitive difficulties faced by novice programmers in automated assessment tools. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’18). ACM, New York, NY, 41–50. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230981
[132]
Justus J. Randolph, George Julnes, Erkki Sutinen, and Steve Lehman. 2008. A methodological review of computer science education research. J. Inf. Technol. Educ.: Res. 7, 1 (Jan. 2008), 135–162.
[133]
John T. E. Richardson. 2015. Approaches to learning or levels of processing: What did Marton and Säljö really say? The legacy of the work of the Göteborg Group in the 1970s. Interchange 46, 3 (Aug. 2015), 239–269. DOI:DOI:
[134]
Anthony Robins, Janet Rountree, and Nathan Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Comput. Sci. Educ. 13, 2 (June 2003), 137–172. DOI:DOI:
[135]
Anna Sandström and Mats Daniels. 2000. Time studies as a tool for (computer science) education research. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACSE’00). ACM, New York, NY, 208–214. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/359369.359401
[136]
M. Scheidt, R. Senkpeil, J. Chen, A. Godwin, and E. Berger. 2019. SAT does not spell success: How non-cognitive factors can explain variance in the GPA of undergraduate engineering and computer science students, Vol. 2018-October. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). DOI:DOI:
[137]
Howard Schuman, Edward Walsh, Camille Olson, and Barbara Etheridge. 1985. Effort and reward: The assumption that college grades are affected by quantity of study. Soc. Forces 63, 4 (1985), 945–966. DOI:DOI:
[138]
Amber Settle, John Lalor, and Theresa Steinbach. 2015. Evaluating a linked-courses learning community for development majors. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 127–132. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2808006.2808031
[139]
Steven C. Shaffer. 2005. Ludwig: An online programming tutoring and assessment system. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 2 (June 2005), 56–60. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1083431.1083464
[140]
J. Sheard, A. Carbone, D. Chinn, and M. Laakso. 2013. Study habits of CS 1 students: What do they say they do? In Proceedings of the Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering Conference. 122–129. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.46
[141]
Varshita Sher, Marek Hatala, and Dragan Gaševiundefined. 2019. On multi-device use: Using technological modality profiles to explain differences in students’ learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1–10. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303790
[142]
Adithya Sheshadri, Niki Gitinabard, Collin F. Lynch, Tiffany Barnes, and Sarah Heckman. 2018. Predicting student performance based on online study habits: A study of blended courses. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM’18).
[143]
Nikki Sigurdson and Andrew Petersen. 2018. An exploration of grit in a CS1 context. In Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3279720.3279743
[144]
Simon, Sally Fincher, Anthony Robins, Bob Baker, Ilona Box, Quintin Cutts, Michael de Raadt, Patricia Haden, John Hamer, Margaret Hamilton, Raymond Lister, Marian Petre, Ken Sutton, Denise Tolhurst, and Jodi Tutty. 2006. Predictors of success in a first programming course. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE’06). Australian Computer Society, Inc., 189–196.
[145]
J. F. Superby, J. P. Vandamme, and N. Meskens. 2006. Determination of factors influencing the achievement of the first-year university students using data mining methods. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Educational Data Mining.
[146]
F. Sustelo and P. Guerreiro. 2010. Analyzing self-reflection by computer science student to identify bad study habits: Self-reflection performed by students of programming courses on the study habits and skills acquired through b-learning supported by an automatic judge. In IEEE Educon 2010. 263–270. DOI:DOI:
[147]
M. Svedin and O. Bälter. 2016. Gender neutrality improved completion rate for all. Comput. Sci. Educ. 26, 2–3 (2016), 192–207. DOI:DOI:
[148]
Claudia Szabo, Nickolas Falkner, Andrew Petersen, Heather Bort, Kathryn Cunningham, Peter Donaldson, Arto Hellas, James Robinson, and Judy Sheard. 2019. Review and use of learning theories within computer science education research: Primer for researchers and practitioners. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE-WGR’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 89–109. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372504
[149]
Neena Thota. 2011. Repertory grid: Investigating personal constructs of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli calling’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 23–32. DOI:DOI:
[150]
Vincent Tinto. 1988. Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student leaving. J. High. Educ. 59, 4 (1988), 438–455. DOI:DOI:
[151]
Denise Tolhurst. 2004. The influence of web-supported independent activities and small group work on students’ epistemological beliefs. In Proceedings of the 6th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE’04). Australian Computer Society, Inc., AUS, 311–316.
[152]
Tara Tressel, Susanne P. Lajoie, and Melissa C. Duffy. 2019. A guide for study terminology: Reviewing a fragmented domain.Canad. Psychol./Psychologie canadienne 60, 2 (2019), 115. DOI:DOI:
[153]
Marcel V. J. Veenman, Laura Bavelaar, Levina De Wolf, and Marieke G. P. Van Haaren. 2014. The on-line assessment of metacognitive skills in a computerized learning environment. Learn. Indiv. Dif. 29 (Jan. 2014), 123–130. DOI:DOI:
[154]
Arto Vihavainen, Juha Helminen, and Petri Ihantola. 2014. How novices tackle their first lines of code in an IDE: Analysis of programming session traces. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 109–116. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674692
[155]
Klinge Orlando Villalba-Condori, Sonia Esther Castro Cuba-Sayco, Evelyn Paola Guillen Chávez, Claudia Deco, and Cristina Bender. 2018. Approaches of learning and computational thinking in students that get into the computer sciences career. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 36–40. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284185
[156]
Robert Vinaja. 2014. The use of lecture videos, EBooks, and clickers in computer courses. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 30, 2 (Dec. 2014), 23–32.
[157]
H. Wan, K. Liu, Q. Yu, and X. Gao. 2019. Pedagogical intervention practices: Improving learning engagement based on early prediction. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 12, 2 (2019), 278–289. DOI:DOI:
[158]
Rui Wang, Gabriella Harari, Peilin Hao, Xia Zhou, and Andrew T. Campbell. 2015. SmartGPA: How smartphones can assess and predict academic performance of college students. In Proceedings of the ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 295–306. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804251
[159]
F. Weng, F. Cheong, and C. Cheong. 2010. The combined effect of self-efficacy and academic integration on higher education students studying IT majors in Taiwan. Educ. Inf. Technol. 15, 4 (2010), 333–353. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9115-y
[160]
L. K. Westin and M. Nordstrom. 2004. Teaching OO concepts—A new approach. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference.F3C–6. DOI:DOI:
[161]
Keith J. Whittington, Dianne P. Bills, and Lawrence W. Hill. 2003. Implementation of alternative pacing in an introductory programming sequence. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Information Technology Curriculum (CITC4’03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 47–53. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/947121.947132
[162]
Gita C. Williams, Richard Bialac, and Yi Liu. 2006. Using online self-assessment in introductory programming classes. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 22, 2 (Dec. 2006), 115–122.
[163]
Laurie Williams, Eric Wiebe, Kai Yang, Miriam Ferzli, and Carol Miller. 2002. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Comput. Sci. Educ. 12, 3 (Sept. 2002), 197–212. DOI:DOI:
[164]
Salla Willman, Rolf Lindén, Erkki Kaila, Teemu Rajala, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, and Tapio Salakoski. 2015. On study habits on an introductory course on programming. Comput. Sci. Educ. 25, 3 (July 2015), 276–291. DOI:DOI:
[165]
Christopher A. Wolters, Sungjun Won, and Maryam Hussain. 2017. Examining the relations of time management and procrastination within a model of self-regulated learning. Metacog. Learn. 12, 3 (Dec. 2017), 381–399. DOI:DOI:
[166]
Iman YeckehZaare, Paul Resnick, and Barbara Ericson. 2019. A spaced, interleaved retrieval practice tool that is motivating and effective. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 71–79. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339411
[167]
Sang Yim, Christopher Lowrance, and Eric Sturzinger. 2019. Effects of YouTube video as pre-lecture preparation. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. ASEE Conferences. DOI:DOI:
[168]
Halil Yurdugul and Nihal Menzi Cetin. 2015. Investigation of the relationship between learning process and learning outcomes in e-learning environments. Euras. J. Educ. Res.59 (2015), 57–74. DOI:DOI:
[169]
D. Zehetmeier, A. Böttcher, A. Brüggemann-Klein, V. Thurner, and K. Schlierkamp. 2015. Finding competence characteristics among first semester students in computer science. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’15). 1–9. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344201
[170]
Y. Zhang, T. Zhang, Y. Jia, J. Sun, F. Xu, and W. Xu. 2017. DataLab: Introducing software engineering thinking into data science education at scale. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training Track (ICSE-SEET’17). 47–56. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2017.7
[171]
H. Zhao, Y. Guo, K. Wang, M. Lu, and X. Yan. 2019. The Effects of ICT Use on Chinese college’ study behavior in b-learning evaluating b-learning effectiveness via causal model. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Science Education (ICCSE’19). 103–107. DOI:DOI:
[172]
Daniel Zingaro, Michelle Craig, Leo Porter, Brett A. Becker, Yingjun Cao, Phill Conrad, Diana Cukierman, Arto Hellas, Dastyni Loksa, and Neena Thota. 2018. Achievement goals in CS1: Replication and extension. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 687–692. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159452
[173]
Daniel Zingaro and Leo Porter. 2016. Impact of student achievement goals on CS1 outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 279–296. DOI:DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844553
[174]
Gökhan Özsoy, Aysel Memiş, and Turan Temur. 2009. Metacognition, study habits and attitudes. Int. Electron. J. Element. Educ. 2, 1 (2009), 154–166.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Identifying Student Behavior in Smart Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Mapping and TaxonomiesInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2383812(1-22)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Academic procrastination, incentivized and self-selected spaced practice, and quiz performance in an online programming problem systemComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105029214:COnline publication date: 2-Jul-2024
  • (2023)A Systematic Literature Review of Student Assessment Framework in Software Engineering CoursesJournal of Information Systems Engineering and Business Intelligence10.20473/jisebi.9.2.264-2759:2(264-275)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Study Behavior in Computing Education—A Systematic Literature Review

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
    ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 22, Issue 1
    March 2022
    258 pages
    EISSN:1946-6226
    DOI:10.1145/3487993
    • Editor:
    • Amy J. Ko
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 18 October 2021
    Accepted: 01 July 2021
    Revised: 01 June 2021
    Received: 01 October 2020
    Published in TOCE Volume 22, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Computing education
    2. study behavior
    3. study process
    4. study strategies
    5. study habits
    6. study tactics
    7. educational context

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    • DIKU

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)2,443
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)169
    Reflects downloads up to 12 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Identifying Student Behavior in Smart Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Mapping and TaxonomiesInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2383812(1-22)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2024
    • (2024)Academic procrastination, incentivized and self-selected spaced practice, and quiz performance in an online programming problem systemComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105029214:COnline publication date: 2-Jul-2024
    • (2023)A Systematic Literature Review of Student Assessment Framework in Software Engineering CoursesJournal of Information Systems Engineering and Business Intelligence10.20473/jisebi.9.2.264-2759:2(264-275)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2023
    • (2023)Evaluation of Submission Limits and Regression Penalties to Improve Student Behavior with Automatic Assessment SystemsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/359121023:3(1-24)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
    • (2022)Students as GamersHandbook of Research on Acquiring 21st Century Literacy Skills Through Game-Based Learning10.4018/978-1-7998-7271-9.ch044(868-887)Online publication date: 2022
    • (2021)Bringing Synchrony and Clarity to Complex Multi-Channel Data: A Learning Analytics Study in Programming EducationIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.31348449(166531-166541)Online publication date: 2021

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Login options

    Full Access

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media