Monica M. McGill
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
One of the goals of using robots in introductory programming courses is to increase motivation among learners. There have been several types of robots that have been used extensively in the classroom to teach a variety of computer science concepts. A more recently introduced robot designed to teach programming to novice students is the Institute for Personal Robots in Education (IPRE) robot. The author chose to use this robot and study its motivational effects on non-computer science students in a CS0 course. The purpose of this study was to determine whether using the IPRE robots motivates students to learn programming in a CS0 course. After considering various motivational theories and instruments designed to measure motivation, the author used Keller’s Instructional Materials Motivation Survey to measure four components of motivation: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Additional items were added to the survey, including a set of open-ended questions. The results of this study indicate that the use of these robots had a positive influence on participants’ attitudes towards learning to program in a CS0 course, but little or no effect on relevance, confidence, or satisfaction. Results also indicate that although gender and students interests may affect individual components of motivation, gender, technical self-perception, and interest in software development have no bearing on the overall motivational levels of students.
- Adams, D. B. 2010. Explore-create-present: A project series for CS. In Proceedings of the ASEE North Central Sectional Conference (ASEE’10).Google Scholar
- AAUW. 2000. Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age. American Association of University Women Education Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
- Apiola, M., Lattu, M., and Pasanen, T. 2010. Creativity and intrinsic motivation in computer science education: Experimenting with robots. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’10). 199--203. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Balch, T., Summet, J., Blank, D., Kumar, D., Guzdial, M., O’Hara, K., Walker, D., Sweat, M., Gupta, G., Tansley, S., Jackson, J., Gupta, M., Muhammad, M. N., Prashad, S., Eilbert, N., and Gavin, A. 2008. Designing personal robots for education: Hardware, software, and curriculum. IEEE Pervas. Comput. 7, 2, 5--9. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
- Barker, L. J., McDowell, C., and Kalahar, K. 2009. Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. In Proceedings of 40th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGSCE’09). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barnes, T., Powell, E., Chaffin, A., and Lipford, H. 2008. Game2Learn: Improving the motivation of CS1 Students. In Proceedings of Game Development in Computer Science Education (GDCSE’08). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barr, J., Cooper, S., Goldweber, M., and Walker, H. 2010. What everyone needs to know about computation. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Becker, B. 2001. Teaching CS1 with Karel the robot in Java. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’01). 50--54. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Besana, G. and Dettori, L. 2004. Together is better: Strengthening the confidence of women in computer science via a learning community. In Proceedings of the Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, Northeastern Conference (CSCC’04). 130--139.Google Scholar
- Bierre, K., Ventura, P., Phelps, A., and Eggert, C. 2006. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’01). 354--358.Google Scholar
- Biggs, J. B. 1987a. The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Vic.Google Scholar
- Biggs, J. B. 1987b. The Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ): Manual. Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Vic.Google Scholar
- Boyer, K. E., Phillips, R., Wallis, M. D., Vouk, M. A., and Lester, J. C. 2009. Investigating the role of student motivation in computer science education through one-on-one tutoring. Comput. Sci. Ed. 19, 2, 111--135.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R., Eds. 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Byrne, P. and Lyons, G. 2001. The effect of student attributes on success in programming. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’01). 49--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chan, T. S. and Ahern, T. C. 1999. Targeting motivation -- Adapting flow theory to instructional design. J. Ed. Comput. Res. 21, 2, 152--163.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cliburn, D. 2006. A CS0 course for the liberal arts. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’06). 77--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cooper, S. and Cunningham, S. 2010. Teaching computer science in context. Inroads 1, 1, 5--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Covington, M. V. 2000. Goal theory, motivation and school achievement: An integrative review. Ann. Rev. Psych. 51, 171--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. W. 2008. Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
- Cutts, Q., Cutts, E., Draper, S., O’Donnell, P., and Saffrey, P. 2010. Manipulating mindset to positively influence introductory programming performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). 431--435. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
- Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., and Ryan, R. M. 1981. An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. J. Ed. Psych. 73, 642--650.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Egbert, J. 2003. A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Mod. Lang. J. 87, 4, 499--518.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elliott, E. S. and Dweck, C. S. 1988. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 54, 5--12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Entwistle, N. J. and Ramsden, P. 1983. Understanding Student Learning. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
- Fagin, B. and Merkle, L. 2003. Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 35, 1, 307--311. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1972. Beliefs, Attitudes, Intentions and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
- Friedman, B. A. and Mandel, R. G. 2010. The prediction of college student academic performance and retention: Application of expectancy and goal setting theories. J. Coll. Stud. Retent. 11, 2, 227--246.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., and Marshall, S. 2003. A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education. Routledge Farmer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Glanz, K., Riber, B. K., and Lewis, F. M. 2002. Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- Goto, S. T. and Martin, C. 2009. Psychology of success: Overcoming barriers to pursuing further education. J. Contin. High. Ed. 57, 1, 10--21.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregg, C. M. 2009. Self-Determination, Culture, and School Administration: A Phenomenological Study on Student Success. ProQuest LLC.Google Scholar
- Guzdial, M. 2008. Teaching computing to everyone. Comm. ACM 52, 5, 31--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guzdial, M. 2010. Does contextualized computing education help? Inroads 1, 4, 4--6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Hoegh, A. and Moskal, B. M. 2009. Examining science and engineering students’ attitudes toward computer science. In Proceedings in the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (ASEE’09). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huang, W., Huang, W., Diefes-Dux, H., and Imbrie,, P. K. 2006. A preliminary validation of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction model-based instructional material motivational survey in a computer-based tutorial setting. Brit. J. Ed. Technol. 37, 16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huang, W.-H., Huang, W.-Y., and Tschopp, J. 2010a. Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Comput. Ed. 55, 2, 789--797. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huang, Y., Backman, S. J., and Backman, K. F. 2010b. Student attitude toward virtual learning in second life: A flow theory approach. J. Teach. Travel & Tour. 10, 4, 312--334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hundley, J. and Pritt, W. 2009. Engaging students in software development course projects. In Proceedings of the Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing Conference (TAPIA’09). 87--92. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Imberman, S. and Klibaner, R. 2005. A robotics lab for CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 21, 2, 131--137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Institute for Personal Robots in Education. 2011. http://wiki.roboteducation.org.Google Scholar
- Irobot Create Forum. 2011. http://createforums.irobot.com/irobotcreate/.Google Scholar
- Jiau, H. C., Chen, J. C., and Ssu, K. 2009. Enhancing self-motivation in learning programming using game-based simulation and metrics. IEEE Trans. Ed. 52, 4, 555--562. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Keller, J. M. 1983. Motivational design of instruction. In Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status. C. M. Reigeluth Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 386--434.Google Scholar
- Keller, J. M. 1987a. The systematic process of motivational design. Perform. Instruc. 26, 9/10, 1--8.Google Scholar
- Keller, J. M. 1987b. IMMS: Instructional materials motivation survey. Florida State University.Google Scholar
- Keller, J. M. and Subhiyah, R. G. 1987a. Course effort survey. Florida State University.Google Scholar
- Keller, J. M. and Subhiyah, R. G. 1987b. Course interest survey. Florida State University.Google Scholar
- Kinnunen, P. and Malmi, L. 2008. CS minors in a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’08). 79--90. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kinnunen, P. and Simon, B. 2010. Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: The emotional toll. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’10). 77--85. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kinnunen, P., McCartney, R., Murphy, L., and Thomas, L. 2007. Through the eyes of instructors: A phenomenographic investigation of student success. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’07). 61--72. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kölling, M. and Rosenberg, J. 2001. Guidelines for teaching object orientation with Java. SIGCSE Bull. 33, 3, 33--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kumar, D., et al. 2008. Engaging computing students with AI and robotics. Using AI to motivate greater participation in computer science. Tech. rep. SS-08-08, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Landson-Billings, G. 1995. Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. In Curriculum: Problems, Politics, and Possibilities, Beyer and Apple Eds.Google Scholar
- Landry, C. L. 2003. Self-efficacy, motivation, and outcome expectation correlates of college students’ intention certainty. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
- Latta, M. R. 1974. Relation of causal attribution and success to performance. ED102474, ERIC.Google Scholar
- Lauwers, T., Nourbakhsh, I., and Hamner, E. 2009. CSbots: Design and deployment of a robot designed for the CS1 classroom. In Proceedings of the 40th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’09). 428--432. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Layman, L., Williams, L., and Slaten, K. 2007. Note to self: Make assignments meaningful. In Proceedings of the 40th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’07). 459--463. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lego. 2010. LEGO Mindstorms for education. http://mindstorms.lego.com/.Google Scholar
- Levesque-Bristol, C. and Stanek, L. 2009. Examining self-determination in a service learning course. Teach. Psych. 36, 4, 262--266.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levin, T. and Long, R. 1981. Effective Instruction. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
- Margolis, H. 2009. Student motivation: A problem solving focus. http://www.reading2008.com/MotivationProblem_Solving_Questionnaire-HowardMargolis-2009Jan1-c.pdf.Google Scholar
- Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. 2002. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Markham, S. A. and King, K. N. 2010. Using personal robots in CS1: Experiences, outcomes, and attitudinal influences. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Innovations and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’10). 204--208. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin, A. J. 2003. The student motivation scale: Further testing of an instrument that measures school students’ motivation. Austral. J. Ed. 47, 1, 88--106.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martins, S. W., Mendes, A. J., and Figueiredo, A. D. 2010. Diversifying activities to improve student performance in programming courses. In Proceedings of CompSysTech (CompSysTech’10). 540--545. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psych. Rev. 50, 370--396.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mawhorter, P., Shaver, E., Koziol, Z., and Dodds, Z. 2009. A tale of two platforms: Low-cost robotics in the CS curriculum. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., 180--188. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McNally, M. F. 2006. Walking the grid: Robotics in CS 2. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Conference on Computing Education (ACE’06). D. Tolhurst and S. Mann Eds., vol. 52, Australian Computer Society, Inc., 151--155. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McWhorter, W. and O’Connor, B. 2009. Do LEGO Mindstorms motivate students in CS1? In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’09). 438--442. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mills, N., Pajares, F., and Herron, C. 2007. Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Lang. Learn. 57, 3, 417--442.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mosley, P. and Kline, R. 2006. Engaging students: A framework using LEGO robotics to teach problem solving. Inf. Technol., Learn. Perform. J. 24, 1, 39--45.Google Scholar
- Mueller, R. J. 1984. Building an Instrument to Measure Study Behaviors and Attitudes: A Factor Analysis of 46 Items. University of Northern Illinois, De Kalb, IL.Google Scholar
- O’Kelly, J. and Gibson, J. P. 2006. RoboCode & problem-based learning: A non-prescriptive approach to teaching programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’06). 217--221.Google Scholar
- Pintrich, P. 1999. A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Training and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
- Pintrich, P. R. and De Groot, E. V. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Ed. Psych. 82, 33--40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pittenger, A. and Doering, A. 2010. Influence of motivational design on completion rates in online self-study pharmacy-content courses. Dist. Ed. 31, 3, 275--293.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ramalingam, V. and Wiedenbeck, S. 1998. Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. J. Ed. Comput. Res. 19, 4, 365--379.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., and Burns, B. 2001. FAM: A questionnaire on motivation in learning and performance situations. Diagnostika 2, 57--66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rich, L., Perry, H., and Guzdial, M. 2004. A CS1 course designed to address interests of women. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’04). 190--195. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rodgers, D. and Withrow-Thorton, B. 2005. The effect of instructional media on learner motivation. Int. J. Instruc. Media 21, 4, 333--342.Google Scholar
- Roebken, H. 2007. The influence of goal orientation on student satisfaction, academic engagement and achievement. Electron. J. Res. Ed. Psychol. 5, 3, 679--704.Google Scholar
- Roundtree, N., Rountree, J., Robins, A., and Hannah, R. 2004. Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CS1 course. SIGCSE Bull. 35, 4, 101--104. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ryan, R. M. 1982. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 43, 450--461.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer. Psychol. 55, 68--78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., and Sheldon, K. M. 1997. Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 28, 335--354.Google Scholar
- Schonwetter, D. J., et al. 1994. Implications for higher education in the linkages of student differences and effective teaching. Annual Meeting of the American Eduactional Research Association.Google Scholar
- Schuler, H., Thornton, G., Frintrup, A., and Mueller-Hanson, R. 2004. AMI Achievement Motivation Inventory: Technical and User’s Manual. Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
- Simon, S., Robins, A., Sutton, K., Baker, B., Box, I., De Raadt, M., Hamer, J., Hamilton, M., Lister, R., Petre, M., Tolhurst, D., and Tutty, J. 2006. Predictors of success in a first programming course. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Conference on Computing Education (ACE’06). D. Tolhurst and S. Mann Eds., vol. 52, 181--188. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Skinnger, B. F. 1954. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Ed. Rev. 24, 2, 86--97.Google Scholar
- Small, R. V. 1997. Motivation in instructional design. In ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology Syracuse NY.Google Scholar
- Stanley, D. T. and Campbell, J. C. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
- Stevenson, D. E. and Wagner, P. J. 2006. Developing real-world programming assignments for CS1. In Proceedings of the ACM Innovations and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’06). 158--162. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Summet, J., Kumar, D., O’Hara, K., Walker, D., Ni, L. L., Blank, D. L., and Balch, T. 2009. Personalizing CS1 with robots. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’09). 433--437. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Svinicki, M. A. 2010. Guidebook on conceptual frameworks for research in engineering education. www.ce.umn.edu/~Smith/docs/RREE-Research-Frameworks_Svinicki.pdf.Google Scholar
- Taylor, F. W. 1916. The Principles of Scientific Management. Bulletin of the Taylor Society.Google Scholar
- Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., and Heffer, R. W. 2009. The influence of parenting styles, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 50, 3, 337--346.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tyler, R. 1971. Theory and practice: Bridging the gap. Grade Teach. May/June, 46--65.Google Scholar
- Uguroglu, M. and Walberg, H. J. 1979. Motivation and achievement: A quantitative synthesis. Amer. Ed. Res. J. 16, 375--389.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vallerand, R. J., et al. 1992. The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation in education. Ed. Psychol. Measure. 52, 1003--1017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vollmeyer, R. and Rheinberg, F. 2006. Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Ed. Psychol. Rev. 18, 239--253.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wambach, C. A. 1993. Motivational themes and academic success of at-risk freshmen. J. Dev. Ed. 16, 3, 8--10, 12, 37.Google Scholar
- Weibe, E., Williams, L. A., Yang, K., and Miller, C. 2003. Computer science attitude survey. Tech. rep. CSC TR-2003-01, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Weiner, B. 1974. Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory. General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J.Google Scholar
- Weiss, R. and Overcast, I. 2008. Finding your bot-mate: Criteria for evaluating robot kits for use in undergraduate computer science education. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., 43--49. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wiedenbeck, S. 2005. Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’05). 13--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wilson, B. C. 2006. Gender differences in types of assignments preferred: Implications for computer science instruction. J. Ed. Comput. Res. 34, 3, 245--255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wilson, B. C. and Schrock, S. 2001. Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 33, 1. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wlodkowski, R. and Ginsberg, M. 2003. Diversity and Motivation: Culturally Responsive Teaching. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Xu, D., Blank, D. and Kumar, D. 2008. Games, robots, and robot games: Complementary contexts for introductory computing education. In Proceedings of Game Development in Computer Science Education (GDCSE’08). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yonghiu, C. 2010. Study of flow theory and experiential learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multimedia and Information Technology (MMIT’10). 2, 334--337. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zaini, Z. and Ahmad, W. 2010. A study on students’ motivation in learning mathematics using multimedia courseware. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Symposium in Information Technology (ITSim’10). 1--3.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Learning to Program with Personal Robots: Influences on Student Motivation
Recommendations
Using personal robots in CS1: experiences, outcomes, and attitudinal influences
ITiCSE '10: Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science educationWe employed a context-based teaching strategy using personal robots in an introductory computer science course. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First we describe our experiences using the IPRE (Institute for Personal Robots in Education) program ...
Personal robots in CS1: implementing the Myro API in Java
CompSysTech '11: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and TechnologiesPersonal robots, where each student has access to her/his own robot to use both in and out of class, are becoming popular platforms to use in CS1 courses. The Myro API developed by the Institute for Personal Robots in Education (IPRE) is a Python-based ...
The effects of teaching programming with scratch on pre-service information technology teachers' motivation and achievement
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of programming instruction with Scratch on student motivation and their programming achievements. The study group consisted of 52 sophomore students attending the Department of Computer Education and ...
Comments