skip to main content
10.1145/1404520.1404537acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Saying isn't necessarily believing: influencing self-theories in computing

Published:06 September 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Jane sees 50 compiler errors as a challenge. John sees them as defeat. Psychology research suggests these contrasting reactions may stem from students' self-theories, or their beliefs about themselves. Jane's reaction is characteristic of a growth mindset, the idea that with hard work and persistence, one's intelligence can increase. John's behavior is in line with a fixed mindset, the belief that individuals are born with a certain amount of intelligence and there is little they can do to change it. Numerous studies of self-theories have shown that students with a growth mindset perform better in academic settings; they cope more effectively with challenges, maintain higher grades, and are less susceptible to stereotype threat. In this study we attempted a "saying is believing" intervention to encourage CS1 students to adopt a growth mindset both in general and towards programming. Despite notable success of this type of intervention in a non-CS context, our results offered few statistically significant differences both from pre-survey to post-survey and between control and intervention groups. Further, the statistically significant results we did find differed in direction between institutions (some students exhibited more growth response, others less). We analyzed further evidence to explore possible confounding issues including whether our intervention even registered with students and how students interpreted the questions which we used to assess their self-theories.

References

  1. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman. New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2, 010101, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. E. Alpay and J. Ireson. Self-theories of intelligence of engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2):169--180, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. J. Aronson, C. Fried and C. Good. Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2):113--125, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. S. Bergin and R. Reilly. The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program. In PPIG '05: Proceedings of the 17th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, p. 293--304, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. L. S. Blackwell, K. H. Trzesniewski and C. S. Dweck. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1):246--263, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. C. I. Diener and C. S. Dweck. An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5):451--462, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. C. S. Dweck. The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4):674--685, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. C. S. Dweck. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10):1040--1048, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. C. S. Dweck. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Taylor & Francis, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. S. Dweck. Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. Ceci and W. Williams, editors, Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. American Psychological Association, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. S. Dweck, C. Chiu and Y. Hong. Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267--285, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2):256--273, April 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. C. S. Dweck and D. Reppucci. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1):109--116, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. E. S. Elliott and C. S. Dweck. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1):5--12, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. R. M. Felder and L. K. Silverman. Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education, 78:674--81, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. K. Garvin-Doxas and L. J. Barker. Communication in computer science classrooms: Understanding defensive climates as a means of creating supportive behaviors. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 4(1):2, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Gliem and R. Gliem. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-type scales. In 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education, p. 82 -- 88, 2003. http://hdl.handle.net/1805/344 (last accessed April, 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. H. Grant and C. S. Dweck. Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3):541--553, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. P. A. Heslin, D. Vandewalle and G. P. Latham. Keen to help? Managers' implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59(4):871--902, Winter 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. G. D. Heyman, B. Martyna and S. Bhatia. Gender and achievement-related beliefs among engineering students. Journal of Woman and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8:41--52, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. T. E. Higgins and W. S. Rholes. "Saying is Believing": Effects of message modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(4):363--78, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. N. Holmes. Fixed vs. growth mindset diagram. http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/images/features/dweck/dweck_mindset.pdf (last accessed April, 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Y. Hong, C. Chiu, C. S. Dweck, D. M.-S. Lin and W. Wan. Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3):588--599, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. M. Lepper and M. Woolverton. The wisdom of practice: Lessons learned from the study of highly effective tutors. In J. Aaronson, editor, Improving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education. Academic Press, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. G. Lewandowski. Using process journals to gain qualitative understanding of beginning programmers. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 19(1):299--310, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Lewis. Attitudes and beliefs about computer science among students and faculty. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(2):37--41, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Margolis and A. Fisher. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. McCartney, A. Eckerdal, J. E. Moström, K. Sanders and C. Zander. Successful students' strategies for getting unstuck. In Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'07), 39(3):156--160, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. L. Murphy and L. Thomas. Dangers of a fixed mindset: Implications of self-theories research for computer science education. In the Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '08), ACM Press, June 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. D. N. Perkins, C. Hancock, R. Hobbs, F. Martin and R. Simmons. Conditions of learning in novice programmers. In E. Soloway and J. C. Spohrer, editors, Studying the Novice Programmer, p. 261--279. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Wiedenbeck. Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER '05), p. 13--24, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Saying isn't necessarily believing: influencing self-theories in computing

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICER '08: Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research
      September 2008
      192 pages
      ISBN:9781605582160
      DOI:10.1145/1404520

      Copyright © 2008 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 September 2008

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate189of803submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      ICER 2024
      ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
      August 13 - 15, 2024
      Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader