Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting Low and High Student Performance in Programming Education Using PLS-SEM Algorithms

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study uses the partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) algorithm to predict the factors affecting the programming performance (PPE) (low, high) of the students receiving computer programming education. The participants of the study consist of 763 students who received programming education. In the analysis of the data, the PLS-SEM method was used with the help of the SmartPLS 4 program. In addition, multigroup SEM was used to examine the differentiation of models between groups with low and high PPE. According to the research results, the percentage of explanation of the model is relatively high in the group with high PPE compared to the group with low performance. According to the findings of the study, age, education level, general academic achievement, and PPE scores were found to be related. In addition, programming experience, attitude, and programming empowerment are related to PPE. The most important of some of the limitations of this study is that the data collected from the participants are based on their self-reports. The results of this study may have important contributions to the differentiation of approaches toward low and high-performing students in supporting programming education. This type of research can help design relevant interventions for students experiencing failures in programming education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aşkar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for Java programming among engineering students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1).

  • Atman Uslu, N. (2023). How do computational thinking self-efficacy and performance differ according to secondary school students’ profiles? The role of computational identity, academic resilience, and gender. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 6115–6139.

  • Azarfam, A. A. Y., & Jabbari, Y. (2012). Dealing with teachers’ technophobia in classroom. Advances in Asian Social Science, 2(2), 452–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association (Vol. 1, p. 25), Vancouver, Canada.

  • Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childs, M. (2011). Identity: A primer. Reinventing ourselves: Contemporary concepts of identity in virtual worlds (pp. 13–31). Springer.

  • Durak, H. Y. (2018a). Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self-efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 740–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durak, H. Y. (2018b). Flipped learning readiness in teaching programming in middle schools: Modelling its relation to various variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 939–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durak, A., & Bulut, V. (2024). Classification and prediction-based machine learning algorithms to predict students’ low and high programming performance. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(1), e22679.

  • Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45(3), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123.

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43, 115–135.

  • Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, T. (2002, August). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (Vol. 4, No. 2002, pp. 53–58).

  • Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1976). Statistical models and methods for test-retest situations. In D. N. M. de Gruijter & L. J. Th. van der Kamp (Eds.), Advances in Psychological and Educational Measurement (pp. 135–157). London: Wiley.

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2017). Computational participation: Teaching kids to create and connect through code. Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking, 393–405.

  • Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.

  • Kong, S. C., & Lai, M. (2022). Computational identity and programming empowerment of students in computational thinking development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 668–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, S. C., & Lin, T. (2022). High achievers’ attitudes, flow experience, programming intentions and perceived teacher support in primary school: A moderated mediation analysis. Computers & Education, 190, 104598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, S. C., & Wang, Y. Q. (2020). Formation of computational identity through computational thinking perspectives development in programming learning: A mediation analysis among primary school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, S. C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers & Education, 127, 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in human behavior, 72, 558–569.

  • Lau, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1202–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahadeo, J., Hazari, Z., & Potvin, G. (2020). Developing a computing identity framework: Understanding computer science and information technology career choice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 20(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzone, L., Ducci, F., Scoto, M. C., Passaniti, E., D’Arrigo, V. G., & Vitiello, B. (2007). The role of anxiety symptoms in school performance in a community sample of children and adolescents. BMC Public Health, 7(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neath, J., & Schriner, K. (1998). Power to people with disabilities: Empowerment issues in employment programming. Disability & Society, 13(2), 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it. Journal of Extension, 37(5), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarıtepeci, M., & Durak, H. (2017). Analyzing the Effect of Block and Robotic Coding Activities on Computational Thinking in Programming Education. In, I. Koleva & G. Duman (Eds.). Educational Research and Practice, (Chap. 49, pp. 490–501). St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.

  • Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet–retrospective observations and recent advances. J Market Theor Pract, 1–15.

  • Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger, C. (1972). Anxiety: Current trends in research. Academic.

  • Sprague, J., & Hayes, J. (2000). Self-determination and empowerment: A feminist standpoint analysis of talk about disability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 671–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sukhov, A., Friman, M., & Olsson, L. E. (2023). Unlocking potential: An integrated approach using PLS-SEM, NCA, and fsQCA for informed decision making. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74, 103424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, P. F. (2019). Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(8), 1345–1360.

  • 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, 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalçınalp, S., & Cabı, E. (2015). A scale development study: Educational technologies anxiety scale (ETAS). Elementary Education Online, 14(3), 1005–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2020). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 25, 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2022). Flipped classroom model applications in computing courses: Peer-assisted groups, collaborative group and individual learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(3), 803–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2024). The model for middle school students’ computational identity. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 4223–4251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H., Saritepeci, M., & Durak, A. (2023). Modeling of relationship of personal and affective variables with computational thinking and programming. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 28(1), 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, O. G., & Ozdener, N. (2022). The development and validation of the programming anxiety scale. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 5(3), 1–18.

  • Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 581–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted under the supervision of the second author within the scope of the first author’s thesis study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Konya Ereğli Kemal Akman Vocational School, Department of Computer Technologies, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

    Aykut Durak

  2. Department of Computer Engineering, Assoc. Prof. Izmir Katip Celebi University, Software Engineering, İzmir, Turkey

    Vahide Bulut

Authors
  1. Aykut Durak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vahide Bulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aykut Durak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durak, A., Bulut, V. Predicting Low and High Student Performance in Programming Education Using PLS-SEM Algorithms. Tech Know Learn (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09737-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09737-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation