journal article·2022-05-12Open access

Impacts of Learning Orientation on the Modeling of Programming Using Feature Selection and XGBOOST: A Gender-Focused Analysis

HoSung Woo, Ja-Mee Kim

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 10

Abstract

In programming, modeling is a generalized explanatory system that organizes key characteristics of a specific matter or object of interest using computer science concepts. Modeling is integral for both automation design in programming education and communication in the collaborative process. This study investigates the effect of learning orientation on the modeling stage based on gender. The study includes 756 male and 688 female elementary-school students. We analyzed the results of XGBOOST by extracting the influential characteristics from feature selection along with the basic statistics. As a result of the study, it was confirmed that learners, regardless of gender, had the largest gap in modeling and that this was the stage at which differences occurred in programming education. For male students, the process of collecting data for modeling or devising a solution was found to be an important learning method. This shows that it is necessary to create an environment to focus on activities that derive solutions from the collected data along with strengthening information retrieval education. Although female students showed a similar tendency to male students, the process of cooperating with friends as a differentiating factor was found to be an important learning method. It seems necessary to apply teaching and learning methods that can strengthen team projects that can collaborate with friends. The findings could serve as a reference for teaching and learning design and operation for effective programming education.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Teaching and Learning Programming · Gender and Technology in Education · Educational Games and Gamification

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of e-Learning Graduate School, Korea National Open University, Seoul 03087, Korea

Major of Computer Science Education, Graduate School of Education, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea

Funding

the Korea National Open University Research Fund

References (56)

Show source-provided references
1. Alejos, A.V., Sanchez, M.G., Milagros, M.P., Falcone, F., Sanchís, P., and López-Martín, A. (2014, January 11–13). The influence of gender in the adoption of engineering studies. Proceedings of the 2014 XI Tecnologias Aplicadas a la Ensenanza de la Electronica (Technologies Applied to Electronics Teaching) (TAEE), Bilbao, Spain.10.1109/TAEE.2014.6900178 ↗
2. The gender gap: Is it a computing problem or simply a computer science problem?10.1109/MS.2012.44 ↗
3. Development and application of software education program of app Inventor utilization for improvement of elementary school girls’ computational thinking
4. Gender differences in computational thinking, creativity, and academic interest on elementary SW education
5. Analysis of the recognition of Information subjects related to future profession of high school girls
6. Development of vocational cards for female college students’ career exploration activity10.18205/kpa.2011.16.2.001 ↗
7. OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development 2018.
8. Analysis of algorithm and programming level according to gender of high school students
9. Lee, H.K. (1984). Learning Psychology, Tamgudang.
10. Gender difference of social studies’ academic achievement of Korea school students: On the result of 2009 NAEA
11. Predictors of academic achievement and dropout thinking among university students
12. Gender differences in mathematics-related attitudes in National Assessment of Educational Achievement
13. Hilde, G.C., and Tveranger, F. (2018, January 14–15). Programming in secondary schools in Norway: A wasted opportunity for inclusion. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT (GenderIT’18), Heilbronn, Germany.
14. Stephanidis, C., and Antona, M. (2019). The Impact of Self-efficacy and Gender on Computer Performance. HCI International 2019–Late Breaking Posters. HCII 2019, Springer. Communications in Computer and Information Science.10.1007/978-3-030-30712-7 ↗
15. Analysis of the impact of learner characteristics on the achievement of programming
16. Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004 ↗
17. Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008 ↗
18. New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation10.1007/s10956-007-9082-2 ↗
19. Attitude, gender and achievement in computer programming
20. Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003 ↗
21. Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w ↗
22. Computational thinking of middle school students in Korea
23. Computer programming skill and gender difference: An empirical study
24. The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.017 ↗
25. Assessment of Learning Style Variables: The NASSP Task Force Model10.1080/00405848509543162 ↗
26. Kolb, D.A. (2014). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, FT Press.
27. Smith, P.L., and Ragan, T.J. (2004). Instructional Design, John Wiley & Sons.
28. A new definition for individual10.1177/019263657706140604 ↗
29. Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.002 ↗
30. The Myers-Briggs personality type and its relationship to computer programming10.1080/08886504.1994.10782096 ↗
31. Cognitive style and its effect on the stages of programming10.1080/08886504.1995.10782140 ↗
32. Cognitive processes and success of students in instructional computer courses10.1080/00011037.1983.11008348 ↗
33. Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., Woodbury, J., and Jarman, E. (March, January 27). Learning styles and performance in the introductory programming sequence. Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Cincinnati, KY, USA.10.1145/563340.563352 ↗
34. How do learning styles relate to performance in a computer applications course?10.1080/08886504.1992.10782016 ↗
35. Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in 19 first-year university courses: Successful students versus students at risk10.1207/S15327671ESPR0603_7 ↗
36. Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in two postsecondary computer application courses10.1080/08886504.2001.10782324 ↗
37. Analysis of factors affecting achievement in maker programming education in the age of wireless communication10.1007/s11277-016-3450-2 ↗
38. The effects of MINDSTORMS programming instruction on the creativity
39. Fuchs, L. (1986, January 21–24). Closing the gender gap: Girls and computers. Proceedings of the Florida Instructional Computing Conference, (ERIC ED 271 103), Orlando, FL, USA.
40. Muira, I. (1986, January 16–20). Understanding gender differences in middle school computer interest and use. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, USA.
41. The effects of prior experience and instructional format on teacher education students’ computer anxiety and performance10.1300/J025v09n02_08 ↗
42. Predictors of computer anxiety10.1016/0747-5632(91)90014-R ↗
43. The gender factor in computer anxiety and interest among some Australian high school students10.1080/0013188930350207 ↗
44. Sexual difference analysis on application level of computer programming language
45. The effect of robot programming learning considered gender differences on female middle school student’s flow level and problem solving ability
46. Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: Implications for programming pedagogy10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00847.x ↗
47. Machine learning based gastric cancer computer-aided diagnosis system using feature selection10.5370/KIEE.2020.69.1.170 ↗
48. Kolb, D.A. (1981). Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences, Jossey Bass.
49. Gregorc, A.F. (1982). An Adults Guide to Style, Gregorc Associates, Inc.
50. Solomon, B., and Felder, R. (1999). Index of Learning Styles, North Carolina State University.
51. Coefficient alpha: Conceptualizations and anomalies10.1002/nur.4770140610 ↗
52. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the KDD’16, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
53. Rogati, M., and Yang, Y. (2002, January 4–9). High-performing feature selection for text classification. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, McLean, VA, USA.10.1145/584792.584911 ↗
54. Exploring cryptocurrency influence factors Using Feature Selection Algorithm
55. Communication and the contents of Korean language education
56. Ying, K.M., Pezzullo, L.G., Ahmed, M., Crompton, K., Blanchard, J., and Boyer, K.E. (March, January 27). In Their Own Words: Gender Differences in Student Perceptions of Pair Programming. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), Minneapolis, MN, USA.