The purpose of this study was to determine if success in writing computer programs is related to level of cognitive development, verbal ability, and mathematics reasoning. Subjects were drawn from students enrolled in beginning computer programming classes. Each subject was given the School and College Ability Test (SCAT II) test to assess mathematics and verbal levels and the Inventory of Piaget's Developmental Tasks (IPDT) to assess level of cognitive development. The instructor's final examination was used as a measure of computer programming ability. This study supports prior research showing mathematics reasoning and verbal ability were each significant predictors of success in computer programming. Level of cognitive development, as defined by Piaget, also predicts success in computer programming ability. Regression analysis showed that level of cognitive development, when combined with verbal reasoning, is linearly predictive of programming ability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SheilB. A., The Psychological Study of Programming, Computing Surveys, 13: 1, pp. 101–120, March 1981.
2.
McNamaraW. J. and HughesJ. L., A Review of Research on the Selection of Computer Programmers, Personnel Psychology, 14, pp. 39–57, 1961.
3.
BauerR.MehrensW. A.VinsonhalerJ. F., Predicting Performance in a Computer Programming Course, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, pp. 1159–1164, 1968.
4.
SchneidermanB., Exploratory Experiments in Programmer Behavior, Journal of Computer and Information Services, 5: 2, pp. 123–142, 1975.
5.
AlspaughC. A., A Study of the Relationships Between Student Characteristics and Proficiency in Symbolic and Algebraic Computer Programming, Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, p. 4627B, 1970.
6.
BeckerH. J., Microcomputers in the Classroom — Dreams or Realities?, Report No. 319, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Baltimore, MD, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 217 872), 1982.
7.
BastianS., Are I.S.U. Freshman Students Operating at a Formal Level of Thought Processes?Contemporary Education, 44, pp. 358–336, 1973.
8.
GriffithsD. H., The Study of the Cognitive Development of Science Students in Introductory Level Courses, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 096 108), 1973.
9.
SchwebelM., The Role of Experience in Cognitive Development, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 110 173), 1975.
10.
BarkerP. M., Cognitive Correlates of Performance in Computer Programming by Children and Adolescents, Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 1985.
11.
BrainardC. J., Piaget's Theory of Intelligence, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978.
12.
InhelderB. and PiagetJ., The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence, Basic Books, New York, 1958.
13.
FolkM. J., Influences of Developmental Level on a Child's Ability to Learn Concepts of Computer Programming, Dissertation Abstracts International, 34: 3, p. 1125a, University Microfilms No. 73-19, p. 806, 1973.
14.
SchwebelM., Logical Thinking in College Freshman: Final Report, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 110 896), 1972.
15.
PetersonC. G., Predicting Academic Success in Introduction to Computers, AEDS Journal, 12, pp. 182–191, 1979.
16.
SchroederM. H., Piagetian, Mathematic, and Spatial Reasoning as Predictors of Success in Computer Programming, Dissertation Abstracts International, 39: 8, p. 4850A, (University Microfilms No. 7902855), 1979.
17.
LeeperR. R. and SilverJ. L., Predicting Success in a First Programming Course, SIGCSE Bulletin, 14: 1, pp. 147–150, 1982.
18.
WebbN. M., Cognitive Requirements of Learning Computer Programming in Group and Individual Settings, AEDS Journal, 18, pp. 183–193, 1985.
19.
QuasneyJ. and Maniotes, BASIC Fundamentals and Style, Boyd & Fraser, Boston, 1984.
20.
School and College Ability Tests Handbook, Series II (SCAT II), Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, 1973.
21.
FurthH., An Inventory of Piaget's Developmental Tasks, Catholic University, Department of Psychology, Center for Research in Thinking and Language, Washington, 1970.
22.
PattersonH. O. and MilakofskyL., A Paper-and-Pencil Inventory for the Assessment of Piaget's Tasks, Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, pp. 341–353, 1980.
23.
MilakofskyL. and PattersonH. O., Chemical Education and Piaget: A New Paper-Pencil Inventory to Assess Cognitive Functioning, Journal of Chemical Education, 56, pp. 87–90, 1979.
24.
FurthH., Personal Communication to P. Barker on the Use of the IPDT in Assessing the Attainment of Formal Operations with College Students, 1985.
25.
McNeilK.KellyF. J., and McNeil, Testing Research Hypotheses Using Multiple Linear Regression, Southern University Press, Carbondale, 1975.
26.
CafollaR., The Relationship of Piagetian Formal Operations and Other Cognitive Factors to Computer Programming Ability, Dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, 1986.
27.
PapertS., Mindstorms, Basic, New York, 1980.
28.
MayerR. E., The Psychology of How Novices Learn Computer Programming, Computer Surveys, 13, pp. 121–141, 1981.
