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

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.
• 2: E. Alpay and J. Ireson. Self-theories of intelligence of engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2):169--180, 2006.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 8: C. S. Dweck. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10):1040--1048, 1986.
• 9: C. S. Dweck. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Taylor & Francis, 1999.
• 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.
• 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.
• 12: C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2):256--273, April 1988.
• 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.
• 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.
• 15: R. M. Felder and L. K. Silverman. Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education, 78:674--81, 1988.
• 16: Kathy Garvin-Doxas , Lecia J. Barker, Communication in computer science classrooms: understanding defensive climates as a means of creating supportive behaviors, Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), v.4 n.1, p.2-es, March 2004 [doi>10.1145/1060071.1060073]
• 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).
• 18: H. Grant and C. S. Dweck. Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3):541--553, 2003.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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).
• 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.
• 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.
• 25: Gary Lewandowski, Using process journals to gain qualitative understanding of beginning programmers, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, v.19 n.1, p.299-310, October 2003
• 26: Clayton Lewis, Attitudes and beliefs about computer science among students and faculty, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.39 n.2, June 2007 [doi>10.1145/1272848.1272880]
• 27: J. Margolis and A. Fisher. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, 2002.
• 28: Robert McCartney , Anna Eckerdal , Jan Erik Mostrom , Kate Sanders , Carol Zander, Successful students' strategies for getting unstuck, Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 25-27, 2007, Dundee, Scotland
• 29: Laurie Murphy , Lynda Thomas, Dangers of a fixed mindset: implications of self-theories research for computer science education, Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 30-July 02, 2008, Madrid, Spain
• 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.
• 31: Susan Wiedenbeck, Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program, Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research, p.13-24, October 01-02, 2005, Seattle, WA, USA [doi>10.1145/1089786.1089788]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Computer science education

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
attitudinal, cs0, cs1, debugging, dweck, growth mindset, likert, novice programmers, programming, self-theories