Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review on the Impact of Cognitive Factors in Introductory Programming

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Communication, Computing and Electronics Systems

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 977))

  • 535 Accesses

Abstract

Understanding the cognitive factors that contribute to introductory programming students’ abilities to learn to program is critical to helping computer educators create better opportunities for students to improve their programming performance. The goal of this research is to explore cognitive factors that have an influence on programming performance in introductory programming courses in particular. The study documents 17 factors from 25 empirical studies that analyzed the influence of these factors on programming performance. Our analysis shows a wide range of cognitive factors studied and interrelated groups of factors studied in literature focused on introductory programming courses. This is a valuable review of information regarding influencing cognitive factors to restructure aspects of future introductory programming course curricula to benefit students’ ability to learn to program.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bennedsen J, Caspersen ME (2019) Failure rates in introductory programming: 12 years later. ACM Inroads 10(2):30–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Liao SN, Shah K, Griswold WG, Porter L (2021) A quantitative analysis of study habits among lower-and higher-performing students in CS1. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, vol 1. pp 366–372

    Google Scholar 

  3. Babes-Vroman M, Juniewicz I, Lucarelli B, Fox N, Nguyen T, Tjang A, Haldeman G, Mehta A, Chokshi R (2017) Exploring gender diversity in CS at a large public R1 research university. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, pp 51–56

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nolan K, Bergin S (2016) The role of anxiety when learning to program: a systematic review of the literature. In: Proceedings of the 16th koli calling international conference on computing education research, pp 61–70

    Google Scholar 

  5. Medeiros RP, Ramalho GL, Falcão TP (2018) A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education. IEEE Trans Educ 62(2):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Luxton-Reilly A, Albluwi I, Becker BA, Giannakos M, Kumar AN, Ott L, Paterson J, Scott MJ, Sheard J, Szabo C (2018) Introductory programming: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings companion of the 23rd annual ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, pp 55–106

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rountree N, Rountree J, Robins A (2002) Predictors of success and failure in a CS1 course. ACM SIGCSE Bull 34(4):121–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kitchenham B (2004) Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele UK Keele Univ 33:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  9. Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract 41(4):212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am Psychol 34(10):906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Danili E, Reid N (2006) Cognitive factors that can potentially affect pupils’ test performance. Chem Educ Res Pract 7(2):64–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cognitive and metacognitive definition. https://neurotray.com/cognitive-and-metacognitive-definition/

  13. Schneider WJ, McGrew KS (2018) The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities

    Google Scholar 

  14. Veerasamy AK, Laakso MJ, D’Souza D, Salakoski T (2021) Predictive models as early warning systems: a bayesian classification model to identify at-risk students of programming. In: Intelligent computing 2021, Springer, Cham, pp 174–195

    Google Scholar 

  15. Flanigan AE, Peteranetz MS, Shell DF, Soh LK (2022) Shifting beliefs in computer science: change in CS student mindsets. ACM Trans Comput Educ (TOCE) 22(2):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Werth LH (1986) Predicting student performance in a beginning computer science class. ACM SIGCSE Bull 18(1):138–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Porter L, Zingaro D, Lister R (2014) Predicting student success using fine grain clicker data. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research, pp 51–58

    Google Scholar 

  18. Venables A, Tan G, Lister R (2009) A closer look at tracing, explaining and code writing skills in the novice programmer. In: Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on computing education research workshop, pp 117–128

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lishinski A, Yadav A, Enbody R, Good J (2016) The influence of problem solving abilities on students’ performance on different assessment tasks in CS1. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education, pp 329–334

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lishinski A (2016) Cognitive, affective, and dispositional components of learning programming. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on international computing education research, pp 261–262

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma R, Shen H (2018) The interplay of factors affecting learning of introductory programming: a comparative study of an Australian and an Indian university. In: 2018 13th International conference on computer science and education (ICCSE), IEEE, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  22. Keen A, Mammen K (2015) Program decomposition and complexity in CS1. In: Proceedings of the 46th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. pp 48–53

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gomes AJ, Santos AN, Mendes AJ (2012) A study on students’ behaviours and attitudes towards learning to program. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, pp 132–137

    Google Scholar 

  24. Çakıroğlu Ü (2014) Analyzing the effect of learning styles and study habits of distance learners on learning performances: a case of an introductory programming course. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn 15(4):161–185

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lagus J, Longi K, Klami A, Hellas A (2018) Transfer-learning methods in programming course outcome prediction. ACM Trans Comput Educ (TOCE) 18(4):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ahadi A, Lister R, Haapala H, Vihavainen A (Aug, 2015) Exploring machine learning methods to automatically identify students in need of assistance. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference on international computing education research, pp 121–130

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lakanen AJ, Lappalainen V, Isomöttönen V (2015) Revisiting rainfall to explore exam questions and performance on cs1. In: Proceedings of the 15th Koli calling conference on computing education research, pp 40–49

    Google Scholar 

  28. Khosravi H, Cooper KM (2017) Using learning analytics to investigate patterns of performance and engagement in large classes. In: Proceedings of the 2017 acm sigcse technical symposium on computer science education, pp. 309–314

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kanaparan G, Cullen R, Mason D (2013) Self-efficacy and engagement as predictors of student programming performance

    Google Scholar 

  30. Höök LJ, Eckerdal A (2015) On the bimodality in an introductory programming course: an analysis of student performance factors. In: 2015 International conference on learning and teaching in computing and engineering 2015 Apr 9, IEEE, pp 79–86

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dorn B, Elliott TA (2015) Empirical validation and application of the computing attitudes survey. Comput Sci Educ 25(1):1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ishizue R, Sakamoto K, Washizaki H, Fukazawa Y (2013) Student placement and skill ranking predictors for programming classes using class attitude, psychological scales, and code metrics. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 13(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cutts Q, Haden P, Sutton K, Box I, Hamer J, Lister R, Tolhurst D, Fincher S, Robins A, Baker B, de Raadt M (2006) The ability to articulate strategy as a predictor of programming skill. In: Conferences in research and practice in information technology series

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lunn S, Ross M, Hazari Z, Weiss MA, Georgiopoulos M, Christensen K (2021) How do educational experiences predict computing identity? ACM Trans Comput Educ (TOCE) 22(2):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  35. Brown J (2009) Investigating collaborative self-modeling and its impact on introductory programming self-efficacy. In: 2009 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC) 2009 Sep 20, IEEE, pp 244–245

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kanaparan G, Cullen R, Mason DD (2017) Self-efficacy and behavioural engagement in introductory programming courses

    Google Scholar 

  37. Scott MJ, Ghinea G (2014) Measuring enrichment: the assembly and validation of an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research, pp 123–130

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wiedenbeck S, Sun X, Chintakovid T (2007) Antecedents to end users’ success in learning to program in an introductory programming course. In: IEEE Symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC 2007) 2007 Sep 23, IEEE, pp 69–72

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cain A (2014) Factors influencing student learning in portfolio assessed introductory programming. In: 2014 IEEE International conference on teaching, assessment and learning for engineering (TALE) 2014 Dec 8, pp 55–62

    Google Scholar 

  40. Toma L, Vahrenhold J (2018) Self-efficacy, cognitive load, and emotional reactions in collaborative algorithms labs—a case study. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on international computing education research 2018 Aug 8, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ishizue R, Sakamoto K, Washizaki H, Fukazawa Y (2018) Student placement and skill ranking predictors for programming classes using class attitude, psychological scales, and code metrics. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 13(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Aggarwal I, Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Malone TW (2019) The impact of cognitive style diversity on implicit learning in teams. Front Psychol 10:112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. DeTure M (2004) Cognitive style and self-efficacy: predicting student success in online distance education. Am J Distance Educ 18(1):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 143005, India

    Amanpreet Kaur & Kuljit Kaur Chahal

Authors
  1. Amanpreet Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kuljit Kaur Chahal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanpreet Kaur .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ECE, PPG Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

    V. Bindhu

  2. Faculdade de Engenharia, Departamento de, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    JoĂŁo Manuel R. S. Tavares

  3. San Jose State University, FREMONT, CA, USA

    Chandrasekar Vuppalapati

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kaur, A., Chahal, K.K. (2023). A Review on the Impact of Cognitive Factors in Introductory Programming. In: Bindhu, V., Tavares, J.M.R.S., Vuppalapati, C. (eds) Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Communication, Computing and Electronics Systems . Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 977. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7753-4_77

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7753-4_77

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7752-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7753-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation