Perceived Instrumentality and Career Aspirations in CS1 Courses: Change and Relationships with Achievement

We explored CS1 students' perceived instrumentality (PI) for the course and aspirations for a career related to CS. Perceived instrumentality refers to the connection one sees between a current activity and a future goal. There are two types of PI: endogenous and exogenous. Endogenous instrumentality refers to the perception that mastering new information or skills is important for achieving distal goals. Exogenous instrumentality refers to the perception that obtaining an external reward (such as a grade) is essential for obtaining future goals. We investigated (1) how students' PI and career aspirations changed over the course of a semester, (2) how these changes differed as a function of course enrollment and major (CS or not), (3) the relationship between PI and career aspirations, and (4) whether PI and career aspirations predicted academic achievement. Overall and for most subgroups, exogenous instrumentality increased significantly and endogenous instrumentality decreased significantly across the semester, though the degree of change varied among some subgroups. Career aspirations decreased overall and for most subgroups, but CS majors showed a much smaller decrease than non-majors, and students in a CS/business honors course showed an overall increase in career aspirations. Finally, students' achievement outcomes were predicted by their PI and career aspirations. These findings contribute to the literature on motivation in CS1 courses and points to PI as a promising avenue for influencing student motivation. Implications for student motivation and retention in CS and other STEM courses are also discussed.

[1]  David S. Janzen,et al.  Improving first-year success and retention through interest-based CS0 courses , 2012, SIGCSE '12.

[2]  Jonathan C. Hilpert,et al.  Increasing instrumentality without decreasing instructional time: An intervention for engineering students , 2011, 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[3]  Monica McGill,et al.  Learning to Program with Personal Robots: Influences on Student Motivation , 2012, TOCE.

[4]  Yu Xie,et al.  Is American Science in Decline , 2012 .

[5]  Jonathan C. Hilpert,et al.  Examining students' future time perspective: Pathways to knowledge building , 2012 .

[6]  Jenefer Husman,et al.  Instrumentality, task value, and intrinsic motivation: Making sense of their independent interdependence , 2004 .

[7]  S. Dewitte,et al.  The role of different types of instrumentality in motivation, study strategies, and performance: know why you learn, so you'll know what you learn! , 2004, The British journal of educational psychology.

[8]  Jenefer Husman,et al.  The role of the future in student motivation , 1999 .

[9]  Jessica Watkins,et al.  Retaining Students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Majors , 2013 .

[10]  Siegfried Dewitte,et al.  Student motivation and self-regulation as a function of future time perspective and perceived instrumentality. , 2000 .

[11]  Steve Olson,et al.  Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report to the President. , 2012 .

[12]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  Associations of students' creativity, motivation, and self-regulation with learning and achievement in college computer science courses , 2013, 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[13]  Jenefer Husman,et al.  The Intersection of Students' Perceptions of Instrumentality, Self-Efficacy, and Goal Orientations in an Online Mathematics Course , 2007 .

[14]  Barbara A. Greene,et al.  Perceived instrumentality and academics: The link to task valuing. , 1999 .

[15]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  Exploring Changes in Computer Science Students' Implicit Theories of Intelligence Across the Semester , 2015, ICER.

[16]  Lee Dee Miller,et al.  Improving learning of computational thinking using computational creativity exercises in a college CSI computer science course for engineers , 2014, 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings.

[17]  Thomas D. Snyder,et al.  Digest of Education Statistics , 1994 .

[18]  Lee Dee Miller,et al.  Changes in student goal orientation across the semester in undergraduate computer science courses , 2014, 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings.

[19]  Melissa E. O'Neill,et al.  Framing classroom climate for student learning and retention in computer science , 2014, SIGCSE.

[20]  Barbara A. Greene,et al.  Gender and Orientations Toward the Future: Links to Motivation , 2004 .

[21]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  Students' Initial Course Motivation and Their Achievement and Retention in College CS1 Courses , 2016, SIGCSE.

[22]  E. Alpay,et al.  Student enthusiasm for engineering: charting changes in student aspirations and motivation , 2008 .

[23]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Motivation and nonmajors in computer science: identifying discrete audiences for introductory courses , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[24]  A. Leondari,et al.  Future time perspective, possible selves, and academic achievement , 2007 .

[25]  Reinhard Pekrun,et al.  Development of mathematical competencies in adolescence : the PALMA longitudinal study , 2007 .

[26]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  Profiles of Motivated Self-Regulation in College Computer Science Courses: Differences in Major versus Required Non-Major Courses , 2013 .

[27]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Success in introductory programming: what works? , 2013, CACM.

[28]  Jonathan C. Hilpert,et al.  Engineering futures: Female students, careers, and work/life balance , 2011, 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[29]  Jeannette M. Wing.  An introduction to computer science for non-majors using principles of computation , 2007, SIGCSE.