Towards progress indicators for measuring student programming effort during solution development

When learning to program, assignment feedback can easily reinforce a fixed mindset---where one believes intelligence is a fixed ability you either have or you don't. However, this can have negative consequences for learning. The alternative is a growth mindset, where one believes intelligence is malleable and can be improved through practice, effort, and hard work. We develop a set of fifteen progress indicators that can be used to assess student programming effort independently of the correctness of their code. The goal is to provide the measurement support needed for innovative feedback that gives a more welcoming experience for students, recognizing the effort they put in and the accomplishments they make as they work on solutions, rather than simply looking at whether code "works". Our set of progress indicators includes seven associated with writing solution code for a problem that are suitable for use on all programming assignments, and eight associated with self-checking programs using software tests, which are appropriate for assignments where students are required to test their own work. In this initial work, we applied these indicators to a collection of programming assignments from 257 students to determine the suitability of the measures and validate their results. The resulting set of progress indicators is the first step toward developing feedback strategies that recognize and reward effort and hard work, with the goal of fostering the development of a growth mindset among students.

[1]  Eleanor O'Rourke,et al.  Brain points: a growth mindset incentive structure boosts persistence in an educational game , 2014, CHI.

[2]  Stephen H. Edwards,et al.  Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action , 2004, SIGCSE '04.

[3]  Lynda Thomas,et al.  Dangers of a fixed mindset: implications of self-theories research for computer science education , 2008, ITiCSE.

[4]  W. S. Rholes,et al.  "Saying is believing": Effects of message modification on memory and liking for the person described. , 1978 .

[5]  Stephen H. Edwards,et al.  Improving student performance by evaluating how well students test their own programs , 2003, JERC.

[6]  Sue Fitzgerald,et al.  Saying isn't necessarily believing: influencing self-theories in computing , 2008, ICER '08.

[7]  Stephen H. Edwards,et al.  Responses to adaptive feedback for software testing , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[8]  E. Deci,et al.  A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Lisa S. Blackwell,et al.  Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. , 2007, Child development.

[10]  C. Dweck,et al.  Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Clayton Lewis,et al.  Attitudes and beliefs about computer science among students and faculty , 2007, SGCS.

[12]  C. Dweck,et al.  A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality , 1988 .

[13]  Allan Fisher,et al.  Unlocking the clubhouse: the Carnegie Mellon experience , 2002, SGCS.

[14]  D. Wood Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. By Carol S. Dweck. Psychology Press, Hove, 1999. pp. 195. £29.95 (hb). , 2000 .

[15]  Stephen H. Edwards,et al.  Mining Data from an Automated Grading and Testing System by Adding Rich Reporting Capabilities , 2008, EDM.

[16]  Petri Ihantola,et al.  Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments , 2010, Koli Calling.

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

[18]  Beth Simon,et al.  CS1 students speak: advice for students by students , 2009, SIGCSE '09.

[19]  Zoran Popovic,et al.  Demographic Differences in a Growth Mindset Incentive Structure for Educational Games , 2015, L@S.

[20]  Carol S. Dweck,et al.  Motivational processes affecting learning. , 1986 .

[21]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  GENDER AND ACHIEVEMENT-RELATED BELIEFS AMONG ENGINEERING STUDENTS , 2002 .

[22]  Garvin-DoxasKathy,et al.  Defensive climate in the computer science classroom , 2002 .

[23]  Carrie B. Fried,et al.  Reducing the Effects of Stereotype Threat on African American College Students by Shaping Theories of Intelligence , 2002 .

[24]  Michele H. Jackson,et al.  Defensive climate in the computer science classroom , 2002, SIGCSE '02.

[25]  Stephen H. Edwards,et al.  Impacts of adaptive feedback on teaching test-driven development , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[26]  Kevin Buffardi Understanding and persuading adherence to test-driven development , 2012, ICER '12.

[27]  Colleen M. Lewis,et al.  Deciding to major in computer science: a grounded theory of students' self-assessment of ability , 2011, ICER.