Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Wireless Personal Communications
Erschienen in: Wireless Personal Communications 4/2020

12.02.2020

Principal Component Clustered Factors for Determining Study Performance in Computer Programming Class

verfasst von: Unhawa Ninrutsirikun, Hideyuki Imai, Bunthit Watanapa, Chonlameth Arpnikanondt

Erschienen in: Wireless Personal Communications | Ausgabe 4/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Studying computer programming requires not only an understanding of theories and concepts, but also coding pragmatism. Success in studying or conducting such a course is definitely a challenge. This paper proposes a model that transforms students’ attributes (including the cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, and traditional lagging measures of academic background) into a set of principal components (PCs). As opposed to traditional approaches, the proposed model optimally extracts the orthogonal PCs to form a basis for determining the studying performance of students in terms of declarative knowledge and procedural proficiency (or skill). The obtained relationship model yields two contributive values (1) an optimal set of determinants, in the form of students’ clusters, to determine study performance and (2) the fully preserved interpretability of the original attributes of students in each PC. The experiment was conducted using 115 complete datasets of IT major students who enrolled the Introduction to Computer Programming course. The Best Subset Selection and LASSO algorithms were deployed to find the optimal set of features. The effectiveness of the model was validated by multiple linear regression to predict the performance in terms of knowledge and skills with an accuracy of 76.52%, and 70.44%, respectively. Insights into the interpretability of student clusters are provided.
Vorheriger Artikel VARK Learning Style Classification Using Decision Tree with Physiological Signals
Nächster Artikel Reinforcement Learning Based on Contextual Bandits for Personalized Online Learning Recommendation Systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Failure rates in introductory programming. AcM SIGcSE Bulletin, 39(2), 32.CrossRef
2.
Watson, C., & Li, F. W. (2014). Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 39–44). ACM.
3.
Ninrutsirikun, U., Watanapa, B., Arpnikanondt, C., & Watananukoon, V. (2018). A unified framework for student cluster grouping with learning preference associative detection for enhancing students’ learning outcomes in computer programming courses. In The 6th global wireless summit (GWS-2018) (pp. 266–271). IEEE.
4.
Mark, B. (2016). Theory of knowledge: Structures and processes (Vol. 5). Singapore: World scientific.
5.
Berkowitz, M., & Stern, E. (2018). Which cognitive abilities make the difference? Predicting academic achievements in advanced stem studies. Journal of Intelligence, 6(4), 48.CrossRef
6.
Shahiri, A. M., Husain, W., et al. (2015). A review on predicting student’s performance using data mining techniques. Procedia Computer Science, 72, 414.CrossRef
7.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Education, inequality, and the meritocracy. In Schooling in the Capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life (pp. 102–124).
8.
Zhou, K. (2017). Non-cognitive skills: Potential candidates for global measurement. European Journal of Education, 52(4), 487.CrossRef
9.
Khan, Z. N. (2009). Cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics as determinants of success in professional courses at undergraduate stage. Online Submission, 5(3), 212.
10.
Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2005). Programming: factors that influence success. ACM SIGCSE bulletin (pp. 411–415). New York: ACM.
11.
van Herpen, S. G., Meeuwisse, M., Hofman, W. A., Severiens, S. E., & Arends, L. R. (2017). Early predictors of first-year academic success at university: Pre-university effort, pre-university self-efficacy, and pre-university reasons for attending university. Educational Research and Evaluation, 23(1–2), 52.CrossRef
12.
Geiser, S., & Santelices, M. V. (2007). Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.6.07 (2007)
13.
Wilson, B. C., & Shrock, S. (2001). Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: a study of twelve factors. In ACM SIGCSE bulletin (pp. 184–188). New York: ACM.
14.
Byrne, P., & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49.CrossRef
15.
Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Comparison of the effects of project-based computer programming activities between mathematics-gifted students and average students. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 33.CrossRef
16.
Ninrutsirikun, U., Watanapa, B., Arpnikanondt, C., & Phothikit, N. (2016). Effect of the multiple intelligences in multiclass predictive model of computer programming course achievement. In 2016 IEEE region 10 conference (TENCON) (pp. 297–300). IEEE.
17.
Thai-Nghe, N., Busche, A., & Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2009). Improving academic performance prediction by dealing with class imbalance. In 2009 Ninth international conference on intelligent systems design and applications (pp. 878–883). IEEE.
18.
Trakulphadetkrai, N. V. (2011). Thailand: Educational equality and quality. Education in South-East Asia, pp. 197–219.
19.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. London: Hachette.
20.
Wang, H. (2017). Research on multiple intelligences theory and its enlightenment to higher education. Research on Modern Higher Education, 3(unknown), 121.CrossRef
21.
Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2017). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards english lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365.
22.
Lazear, D. (2000). The intelligent curriculum: Using multiple intelligences to develop your students’ full potential.. Kern County: ERIC.
23.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (Ascd).
24.
Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. E. (2011). The theory of multiple intelligences. In The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 485–503)
25.
Bilgin, I., Karakuyu, Y., & Ay, Y. (2015). The effects of project based learning on undergraduate students’ achievement and self-efficacy beliefs towards science teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 469.CrossRef
26.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theory of multiple intelligences: Implications for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 26(2), 141.CrossRef
27.
Gardner, H. (1994). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. 1993, Múltiples inteligencias: La Teoría en Práctica.
28.
Ford, T. D. (2015). Barriers to computer programming student success: A quantitative study of community college students in southwest missouri. Ph.D. thesis, Lindenwood University.
29.
Bogarín, A., Romero, C., Cerezo, R., & Sánchez-Santillán, M. (2014). Clustering for improving educational process mining. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 11–15). ACM.
30.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2014). Personality and intellectual competence. In Personality and intellectual competence. London: Psychology Press.
31.
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual differences, 43(5), 971.CrossRef
32.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of big five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173.CrossRef
33.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175.CrossRef
34.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322.CrossRef
35.
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565.CrossRef
36.
Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate business school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 516.CrossRef
37.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319.CrossRef
38.
Evans, G. E., & Simkin, M. G. (1989). What best predicts computer proficiency? Communications of the ACM, 32(11), 1322.CrossRef
39.
Chandra, E., & Nandhini, K. (2010). Knowledge mining from student data. European Journal of Scientific Research, 47(1), 156.
40.
Kumar, V., Somasundaram, T., Harris, S., Boulanger, D., Seanosky, J., Paulmani, G., et al. (2015). An approach to measure coding competency evolution. In Smart learning environments (pp. 27–43). Berlin: Springer.
41.
Bergersen, G. R., & Gustafsson, J. E. (2011). Programming skill, knowledge, and working memory among professional software developers from an investment theory perspective. Journal of Individual Differences, 32(4), 201–209.CrossRef
42.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations, 3570, 35.
43.
Bergersen, G. R., Hannay, J. E., Sjoberg, D. I., Dyba, T., & Karahasanovic, A. (2011). Inferring skill from tests of programming performance: Combining time and quality. In 2011 international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 305–314). IEEE.
44.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485.CrossRef
45.
Feng, Q., Hannig, J., & Marron, J. (2016). A note on automatic data transformation. Stat, 5(1), 82.CrossRef
46.
Pinto, S. K., Mansfield, R., Jacobs, M., & Rubin, D. (2010). Predictive model augmentation by variable transformation. US Patent 7,730,003.
47.
Guyon, I., & Elisseeff, A. (2006). An introduction to feature extraction. In Feature extraction (pp. 1–25). Berlin: Springer.
48.
Nagy, M., & Molontay, R. (2018). Predicting dropout in higher education based on secondary school performance. In 2018 IEEE 22nd international conference on intelligent engineering systems (INES) (pp. 000,389–000,394). IEEE.
49.
Shaleena, K., & Paul, S. (2015). Data mining techniques for predicting student performance. In 2015 IEEE international conference on engineering and technology (ICETECH) (pp. 1–3). IEEE.
50.
Pechenizkiy, M., Tsymbal, A., & Puuronen, S. (2004). PCA-based feature transformation for classification: Issues in medical diagnostics. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE symposium on computer-based medical systems (pp. 535–540). IEEE.
51.
Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065), 20150202.MathSciNetCrossRef
52.
53.
Meyer, R., & Krueger, D. (2001). Minitab guide to statistics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
54.
Ebel, R. L. (1972). Essentials of educational measurement. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
55.
Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 972.CrossRef
56.
John, O. P., Srivastava, S., et al. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2(1999), 102.
57.
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning (Vol. 112). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
58.
Fonti, V., & Belitser, E. (2017). Feature selection using lasso. VU Amsterdam Research Paper in Business Analytics, 30, 1–25.
59.
George, D. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Bengaluru: Pearson Education India.
60.
Calcagno, V., de Mazancourt, C., et al. (2010). glmulti: An R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 34(12), 1.CrossRef
61.
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2009). glmnet: Lasso and elastic-net regularized generalized linear models. R Package version 1.4 (2009).
62.
Dumfart, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Conscientiousness is the most powerful noncognitive predictor of school achievement in adolescents. Journal of individual Differences, 37(1), 8–15.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Principal Component Clustered Factors for Determining Study Performance in Computer Programming Class
verfasst von
Unhawa Ninrutsirikun
Hideyuki Imai
Bunthit Watanapa
Chonlameth Arpnikanondt
Publikationsdatum
12.02.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Wireless Personal Communications / Ausgabe 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0929-6212
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-834X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-020-07194-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2020

Wireless Personal Communications 4/2020 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

A Method of Motion-Estimation-Based H.264 Video Coding Using Optimal Search-Range

OriginalPaper

H.264 Video Coding-Based Motion Estimation Architecture for Video Broadcasting from a Studio

BriefCommunication

A New Paphiopedilum Orchid Database and Its Recognition Using Convolutional Neural Network

OriginalPaper

Noncoherent Detection for Improving the Spectral Efficiency of OFDM-IM Systems

OriginalPaper

A Business Model Guideline of Electricity Utility Systems Based on Blockchain Technology in Thailand: A Case Study of Consumers, Prosumers and SMEs

OriginalPaper

Reinforcement Learning Based on Contextual Bandits for Personalized Online Learning Recommendation Systems

Neuer Inhalt

    Bildnachweise