During the past twenty years, many educators have tried to incorporate technological progress and processes into the nation's schools. As the demand for computer science courses continues its phenomenal growth into the 1980s, the problems of identifying components of computer science aptitude and predicting academic success in computer science courses become increasingly important. This article is based on the critical analysis of the most recent research studies concerning the identification of components of computer science aptitude responsible for success in computer science courses. The analysis attempts to answer three questions: 1. Do certain cognitive styles have a bearing on performance in computer science courses?; 2. Do certain psychological types have bearing on performance in computer science courses?, and 3. Do certain background variables (sex, age, academic classification, prior computer experience, academic program, and high school and college grade point averages) have relevance for performance in computer science courses? Finally, implications for matching curriculum and instructional strategies with students' different cognitive styles, personality types, and background information are presented and suggestions for advisement and placement of prospective computer science students, and recommendations for further research in this area are made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlspaughC. A., Identification of Some Components of Computer Programming Aptitude, Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 89–98, 1972.
2.
BuffR. J., “The Production of Academic Achievement in FORTRAN Language Programming Courses,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York, 1972.
3.
GrayJ. D., “Predictability of Success and Achievement Level of Data Processing Technology Students at the Two-year Post-secondary Level,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1974.
4.
TillmanM. R., An Examination of the Productive Validity of Several Potential Predictors of the Work Proficiency of Computer Programs, Computer Personnel, pp. 3–6, August 1979.
5.
HowellM. A.VincentJ. W., and GayR. A., Testing Aptitude for Computer Programming, Psychological Reports, 20, pp. 1251–1256, 1967.
6.
BarkinS., “An Invitation into Some Factors Affecting Information Systems Utilization,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1974.
7.
WitkinH., Role of the Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles in Academic Evolution: A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69: 3, pp. 197–211, 1977.
8.
HuysmansJ. H., The Effectiveness of Cognitive Style Constraint in Implanting Operation Research Proposal, Management Science, 17: 1, pp. B92–B104, September 1970.
9.
LuskJ. and Kernisk, The Effect of Cognitive Style and Report Format on Task Performance: The MIS Design Consequences, Management Science, 25: 8, pp. 787–798, August 1979.
10.
CheneyP., Cognitive Style and Student Programming Ability: An Investigation, AEDS Journal, pp. 285–290, Summer, 1980.
11.
MockJ.EstrinL., and VasarhelyiA., Learning Patterns, Decision Time, Decision Approach, Information Structure and Value of Information in the Information Structure Experiments: AIS working paper No. 70-8, Los Angeles, California, Accounting and Information Systems Research Program, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of California at Los Angeles, 1970–1971.
12.
MillerJ. G., Information Input Overload and Psychopathology, American Journal of Psychiatry, 116, pp. 131–148, June 1960.
13.
SchroderH.DriverM., and StreyferS., Human Information Processing, Holt and Company, New York, 1967.
14.
StevensD. J., Cognitive Processes and Success of Students in Instructional Computer Courses, AEDS Journal, Summer 1983.
15.
FennemaE. and BehrM. J., Individual Differences and the Learning of Mathematics, Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 324–355, 1980.
16.
KhouryH. A. and BehrM., Student Performance, Individual Differences, and Modes of Representation, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13: 1, pp. 3–15, 1982.
17.
HoffmanJ. L. and WatersK., Some Effects of Student Personality on Success with Computer-assisted Instruction, Educational Technology, pp. 21–21, March 1982.
18.
JungC. G., Psychological Types, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1923.
19.
BozemanW. C., An Investigation of Psychological Typology as an Intervening Variable in the Implementation of a Computer Managed Instructor System, Dissertation Abstracts International, 39-A, 3639-A, 2640-A, 1978.
20.
BozemanW. C., Human Factors Consideration in the Design of Systems of Computer Managed Instruction, AEDS Journal, pp. 89–95, Summer 1978.
21.
DubyP. B. and GiltronD. P., Predicting Student Withdrawals in Open Learning Courses, Educational Technology, pp. 43–47, February 1978.
22.
CaffarellaE. P.CovertC. E.LegumS. E.ShtogrenJ. A., and WagerW. W., Factors Affecting Instructor/Student Ratio for Self-paced Instruction, Educational Technology, December 1980.
23.
VallanteM. A., Conditions and Student Characteristics Affecting Strategies Employed during Computer Assisted Instruction, Dissertation Abstracts International, 44: 10A, p. 2996, April, 1984.
24.
O'NeilH. F.Jr.SpielbergerC. D., and HansenD. N., Effects of State Anxiety and Task Difficulty on Computer-Assisted Learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60: 5, pp. 343–350, 1969.
25.
KaufmanD. M., A Study of Computer Assisted Instructional Strategies and Learning Characteristics, Dissertation Abstracts International, 734A, 7586A–7587, 1974.
26.
RappaportE., Effects of Dogmatism and Anxiety during Computer-Assisted Learning, Psychological Reports, 37, pp. 1055–1065, 1975.
27.
BurnsP. K. and BozemanW. C., Computer-Assisted Instruction and Mathematics Achievement, Is There a Relationship?Educational Technology, pp. 32–38, 1981.
28.
DurskyJ., Comparison of a Computer Assisted Instructional Unit and a Programmed Text Format for Teaching Latin and Greek Derivatives to Conditionally Enrolled University Students, Dissertation Abstracts International, 44: 11, p. 3263-A, 1984.
29.
BachorP., The Interaction of Learner Characteristics and Degree of Control in AL, Dissertation Abstracts International, 38: 6-A, p. 3149, 1977.
30.
GleasonG. T., Microcomputers in Education: The State of the Art, Educational Technology, pp. 5–18, March 1981.
31.
JuddW. A.O'NeilH. F.Jr., and SpeltP. F., Individual Differences and Learner Control I: Program Development and Investigation of Control over Mnemonics in Computer Assisted Instruction, No. 74-3, July, 1974, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4–6: 14, p. 204, 1974–1976.
32.
CampanizziJ. A., Effects of Focus of Control and Provision of Overviews in a Computer Assisted Instruction Sequence, AEDS Journal, 12: 1, pp. 21–30, Fall 1978.
33.
SasscerM. F., An Exploratory Study of the Relationship Between Learner Control Patterns and Course Completion in Computer Assisted Instruction, Dissertation Abstracts International, 44: 2, pp. 376–377-S, 1983.
34.
PetersenC. G. and HoweT. G., Predicting Academic Success in Introduction to Computer, AEDS Journal, 12, pp. 182–191, 1979.
35.
MazlackL. J., Identifying Potential to Acquire Programming Skill, Communication of the ACM, 23, pp. 14–17, 1980.
36.
KurtzB. L., Investigating the Relationship Between the Development of Abstract Reasoning and Performance in an Introductory Programming Class, Special Interest Group on Computer Uses in Education Bulletin, pp. 110–117, February 1980.
37.
WilemanS.KonvalinaJ., and StephensL. J., Factors Influencing Success in Beginning Computer Science Courses, Journal of Educational Research, 74: 4, 1981.
