Exploring the Relationships between Self-Efficacy and Preference for Teacher Authority among Computer Science Majors

Abstract

Teacher-centered instruction has been widely adopted in college computer science classrooms and has some benefits in training computer science undergraduates. Meanwhile, student-centered contexts have been advocated to promote computer science education. How computer science learners respond to or prefer the two types of teacher authority, student-centered versus teacher-centered, has not yet been fully examined. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to probe how preference for teacher-centered learning or student-centered learning may affect self-efficacy in learning computer science among undergraduate computer science majors. The participants were 804 college computer science majors across Taiwan. They anonymously responded to the “Teacher Authority Scale” (with four subscales: “Preference for autonomy,” “Preference for participative management,” “Preference for dependency,” and “Preference for teacher control”) and the “Self-efficacy in Learning Computer Science Scale.” Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to delineate two sets of variables. The results indicate that preference for autonomy in computer science learning positively predicts selfefficacy in learning computer science with the strongest coefficient. Computer science learner preference for teacher control is also a positive predictor. However, preference for participation in managing the computer class and preference for depending on the teacher did not play a significant role in the students' self-efficacy in learning computer science.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldridge

J. M.

Fraser

B. J.

Taylor

P. C.

Chen

C. C.

(2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37–55.

Assor

Kaplan

Kanat-Maymon

Roth

(2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397–413. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Ben-Ari

(2004). Situated learning in computer science education. Computer Science Education, 14(2), 85–100. doi: 10.1080/08993400412331363823

Bendixen

L. D.

Rule

D. C.

(2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69–80.

Bergin

Reilly

Traynor

(2005). Examining the role of self-regulated learning on introductory programming performance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop, ICER 2005, 81–86. Retrieved from www.scopus.com

Biggers

Brauer

Yilmaz

(2008). Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors vs. CS Leavers. Paper presented at the 39th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2008, March 12, 2008-March 15, 2008, Portland, OR.

Brophy

(2008). Developing students' appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132–141.

Cornelius-White

(2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143.

10.

Dahlberg

Barnes

Buch

Bean

(2010). Applying service learning to computer science: Attracting and engaging under-represented students. Computer Science Education, 20(3), 169–180.

11.

Eckerdal

McCartney

Mostrom

J. E.

Ratcliffe

Sanders

Zander

(2006). Putting threshold concepts into context in computer science education. Paper presented at the ITiCSE06: 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, June 26, 2006-June 28, 2006, Bologna, Italy.

12.

Falkner

Palmer

(2009). Developing authentic problem solving skills in introductory computing classes. Paper presented at the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2009, March 4, 2009-March 7, 2009, Chattanooga, TN.

13.

Govender

(2009). The learning context: Influence on learning to program. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1218–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.005

14.

Kalles

(2008). Students working for students on programming courses. Computers & Education, 50(1), 91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.003

15.

Kirby

J. R.

Knapper

C. K.

Maki

S. A.

Egnatoff

W. J.

Van Melle

(2002). Computers and students' conceptions of learning: The transition from postsecondary education to the workplace. Educational Technology and Society, 5(2), 47–53.

16.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

17.

Lau

S. H.

Woods

P. C.

(2009). Understanding the behavior changes in belief and attitude among experienced and inexperienced learning object users. Computers and Education, 52(2), 333–342.

18.

Lauwers

Hamner

Nourbakhsh

(2010). A strategy for collaborative outreach: Lessons from the CSbots project. Paper presented at the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE'10, March 10, 2010-March 13, 2010, Milwaukee, WI.

19.

Law

K. M. Y.

Lee

V. C. S.

Y. T.

(2010). Learning motivation in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education, 55(1), 218–228. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.007

20.

Lee

M. H.

Chang

C. Y.

Tsai

C. C.

(2009). Exploring Taiwanese high school students' perceptions of and preferences for teacher authority in the earth science classroom with relation to their attitudes and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1811–1830.

21.

Lent

R. W.

Lopez

A. M.

Lopez

F. G.

Sheu

H. B.

(2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 52–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.002

22.

Lepper

M. R.

Corpus

J. H.

Iyengar

S. S.

(2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196.

23.

(2003). US and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 258–267. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.258

24.

Loyens

S. M. M.

Rikers

R. M. J. P.

Schmidt

H. G.

(2008). Relationships between students' conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies. Instructional Science, 36(5–6), 445–462.

25.

Lui

A. K.

Kwan

Poon

Cheung

Y. H. Y.

(2004). Saving weak programming students: Applying constructivism in a first programming course. SIGCSE Bulletin (Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education), 36(2), 72–76. doi: 10.1145/1024338.1024376

26.

Palaigeorgiou

G. E.

Siozos

P. D.

Konstantakis

N. I.

Tsoukalas

I. A.

(2005). A computer attitude scale for computer science freshmen and its educational implications. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5), 330–342.

27.

Parker

J. R.

Becker

(2003). Measuring effectiveness of constructivist and behaviourist assignments in CS102. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiSCE), 8, 40–44. Retrieved from www.scopus.com

28.

Pintrich

Smith

D. F.

Garcia

McKeachie

(1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Tech. Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.

29.

Scheja

(2006). Delayed understanding and staying in phase: Students' perceptions of their study situation. Higher Education, 52(3), 421–445.

30.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Sheard

Carbone

Hurst

A. J.

(2010). Student engagement in first year of an ICT degree: Staff and student perceptions. Computer Science Education, 20(1), 1–16.

32.

Shih

H. P.

(2006). Assessing the effects of self-efficacy and competence on individual satisfaction with computer use: An IT student perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1012–1026.

33.

Shuhidan

Hamilton

D'Souza

(2010). Instructor perspectives of multiple-choice questions in summative assessment for novice programmers. Computer Science Education, 20(3), 229–259.

34.

Stefanou

C. R.

Perencevich

K. C.

DiCintio

Turner

J. C.

(2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.

35.

Stevens

(1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd ed.). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Teller

P. J.

Gates

A. Q.

(2001). Using the Affinity Research Group model to involve undergraduate students in computer science research. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 549–555, 734, 743.

37.

Titterton

Lewis

C. M.

Clancy

M. J.

(2010). Experiences with lab-centric instruction. Computer Science Education, 20(2), 79–102.

38.

Ventura

P. R.

Jr. (2005). Identifying predictors of success for an objects-first CS1. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 223–243. doi: 10.1080/08993400500224419

39.

Weng

Cheong

(2010). The combined effect of self-efficacy and academic integration on higher education students studying IT majors in Taiwan. Education and Information Technologies, 15(4), 333–353.

40.

Windschitl

(2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.

41.

Yeh

Y. F.

Chen

M. C.

Hung

P. H.

Hwang

G. J.

(2010). Optimal self-explanation prompt design in dynamic multi-representational learning environments. Computers and Education, 54(4), 1089–1100.