Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

CS Minors in a CS1 Course

Päivi Kinnunen, Lauri Malmi


Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Helsinki University of Technology
PO Box 5400, FI-02015 TKK, Finland
pakinnun@cs.hut.fi, lma@cs.hut.fi

ABSTRACT that students react differently to difficulties and stressful situations


The focus of this paper is on science students (CS minors) in a they face during their studies (see for example, [23]). The one of
CS1 Java course at a technical university. The following three the most extreme and undesirable reactions of a stressful situation
questions are discussed: 1) Which programming related topics the is dropping out of the course. The magnitude of the problem
students at the target CS1 course find difficult to learn, and what is becomes concrete when we observe the dropout rates in CS1
the difference between the students that passed the course and the courses many institutions report (often around 20-40%, even
students that dropped out of the course. 2) What kind of strategies higher). The prerequisite for teachers and institutions to tackle
both the passed and the dropout students used when they faced a high dropout rates is to be aware of what kind difficulties students
difficult programming related topic. 3) Why some students decided face during the course and what kind of dropout reasons their
to drop out of the course. students actually have.

The research questions are tackled with a quantitative approach. The literature review elicits that the dropout phenomenon is
459 students that passed the CS1 course and 119 dropout students complex and there are several possible underlying contributing
answered the questionnaire. The most difficult topics to learn were factors. Therefore, to be able to enlighten the complex
finding runtime errors and planning one’s own code. Inheritance & phenomenon we have approached it with a three-part research
abstract classes, and handling files were also regarded as difficult project that uses the mixed method approach [20]. In our previous,
topics. The open-ended question in the questionnaire revealed six mainly qualitative, study [8] we found out that the main dropout
viable strategies the students used when they faced difficult topics. reasons were the lack of time and the lack of motivation. Both
The factor analysis elicited five dropout reasons: course reasons were divided further into subcategories. In addition, the
arrangements, difficulty to understand course topics, time study revealed that the combination of the issues that lead students
management and preferences, lack of consequences of dropping to drop out tended to be unique, cumulative and concurrent. The
out, and effect of other courses. current study is a quantitative continuum of the same research
project and it highlights the distribution of the earlier identified
The results are discussed in the light of the general system theory dropout reasons. The analysis on the programming related
that highlights the multi-dimensionality of the dropout difficulties is also presented.
phenomenon.
The focus of this study is on computer science minors at a
Categories and Subject Descriptors technical university. In this study the minors are defined as
K.3.2 [Computer & Education]: Computer & Information Science students that are required to take 2-3 computer science courses as
Education – Computer Science Education a part of their basic studies module. All of them take the course
“Introduction to the computing environment” for newcomers, and
General Terms most take a programming course in Java. The basics of computer
Human Factors programming are considered one of the compulsory skills that, for
example, the Master of Science in Electrical Engineering should
Keywords possess. The third course that many students take covers data
CS1, programming, non-major CS students, difficulties, drop out structures and algorithms. The first three courses constitute the
entity that gives the students the knowledge and skills to
successfully continue CS studies if they so wish and to use
programming in their studies and future duties.
1. INTRODUCTION
The students at a CS1 course face a difficult task. Within a few At the Helsinki University of Technology there are approximately
months they are supposed to efficiently be able to solve problems 600 students that enter the target course that is one of the two
using some programming language. They are expected to acquire parallel CS1 courses every year. For the last two years, the
new knowledge, strategies and practical skills. It is well known dropout rate has been ca. 26 % (the percent is calculated from the
students that really started the course i.e. got at least some points
from the programming exercises), implying that every year some
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for 140-150 students fail to get the grade and must enter the course
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are again some other year. This is a huge waste of resources both from
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that the students’ and the university’s point of view. The motivation of
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy this research project is to better understand the underlying factors
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
that contribute to the students’ dropout decisions. This insight is
ICER’08, September 6–7, 2008, Sydney, Australia. vital for planning and executing interventions that have a chance
Copyright 2008 ACM 978-1-60558-216-0/08/09...$5.00.

79
to make a real difference. The concrete goal is that one day we oriented programming related topics such as inheritance and
could count the numbers of dropouts only in dozens and not in polymorphism were also considered difficult among other topics.
hundreds.
However, the mere list of the difficult topics does not give the
The paper is structured as follows. We first present the literature teacher the full picture of the situation. Thus, Yuen [25]
review concerning the dropout phenomenon in general and emphasizes the importance of understanding CS students’
learning difficulties related to programming. Next, we introduce knowledge structures and cognitive processes as they are
the general system theory that reflects our aim to understand the considered as a starting point for improving instruction, which in
phenomenon in a larger context rather than focusing on turn is a way to tackle the dropout rate.
particulars. The theoretical discussion is followed by the
presentation of the target course, research questions, research The Robins, Rountree and Rountree [16] study serves as a
methods and procedures. Finally, we present the results and summary. They conclude based on an extensive literature review
discuss them through our theoretical framework. that loops, conditionals, arrays and recursion are language features
that are problematic for the students. However, they also stress
2. DROP OUT REASONS AND that problem solving, design, and expressing a solution/design as a
program are issues that students have difficulties with. Robins et
DIFFICULTIES RELATED TO al. also highlight the diversity of knowledge and strategies in
LEARNING PROGRAMMING relation to program design, implementation and evaluation aspects
Student retention, factors contributing students’ success and that students need to learn.
dropping out are research areas that have long interest teachers
and researchers in the field of CS as well in the other fields (see Unlike previous studies, Milne and Rowe [13] have asked both the
for example, [21]). The literature suggests that the factors that students and the teachers to rate the difficulty of various concepts
contribute to students’ success and to their dropout decisions are and topics of object-oriented programming. However, their study
manifold. For example, Boyle, Carter, and Clark [4] conclude that focused on second year computing students and therefore the
CS students’ success is more connected to attitude, students’ results are not straight comparable to other studies that discuss the
expectations and experiences of educational methods than difficulties in CS1 courses.
students’ prior academic achievements or skills. Ventura [22] In summary, many of the studies seem to focus on topics the
seconds those results and highlights the importance of comfort teachers find difficult in CS1 courses. The students’ opinions seem
level as a possible condition for success. Xenos’ and Pintelas’ [24] to be studied less often.
and Bennet’s [2] studies, on the other hand, disclose the manifold
factors that contribute students’ dropout decisions. The studies 3. THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS
highlight, for example, professional, financial, personal, and SEEN THROUGH THE GENERAL
satisfaction aspects as possible dropout reasons.
SYSTEM THEORY
All of the previously mentioned studies discuss general type of The literature review and the results of the previous parts of this
factors that might contribute to the students’ drop out decision. research project suggest that the sources of difficulties the students
However, it is obvious that the content of the course is a source for face at the course and the reasons for dropping out are manifold
difficulties and stressful situations, too. There are several studies and interrelate in a complex manner. Clearly, adopting a strictly
concerning difficult topics in CS1. Many surveys highlight topics focused theoretical approach would not be a viable strategy to
the students find difficult according to their teachers. For example, capture the richness of the phenomenon.
Schulte and Bennedsen [18] conclude that teachers rated
recursion, algorithm efficiency, polymorphism, generics, and The General System Theory (GST) focuses on the whole system
advanced data structures as the most difficult topics. Dale [6] and therefore offers tools to make sense of the phenomenon in
approaches difficulties by asking the teachers to list topics that hand. Already Aristotle expressed the very basic tenet of the
they find difficult to teach, thus implying that those topics would system theory: The whole is more than the sum of its parts [3].
be difficult for the students to learn, too. Four meta-level This implies that by focusing at the whole instead of individual
categories emerged: problem solving and design, general parts of the system we can gain a better understanding of the
programming topics (like parameters, arrays, recursion), object- phenomenon. The GST approaches the whole by focusing on the
oriented constructs (like polymorphism, inheritance), and student systems’ processes and the relationships between its parts. This
maturity. The last category is not related to the subject matter but interest is expressed by stressing the dynamic and cybernetic1
to the more general type of student related issues. Aspects like nature of the systems. This emphasis highlights the role of
study skills, time management, and the importance of the self- feedback bringing it to the central role in the discussion. After all,
discipline were just a few student related issues that were the availability and the use of feedback are prerequisites for the
mentioned. self-reproduction of a system. [10]

Goldman et al. [7] have identified important and difficult concepts


in an introductory computing course. As a result they have
generated a list of programming fundamental (CS1) topics that the
teachers had rated both by how difficult and how important they 1
The word cybernetics evolved from the area of machine control.
think the topics are. For example, programming skill related issues This first phase of the theory creation is called first order
like conceptualising problems, designing solutions, designing cybernetics. Later the concept of cybernetics was adapted to social
tests, functional decomposition and modularisation, and and biological studies. The latter phase is called second order
debugging were regarded as both important and difficult. Object- cybernetics (Bai and Lindberg 1999), which is relevant in the
context of this paper.

80
The GST is, on one hand, an extensive theory that has been used The previous example discussed one whole course. However, the
to discuss the large subsystems of a society like education, same process idea can be applied to sub-parts of the course, too.
economics as well as the society itself (see Luhmann’s extensive For example, the course that entails of several consecutive
publications, for example, [9]). In a practical level, for instance, it exercise rounds also entails several shorter-term instructional
has been suggested that the GST should be used as a unifying processes.
general theoretical framework for educational reforms [5].
4. TARGET COURSE
The instructional process is a goal-oriented activity, and The target course of this research is an introductory course in
discussing the instructional events from the process point of view programming, CS1, in Java at a technical university in Finland.
leads the focus of the analysis on the phases of the process and The extent of the course is 5 ECTS, which corresponds about 140
their interconnections. Here, the instructional process can be hours of work. The course is a large-scale course having about
described as having the following phases: goals, planning, 500-650 enrolled students yearly. All students at the course major
teaching/learning, learning outcomes and feedback (Figure 1). in some other science than computer science. Typically, degree
programs like electrical engineering and machine engineering are
well represented at the course. Most students at the course are
Goals required to take a few computer science courses as a part of their
basic studies module. The model plan for studies suggests that
Planning students should enrol on the target course on a spring term of their
first or second year, not later.
Teaching/learning
The main goal of the course is to learn basic object-oriented
programming in Java. The course uses an objects-early approach,
Learning outcomes introducing objects and classes on the second week. However, in
the beginning more focus is given on basic procedural concepts,
Feedback and design issues are covered only at the end of the course.

Figure 1. The instructional process (cf. [12], earlier version of The course is organized as follows. In order to pass the course the
the process model is in [11]) students are required to solve 9-10 rounds of weekly exercises that
contain several small program implementation exercises. An
automatic assessment tool is used to grade the submissions and
The general system theory in educational context does not limit give feedback on them for the students. Several resubmissions are
itself to any particular viewpoint. Depending on the research allowed for each exercise. At the end of the course, students take a
question the instructional process can be discussed from several written examination.
different viewpoints like a student’s, teacher’s, or university’s 25-35 hours of optional lectures (Table 1) are given during the
point of view. However, in this paper we delimit the discussion course. Students may also attend the closed labs, organized several
mainly to the students’ point of view with some conclusions times per week, where they can ask for help from a teaching
reaching the teacher and the organization. In the following assistant (typically 2nd-4th year students) if they have difficulties
example the instructional process is illustrated from the student’s with the programming exercises. The course has also a newsgroup
point of view. In addition, the focus is still narrowed to one where students can ask course related questions. The course
course. teacher, the teaching assistants and the other students may
According to Figure 1, the instructional process starts off from the contribute to the discussion.
Goals. From the student’s point of view the goals of the process Students may use textbooks, educational material provided by the
may origin from several sources like the study guide, the teacher, teacher2, course slides, course newsgroup, and Internet (like
and one’s own interest to learn the subject. At the Planning phase extensive www –pages of the course) as learning resources. The
the student makes plans how to achieve the earlier set goals. In lecturer is also available during his/hers reception hour. There are
practice this might mean, for example, making the time schedule guidelines concerning the students collaboration stating that
to deal with several courses in one semester. discussing with each other about the code is ok but everybody has
In the Learning phase the focus is on acting out the plans: studying to write his/hers own program. The control actions are taken to
to obtain the goals. The following Learning outcomes -phase keep plagiarism under control.
highlights the end product of the previous phase. A concrete
learning outcome could, for example, be a newly mastered ability
to solve small problems with computer programming.
Finally, at the end of the process one can compare the earlier set
goals and the received learning outcomes and contemplate to
which degree the goals were attained. This is the final, summative
feedback of the process. The feedback firstly helps to interpret the
learning outcomes and secondly it may affect the Goals, the
Planning, and the Teaching/learning phases the next time the
student enrols a course. Therefore, the feedback acts as a starting
point and a catalyst for change within the instructional process. 2
Short Finnish extended handout about the course content written
by the teacher.

81
Table 1 The content of the lectures and programming the first two parts of the research project are reported in Kinnunen
exercises in 2007. and Malmi (2006). This paper, on the other hand, focuses on the
third part of the project.
Topic of the lectures and programming exercises
The goal of the third part of the research project was to find out
1. week Variables, assignments, output on screen, expressions, if- the distribution of the earlier found dropout reasons. In addition,
statement, Scanner class the programming related difficulties were investigated in a more
2. week Class, object detailed manner. At this time also students that passed the CS1
course were included into the target group. This decision was
3. week More about objects, programming style, loops based on the desire to get a more wholesome picture of what
4. week Objects as instance variables, overloading, characters, students find difficult at the course and to highlight the difference
strings and arrays, searching data from an array in programming related difficulties that make some students to
drop out.
5. week More about arrays, ArrayList
Table 2 The Procedure
6. week Sorting an array, class variables and methods, recursion,
formatted output of decimal numbers, linked list
2005 2006/2007
7. week Inheritance, abstract classes, interfaces Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative
8. week Exceptions, reading input, I/O with files Questionnaire 1 for Dropout studentsÕ Questionnaire 2 for
dropout students: interviews: passed and dropout
9. week Handling binary files, designing classes Feedback of CS1 Dropout reasons students:
course Experienced Perceived
Dropout reason difficulties programming related
difficulties among CS1
5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND students
The distribution of
PROCEDURE dropout reasons
The research questions are as follows:
1. What are the most common reasons that make the students to We created two questionnaires; one was aimed at the students that
drop out of the CS1 course? passed the programming exercises and the other one was aimed at
the students that failed to get a grade from the exercises. Based on
2. Which content related issues students find difficult? previous experience the written examination has not been the
critical issue when it comes to passing the course. It is the
2.1. Which course content related issues dropout students
programming exercises that students have difficulties with. The
find difficult?
students that get a grade from the programming exercises usually
2.2. Which course content related issues students that pass have gained such knowledge and skills that they have little
the course find difficult? difficulties with the exam. Therefore, in this study the students
that got a grade from the exercises are treated as if they would
2.3. Are there significant differences in programming have already passed the whole course.
related issues that dropout student and passed students
find difficult? The first parts of the questionnaires were identical with each
others containing some background questions, and questions
3. What kind of strategies to get over with difficult issues concerning students’ plans, study motivation and studying skills.
students found helpful? The next part contained questions that mapped how difficult it was
for the students to learn some programming related skills and
5.1 Procedure knowledge. The third part of the questionnaire was introduced
This study is a part of a larger research project that uses a mixed
only to the students that dropped out the course. This part mapped
method research approach [20] to highlight the difficulties
the dropout reasons. Based on the earlier performed qualitative
students face at the CS1 course. The main focus is on students that
survey the possible dropout reasons were listed and respondents
face such barriers that they end up dropping out of the course.
were asked to estimate how much each of the listed reasons
The research project has had three parts (Table 2) The first part affected their dropout decision. In addition, open-ended questions
took place in 2005 and included a quantitative survey on the were added in case the respondent did not find suitable reasons in
dropout students’ experiences on the CS1 course. On one hand, the list. The questionnaire that was sent for dropout students is
the survey gathered feedback on the course and on the other hand attached (see Appendix 1).
it aimed at mapping the possible dropout reasons. The second part
In spring 2006, 564 students started the CS1 course3. 26.1%
included a qualitative interview study, which focused on gathering
(n=147) of them did not get a grade from the exercises and thus
profound information on the characteristics of dropout reasons.
dropped out of the course4. At the end of the course an email with
The results of the first part served as a starting point for planning
the interview script. In a similar way, the results of the second part
were the base of the questionnaire that was sent out at the third 3
Only a student that submits at least something at the course is
part of the research project in 2006 and 2007. For example, the regarded as one that has started the course. The mere enrolment
previously found dropout reasons were reformulated into without any submissions is not counted.
questions where the respondents were able to estimate how much 4
the reason in hand affected their dropout decision. The results of Students are not forced to dropout the course due to the poor
performance. However, the most of the students that have

82
a kind request and a link to the questionnaires was sent to both order to graduate in planned time (5 years for a MSc degree).
passed and dropout students. Three reminders were sent to those However, the internal reports5 of the university disclose that only
that did not respond. 47.5% (n=198) of the passed students very few students actually are able to keep up with the model
answered the questionnaire. At the same time, 25.9% (n=38) of timetable.6 The data in our study revealed that students that
the dropout students answered the questionnaire. dropped out of the course planned in average to study less study
points than students that passed the course. (Table 4)
The next year 674 students started the course and 26.4% (n=178)
of them dropped out during the programming exercises. This year Table 4. The mean of planned and received study points.
some alterations were made to the timetable when the
questionnaires were sent. The questionnaire for dropout students Dropouts Passed
was sent for the first time already in the middle of the course to Planned study points 26,6 28,9
catch those students that we knew - based on their poor Received study points 18,2 25,1
performance - to have no hope to pass the course any more. This One sample t-test revealed that the difference between the mean
alteration concerning the questionnaire timetable was made to value of the planned and received study points among the dropout
enhance the dropout students’ response rate. The other students was statistically significant (p<0.001) even though the
questionnaire for the students that had passed the exercises was effect of the target course on study points was eliminated.
sent at the end of the course as in the previous year. In 2007, However, the same was true for the passed students’ planned and
52.6% (n=261) of the passed students and 45.5% (n=81) of received study points, as well.
dropouts answered the questionnaire. In summary, we got 459
answers from the students that had passed the programming The students that passed the course reported that their general
exercises and 119 answers from the students that had dropped out. study motivation was pretty good. At the scale from 0 (very low
motivation) to 3 (very good motivation) their mean value was 1.8,
5.2 Subjects whereas the dropout students’ mean value was 1.5. The difference
Respondents that answered the questionnaire for passed students between the study motivations was statistically significant
represented 19 different degree programs. Correspondingly (unpaired t-test, p<0.05).
students that answered the dropout students’ questionnaire
The respondents were asked to evaluate on how certain they were
represented 15 different degree programs. In both cases electrical
about their choice of study field and how well they enjoyed being
engineering, machine engineering, and civil engineering were the
at this particular university. 63.3% (n=288) of the passed students
largest degree programs. This distribution is well in line with the
reported that they were certain about their choice of study field.
all students’ degree programs at the target course.
Correspondingly, 59.8% (n=70) of the dropout students were
The respondents’ gender distribution reflected somewhat well the certain about their choice of study field. The difference between
overall gender distribution of the CS1 course. The female the passed and the dropout students’ evaluations of certainty were
respondents were slightly over represented (Table 3) not statistically significant.
Table 3 Respondents’ gender distribution. 63.9% (n=221) of the passed students and 63.4% (n=52) of the
dropout students reported in an open question that they enjoyed
2006 Questionnnaire for
All Students passed dropouts and felt at home at this university. There was a slightly greater
n % n % n % amount of students that did not feel at home among the dropout
Male 468 83.1 148 72.1 32 84.2
Female 95 19.9 49 24.9 6 15.8
students than the passed students but the difference was not
563 197 38 statistically significant. There was a very weak linear correlation
between certainty of choice of study field and general study
2007 Questionnnaire for motivation (-0.34, p<0.01) and between certainty of choice of
All Students passed dropouts
n % n % n % study field and feeling at home at this university (-0.36, p<0.01).
Male 533 80.5 193 73.9 60 75.9 Not surprisingly, the students that were sure about their choice of
Female 129 19.5 68 26.1 19 24.1
622 261 79
study field tended to report also better general study motivation. In
addition, there was a connection between the students’ thriving at
In 2006, 86.5 % of the respondents were the first or the second this university and the certainty of the choice of study field.
year students. In 2007, 33.6% of the respondents were the second The respondents were asked to estimate their own study skills by
year students and 37.5% were the fourth year students. 20% were asking whether they think they usually start solving the exercises
studying the fifth or more years at the university. well in time and whether they are able to estimate how much
In 2006, the dropout students had got at least some points in working time courses usually take. The majority of the passed
average from 33.4% of the exercise rounds. In 2007, the (53.1%, n=243) and the dropout students (53.0%, n=62) admitted
corresponding percent was 45.5% that they tend to start solving the exercises too late. On the other
hand, 61.1% (n=280) of the passed students and 57.8% (n=67) of
6. RESULTS the dropout students reported that they were good at estimating
The model timetable for studies suggests that students should
study approximately 30 study points per spring/fall semester in
5
The report is in Finnish
http://www.dipoli.tkk.fi/ok/p/opintojenseuranta/
inadecuate points from more than two exercise rounds voluntary documents/rekisteriaineistoraportti_2006-2007.PDF
6
drop out the course since they do not have any change to pass the One obvious reason is that the model timetable is overloaded
course anymore. requiring an average 48,5 study hours per week.

83
how much time courses usually take. The difference between the Table 6 Strategies to get over difficult issues
dropout students’ and the passed students was not statistically Pass Dropout
significant. n % n % p
Ask for help Teaching assistants 62 27 6 14
Difficulty of programming related issues & strategies to cope with Friends 45 20 10 23
total 107 47 16 36 <.001
them
Study & think Educational material provided by the teacher 42 18 6 14
The respondents estimated the difficulty of the programming Internet 23 10 2 5
related issues by rating each listed item in a four-step fully Lectures and slides 21 9 6 14
Literature 11 5 1 2
anchored rating scale. In addition, the respondents were able to Code examples found from different sources 8 3 1 2
choose the option “I do not know”. In that case the response was Course news group 7 3 1 2
Studying, seeking answers (general) 24 10 12 27
regarded as a missing value in the analysis. The results are shown Thinking, attempt to understand 14 6 0 0
in Table 5. The higher the mean value is, the more difficult the total 150 66 29 66

issue in hand was perceived by the respondents. The dropout Practice Doing exercises, practising 31 14 5 11
students experienced all aspects more difficult than the students Trial and error 7 3 3 7
total 38 17 8 18
who passed the exercises. The Mann-Whitney U –test indicated
that the differences were statistically significant in all but one case Persistence Persistence & perseverance 38 17 3 7
Compulsory course 5 2 1 2
(using text editor). total 43 19 4 9

Table 5 Respondents estimation on how difficult programming Manage time Allocating more time for studying 18 8 4 9
related issues were. Taking pause
total
1
19
0
8
0
4
0
9
Passed Dropouts p
Interest & Interest towards programming 4 2 0 0
Using text editor 1.4 1.6 experience Previous programming experience 5 2 0 0
Mathematics that is needed to solve the problems 1.4 1.7 <0.001 total 9 4 0 0
Testing your own code 1.6 2.1 <0.001
Discovering a principle solution to the problem 1.9 2.2 <0.05 Nothing Nothing 2 1 9 20
Adopting the exactness needed in writing program 1.9 2.4 <0.001
Understanding how given code is executed 2 2.6 <0.001
Adopting the programming style required at the course 1.8 2.6 <0.001
Identifying structures in a given code 1.9 2.7 <0.001 Asking for help either from the teaching assistant or a friend was a
Discovering algorithm that executes the principle solution 2.3 2.8 <0.001 much-used strategy among all students.
Finding compile time errors 2.5 2.9 <0.001
Transferring own thinking into programming language 2.4 3.1 <0.001 “... My friends were a great help. I did not think that the
Designing parts of your own code 2.4 3.1 <0.001
Designing the functioning of your own code 2.3 3.3 <0.001
lectures helped me a lot. Together we tried to understand
Finding run time errors 2.6 3.3 <0.001 things and we helped each other. If someone understood
something, he helped then others.”7
Conditional statements (like if-else) 1.3 1.7 <0.001
Loops (like while) 1.7 2.3 <0.001 The next category is studying hard using different information
Methods 1.8 2.5 <0.001
Idea of OO 2.3 2.6 <0.05
sources (like course material, internet, and course newsgroup) and
Table 2 2.9 <0.001 thinking about the difficult issue with the intention of really
Exceptions 2.2 3.2 <0.001 understanding. Many respondents stressed that they read the
Inheritance and abstract class 2.5 3.3 <0.001 material over and over again until they understood. The following
Handling files 2.4 3.3 <0.001
respondent uses his/her old programming exercise as a learning
material.

The respondents were asked to elaborate in an open-ended “… sometimes I went through my programming exercises
question what helped them to get over the previously listed after I had got maximum points from them. I thought it over
difficult issues. 62.8% (n=243) of the students that got a grade what I had actually done, what happens where and why.”
from the exercises answered this question, whereas the response The third strategy is practicing programming by doing exercises.
rate of the dropout students was 37.0% (n=44). We used a data
driven approach to analyse the open question answers. The “The greater number I did the programming exercises, the
procedure was close to what Ryan and Bernard call free list [17]. easier the problems I faced at the beginning of the course
The written answers were categorized into 19 categories that seemed to become. Difficulties I had at the last part of the
emerged from the data. The procedure started by reading the course did not seem to be insuperable anymore like the
answers through several times. The text quotes that expressed a difficulties I faced at the middle of the course. I started to
strategy to get over difficult issues were placed into preliminary internalise entities and discern Java’s structure. The amount
piles from which the categories emerged, as the process was of practice was essential for getting over difficulties.”
iterated a couple of times. Next, we looked for the common factors
“Great programming exercises! For example, a constructor-
among the categories and ended up with six strategies (or meta
method –thing got cleared when I did the program that mixed
categories) that the students used to get over a difficult issue (see
drinks. The instructions for the exercise clearly implied that
Table 6) The value n at the table refers to the frequency of how
you use a constructor to create an empty class and you use
often the strategy in hand was mentioned.
methods to fill it in with different drinks and to drink it.”

7
The quotes have been translated into English by the first author.

84
A subcategory of this third category is “getting over a difficult Table 7 Dropout reasons.
issue by doing exercises applying a trial and error approach”.
mean
The fourth category is persistence. The respondents reported that Doing exercises took too much time 3.4
Course required more time than other courses with the same extent 3.2
they had stamina and determination to work with the difficulties. Course workload is not in balance with the payback 2.9
They were self-disciplined and worked hard because they did not I did not know how to do programming exercises 2.8
want to quit or the course was compulsory and they did not want I had reserved too little time for the 5 ECTS credit course 2.6
to enrol the course once again. I did not understand the content that what was covered at the course 2.3
I did not get enough help 2.3
“Trying. I had taken a stand that I will do all the assignments. Low motivation in general 2.2
I forced myself to do them [exercises] and banged my head Programming does not interest me 2.2
I wanted to concentrate on other courses 2.2
against a brick wall and I managed to make the exercises.” Dropping out does not affect other courses 1.9
I had a lot of other courses at the same time 1.9
The fifth category deals with the time. Allocating more time for
Course personnel's actions 1.7
studying even at the expense of the other courses helped the Course arrangements 1.7
respondents to understand difficult issues. One respondent also Personal reasons 1.7
reported that taking a pause (like a good night sleep) was helpful Work related commitments took time from the course 1.6
in some cases. Hobby related commitments took time from the course 1.6
This course is obligatory for me 1.4
The last strategy deals with the personal interest in programming I am not going to stay at this university 1.3
and previous experience on programming. In addition, especially I had no intention to pass the course in the first place 1.2
I decided to start preparing for entrance exams 1.2
the dropout students reported that there was nothing that helped I got caught from plagiarism 1.2
them when they faced difficulties and therefore they dropped out.
The dropout students’ low response rate (37%) to this question can
also be interpreted as a statement. If you think there was nothing
In order to get a clearer picture of the dropout phenomenon we
that helped, you may leave the question unanswered.
decided to use factor analysis to reduce the variables. A
The results suggests that the students who passed the Generalized least squares factor analysis followed by Varimax
programming exercises mentioned asking for help, persistence, rotation reduced the 20 variables to five factors, which explained
and interest towards the subject as a viable strategy get over 46% of the total variance. The first factor explained 10.5 % of the
difficult issues more often than the dropout students. However, the variance, the second 10.1%, the third 9.3 %, the fourth 9.0%, and
differences between the frequencies of mentions are in most cases the fifth 7.1% of the variance. The chosen model fit the data well
not statistically significant or the significance was not calculated (Chi2(115)=165.62, p<0.001).
due to the low number of frequencies. The only exception is the The variables that loaded high on the first factor dealt with course
“Asking for help” -strategy, which the passed students mentioned personnel’s actions and students’ perception of not getting enough
more frequently to be helpful than the dropout students (Chi2 help. Therefore, the F1 was named as Course arrangements & not
(2)=3.0E2, p<0.001). Both the dropout and the passed students help. The second factor had high loadings from the variables that
mentioned in average 1.6 viable strategies to get over a difficult considered difficulties to understand the course content. Therefore
issue at the course. the second factor was named as Difficulties to understand course
Dropout reasons topics. The third factor discusses the Time management issues and
The students that dropped out of the course were given a list of the students’ preferences to use time. The fourth factor had high
possible dropout reasons and they were asked to rate how much loadings from variables like “The course is voluntary for me”, and
each reason affected their dropout decision. The four-step rating “Dropping out the course does not affect other courses”. Thus the
scale was fully anchored. In addition, the respondents were able to factor was named as Dropping out does not have consequences.
choose the option “I do not know”. In those cases the response The fifth factor was named as Prefers other courses. All factors
was recoded so that it equalized the neutral response. In Table 7 and variables with the loadings are in Table 8.
the low values represent low significance to the dropout decision
(1=no affect at all) whereas high values represent critical reasons
for the dropout decision (4=critical affect). The respondents rated
the course workload related issues as the ones that affected their
dropout decision the most. On the other hand, getting caught from
plagiarism and plans to continue studies at a different university
played a minor role in dropout decisions in general.
The interviews during the previous parts of the research project [8]
revealed that students tend to have several concurrent dropout
reasons. This quantitative survey corroborates that argument. In
average, the respondents reported 10 reasons that had contributed
to their dropout decision in some level. Moreover, the respondents
reported in average four dropout reasons that affected their
decision critically.

85
Table 8. Factor analysis of dropout reasons. listed in our questionnaire were, of course, modified according to
the CS1 course at our university. The timetable for sending out the
F1: Course arrangements & not help questionnaires was planned so that it would reach as many of the
ƒ The course personnel’s actions (.86) dropout students as possible.
ƒ Did not get enough help (.76) The concept inference transferability can be referred to as an
ƒ Course arrangements (.74) umbrella term that refers to external validity when discussing
quantitative research. The core of this term is to discuss whether
F2: Difficulties to understand course topics
the results can be extrapolated beyond the context where the study
ƒ Did not understand subjects that were covered at the course (.99) was originally made. We have tackled the inference transferability
ƒ Did not know how to do programming exercises (.74) by providing a rigorous explanation of the procedure and the
ƒ Programming is uninteresting (.41) questionnaire. We recognize that there are many differences in
studying cultures in different universities. However, we believe
F3: Time management and preferences
that at least some of the results such as time management and
ƒ Programming exercises took too much time (.71) personal preferences are universal challenges that students face.
ƒ The course required more time than anticipated (.64) Any further assumption of inference transferability is left to the
ƒ I had reserved too little time for the course (.40) reader to judge. The reader needs to consider whether the course,
ƒ Personal/family reasons (-.36) the students and the cultural aspects that played a part in this study
are similar enough to his/hers environment in order to generalize
ƒ Work related commitments (.30)
the results.
ƒ Course workload is not in balance with the payback (.34)
ƒ Hobby related commitments (.22)
Finally, we want to stress that the aim of this study was to explore
the difficulties and dropout reasons in a more detailed manner so
F4: Dropping out does not have consequences that we would be more educated when planning interventions.
ƒ The course is voluntary for me (.74) Taking the complex nature of the dropout phenomenon we do not
ƒ Dropping out the course does not affect other courses (.63) even think it would be possible to generate comprehensive laws
that would fully explain and predict the dropout phenomenon.
ƒ There was no intention to pass the course in the first place (.60)
ƒ I am not going to continue studies at TKK (.50) 8. DISCUSSION
ƒ I decided to use the time for preparing for entrance exams to The first research question concerned the common dropout
continue studying elsewhere (.42) reasons. Firstly, we approached this question by observing the
F5: Prefers other courses respondents’ profiles (study motivation, comfort level, planned
study points). The study revealed that there were no big
ƒ I had a lot of other courses at the same time (1.0)
differences between the passed and the dropout students’ profiles.
ƒ I wanted to concentrate on other course (.57) The dropout students tended to plan and get less study points
during the spring term and they had a lower general study
7. QUALITY DISCUSSION motivation than the students that passed the course. The certainty
This study is a part of a larger research project that uses a mixed- of the study choice correlated with the study motivation and how
methods approach. The use of both quantitative and qualitative well the students felt at home at this university.
research methods in our larger research project sets some
Secondly, we listed the dropout reasons. The results highlight that
requirements to our quality discussion. Concepts that are borrowed
typically several issues affect the dropout decision. Some of them
straight from quality discussions of either quantitative or
deal with some parts of the instructional process at the course
qualitative methods are not able to tackle the features of both
level. At the same time, there are other issues that affect the
approaches.
process as a whole. (See Figure 2)
Therefore, even though this particular part of the project is mainly Other studies
quantitative, we have decided to use the terms suggested by
Work commitments
Teddlie and Tashakkori [20], namely inference quality and Subject does not interest
inference transferability to be able to remain coherent throughout
Goals Leisure activities
the whole research project. Low study motivation
Inference quality refers to the degree to which a researcher Planning
believes that his/hers conclusions describe accurately what allocated too litle time
actually happened in the study. The design quality is one of the
associated terms with inference quality. In this study we have Learning
taken a special care to plan both the overall research plan as well difficulties understanding course topics
as the individual research instruments so that they form a coherent
entity. The literature and the previous findings were used when we Learning outcomes
planned our research instruments. The questionnaire that was used Payback not in balance

was generated based on two previous parts of this research project.


Especially, the interviews at the second part of the research project Feedback
provided important insights that served as a base for many of the
questions at the questionnaire that we used. The content of the Payback not in balance
Course as a part of study plan
questionnaire was also in line with the literature review that
considered the difficult topics in CS1. However, the topics that we Figure 2. Dropout reasons in the process model.

86
The dropout reasons like not allocating enough time for the course might be that perceived mathematical difficulties are in fact
can be placed into the Planning phase of the process. Difficulties related to the difficulty to transfer the own thinking into
to understand the course content and the consequence, difficulties programming language.
with knowing how to do the programming exercises relate to the
Learning phase. Not getting enough help is also related to this The biggest differences concerning the difficult topics between the
phase. dropout students and the passed students were found on designing
structure of own code, exception handling, handling files, arrays,
The uneven balance between the workload and the payback of the identifying structures in a given code, adopting the programming
course relate to the Outcome phase of the instructional process. style required at the course, and transferring one’s own thinking
The achieved skills and credit points are not perceived equal with into programming language. The list is in line with the literature
the workload. In the Figure 2 the uneven balance of payback is review on the difficult topics in CS1.
placed also outside the process as a general factor, because it
could be interpreted also as a problem of the course sizing. Either Finally, the last research question concerned the strategies the
the course is indeed taking more time than it should compared students used and found helpful when they faced a difficult topic.
with the credit points or the other courses are less strenuous than There are two particularly interesting results. Firstly, the dropout
the extent suggests8. Other external aspects that may contribute to students found asking for help less vital strategy than the passed
the dropout decision are the place of the CS1 course’s in a model students. This, combined with the found dropout reason that is
study timetable and its significance to other courses. Firstly, the related to the course arrangement (Factor 1) clearly indicates that
students are supposed to take the CS1 course in their first or there are some course arrangement related problems that should be
second study year when they have a lot of other large introductory considered seriously. There are at least two possibilities that might
courses. Secondly, CS1 is often not a prerequisite course for any result this outcome. Even though our CS1 course has many closed
other course that CS minors take. Therefore, when the student’s labs per week, computer rooms tend to be very congested,
time wears thin, CS1 is one of the first courses to go since it does especially the ones close to the dead lines. Therefore it takes time,
not affect the other courses or future plans. sometimes 30 minutes or even longer, to get the teaching
assistant’s attention. Naturally, this might be frustrating for the
On the top right corner in the Figure 2 there are activities that take student who is stuck on a difficult spot and does not know how to
student’s time. Whether the first place is given to the CS1 course proceed.
or the other activities and courses is a matter of preferences. The
issues on the top left corner, on the other hand, deal with the There are several possibilities to tackle this problem. A simple
motivational issues and affect the instructional process as a whole. one is to add more teaching assistants and closed lab sessions, but
in the target institution this is limited both by the available
The second research question considered, which course content financial and personnel resources. There are not enough faculty
related issues the students find difficult. The dropout students members or post graduates that could be recruited for this task. So
found all course topics more difficult to learn than students who typically the teaching assistants are older students (usually 2nd-4th
passed the course. This result as such is not a surprise. One can year students) who have very little or no pedagogical training.
assume that students that have difficulties with the course topics Thus, they might be proficient in the subject matter but do not
are more prone to drop out. However, we have not yet reached the possess the pedagogical abilities to enhance the students’ learning.
point where we could explain, why these topics are more difficult Answers to open ended questions support both of these scenarios.
to some students than others. Obviously this may be related to
general success in studies. The difference between the dropout Another solution is to advice students to start working with the
students planned and received study points suggests that they assignments early (which has been done), but as time management
struggle with their other studies too. Investigating this further, was recognized as one source of problems, this message clearly
however, remains to be carried out in the future. has not had enough effect. A third, more realistic approach could
be to organize better support from peer students. From the results
One interesting point, however, is that the dropout students rated we saw that passed students got more help from their peers. Many
even the mathematics9 that is needed to solve the programming dropouts in such a large course with hundreds of students may
exercises more difficult than the passed students. All students who suffer from not having a peer group to work with. Therefore the
enter the university must have taken long courses in mathematics course could apply more pair and team assignments, to aid
in high school, based on our university entrance requirements. building social support network for most students. The peers also
Moreover, as in Finland the variation in the quality of high school would act as a valuable source of feedback that aids students when
education is not large, we conclude that there is no obvious reason they set up their personal goals on the course, plan their working
to this phenomenon that would be related to students’ schedule and methods, and, of course, when they actually study
mathematical skills. We therefore assume that this observation the topic.
could be related to comfort level: when students are already
struggling with programming concepts, they may feel the Other interesting result was that the own interest towards
requested mathematics as an extra burden. The other explanation programming was mentioned so rarely. The bottom line here is
that the interest towards the subject matter would help the students
to keep up motivation and be more persistent. The question arises,
8
In the spring 2008, the students’ use of time has been recorded how could we enhance the students’ interest towards
and the results suggest that the CS1 course is not taking too much programming? For the CS minors the CS1 course is just one basic
time compared to the credit points. course among the other courses. Therefore, it is important to
9 explicitly highlight to the students how the CS1 course fits their
The mathematics that is required at the programming exercises is whole study program: to state the course goals clearly and on a
typically not very demanding. Basically knowledge of high school concrete level, and to show examples of what kind of problems
mathematics is enough to manage the exercises.

87
that relate their study field they can solve using programming. How the teachers at the course level at the planning phase could
This, on the other hand, has a connection to the programming help students to make more realistic timetables:
language used on the course. A student who aims to study only
one or two courses in programming would probably feel more ƒ State clearly and on a concrete level how much time
comfortable with a simpler language like Python than Java. Java is your course is likely to take.
a complex language with a high learning curve, and it is somewhat How the teachers at the course level at the Teaching/learning
difficult to present example solutions to simple technical or phase could enhance the course arrangements (like adding the
numerical problems without discussing many concepts that are sources for help):
related to object orientation, which in this context are not
necessary for the algorithmic solutions to these problems. ƒ Engage course personnel that are qualified both in
Therefore simpler language might enable the students to see the content wise and pedagogically to ensure quality
benefits of programming earlier and thus increase the motivation. teaching.
Based on the literature (for example, [15, 19, 14, 1]), encouraging ƒ Provide several information sources. Encourage/teach
examples from other Finnish universities, the feedback from the students to seek help from different sources.
other departments’ teachers in addition to the teachers’ knowledge
on for what the minors need the programming for we have made ƒ Promote students’ study skills, for example, by helping
plans to change the language of CS minors to Python for the next them to set attainable goals and making realistic study
academic year. plans.
Finally, it pays off to bring forward that the students can use the How the teacher at the course level at the Teaching/learning phase
programming knowledge also indirectly during their career. For could increase the quantity and quality of the feedback and the
example, one might need to co-operate with software engineers utilization of it:
during their career, when one is working in a customer role.
ƒ Support building a network of peers for all to enable
9. CONCLUSION getting and giving more feedback to each other.
We have discussed the difficulties and the dropout reasons from ƒ Provide easy access channels for students to give instant
the student’s point of view. However, if we want to use the results feedback to the course personnel during the course.
as a base for interventions we need to discuss how the teachers Encourage feedback.
and the institutions can use this knowledge. The key concept here
is the feedback. When we first introduced the general system ƒ Make strategies how to utilize the feedback you get
theory (GST) we stated that the availability and the use of during the course. Is there something you can do already
feedback are prerequisites for the self-reproduction of the system. during this course? For example, the loose timetable
The high dropout rate indicated that our system (CS1 course and enables using more time than originally planned for
study programs) has a problem. This study provides feedback that some topics if students have difficulties.
we can use. The manifold nature of the difficulties and requirements the
How the university at the Goal and Planning phase could tackle students face during their studies calls for interventions both on a
the time management challenges the students face: course level as well as on an institution level. The core of the
teacher’s profession is to help the students’ studying process.
ƒ Professors and planning officers need to consider the Therefore, focusing only on one type of difficulties like the
study load of the model study plan. content related issues is not going to solve the problem. The more
ƒ Could CS1 be in another place in the model study plan fertile approach is to recognize the reality where the students
so that the students would not need to study several study, analyse it, and then in collaboration with the planning
laborious basic courses at the same time. officers, the study advisors, the other teachers, and the head of the
department plan and implement interventions.
How the university at the Teaching and Learning phase could
tackle the time management difficulties as a focal part of the study 10. REFERENCES
skills: [1] K. Agarwal, K. and A. Agarwal, Python for CS1, CS2 and
beyond, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20
ƒ Provide enough student advisers and tutors who can (2005), pp. 262-270.
support/enhance the students’ study skills.
[2] R. Bennett, Determinants of undergraduate student drop out
How the teachers at the course level at the Goals phase could rates in a university businss studies department, Journal of
enhance the students’ interest towards the course and persistence Further and Higher Education, 27 (2003), pp. 123-141.
to study: [3] L. V. Bertalanffy, The History and Status of General Systems
ƒ Motivate the students by showing them that Theory, The Academy of Management Journal, 15 (1972),
programming is a relevant skill for them. State the pp. 407-426.
course coals explicitly and on a concrete level. Come [4] R. Boyle, J. Carter and M. Clark, What Makes Them
back to the goals during the course. Succeed? Entry, progression and graduation in Computer
Science, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26 (2002),
ƒ View the course content from the students’ point of pp. 3-18.
view. For example, is the language that you use the best
[5] D. Chen and W. Stroup, General System Theory: Toward a
for your students’ needs?
Conceptual Framework for Science and Technology

88
Education for All, Journal of Science Education and [23] S. Winn, Student motivation: a socio-economic perspective,
Technology, 2 (1993), pp. 447-459. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2002), pp. 445-457.
[6] N. Dale, B. , Most difficult topics in CS1: results of an online [24] C. P. M. Xenos and P. Pintelas, A survey on student dropout
survey of educators, SIGCSE Bull., 38 (2006), pp. 49-53. rates and dropout causes concerning the students in the
[7] K. Goldman, P. Gross, C. Heeren, G. Herman, L. course of informatics of the hellenic open university,
Kaczmarczyk, M. Loui, C. and C. Zilles, Identifying Computers & Education, 39 (2002), pp. 361–194.
important and difficult concepts in introductory computing [25] T. Yuen, Novices' knowledge construction of difficult
courses using a delphi process: selective compression of concepts in CS1, SIGCSE Bull., 39 (2007), pp. 49-53.
unicode arrays in java, Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE
technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM,
Portland, OR, USA, 2008. Appendix A The questionnaire
[8] P. Kinnunen and L. Malmi, Why students drop out CS1
course?, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Part I
Computing education research, ACM, Canterbury, United 1. Student ID
Kingdom, 2006.
2. Gender
[9] N. Luhmann, Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft,
Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 2002. 3. Have you planned to take advanced programming courses?
[10] N. Luhmann, Insistence on Systems Theory: Perspectives 4. Was object-oriented programming familiar to you before
from Germany – An Essay, Social Forces 61 (1993/2001), pp. enrolling to the course?
987-998. 5. How was your general study motivation at this spring?
[11] V. Meisalo, Futurology and education of physics and (very low/ some motivational problems/ neutral (not
chemistry teachers, in E. Thulstrup, ed., Proceedings of the particularly low or high)/ very good)
Nordic Conference on Science and technology Education: 6. How many study point you planned in January to get this
The Challenge of the Future, Royal Danish School of spring?
Educational Studies, Copenhagen, 1985, pp. 251-260.
7. How many study point you got this spring?
[12] V. Meisalo, E. Sutinen and J. Tarhio, Modernit
8. Evaluate the following statements
oppimisympäristöt, RT-Print Oy, Pieksämäki, 2003.
[13] I. Milne and G. Rowe, Difficulties in Learning and Teaching a. I usually start doing exercises/preparing for an
Programming\&mdash;Views of Students and Tutors, exam well in time. (true/ not true)
Education and Information Technologies, 7 (2002), pp. 55- b. I am good at estimating how much time a course
66. takes. (true/ not true)
[14] H. Patterson-McNeill, Experience: from C++ to Python in 3 9. Which of the following describes you the best
easy steps, J. Comput. Small Coll., 22 (2006), pp. 92-96. a. I am studying right what I want to.
[15] A. Radenski, "Python first": a lab-based digital introduction b. I am not quite sure is this what I want to study.
to computer science, SIGCSE Bull., 38 (2006), pp. 197-201.
c. I would like to study something else but I do not
[16] A. Robins, J. Rountree and N. Rountree, Learning and
know what it could be/I have not managed to get
Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion, Computer
the student place yet.
Science Education, 13 (2003), pp. 137-172.
[17] G. Ryan and R. Bernard Data Management and Analysis d. Other
Methods, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds., Collecting and 10. Elaborate if you chose other (open)
Interpretting Qualitative Materials, SAGE Publication, 11. How do you enjoy studying at this university? Elaborate
London, 2003. why you enjoy/do not enjoy it. (open)
[18] C. Schulte and J. Bennedsen, What do teachers teach in
introductory programming?, Proceedings of the 2006
international workshop on Computing education research, Part II
ACM, Canterbury, United Kingdom, 2006. 12. Please rate how difficult it was to (it was not at all
[19] C. Shannon, Another breadth-first approach to CS I using difficult/ it was difficult at first but got easier soon/ it was
python, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical difficult for a long time but become easier eventually/ it
symposium on Computer science education, ACM, Reno, was difficult till the end of the course/I do not know)
Navada, USA, 2003. ƒ Use text editor
[20] A. Tashakkori and C. Teddle, Handbook of Mixed Methods in ƒ Discover a principle solution to the problem
Social & Behavioral Research, SAGE Publications, London, ƒ Discover an algorithm that executes the
2003. principle solution
[21] V. Tinto, Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical
ƒ Transfer own thinking into programming
Synthesis of Recent Research, Review of Educational
language
Research 45 (1975), pp. 89-125.
ƒ Identify structures in a given code
[22] P. R. Ventura, Identifying Predictors of Success for an
Object-First CS1, Computer Science Education, 15 (2005), ƒ Understand how given code is executed
pp. 223-243. ƒ Design the parts in your own code

89
ƒ Design the functioning of your own code 17. Please rate how crucial the following time managing
ƒ Find compile time errors related reasons were to your drop out decision. (no affect
at all/ minor affect/ some affect/ critical affect/ I do not
ƒ Find runtime errors know)
ƒ Test your own code ƒ It took too much time to do programming
ƒ Adopt the exactness needed in writing exercises.
program ƒ I had reserved too little time for the 5 ECTS
ƒ Adopt the programming style required at the credit course.
course ƒ The course took more time than anticipated
ƒ Mathematics that is needed to solve the (more time than other courses with the same
problems extent)
ƒ Other ƒ I had a lot of courses at spring
13. Please rate how difficult the following course content ƒ I wanted to concentrate on other courses.
related issues were (it was easy to understand right from ƒ I decided to use my time to read on an
the beginning/ it was difficult to understand at first but I entrance exam.
understood it soon/ it was difficult to understand for a long
time but I understood it eventually/ I did not understand it ƒ Work commitments prevented me using
during the course/ I do not remember or I do not know enough time for the course
what the content in question means) ƒ Hobby commitments prevented me using
ƒ Conditional statements (like if-else) enough time for the course
ƒ Loops (like while) 18. Please rate how crucial the following reasons were to your
drop out decision (no affect at all/ minor affect/ some
ƒ Idea of OO affect/ critical affect/ I do not know)
ƒ Methods ƒ I did not understand the course content.
ƒ Tables ƒ I did not know how to do the programming
ƒ Inheritance and abstract classes exercises.
ƒ Exceptions ƒ I did not get enough help
ƒ Handling files ƒ The course personnel’s actions (elaborate
ƒ Other later, question 19)
14. Elaborate if you chose other. (open) ƒ The course arrangement (elaborate later,
question 19)
15. What got you through the previously listed difficult issues?
(open) ƒ I got caught from plagiarism
Part III ƒ Personal/family related reasons
16. Please rate how crucial the following motivation and ƒ Other (elaborate later, question 19)
studying related reasons were to your dropout decision. (no 19. Please elaborate if course personnel actions/course
affect at all/ minor affect/ some affect/ critical affect/ I do arrangements played a part in your decision to drop out or
not know) if you chose the option Other. (open)
ƒ My general study motivation was low 20. If you chose more than one reason that contributed to your
ƒ Programming does not interest me dropout decision, please elaborate if those reasons were
connected to each other. (open)
ƒ The course workload is not in balance with the
payback 21. How was the course workload compared with the credit
points.
ƒ I had no intention to pass the course in the first
place. 22. Rate the difficulty of the course.
ƒ The course is obligatory for me. 23. Here you may elaborate if you have something you would
like to tell about the CS1 course or studying in general.
ƒ Dropping out does not affect other courses.
(open)
ƒ I am not going to stay at this university

90

S-ar putea să vă placă și