Investigating the role of student motivation in computer science education through one-on-one tutoring

The majority of computer science education research to date has focused on purely cognitive student outcomes. Understanding the motivational states experienced by students may enhance our understanding of the computer science learning process, and may reveal important instructional interventions that could benefit student engagement and retention. This article investigates issues of student motivation as they arise during one-on-one human tutoring in introductory computer science. The findings suggest that the choices made during instructional discourse are associated with cognitive and motivational outcomes, and that particular strategies can be leveraged based on an understanding of the student motivational state.

[1]  Orit Hazzan,et al.  Tutoring model for promoting teaching skills of computer science prospective teachers , 2008, ITiCSE.

[2]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  The impact of instructor initiative on student learning: a tutoring study , 2009, SIGCSE '09.

[3]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program , 2005, ICER '05.

[4]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[5]  Anne Venables,et al.  Differing Ways that Computing Academics Understand Teaching. , 2007 .

[6]  Rosemary Luckin,et al.  Motivating the Learner: An Empirical Evaluation , 2006, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[7]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  A development environment for distributed synchronous collaborative programming , 2008, ITiCSE.

[8]  H. Chad Lane,et al.  Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to noviceswith natural language tutoring , 2005, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[9]  Lucas Layman,et al.  Undergraduate student perceptions of pair programming and agile software methodologies: verifying a model of social interaction , 2005, Agile Development Conference (ADC'05).

[10]  Mark H. Davis Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. , 1983 .

[11]  Lecia Jane Barker,et al.  Making Visible the Behaviors that Influence Learning Environment: A Qualitative Exploration of Computer Science Classrooms , 2004, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[12]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition, 2nd Edition , 2000, Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence.

[13]  B. Bloom The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring , 1984 .

[14]  J. Cameron,et al.  Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis , 1994 .

[15]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring , 1995 .

[16]  Takashi Yamauchi,et al.  Learning from human tutoring , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Lucas Layman,et al.  Note to self: make assignments meaningful , 2007, SIGCSE '07.

[18]  E. Deci,et al.  Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again , 2001 .

[19]  Mordechai Ben-aft,et al.  Constructivism in computer science education , 1998, SIGCSE '98.

[20]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  The Role of Feedback in Preparation for Future Learning: A Case Study in Learning by Teaching Environments , 2006, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[21]  Ning Wang,et al.  Experimental evaluation of polite interaction tactics for pedagogical agents , 2005, IUI.

[22]  A. Bandura GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTING SELF-EFFICACY SCALES , 2006 .

[23]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Dialogue-Learning Correlations in Spoken Dialogue Tutoring , 2005, AIED.

[24]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech , 2000, CL.

[25]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  Balancing Cognitive and Motivational Scaffolding in Tutorial Dialogue , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[26]  Joanna Wolfe Why the Rhetoric of CS Programming Assignments Matters , 2004, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[27]  Frank M. Pajares,et al.  Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents , 2006 .

[28]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  An integrated framework for improved Computer Science Education: Strategies, implementations, and results , 2007, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[29]  Philip Machanick,et al.  A social construction approach to computer science education , 2007, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[30]  J. Keller Motivational Design of Instruction , 1983 .

[31]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Imagineering inauthentic legitimate peripheral participation: an instructional design approach for motivating computing education , 2006, ICER '06.

[32]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  The Influence of Learner Characteristics on Task-Oriented Tutorial Dialogue , 2007, AIED.

[33]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  In Support of Pair Programming in the Introductory Computer Science Course , 2002, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[34]  A. Elliot,et al.  A 2 X 2 achievement goal framework. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  M. Lepper,et al.  Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. , 1993 .

[36]  Leslie Dickinson,et al.  AUTONOMY AND MOTIVATION A LITERATURE REVIEW , 1995 .

[37]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[38]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[39]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective Than Reading? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program , 2004, ITiCSE '04.

[41]  Helen Pain,et al.  Providing Cognitive and Affective Scaffolding Through Teaching Strategies: Applying Linguistic Politeness to the Educational Context , 2004, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[42]  Sidney K. D'Mello,et al.  Dialogue Modes in Expert Tutoring , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.