Factors for Success in Online CS1
Jennifer Campbell Diane Horton
Dept of Computer Science Dept of Computer Science
University of Toronto University of Toronto
campbell@cs.toronto.edu dianeh@cs.toronto.edu
ABSTRACT
Enrollment in post-secondary online courses has been in-
creasing, but several studies have found that the drop rates
in online courses are higher than in face-to-face. In our pre-
vious study comparing an online section of CS1 with a face-
to-face flipped section, we also found the drop rate higher in
the online section. Given that we plan to continue offering
online options for our students, we aim to identify factors as-
sociated with success in online CS1. In this paper, we exam-
ine factors that are under students’ own control such as how
fully they participate in ungraded but important learning
activities, and other factors that we may be able to manip-
ulate and improve, such as students’ skills for self-regulated
learning, and their sense of community in the course. We
found important differences between the online and flipped
sections regarding what behaviours and attributes were asso-
ciated with success. While completion of unmarked practice
exercises was a factor for both sections, test anxiety and self-
efficacy were factors only for the online section, and intrinsic
goal orientation was a factor only for the flipped section.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.3.2 [Computers and Education]: Computer and Infor-
mation Science Education—Computer Science Education
Keywords
online; CS1; novice programming; self-regulated learning
1. INTRODUCTION
Enrollment in online courses is increasing and, as of 2012,
approximately 32% of post-secondary students in the United
States took at least one online course [1]. In [12], we com-
pare a CS1 course offered in two formats: online and face-to-
face flipped. We found that the population of students who
choose each section is different, with the online section at-
tracting fewer CS majors, fewer first-year students and more
beginners, retakers, and part-time students.
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.
ITiCSE ’16, July 09 - 13, 2016, Arequipa, Peru
c 2016 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ISBN 978-1-4503-4231-5/16/07. . . $15.00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899457
320
Michelle Craig
Dept of Computer Science
University of Toronto
mcraig@cs.toronto.edu
Like others [5, 16], we found that online students were
less likely to complete the course than face-to-face students.
However, for the students who did write the final exam,
exam scores in online and flipped were not significantly dif-
ferent. It is difficult to determine whether the poorer com-
pletion rate in the online section is due to differences in
populations or to the course format. A number of studies
have considered the factors leading students to drop out of
online courses in multiple disciplines. For a survey of papers
from 1999 to 2009, see [15].
In this paper, we explore possible success factors in both
online and flipped offerings of CS1. There have been many
previous studies of success in traditional, lecture-based CS1
courses, including explorations of demographics, study be-
haviours, previous academic experience or other computer
experience, cognitive skills, and student beliefs. See [2] for a
comprehensive survey of the pre-2006 work. Here we high-
light results relevant to the factors we explore in this paper.
Rountree et al. [20] tested for associations between course
outcomes and student demographics, background, and ex-
pectations. They found that desire to learn programming
was the strongest influence on passing the course, and that
grade expectations were a factor in the final grades. In a
multi-institution study, Simon et al. [22, 8] reported that
final course grades were more strongly correlated with stu-
dents’ shallow or deep approach to learning than with prior
experience. Wilson and Shrock [24] found that the most im-
portant factors for success were students’ comfort level in
the course, math background, and attributing performance
on the midterm to luck (which contributed negatively). Ven-
tura [23] also considered comfort level, among other factors,
and found that both comfort level and time spent in the lab
had more predictive value than cognitive and academic fac-
tors such as critical thinking and SAT scores. In contrast,
Chinn et al. [6] did not find that study time was a factor in
their traditional CS1, but that lecture attendance and prior
experience both positively correlated with final grades.
Another factor for student success is self-regulated learn-
ing (SRL). “Self-regulated learning and performance refers
to the process whereby learners personally activate and sus-
tain cognitions, affects, and behaviours that are systemati-
cally oriented toward the attainment of personal goals” [25,
p. 1]. SRL has been studied extensively, and is an im-
portant source of differences in achievement between stu-
dents. Furthermore, helping students to strengthen their
self-regulatory processes can improve student achievement [25].
Pintrich and de Groot [17] note that definitions of SRL vary,
but that three components are particularly important for
classroom performance: cognitive strategies; metacognitive
strategies such as monitoring cognition; and skills related to
the management of effort, such as persistence. They empha-
size that SRL skills are not sufficient for performance. Stu-
dents must also possess the motivation to use those skills.
They developed and validated a now widely-used instrument
to assess SRL skills and motivational belief, the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) [17, 18].
In an online gerontology course, Cho and Shen [7] used
the MSLQ to study SRL motivations and behaviours. They
found students’ intrinsic goal orientation and academic self-
efficacy to be important for academic achievements.
There has been little work on self-regulated learning in
computer science. Falkner et al. [10] identify SRL strategies
used by students in an introductory software development
course, but they do not examine the relationship between
SRL and course outcomes. Consistent with the literature
on SRL, Bergin et al. [3] found that greater use of metacog-
nitive and resource management strategies was linked to
better performance in an introductory programming course.
They also found that high intrinsic motivation and high task
value are linked to better performance and to greater use of
metacognitive and resource management strategies. Inter-
estingly, they did not find the analogous relationships held
for cognitive strategies.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 The Course
This study was conducted at the University of Toronto,
a research-intensive North American university. We have
been offering our CS1 in a face-to-face, flipped format since
2013 [4, 14, 13]. In [12], we described our first offering of an
online CS1 in Fall 2014 and compared it to our flipped CS1.
Our online CS1 was modelled after the flipped CS1, with
most face-to-face components replaced by online alterna-
tives. For all students, flipped and online, course content
was delivered through videos. The flipped students met
face-to-face during lecture periods to complete exercises as
described in [4], while the online students did analogous ex-
ercises asynchronously and online. In addition, to parallel
the just-in-time teaching that occurred in the flipped lec-
tures, the online students had access to explanatory videos
in which an instructor solved the exercises and addressed
anticipated misconceptions.
The online students completed their midterm online, while
the flipped students wrote a traditional midterm on paper.
The online midterm was limited to the question types avail-
able on our Learning Management System (Blackboard) and
by the fact that online students could not be supervised dur-
ing the test. Because of this, the midterm was worth only
5% of the course grade, compared to 14% for the flipped
students. All students wrote the same final exam in-person
and on paper, but the exam was worth 59% for online stu-
dents and 50% for flipped students. The rest of the course
work was the same for all students and was comprised of
out-of-class weekly exercises and three larger assignments.
2.2 The Study
We wanted to determine how course outcomes were in-
fluenced by students’ pre-course motivation and skills for
self-regulated learning, and by their behaviour during the
course. We therefore conducted a survey in the first week of
321
term that included the MSLQ [17]1 and a survey in the final
week that asked students to report on behaviours of interest.
We were also interested in how students’ sense of community
might differ in the online section, so in the final survey we
included questions about interaction with each other and the
instructor, as well as the Classroom scale of the Classroom
and School Community Inventory (CSCI) [21].
855 students (118 online and 737 flipped) gave informed
consent and completed at least one survey. Regardless of
whether they consented to participate in our study, students
who completed both the initial and final survey earned 1%
towards their course grade.
We set a p-value of .05 for statistical significance. We
report exact values for p, to three decimal places, unless it
is < .001.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Doing the unmarked exercises
Flipped students spent most of their lecture time solving
unmarked exercises and online students worked on analo-
gous exercises online. The exercises did not contribute to
course grades for either group. Nevertheless, we consider
these exercises to be important for learning, and want stu-
dents to choose to do them. To measure whether students
did, we asked online students on the final survey “How of-
ten did you complete the ‘Rehearse’ (not-for-credit) work
on [the online system]?” For the flipped section, because the
instructors did not record students’ exercise work, we use
lecture attendance as an approximation of participation in
the in-class exercises. On the final survey we asked “Regard-
less of whether you were enrolled in the online or on-campus
sections, how often did you attend lecture?”2
Figure 1 shows online students’ self-reported completion
of the Rehearse Exercises and flipped students’ self-reported
attendance at lectures.
Figure 1: Self-reported Rehearse Exercise comple-
tion for online students and lecture attendance for
flipped students
We hoped that online student participation in the un-
marked Rehearse Exercises would be as good as attendance
1
We used the 1990 version of the MSLQ. In the 1991 ver-
sion [18] of the MSLQ, used by Bergin et al. [3], many ques-
tions assume that the survey is conducted once the course
is well underway, rendering it unsuitable for our study.
2
Because many online students were on campus and had
access to lectures, we asked this question of both groups.
at lecture in the flipped section. This was not the case. The
mean response for completion of Rehearse Exercises in the
online section was 3.2 while the mean response for atten-
dance in the flipped section was 4.1. A Welch two sample
t-test finds this difference significant (p < .001).
To test our assumption that participating in the exercises
is important for learning, we tested whether exercise partici-
pation correlated with exam grades. For online students, we
did not find a significant correlation between exam grades
and self-reported completion of Rehearse Exercises. Since
prior programming experience is known to be a strong pre-
dictor of outcomes in CS1 [11], we performed a linear re-
gression of exam grades modelled by prior experience3 and
completion of Rehearse Exercises as shown in Table 1. Once
prior programming experience was factored out, completion
of Rehearse Exercises was a statistically significant factor
for exam grades.
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 32.2438 4.6398 6.95 0.0000
prior.exp 4.2878 1.5431 2.78 0.0071
rehearse 2.1966 0.9957 2.21 0.0308
Table 1: Statistical models: effect of prior experi-
ence and completion of Rehearse Exercises on exam
grades for online students
The results are analogous for flipped students. There
was no significant correlation between exam grades and self-
reported lecture attendance, but once prior experience was
factored out, lecture attendance was significant. Table 2
shows the result of a linear regression of exam grades mod-
elled by prior experience and lecture attendance.
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 34.8040 2.3401 14.87 0.0000
prior.exp 3.7140 0.4913 7.56 0.0000
attend 1.7146 0.5041 3.40 0.0007
Table 2: Statistical models: effect of prior expe-
rience and lecture attendance on exam grades for
flipped students
To summarize, for both online and flipped students, par-
ticipation in the not-for-credit exercises is a factor for final-
exam performance once prior experience is factored out.
Students who participate more in the optional activities do
better. We have no control over prior experience, but we can
perhaps influence the students’ participation rates once they
enroll in the course. These results are consistent with the
study by Chinn et al. [6], which found that prior experience
and lecture attendance correlated with final grades.
There are several threats to the validity of these conclu-
sions. Although the instructors report that flipped students
who attended class participated well in the work, attendance
may not be a good approximation of work on the exercises.
Additionally, an online student who answered all the ques-
tions for a Rehearse Exercise, but did not get them correct,
3 course, at the final exam. Despite this, the instructors hoped
On the initial survey, we asked: “Many CSC108 students
have no prior programming experience, while others have
some. Rate the amount of prior programming experience
that you have.” on a scale from 1 (no experience) to 5 (a lot
of experience).
322
may have reported that they did not “complete” the exer-
cise while flipped students only had to report on their lecture
attendance. Finally, both completion of Rehearse Exercises
and attendance at lecture were self-reported.
3.2 Time spent on the course
In the end-of-term survey we asked “How much time did
you spend on this course compared to other university courses
you have taken?” This question addresses the amount of em-
phasis students placed on the course, rather than the abso-
lute amount of time they invested.
In section 3.1, we saw that the completion rate of the
optional Rehearse Exercises for online students was signifi-
cantly lower than the lecture attendance of flipped students.
However, students in online and flipped gave similar re-
sponses to our question about time. (Figure 2). The means
were 3.2 for online and 3.4 for flipped.
Figure 2: Time Spent vs. Other Courses
We tested for a correlation between exam grades and rela-
tive time spent for students in each section. In related work,
Chinn et al. [6] did not find a correlation between study time
and final results in a face-to-face CS1. For online students,
we found a weak negative correlation (Pearson’s product-
moment correlation p = .015, n = 70, r = −.29). For
flipped, there was no significant correlation between relative
time spent and exam grades. Because our question asked
about time spent relative to other courses rather than in
absolute terms, as asked by Chinn et al., the results cannot
be directly compared.
The negative correlation for online students between exam
grades and relative time spent is surprising. To explore it,
we examined the group of eight online students who reported
spending “much less” time on the course than on their other
courses. Their mean exam score was 81.2%, much higher
than the 65.6% exam average for all online students. Their
mean prior experience score was 2.1 (versus 1.6 for all on-
line students), which may explain why these students could
spend relatively less time on the course and still do well.
3.3 Sense of community
The online students were required to be physically present
with each other and their instructor only once during the
to create as strong a sense of community in the online section
as the flipped section, by fostering substantial interaction in
the online section, both among students, and between stu-
dents and their instructor. Students in both the online and
 Online F2F
Question Average Average p-value
How much did you interact (both online and face-to-face) with your instructor? 1.942 2.589 < .001∗
How satisfied were you with your sense of connection to your instructor? 3.371 3.543 = .132
How much did you interact (both online and face-to-face) with your classmates? 2.125 3.280 < .001∗
How satisfied were you with your sense of community with your classmates? 3.124 3.274 = .227
CSCI Inventory score (out of a possible 50) 24.22 24.21 = .995

Table 3: Average response to questions about interaction and sense of community, and CSCI Inventory score,
by section. p-values are for a Welch two-sample t-test and an asterisk indicates statistical significance.

flipped sections were invited to participate in a shared on-
line discussion forum and over 900 (of 1100) students joined.
Students were extremely active in the forum, posting over
3600 times, and each reading, on average 141 posts. The in-
structors were also very active in the forum; they attempted
to read all student posts, and themselves made over 950
posts. The TAs made an additional 1500 posts. In addition
to the face-to-face office hours available to all students, the
online instructor and a TA also held online office hours that
were available to all. Unfortunately, the online office hours
were poorly attended; the requirement to install additional
software may have been a barrier.
To determine whether these efforts were successful in cre-
ating an equally strong sense of community, we asked four
questions in the final survey about sense of community, and
also administered the Classroom scale of the CSCI. Table 3
shows the results. Online students reported significantly less
interaction with their instructor and their classmates, yet
their sense of connection to their instructor and classmates
was not significantly different, and their CSCI scores were
nearly identical (mean 24.4 online; 24.2 flipped).
We wondered whether students with a stronger sense of
community would do better in the course, so we examined
the correlation between CSCI scores and exam grades. We
found that this correlation was not statistically significant
for either the online or flipped sections. Since the CSCI
scale was administered at the end of the course, students
who dropped earlier because they were dissatisfied with their
sense of community would not be represented in these re-
sults. To determine whether sense of community was re-
lated to successful completion of the course, if not with exam
grades, we examined the mean CSCI scores of students who
passed and who failed the course; a Welch two-sample t-test
showed that they were not significantly different. Our results
are consistent with Drouin’s findings that neither achieve-
ment nor retention is related to sense of community [9].
3.4 Motivational beliefs
The MSLQ [17] includes three scales about motivation:
self-efficacy (the sense that one is able to perform a task),
intrinsic value (being motivated by goals such as a desire for
mastery, rather than by extrinsic goals such as grades) and
test anxiety. For each, we compared scores between sections,
and looked for evidence of a relationship to course outcomes.
Self-efficacy
Online and flipped students had nearly identical mean scores
(rounding to 4.9 for both groups) for self-efficacy. However,
we found evidence of a relationship between self-efficacy and
outcomes only in the online section. For online students,
self-efficacy scores were positively correlated with final exam
scores (p = .009, n = 71, r = .30). Not only did students
with a weak sense of self-efficacy do more poorly on the
exam, but they were also less likely to finish the course: the
mean self-efficacy scores of those who dropped the course
was 4.5 compared to 5.0 for those who completed the course
(passed or failed). A Welch two sample t-test finds this dif-
ference significant (p = .029). Neither of these relationships
held for the flipped students.
Our results suggest that one might improve outcomes for
online students if we can boost their self-efficacy. Cho and
Shen [7] emphasize that having a strong teaching presence
contributes to students’ sense of self-efficacy, as does encour-
aging students to set goals that are challenging but achiev-
able so that they can experience success.
Intrinsic value
Students in the online and flipped sections also had nearly
identical scores for intrinsic value (mean 5.4 online; 5.5 flipped).
There was no correlation between exam grade and intrinsic-
value score for the online or flipped sections. However, we
found that once prior programming experience is controlled
for, intrinsic value is a statistically significant factor for exam
grades, but only for the flipped section (see Table 4).
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 34.8479 3.7282 9.35 0.0000
prior.exp 3.1880 0.5060 6.30 0.0000
intrinsic.val 1.3976 0.6758 2.07 0.0391
Table 4: Statistical models: effect of prior experi-
ence and intrinsic value on exam grades for flipped
students
Bergin et al. [3] found that, in their face-to-face course,
students with high intrinsic motivation performed better in
programming than those with low intrinsic motivation. This
is consistent with our result for the flipped section. Other
studies of online and face-to-face courses, have also shown
that intrinsic motivation is positively related, directly or in-
directly, to course outcomes [3, 7, 19].
Although we did not find a significant correlation between
intrinsic motivation and exam scores for the online section,
we hope that boosting intrinsic motivation may still help im-
prove outcomes in not only flipped, but also online. Rakes
and Dunn [19] survey the literature on increasing intrin-
sic motivation. They identify factors that they believe are
particularly relevant to online courses, including creating a
sense of community, projecting a supportive instructional
style, encouraging a perception of competence, presenting
challenges, and encouraging autonomy. In [7], they suggest

323
introducing problem-based learning (PBL) and framing stu-
dents’ learning in terms of intrinsic goals.
Test anxiety
Scores on the test-anxiety scale were not significantly dif-
ferent for students in the two sections (mean 3.6 online; 3.8
flipped). We found a negative correlation between test anxi-
ety and exam grade for the online section (p < .001, n = 79,
r = −.38); students with greater test anxiety did worse on
the exam. Surprisingly, in the flipped section there was no
significant correlation between test anxiety and exam score.
Test anxiety was measured when the MSLQ was adminis-
tered at the beginning of the course. It may be that the in-
class, on-paper exercises that the flipped students complete
during the term combat their anxiety prior to the paper-
based exam, either by reducing anxiety or by increasing stu-
dents’ test-taking skills sufficiently to counteract the effect
of their anxiety. Online students complete their analogous
exercises online, so they get less practice working on paper.
3.5 SRL Strategies
Cognitive strategy use
Scores on the cognitive strategy scale were not significantly
different across sections (mean 4.9 online; 5.0 flipped). We
hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation be-
tween cognitive strategy and final exam scores. This hypoth-
esis was not supported. The correlation was non-significant
for the flipped section, and there was a weak negative cor-
relation for the online section (Pearson’s product-moment
correlation p = .025, n = 76, r = −.26).
Bergin et al. [3] also failed to find a relationship between
cognitive strategy and programming performance. They
suggest that the strategies measured by the MSLQ may not
be as useful in learning introductory object-oriented pro-
gramming as in other academic areas. Indeed, the MSLQ
(both the 1991 version that they used and the 1990 version
that we used) places substantial emphasis on skills related
to reading and studying, and little emphasis on mastering
a skill, a key component of any CS1 course. An instrument
that includes strategies related to mastering a skill, or to
learning to program specifically, may be of greater value in
predicting outcomes in CS1. Falkner’s work [10] to identify
discipline-specific cognitive and metacognitive skills used by
students learning to program is a contribution towards this.
Self-regulation
The self-regulation scale assesses metacognitive strategies
and management of effort. As for all the other MSLQ scales,
scores were not significantly different between sections (mean
4.8 online; 4.9 flipped). We found no evidence that self-
regulation, as measured by the MSLQ, is a factor for success
for students in either section: for both the online and flipped
sections, the correlation between self-regulation and exam
score was not statistically significant, linear regression did
not reveal a significant relationship to exam score even when
prior-experience was accounted for, and there was no signifi-
cant difference between the self-regulation scores of students
who dropped the course and students who completed it.
In contrast, Bergin et al. [3] did find that both stronger
metacognitive skills and better management of resources
were associated with higher grades. Our failure to replicate
this result may be due to differences between the versions
324
of the MSLQ. However, as with the cognitive strategy scale,
both versions of the MSLQ emphasize reading and studying,
and neglect practise of skills.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Having observed a higher drop rate in our online CS1 than
in the flipped section, we aimed to identify students’ at-
tributes and behaviours that may be factors for success in
CS1 generally and for these formats in particular. We have
identified several key differences between students in online
and flipped. Because our online students choose to take the
course in the online format, these results may not generalize
to a context where online is the only format available. Sev-
eral of our results suggest actions an instructor can take to
improve an online course.
For both the online and flipped sections, once prior experi-
ence is controlled for, completion of the unmarked exercises
is a statistically significant factor for exam scores. However,
the completion rate of Rehearse Exercises by online students
was significantly lower than the flipped students’ rate of lec-
ture attendance. In future offerings, we will try to boost
Rehearse Exercise completion, for example by incorporating
more reminders from the instructor and by following up with
emails during the term to students who have not completed
the exercises.
We found self-efficacy to be correlated with final exam
scores for online, but not for flipped. For online students, the
mean self-efficacy scores for those who dropped, passed, and
failed were also significantly different. Cho and Shen report
that instructor presence is key for increasing self-efficacy [7],
so we will aim to increase instructor-student interactions in
future offerings of the online course.
For our flipped students, once we control for prior pro-
gramming experience, intrinsic value is a statistically signif-
icant factor for exam grades. Although we did not find the
same for online, we feel it is still worthwhile to try to boost
students’ intrinsic value in both online and flipped. Based
on the five factors [19] identified for encouraging intrinsic
motivation, we plan to host informal get-togethers of the
instructor and students, and include additional encouraging
and supportive comments in communications with students.
For online students, there was a negative correlation be-
tween text anxiety and final exam scores, but there was no
significant correlation between the two for flipped students.
The difference may be explained by the fact that the exam
is written on paper, but only flipped students were asked
to regularly practice solving problems on paper. In future
offerings, we plan to assign online students more unmarked
exercises on paper in an effort to better prepare them for
the final exam. One possibility is to assign a question each
week from a past exam.
Online education will undoubtedly continue to grow, but
much of what we know about teaching and learning comes
from experience and research in face-to-face courses. If we
are to provide effective learning environments for students
in an online context, we must continue to research best prac-
tices and apply them in our teaching.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of the online course was funded by the
Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. We
thank Hedieh Najafi for assistance with our literature search.
6. REFERENCES
[1] I. E. Allen and J. Seaman. Changing Course: Ten
Years of Tracking Online Education in the United
States. ERIC, 2013.
[2] S. Bergin and R. Reilly. Predicting introductory
programming performance: A multi-institutional
multivariate study. Computer Science Education,
16(4):303–323, 2006.
[3] S. Bergin, R. Reilly, and D. Traynor. Examining the
role of self-regulated learning on introductory
programming performance. In Proceedings of the First
International Workshop on Computing Education
Research, ICER ’05, pages 81–86, 2005.
[4] J. Campbell, D. Horton, M. Craig, and P. Gries.
Evaluating an inverted CS1. In Proceeding of the 45th
ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education, SIGCSE ’14, pages 307–312, 2014.
[5] S. Carr. As distance education comes of age, the
challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of higher
education, 46(23), 2000.
[6] D. Chinn, J. Sheard, A. Carbone, and M.-J. Laakso.
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, pages 53–62. Australian
Computer Society, Inc., 2010.
[7] M.-H. Cho and D. Shen. Self-regulation in online
learning. Distance Education, 34(3):290–301, 2013.
[8] M. de Raadt, M. Hamilton, R. Lister, J. Tutti, Simon,
K. Sutton, B. Baker, I. Box, Q. Cutts, J. Hamer,
M. Petre, and D. Tolhurst. Approaches to learning in
computer programming students, and its effect on
success. In Proceedings of Higher Education in a
Changing World, Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australia Conference, pages
407–414, 2005.
[9] M. A. Drouin. The relationship between students’
perceived sense of community and satisfaction,
achievement, and retention in an online course.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3):267–284,
2008.
[10] K. Falkner, R. Vivian, and N. J. Falkner. Identifying
computer science self-regulated learning strategies. In
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation &
Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE
’14, pages 291–296, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
[11] D. Hagan and S. Markham. Does it help to have some
programming experience before beginning a
computing degree program? In Proceedings of the 5th
Annual ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE
’00, pages 25–28, 2000.
[12] D. Horton, J. Campbell, and M. Craig. Online cs1:
Who enrols, why, and how do they do? In Proceeding
of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education, SIGCSE ’16, pages 323–328, 2016.
[13] D. Horton and M. Craig. Drop, fail, pass, continue:
Persistence in cs1 and beyond in traditional and
inverted delivery. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education,
SIGCSE ’15, pages 235–240, 2015.
[14] D. Horton, M. Craig, J. Campbell, P. Gries, and
325
D. Zingaro. Comparing outcomes in inverted and
traditional cs1. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference
on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science
Education, ITiCSE ’14, pages 261–266, 2014.
[15] Y. Lee and J. Choi. A review of online course dropout
research: implications for practice and future research.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
59(5):593–618, 2011.
[16] Y. Levy. Comparing dropouts and persistence in
e-learning courses. Computers & education,
48(2):185–204, 2007.
[17] P. R. Pintrich and E. V. De Groot. Motivational and
self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of educational
psychology, 82(1), Mar. 1990.
[18] P. R. Pintrich, D. Smith, T. Garcia, and
W. McKeachie. A manual for the use of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire. technical report
91-b-004, 1991.
[19] G. C. Rakes and K. E. Dunn. The impact of online
graduate students’ motivation and self-regulation on
academic procrastination. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 9(1):78–93, 2010.
[20] N. Rountree, J. Rountree, A. Robins, and R. Hannah.
Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a
cs1 course. In Working Group Reports from ITiCSE
on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science
Education, ITiCSE-WGR ’04, pages 101–104, 2004.
[21] A. P. Rovai. The classroom and school community
inventory: Development, refinement, and validation of
a self-report measure for educational research. The
Internet and Higher Education, 7(4):263–280, 2004.
[22] Simon, S. Fincher, A. Robins, B. Baker, I. Box,
Q. Cutts, M. de Raadt, P. Haden, J. Hamer,
M. Hamilton, R. Lister, M. Petre, K. Sutton,
D. Tolhurst, and J. Tutty. Predictors of success in a
first programming course. In Proceedings of the 8th
Australasian Conference on Computing Education -
Volume 52, ACE ’06, pages 189–196, Darlinghurst,
Australia, Australia, 2006. Australian Computer
Society, Inc.
[23] P. R. Ventura. Identifying predictors of success for an
objects-first cs1. Computer Science Education,
15(3):223–243, 2005.
[24] B. C. Wilson and S. Shrock. Contributing to success
in an introductory computer science course: A study
of twelve factors. SIGCSE Bull., 33(1):184–188, Feb.
2001.
[25] B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk. Self-regulated
learning and performance: An introduction and
overview. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk,
editors, Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and
Performance, chapter 1, pages 1–12. Taylor and
Francis, New York, 2011.