Reconsidering the Impact of CS1 on Novice Attitudes
Amber Settle, John Lalor, Theresa Steinbach
DePaul University
243 S. Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 362-8381
asettle@cdm.depaul.edu, jlalor@mail.depaul.edu, tsteinbach@cdm.depaul.edu
ABSTRACT
Student success in an introductory programing course is crucial,
both because it influences retention and because student attitudes
and habits in a first course can have a lasting impact on student
success in computer science as a field. In this paper we present
results about student attitudes and habits before and after a CS1
class. Statistically significant attitude differences were found in
three areas: students were less likely to report they were good at
programming, more likely to agree they are challenged by
programming problems they can’t understand immediately, and
are less likely to report that computer science allows them to be
creative. Statistically significant differences in female and first-
quarter responses were also found.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.3.2 [Computer and Information Science Education]:
Computer science education
Keywords
Attitudes; CS1; confidence; community; engagement;
programming; Python
1. INTRODUCTION
For years computing educators have devoted considerable time
and energy to improving the student experience in introductory
programming courses, typically referred to as CS1 courses. This
is energy well spent, as CS1 courses are often the first experience
students have in the computer science major. It has been shown
that computing experiences affect a student’s perception and
attitude about the field, which enable or inhibit pathways in the
discipline [19]. The efforts at improving CS1 courses have in
many cases resulted in lower failure rates, better retention, and in
some cases better gender balance [2]. Despite the changes
researchers have still found that prior experience and confidence
predict male student performance in CS1 courses, and that
confidence among peers has almost no effect on students’
attitudes or performance [2]. Several STEM researchers have
found evidence of a relationship between student perceptions and
learning outcomes [11]. Among other findings, students'
achievement expectations and self-concept are good predictors of
success, students' self-assessment of their ability level impacts
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 the author(s) 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
permissions@acm.org.
SIGCSE’15, March 4–7, 2015, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM 978-1-4503-2966-8/15/03…$15.00.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677235
229
their decision to major in computer science, and student beliefs
affect how they learn new information [11]. Student attitudes and
beliefs about computer science have been previously studied, with
researchers finding that student beliefs were more varied in their
first than in their last year [16]. Other researchers have examined
the impact of CS1 courses on majors vs. non-majors, using
various pedagogical and curricular approaches, and examining
differences based on course performance [21]. While the
classroom experience is often the only thing under the control of
educators, student experiences both inside and outside of the
classroom can shape their beliefs.
This paper examines student attitudes toward computing and
habits in acquiring competency in an introductory programming
class, examining if student attitudes and habits regarding
computer science change after a single CS1 course. Students who
take the CS1 Python course are undergraduates in a major where
development is a focus, which during the time of the study
included computer science, math/computer science, game
development, and information assurance and security engineering.
Some non-majors take the course as a part of the requirements for
a minor. The Python sequence to which the CS1 course belongs
uses several interventions recommended in the literature,
including closed labs with collaborative activities, differentiated
courses for novice and experienced programmers, and engaged
and enthusiastic faculty [3, 6, 10, 17]. The change in attitudes and
habits is measured using a survey developed by the authors and
based on previous surveys of attitudes toward computer science
[7, 15, 22, 23]. The survey was administered pre-quarter and post-
quarter in all CS1 Python classes for an entire academic year, and
the results analyzed to find statistically significant changes in
student responses.
The findings of this research will be used in a larger project being
conducted about learning communities. These results will provide
a baseline as the initial step in this project. Beginning Fall 2014,
a “linked courses” learning community [12] will be created for
underrepresented students majoring in one of our development-
focused computing degrees that require Python as the
introductory language. These students will become a cohort in a
content-based course (CS1) and a liberal studies course focused
on the Digital Divide [20]. The survey described here will be
administered to these students to determine if the learning
community has any impact on their attitudes and habits beyond
what could be expected from taking the CS1 Python course alone.
2. SURVEY
The survey of student attitudes and habits administered for this
work was based on previous surveys of student attitudes,
including the Computer Science Attitude Survey [23], the USG
Student Computing Survey [22] used in the Georgia Computes!
Project [7], and the Science Interest Survey [15]. Because the
survey would be administered in person during sessions of the listed were: Friends/peers, Internet/web sites, professional
programming class, brevity was important. Questions were organizations, self study, family members, tutors, faculty, and
selectively chosen from previous surveys and modified to meet other (please specify). Students were instructed to leave a
the needs of this study, producing a survey with 33 attitude resource blank if they did not use it, so that only the resources
questions and a single question that asked students to rank utilized would be given a ranking.
resources used to obtain new computing skills. Each of the
attitude questions are listed below, and students answered the 3. RESULTS
questions using a five-point Likert scale of 5 = strongly agree, 4 = During the academic year 2013-2014, surveys were administered
agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. in eleven sections of CSC 241: Introduction to Computer Science
1. I plan to major in a technology-related degree I. The students were surveyed once during the first week of the
2. I am sure that I can learn programming quarter and once either during the last week of the quarter or just
3. I am sure I can do advanced work in computer science prior to the final exam. Following the protocol under which the
4. I think I could handle more difficult programming study was approved, paper copies of the surveys were distributed
problems during the class session by one of the authors, none of whom were
5. I can get good grades in computer science instructors for the classes in the study. Students were asked to
6. I have a lot of self-confidence when it comes to provide their student ID as a way of matching pre-quarter and
programming post-quarter responses, but no tracking of students during the
7. I’m not good at programming quarter was done. The responses to the surveys were entered into
8. For some reason even though I work hard at it, electronic form and then analyzed, with the student IDs being
programming seems unusually hard for me discarded once pre- and post-quarter responses were verified to
9. Computer science has been my worst subject both be present. In this section we provide summary statistics for
10. It would make me happy to be recognized as an student demographic information and attitude question responses
excellent student in computer science and a statistical analysis of the data.
11. I’d be happy to get top grades in computer science
12. If I got good grades in computer science, I would try to 3.1 Demographics
hide it Both the pre-quarter and post-quarter survey asked students to
13. I’ll need programming for my future work provide demographic information. While only those students who
14. Knowing programming will help me earn a living completed both the pre-quarter and post-quarter surveys are
15. I will use programming in many ways throughout my analyzed in depth, a brief summary of the pre-quarter responses is
life presented prior to the more in-depth analysis.
16. Taking computer science courses is a waste of time
17. Once I start trying to work on a program, I find it hard
to stop 3.1.1 Pre-quarter responses
18. I am challenged by programming problems I can’t There were a total of 259 responses to the pre-quarter survey,
understand immediately with 60 (23%) of them female, 190 (73%) male, and nine (3%)
19. I am easily frustrated by difficult programming who did not specify gender. While CSC 241 is a first-year course,
problems students sometimes wait several quarters to take it, so students
20. I do as little work in computer science courses as were asked about their current quarter at the university. One
possible hundred fifty (58%) students were in the first quarter, 55 (21%) in
21. I like talking with my friends about programming their second quarter, 25 (10%) in their third quarter, 18 (7%) in
22. I like to program in my spare time their fourth quarter or beyond, and 11 (4%) did not specify their
23. I belong in the computing field quarter of study. Students were asked about their GPA, but only
24. I feel isolated in computer science courses the responses from students in the second quarter and beyond are
25. I am part of a community of programmers provided, since a GPA for a first-quarter student would not
26. Computer science offers good financial opportunities include classes from his/her current institution. Forty-eight (44%)
after graduation reported a GPA of 3.5 – 4.0, 28 (26%) reported a GPA of 3.0 –
27. Computer science allows me to be creative 3.49, 13 (12%) reported a GPA of 2.0 – 2.9, and 18 (17%) did not
28. Computing offers diverse and broad opportunities report their GPA. The students were also asked to provide their
29. I have a lot of support that will help me to succeed in major. One hundred forty students (54%) reported computer
computer science courses science, 32 (12%) reported game development, 26 (10%) reported
30. Computer science provides opportunities to make a mathematics, 21 (8%) reported information assurance and security
difference in the world engineering, nine (3%) reported another major in the College of
31. I have a lot of friends who are interested in computing Computing and Digital Media (CDM), 25 (10%) reported a major
32. My family is happy that I am taking computer science outside CDM, and six (2%) were undecided.
courses
33. I have had good teachers in my computer science 3.1.2 Post-quarter responses
courses There were a total of 197 responses to the post-quarter survey, but
There was one additional question that asked students: “Outside only 152 responses from students who had also completed a pre-
of your classroom studies, what are your resources for quarter survey. Only those responses are analyzed here. There
learning/obtaining new computing skills? Mark all that you use were 231 students who completed CSC 241 in the academic year
and rank them in order of use. The one you use most should be 2013-2014, giving a response rate of 66%.
ranked as 1, the one you use next often as 2, etc.” The resources

230
Of the responses 40 (26%) were female and 112 (74%) male. We performed t-tests as a post-hoc test to identify those quarters
There were 86 (57%) students in their first quarter, 44 (29%) in where the differences were significant.
their second quarter, 12 (8%) in their third quarter, and 10 (7%) in
Table 4 shows the results of the ANOVA analysis, and Table 5
their fourth quarter or beyond. The reported GPA for the 65
shows the results of the post-hoc t-tests for the significant results.
students beyond their first quarter was 33 (51%) with a 3.5 – 4.0,
14 (22%) with a 3.0 – 3.49, and 10 (15%) with a 2.0 – 2.9, and Table 2. Gender differences pre- or post-quarter
eight (12%) who did not give a GPA. There were 81 (53%)
computer science majors, 21 (14%) game development majors, 20 Pre Post
Q Result
(13%) mathematics majors, 13 (9%) information assurance and F M F M
security engineering, five (3%) other CDM majors, 10 (7%) other F(1, 150) = 12.3,
1 3.7 4.446 3.625 4.393
majors, and two (1%) undecided. p = 0.006
F(1, 150) = 19.2,
2 4.15 4.634 4.05 4.562
3.2 Attitude Questions p = 0.0002
The responses to the attitude questions (Q1 – Q33) were analyzed F(1, 150) = 12.7,
3 3.575 4.214 3.625 4.223
using a one-way ANOVA test to determine if the changes pre- p = 0.0005
quarter to post-quarter were statistically significant. We F(1, 150) = 11.5,
4 3.375 3.955 3.45 4.027
performed a test between the pre- and post-survey responses, with p = 0.0009
a null hypothesis of "Taking the introductory Python class did not F(1, 150) = 7.74,
5 4.175 4.348 3.825 4.339
affect students' responses regarding ____," with the blank p = 0.006
representing each question. Only results significant below p < .01 F(1, 150) = 21.8,
6 3.05 3.75 3.075 3.866
level were considered. p = 0.00007
F(1, 150) = 10.1,
Four of the changes in the overall responses were statistically 9 2.275 1.839 2.225 1.679
p = 0.0018
significant. The results are presented in Table 1. F(1, 150) = 14, p
13 3.8 4.357 3.725 4.366
= 0.0003
Table 1. Overall differences pre- or post-quarter
F(1, 150) = 10.9,
Q Pre Post Result 14 4.0 4.438 3.925 4.446
p = 0.0012
7 2.539 2.303 F(1, 151) = 7.97, p = .005 F(1, 150) = 15.5,
18 3.520 3.783 F(1, 151) = 10.5, p = 0.002 15 3.75 4.312 3.575 4.223
p = 0.00013
27 4.132 3.882 F(1, 151) = 9.17, p = 0.003 F(1, 150) = 17.9,
33 3.888 4.276 F(1, 151) = 16.8, p = .0007 21 2.85 3.411 2.657 3.491
p = .0004
F(1, 150) = 11.1,
22 2.575 3.071 2.625 3.241
p = 0.0011
We also considered subpopulations of students to determine if
there were statistically significant differences in their responses F(1, 150) = 16.3,
23 3.05 3.902 3.225 3.875
either pre- or post-quarter or if there were statistically significant p = 0.0009
differences between the pre- and post-quarter responses. The F(1, 150) = 8.64,
31 2.95 3.429 2.725 3.357
groups we considered were male versus female students and p = 0.0038
students in particular quarters (first, second, third, and fourth and
beyond. The subsections below discuss the results for each Table 3. Gender differences over time
subpopulation.
Pre Post
Q Result
F M F M
3.2.1 Gender
F(1, 150) = 4.85,
For male and female students, we first considered whether there 5 4.175 4.348 3.825 4.339
p = 0.029
were any significant differences in their responses to questions
either in the pre-quarter or post-quarter responses. ANOVA F(1, 150) = 4.88,
19 2.657 2.741 3.125 2.732
analysis revealed 14 questions for which statistically significant p = 0.029
results. Only results significant at the p <.01 level or lower were
considered. Table 2 shows the means and results for each Table 4. Quarter differences, ANOVA results
statistically significant question.
Q Result
We next considered whether male or female responses to any 1 F(3, 145) = 5.41, p = 0.0015
questions had changed in a statistically significant way during the
quarter. There were statistically significant results found for two 2 F(3, 145) = 5.34, p = 0.0016
questions, although only at the p < .05 level. The results are 3 F(3, 145) = 4.91, p = 0.0025
presented in Table 3. 4 F(3, 145) = 4.41, p = 0.0053
6 F(3, 145) = 4.55, p = 0.0044
3.2.2 By Quarter
There were six questions for which statistically significant results 11 F(3, 145) = 4.44, p = 0.0051
were seen when considering students in a given quarter at DePaul.
ANOVA analysis indicated that for these six questions, there was
a statistically significant difference in the responses by quarter.

231
 Table 5. Significant differences, by quarter
Q Mean 1 Mean 2 Result
1 Q1-3.887 Q2-4.587 t(196)=-3.758, p=0.00022
1 Q1-3.887 Q3-4.446 t(187)=-2.824, p=0.0052
3 Q1-3.791 Q2-4.277 t(196)=-3.09, p=0.0023
3 Q1-3.791 Q3-4.284 t(187)=-2.993, p=0.0031
4 Q1-3.617 Q3-4.162 t(187)=-3.456, p=0.0007
6 Q1-3.443 Q3-4.027 t(187)=-3.881, p=0.0001
6 Q2-3.566 Q3-4.027 t(155)=-2.966, p=0.0035
6 Q3-4.027 Q4+-3.375 t(104)=3.618, p=0.0005
3.3 Resource Question
The final question on the survey asked students to rank the use of
resources for learning, with 1 assigned to the most frequently used
resource. Students were asked to only rank the resources they
used. As with the multiple-choice questions we performed a one-
way ANOVA test between the pre- and post-survey responses,
with a null hypothesis of "Taking the introductory Python class
did not affect students' utilization of ____," with the blank
representing each resource. There were no significant results at or
below the p < .01 level for any of the resources when considering
the population as a whole.
We also considered subpopulations of students to see if there were
any statistically significant differences for certain groups of
students after taking the CS1 Python course. The groups we
considered were the same as for the attitude questions. There were
no significant results for students in particular quarters at or
below the p < .01 level. The significant results for subpopulations
are discussed in the subsections below.
3.3.1 Gender
There was one resource for which statistically significant results
were seen when considering female versus male responses pre- or
post-quarter. When asked about tutors the female mean was 1.60
pre-quarter and 1.75 post-quarter, and the male mean was 2.83
pre-quarter and 2.688 post-quarter. There was a significant effect
at the p < .01 level with F(1, 150) = 10.1, p = 0.0018.
There was also one question on which female versus male
responses showed a significant difference from pre- to post-
quarter. When asked about friends and peers the female mean was
2.4 pre-quarter and 1.775 post-quarter, and the male mean was
2.304 pre-quarter and 2.589 post-quarter. There was a significant
effect at the p < .05 level with F(1, 150) = 4.0, p = 0.047.
4. DISCUSSION
There were four questions for which the overall student
population changed their attitudes in a significant way during the
course of the quarter. Students were less likely to report they were
good at programming (question 7), more likely to agree they are
challenged by programming problems they can’t understand
immediately (question 18), and less likely to report computer
science allows them to be creative (question 27). These results
appear to show that the CS1 course is diminishing, at least to
some degree, both student confidence and student engagement. It
does appear, however, that the instructors are not the issue, given
that students are more likely to agree they have had good teachers
in their computer science courses (question 33). The courses are
designed for majors in which application development will be a
large part of the focus of the degree, and as such, the material is
232
not easy. While Python is a syntactically simpler language, that
also allows instructors to assign more challenging and significant
problems, which is a stated purpose of the course. Thus it may be
natural that the students’ confidence is slightly diminished. The
result showing their engagement is diminished is troubling though
and suggests that course instructors need to consider how to
improve rather than reduce engagement.
4.1 Gender Differences
The majority of statistically significant differences were between
male and female responses. The largest number of differences is
seen on questions relating to confidence. Female students were
less likely to report that they were sure they could learn
programming (question 2), that they were sure they could do
advanced work in computer science (question 3), that they could
handle more difficult programming problems (question 4), that
they could get good grades in computer science (question 5), that
they have a lot of self-confidence when it comes to programming
(question 6), and that they belong in the computing field (question
23). These results are consistent with previous work that has
shown women have lower levels of confidence with respect to
computer science [5]. Female students were also less likely to
agree with the future utility of computer science, indicating lower
agreement with the statements “I’ll need programming for my
future work” (question 13), “knowing programming will help me
earn a living” (question 14), and “I will use programming in many
ways throughout my life” (question 15). Previous work has shown
that an understanding of how computer science can be used in a
broader context is more important for women [1], making these
results discouraging. The CS1 course was designed to highlight
the applicability of programming for computer science, and this
result suggests that women are not hearing that message. Female
students were more likely to agree that computer science had been
their worst subject (question 9) and less likely to agree that they
like to program in their spare time (question 22). Perhaps
unsurprisingly given that female students are a small minority in
the CS1 course, they were less likely to agree that they like to talk
with their friends about programming (question 21) and that they
have a lot of friends interested in computing (question 31). Social
isolation can impact engagement [10], and it may be that
instructors for the CS1 course need to do more to connect female
students with student organizations and resources to help reduce
their isolation [4]. Finally there was one significant difference
between male and female students with respect to resource
utilization. Female students were less likely to report that they
visited tutors, which contradicts a previous study showing that
female students were more likely to consult tutors than male
students [9].
There were three questions for which male and female responses
showed a statistically significant difference over time. Female
students’ agreement with the statement “I can get good grades in
computer science” diminished during the quarter, and female
students were more likely to agree with the statement “I am easily
frustrated by difficult programming problems” at the conclusion
of the quarter. As mentioned earlier, the courses are designed to
be challenging, so it may be that extra support of female students
would be the most appropriate response to these results. There
was also a statistically significant difference between male and
female students with respect to their utilization of friends and
peers for assistance. Both male and female students were less
likely at the conclusion of the quarter to report using friends and
peers for help, but the drop in the reported use of that resource
was significantly higher for female students. This result can in
part be explained by course policies. The courses have closed
labs, and during most of these labs students are encouraged to
work together. However most, although not all, instructors require
that students complete assignments individually, and students are
prohibited from discussing the assignments with each other. This
policy was developed in response to problems with Academic
Integrity violations. Some instructors have begun to develop
modified policies that balance the need for adherence to
Academic Integrity policies with the benefits gained from
students collaborating. Given that previous results show that
women are more likely to collaborate on assignments [9] and
more likely to respond positively to collaborative activities [13],
this could have a positive impact on female students.
4.2 Differences by Quarter
There were statistically significant differences on four questions
when considering students in particular quarters. First-quarter
students were less likely to indicate that they intended to major in
a technology-related degree (question 1) than second- and third-
quarter students. They were also less like to indicate agreement
with the statement “I am sure I can do advanced work in computer
science” (question 3) than second- and third-quarter students.
They were less likely to agree that they could handle more
difficult programming problems (question 4). The most
interesting result is that first-, second-, and third-quarter students
were each less likely to agree that they have a lot of self-
confidence when it comes to programming (question 6) than more
advanced students. This is a valuable extension of earlier work
finding differences in attitudes [16] and self-efficacy [18] by time
spent in school. It also suggests that the linked-courses learning
community will be of value, since its main goal is to improve
support for first-quarter female and minority male students in
order to bolster their confidence. Improving these aspects of the
course would help with persistence and retention [3].
4.3 Limitations
There are some limitations to this study. Some of the questions
posed in the survey are sensitive in nature, and participants may
have chosen to not complete those portions of the survey causing
their data to be discarded in the analysis. Students were asked to
provide their student IDs as a part of the survey to enable
verification that only those students who completed both parts
were included in the analysis, and this may have led students to
not participate in the survey. The entire study is based on self-
reported values provided by participants, and care must be taken
when interpreting the results. Additionally, though care was taken
in choosing survey questions and choices that are unambiguous,
there is a risk that the participant may have misinterpreted the
questions or choices. The study also does not consider the impacts
of using the Python language in particular. Because Python is the
only first language for development majors at the institution in
question, there is no equivalent population with which the results
can be compared. Other majors take courses in Ruby on Rails or
Java, but the background and preparation of those students is
different enough to not allow useful comparisons with the
students who take Python.
5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The results presented in this study confirm the previous work of
Dorn and Tew [11] in self-assessment of ability when responses
are analyzed in totality. However when responses are analyzed by
233
gender, the majority of statistically significant differences were
seen on questions relating to confidence, confirming the Beyer et
al [5] conclusion that women have lower levels of confidence
with respect to computer science. Students in the early stages of
their academic career are less likely to agree they have a lot of
self-confidence in programming which extends the work of Lewis
et al [16] and Ramalingam et al [18]. The studied course was
taught using CS1 best practices [1, 3, 6, 10, 17] but did not have
an impact on female students learning programming. Female
students remained less sure that they would do advanced work in
computer science, could handle more difficult programming
problems, and would achieve good grades in computer science.
Female students also failed to report a sense of belonging in the
field which poses difficulties for retention. This work
demonstrates that new CS1 approaches alone are not always
sufficient for rectifying previous gender-specific classroom issues
and that work remains in broadening computer science.
In the bigger picture the authors have plans to compare the
baseline results gathered from the Python CS1 course with the
data gathered from students recruited for a linked-courses learning
community in the Fall 2014. The learning community targets
female and minority male students in majors that are required to
take the CS1 course. The community provides participating
students with two classes in common as well as co-curricular
activities such as special lectures, community-service project,
visits to technology companies, and extra-curricular activities
including peer mentoring, shared meals and gaming events [20].
Learning communities have been shown to be beneficial in
enhancing student achievement, reducing attrition rates, and
improving interaction between faculty and students [8, 14]. Our
hypothesis is that the learning community will enhance student
feelings of engagement, self-confidence, and social connection,
which given the results here would be a strong benefit for the
course.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Alvarado, C. and Dodds, Z.. 2010. Women in CS: an
evaluation of three promising practices. In Proceedings of
the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education (SIGCSE '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 57-
61.
[2] Alvarado, C., Lee, C.B., and Gillespie, G. 2014. New CS1
pedagogies and curriculum, the same success factors? In
Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, March
2014).
[3] Barker, L.J.,McDowell, C. and Kalahar, K. 2009. Exploring
Factors that Influence Computer Science Introductory
Course Students to Persist in the Major. Proceedings of the
40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education (Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA, March 2009).
[4] Besana, G.M. and Dettori, L.. 2004. Together is better:
strengthening the confidence of women in computer science
via a learning community. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 19, 5 (May
2004), 130-139.
[5] Beyer, S., Rynes, K., Perrault, J., Hay, K., and Haller, S..
2003. Gender differences in computer science students. In
Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '03). ACM, New
York, NY, USA, 49-53.
[6] Boyer, K.E., Dwight, R. S., Miller, C.S., Raubenheimer,
C.D., Stallmann, M.F., and Vouk, M.A. 2007. A Case for
Smaller Class Size with Integrated Lab for Introductory
Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
(Covington, Kentucky, USA, March 2007).
[7] Bruckman, A., Biggers, M., Ericson, B., McKlin, T.,
Dimond, J., DiSalvo, B., Hewner, M., Ni, L., and Yardi, S.
2009. "Georgia computes!": Improving the Computing
Education Pipeline. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
(Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA, March 2009).
[8] Cargill, K. and Kalikoff, B. 2007. Linked Psychology and
Writing Courses Across the Curriculum. The Journal of
General Education, 56:2, pp. 83-92.
[9] Chinn, D., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., and Laakso, M. 2010.
Study habits of CS1 students: what do they do outside the
classroom?. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian
Conference on Computing Education - Volume 103 (ACE
'10), Tony Clear and John Hamer (Eds.), Vol. 103.
Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia,
Australia, 53-62.
[10] Cohoon, J.. 2002. Recruiting and retaining women in
undergraduate computing majors. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 2 (June
2002), 48-52.
[11] Dorn,B. and Tew, A.E. 2013. Becoming Experts: Measuring
Attitude Development in Introductory Computer Science. In
Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on
Computer Science Education. (Denver, Colorado, USA,
March 2013).
[12] Kellogg, K. 1999. Learning Communities. ERIC Digest.
Retrieved December 29, 2013 from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED430512.
[13] Krause, J., Polycarpou, I., and Hellman, K. 2012. Exploring
formal learning groups and their impact on recruitment of
women in undergraduate CS. In Proceedings of the 43rd
ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education
(SIGCSE '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 179-184.
[14] Johnson, K.E. 2013. Learning Communities and the
Completion Agenda. Learning Communities Research and
Practice, 1:3.
234
[15] Lamb, R.L, Annetta, L, Meldrum, J., and Vallett, D. 2012.
Measuring Science Interest: Rasch Validation of the Science
Interest Survey. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education. 10:3 (June 2012), 643-668.
[16] Lewis, C., Jackson, M.H., and Waite, W.M. 2010. Student
and faculty attitudes and beliefs about computer science.
Commun. ACM 53, 5 (May 2010), 78-85.
[17] Newhall, T., Meeden, L., Danner, A., Soni, A., Ruiz, F., and
Wicentowski, R. 2014. A Support Program for Introductory
CS Courses that Improves Student Performance and Retains
Students from Underrepresented Groups. In Proceedings of
the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education. (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, March 2014).
[18] Ramalingam, V. LaBelle, D., and Wiedenbeck S. 2004. Self-
efficacy and mental models in learning to program. In
Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on
Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
(ITiCSE '04).
[19] Schulte, C. and Knobelsdorf, M. 2007. Attitudes towards
Computer Science-Computing Experiences as a Starting
Point and Barrier to Computer Science. In Proceedings of the
Third International Workshop on Computing Education
Research (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, September 2007).
[20] Settle A. and Steinbach, T. 2014 Building a Linked-Courses
Learning Community for Introductory Development Majors.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers
in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering
(Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, July 2014).
[21] Simon, B., Hanks, B., McCauley, R., Morrison, B., Murphy,
L., and Zander, C.. 2009. For me, programming is .... In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on
Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER '09).
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 105-116.
[22] USG Student Computing Survey, retrieved December 2013
from
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2635522/USG%20Stude
nt%20Survey.pdf.
[23] Wiebe, E.N., Williams, L, Yang, K. and Miller, C. 2003.
Computer Science Attitude Survey, Dept. of Computer
Science, North Carolina State University, TR-2003-1,
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~wiebe/www/articles/prl-tr-2003-
1.pdf.