skip to main content
10.1145/971300.971386acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Houston, we have a problem: there's a leak in the CS1 affective oxygen tank

Published:01 March 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

The affective domain can be used to support the internalization of cognitive content and foster the development of curriculum and industry-related interests, attitudes, values, and practices. This study investigated correlations between affective factors and course grade. Interest, perceived competence, effort, lack of pressure, and value correlated significantly with CS1 course grades. Moreover, this study investigated the levels of these factors over the course of CS1. Almost all of the levels of these significant factors decreased significantly during the CS1 course as measured by pretests and posttests. Results of this study further indicated that the use of specific affective objectives and instructional strategies lessened these decreases.

References

  1. ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2001, Computer Science Volume, Chapter 10: Professional Practice. Available at http://www.acm.org/sigcse/cc2001/cs-professional-practice.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Astin, Alexander, et.al. W. Nine Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning. American Association for Higher Education, 2003. Available at http://www.aahe.org/assessment/principl.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, Lecia Jane, Kathy Garvin-Doxas, and Michele Jackson. "Defensive Climate in the Computer Science Classroom." Proceedings of the 33rd SISCSE Technical Symposium On Computer Science Education, March 2002, Cincinnati OH, pp. 43--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bloom, B. S., et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. McKay Press, 1956.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, B. S., G. F. Madaus, and J. T. Hastings. Evaluation to Improve Learning. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahlbom, Bo, and Lars Mathiassen. The Future of Our Profession. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 40, no. 6, June, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Denning, Peter J. A New Social Contract for Research. Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 2, February, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Denton, Leo F., Michael V. Doran, and Dawn McKinney. Integrated Use of Bloom and Maslow for Instructional Success in Technical and Scientific Fields, In the Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Canada (2002). Available at http://www.asee.org/conferences/caps/document/2002-675_Paper.pdf or at http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~mckinney/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Denton, Leo F., Dawn McKinney, and Michael V. Doran. Promoting Student Achievement With Integrated Affective Objectives, In the Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Nashville, Tennessee, USA (2003). Available at http://www.asee.org/conferences/caps/document/2003-2391_Final.pdf or at http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~mckinney/ASEE3530.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Doran, M. V. and D. D. Langan. A Cognitive-Based Approach to Introductory Computer Science Courses: Lessons Learned. In the Proceedings of the 26th SISCSE Technical Symposium On Computer Science Education, March 1995, Nashville, TN, pp. 218--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Grandy, J. (1998). Persistence in science of high-ability minority students. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 589--620.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffman, Thomas. Preparing Generation Z. Computerworld. Vol. 37, Issue 34, August 2003, p. 41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Krathwohl, D. R., B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain, David McKay Company, Inc., 1964.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Light, Richard. Making the Most of College. Harvard University Press, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1986). The Affective and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and research. Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V.V. "Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48--58, 1987. Available at http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. "Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model." Journal of Higher Education, 51:60--75, January/February 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Seymour, Elaine, and Nancy M. Hewitt. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, Theresa Y. Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, The University of Oklahoma, Volume 2, Number 2, April 2000. Available at http://ehrweb.aaas.org/mge/Archives/5/smet.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tinto, Vincent. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Second Edition, The University of Chicago Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Houston, we have a problem: there's a leak in the CS1 affective oxygen tank

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

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

    Sign in

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader