Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T22:23:22.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - Motivation, Attitudes, and Dispositions

from Teacher and Student Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

By
Alex Lishinski  and
Aman Yadav
Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses a wide range of non-cognitive factors that influence student learning outcomes in computing. These factors are grouped into three broad categories: motivation, attitudes, and dispositions. The discussion of motivation includes self-efficacy, goal orientation, and metacognitive self-regulation, covering what is known about how these factors impact student outcomes. The section on attitudes covers the concepts of interest and engagement in computer science, as well as students’ affective responses as they relate to learning outcomes. The discussion of dispositions covers existing research on the relationship between personality traits and learning outcomes in computing. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, to argue for the importance of considering various non-cognitive factors when trying to understand how students learn in computing (in addition to the strictly cognitive, curriculum-related, and pedagogical factors). Second, to catalog existing research in computing education that has made links between some such factors and student outcomes, as well as research from other fields that shows how computing education research on non-cognitive factors may be extended.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 801 - 826
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 219–245.Google Scholar
Almstrum, V. L. et al. (2005). Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE ‘05) (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(3), 596–603.Google Scholar
Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change (January/February), 38–43.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, R. J., & Unger, E. A. (1983). A predictor for success in an introductory programming class based upon abstract reasoning development. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(1), 154–8.Google Scholar
Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2005). An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘05) (pp. 155–163). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2005). Programming: Factors that influence success. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), 411–5.Google Scholar
Bernstein, D. R. (1991). Comfort and experience with computing: Are they the same for women and men? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 23(3), 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, S. (2008). Predictors of female and male computer science students’ grades. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 14(4), 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhardwaj, J. (2017). In search of self-efficacy: Development of a new instrument for first year Computer Science students. Computer Science Education, 27(2), 79–99.Google Scholar
Blaney, J. M., Hall, M., Plaza, P., & Stout, J. G. (2017). Examining the relationship between introductory computing course experiences, self-efficacy, and belonging among first-generation college women. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 69–74). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317–329.Google Scholar
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunello, G., & Schlotter, M. (2011). Non Cognitive Skills and Personality Traits: Labour Market Relevance and their Development in Education and Training Systems. IZA Discussion paper 5743. Bonn, Germany: The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 147–158.Google Scholar
Carter, L. (2006). Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1), 27–31.Google Scholar
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, K. S., Deek, F. P., & Im, I. (2008). Exploring the underlying aspects of pair programming: The impact of personality. Information and Software Technology, 50(11), 1114–1126.Google Scholar
Cohoon, J. M. (2003). Must there be so few? Including women in CS. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 668–674). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 333–346.Google Scholar
Danielsiek, H., Toma, L., & Vahrenhold, J. (2017). An instrument to assess self-efficacy in introductory algorithms courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 217–225). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, , Frenzel, T., , A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 25–35.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2007). From limen to lumen: Computing students in liminal spaces. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘07) (pp. 123–132). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. H., Back, G. V., & Woods, M. J. (2011). Experiences evaluating student attitudes in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (pp. 477–482). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. (2014). Identifying computer science self-regulated learning strategies. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 291–296). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, T., Nett, U. E., Martiny, S. E., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., Dettmers, S., & Trautwein, U. (2012). Students’ emotions during homework: Structures, self-concept antecedents, and achievement outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 225–34.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.Google Scholar
Goode, J., Estrella, R., & Margolis, J. (2006). Lost in translation: Gender and High School Computer Science. In Cohoon, J. & Aspray, W. (Eds.), Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation (pp. 89–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
Hannay, J. E., Arisholm, E., Engvik, H., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2010). Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(1), 61–80.Google Scholar
Hannula, M. S. (2015). Emotions in problem solving. In Cho, S. J. (Ed.), Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 269–288). Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Havenga, M. (2015). The role of metacognitive skills in solving object-oriented programming problems: A case study. Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 11(1), 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, C., & Diethelm, I. (2012). The school experiment InTech – How to influence interest, self-concept of ability in Informatics and vocational orientation. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WIPCSE ‘12) (pp. 30–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Hostetler, T. R. (1983). Predicting student success in an introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(3), 40–44.Google Scholar
Jacob, B. A. (2002). Where the boys aren’t: Non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 21, 589–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanaparan, G., Cullen, R., & Mason, D. D. M. (2017). Self-efficacy and behavioural engagement in introductory programming courses self-efficacy and behavioural engagement. In PACIS 2017 Proceedings (p. 209). Atlanta, GA: AIS.Google Scholar
Kappe, R., & Van Der Flier, H. (2012). Predicting academic success in higher education: What’s more important than being smart? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(4), 605–619.Google Scholar
Katz, L. G. (1993). Dispositions as Educational Goals. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED363454.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2011). CS majors’ self-efficacy perceptions in CS1: Results in light of social cognitive theory. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘11) (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2010). Experiencing programming assignments in CS: The emotional toll. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘10) (pp. 77–85). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2012). My program is ok – Am I? Computing freshmen’s experiences of doing programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 22(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 47–52.Google Scholar
Kurtz, B. L. (1980). Investigating the relationship between the development of abstract reasoning and performance in an introductory programming class. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 12(1), 110–117.Google Scholar
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1994). Sociocognitive mechanisms of personal agency in career development: Pantheoretical prospects. In Savikas, M. L. & Lent, R. W. (Eds.), Convergence in Career Development Theories: Implications for Science and Practice (pp. 77–101). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.Google Scholar
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions and academic engagement: Introduction to the special issue. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., & Enbody, R. (2017). Students’ emotional reactions to programming projects in introduction to programming: Measurement approach and influence on learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 30–38). New York: ACM.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. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘16) (pp. 211–220). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2012). New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory. In Maddux, J. (Ed.), Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment (pp. 3–33). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Maio, G., & Haddock, G. (2009). The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (2015). Predictors of Student Persistence in the STEM Pipeline: Activities Outside the Classroom, Parent Aspirations, and Student Self-beliefs Using NELS:88 Data (doctoral dissertation). Notre Dame of Maryland University.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (2013). Personality and Assessment. London, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Miura, I. T. (1987). The relationship of computer self-efficacy expectations to computer interest and course enrollment in college. Sex Roles, 16(5/6), 303–311.Google Scholar
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.Google Scholar
Nasim, A., Roberts, A., Harrell, J. P., Young, H., Roberts, A., & Harrell, J. P. (2005). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement for African Americans across cultural contexts. Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 344–358.Google Scholar
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big Five Correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 116–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.Google Scholar
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 124–139.Google Scholar
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203.Google Scholar
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90(6), 353–360.Google Scholar
Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perloff, R. M. (2017). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century, 6th edn. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451–529). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science & Technology.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1995). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–38.Google Scholar
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.) (2014). Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramalingam, V., LaBelle, D., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2004). Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘04) (pp. 171–175). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Ramalingam, V., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1999). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, A. (2015). The ongoing challenges of computer science education research. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 115–119.Google Scholar
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Swan, A. K., & Creager, M. F. (2012). Social cognitive factors, support, and engagement: Early adolescents’ math interests as precursors to choice of career. The Career Development Quarterly, 60, 2–15.Google Scholar
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., Grundy, J., & Burch, G. (2009). An empirical study of the effects of personality in pair programming using the five-factor model. In Third International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2009) (pp. 214–225). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, C., & Knobelsdorf, M. (2007). Attitudes towards computer science–computing experiences as a starting point and barrier to computer science. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘07) (pp. 27–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In Maddux, J. (Ed.), Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory Research and Application (pp. 281–303). New York: Springer US.Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 631–649). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science & Technology.Google Scholar
Schwarzer, R., & Fuchs, R. (1995). Changing risk behaviors and adopting health behaviors: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In Bandura, A. (Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies (pp. 259–288). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfetsos, P., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., & Deligiannis, I. (2009). An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 187–226.Google Scholar
Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 929–960.Google Scholar
Shell, D. F., & Husman, J. (2008). Control, motivation, affect, and strategic self-regulation in the college classroom: A multidimensional phenomenon. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 443–459.Google Scholar
Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–332.Google Scholar
Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1984). Noncognitive variables in predicting academic success by race. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 171–178.Google Scholar
Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Achievement goal orientations and academic well-being across the transition to upper secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 290–305.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. C., Dubois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133.Google Scholar
Watson, C., Li, F. W. B., & Godwin, J. L. (2014). No tests required: Comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 469–474). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Weber, H. S., Lu, L., Shi, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2013). The roles of cognitive and motivational predictors in explaining school achievement in elementary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 85–92.Google Scholar
Wiedenbeck, S. (2005). Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘05) (pp. 13–24). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Williams, T., & Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 453–66.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. C. (2010). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Computer Science Education, 12(1–2), 141–164.Google Scholar
Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 327–353.Google Scholar
Wolters, C., & Yu, S. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning & Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zingaro, D. (2015). Examining interest and grades in Computer Science 1. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(3), 1–18.Google Scholar
Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2016). Impact of student achievement goals on CS1 outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 279–284). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×