Is this Degree for Me?Exploring computing students’ study decisions
Authors: 
Claudia Ott, Steven Mills, 
Nigel Stanger, Senorita John, Sander ZwanenburgAuthors Info & Claims
Claudia Ott, Steven Mills, Nigel Stanger, Senorita John, Sander ZwanenburgAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 96 - 105
Abstract
Academic course advice for computing students has changed and presents new challenges. It has become more complex due to an increasing number of specialised study pathways, and less personal as centralised enrolment systems have taken the place of academic advisors. To improve course advice practices for students in computing disciplines at our university, a series of interviews and an online questionnaire were conducted. We asked students where they seek information before and during their studies, what kind of information they value, and how confident they are with their study choices. We found that half of our students changed study subjects along the way and that students would like to have a higher-level view of career pathways to plan their studies. It was also highlighted that students value information provided by other students and that they prefer talking to academic staff members in person over online information. As a result of this study, we share recommendations on how to support students better when making decisions about their study subjects.
References
[1]
Stephen Aguilar, Steven Lonn, and Stephanie D. Teasley. 2014. Perceptions and use of an early warning system during a higher education transition program. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. 113–117.
[2]
Vangel V. Ajanovski. 2019. Body of Knowledge Explorer: Long-term student guidance across the computer-science domain. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. 1–5.
[3]
Patricia Margaret Alexander, M. Holmner, Hugo Hendrik Lotriet, Machdel C. Matthee, H. V. Pieterse, Saloshana Naidoo, Hossana Twinomurinzi, and Danie Jordaan. 2011. Factors affecting career choice: Comparison between students from computer and other disciplines. Journal of Science Education and Technology 20, 3 (2011), 300–315.
[4]
Adelina Broadbridge. 1996. Academic advising—traditional or developmental approaches?: Student perspectives. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 24, 1 (1996), 97–111.
[5]
Michael Geoffrey Brown, R. Matthew DeMonbrun, Steven Lonn, Stephen J. Aguilar, and Stephanie D. Teasley. 2016. What and when: the role of course type and timing in students’ academic performance. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. 459–468.
[6]
Nell Buissink-Smith, Rachel Spronken-Smith, and Rebecca Walker. 2010. You’re doing what? Students’ experiences of advice from a New Zealand university. Higher Education Research & Development 29, 4 (2010), 357–371.
[7]
Kathy Charmaz. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage.
[8]
Randy Connolly, Janet Miller, Faith-Michael Uzoka, Barry Lunt, Marc Schroeder, Craig S. Miller, and Annabella Habinka. 2016. Red fish blue fish: Reexamining student understanding of the computing disciplines. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education. 115–120.
[9]
Jill Courte and Cathy Bishop-Clark. 2009. Do students differentiate between computing disciplines?ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 1 (2009), 29–33.
[10]
Burns B. Crookston. 1972. A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of College Student Personnel(1972).
[11]
Computing Curricula. 2001. Computer Science, The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. IEEE Computer Society & Association for Computing Machinery, Final Report (2001).
[12]
Alex Duncan and David Joyner. 2019. Peer advising at scale: Content and context of a learner-owned course evaluation system. In Proceedings of the 6th (2019) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. 1–4.
[13]
Kevin Egan, Ellen Bara Stolzenberg, A. K. Bates, Melissa C. Aragon, M. R. Suchard, and Cecilia Rios-Aguilar. 2013. The American freshman: National norms fall 2013. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) (2013).
[14]
Richard P. Halgin and Lucille F. Halgin. 1984. An advising system for a large psychology department. Teaching of Psychology 11, 2 (1984), 67–70.
[15]
Judith M. Harackiewicz, Jessi L. Smith, and Stacy J. Priniski. 2016. Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 2 (2016), 220–227.
[16]
Michael Hewner. 2014. How CS Undergraduates Make Course Choices. In Proceedings of the 10th International Computing Education Research Conference. 115–122.
[17]
Michael Hewner and Mark Guzdial. 2011. How CS Majors Select a Specialization. In Proceedings of the 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop.
[18]
Rahmat Hidayat, Effendi Sinuhaji, Meiyanti Widyaningrum, Erdiansyah, and Adrianto. 2018. Factors that affect students decision to choose private universities in Medan City Indonesia. Academy of Strategic Management Journal(2018).
[19]
Mikki Poynter Jeschke, Kathy E. Johnson, and Jane R. Williams. 2001. A comparison of intrusive and prescriptive advising of psychology majors at an urban comprehensive university. NACADA Journal 21, 1-2 (2001), 46–58.
[20]
Weijie Jiang, Zachary A. Pardos, and Qiang Wei. 2019. Goal-based course recommendation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. 36–45.
[21]
Emily J. Johnson and Betsy L. Morgan. 2005. Advice on advising: Improving a comprehensive university’s program. Teaching of Psychology 32, 1 (2005), 15–18.
[22]
Colleen M. Lewis, Ken Yasuhara, and Ruth E. Anderson. 2011. Deciding to Major in Computer Science: A Grounded Theory of Students’ Self-Assessment of Ability. In Proceedings of the 7th International Computing Education Research Workshop. 3–10.
[23]
Veronica Liesaputra, Guillermo Ramirez-Prado, Bashar Barmada, and Lei Song. 2020. Future-proofing Kiwi kids through the use of digital technology. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.
[24]
Taj W. Makki, LaToya J. O’Neal, Shelia R. Cotten, and R. V. Rikard. 2018. When first-order barriers are high: A comparison of second-and third-order barriers to classroom computing integration. Computers & Education 120 (2018), 90–97.
[25]
Felix Maringe. 2006. University and course choice. International Journal of Educational Management (2006).
[26]
Martijn Millecamp, Francisco Gutiérrez, Sven Charleer, Katrien Verbert, and Tinne De Laet. 2018. A qualitative evaluation of a learning dashboard to support advisor-student dialogues. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. 56–60.
[27]
Karen E. Mottarella, Barbara A. Fritzsche, and Kara C. Cerabino. 2004. What do students want in advising? A policy capturing study. NACADA Journal 24, 1-2 (2004), 48–61.
[28]
Susila Munisamy, Noor Ismawati Mohd Jaafar, and Shyamala Nagaraj. 2014. Does reputation matter? Case study of undergraduate choice at a premier university. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23, 3 (2014), 451–462.
[29]
Matthew D. Pistilli and Kimberly E. Arnold. 2010. Purdue Signals: Mining real-time academic data to enhance student success. About Campus 15, 3 (2010), 22–24.
[30]
Klim Popov. 2019. Factors, Affecting Students’ Decision to Enroll in a University. PEDAGOGIA: Jurnal Pendidikan 8, 2 (2019), 201–210.
[31]
Amber Settle and John Glatz. 2011. Rethinking advising: Developing a proactive culture to improve retention. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Information Technology Education. 9–14.
[32]
Russell Shackelford, Andrew McGettrick, Robert Sloan, Heikki Topi, Gordon Davies, Reza Kamali, James Cross, John Impagliazzo, Richard LeBlanc, and Barry Lunt. 2006. Computing curricula 2005: The overview report. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 38, 1 (2006), 456–457.
[33]
Cláudia Simões and Ana Maria Soares. 2010. Applying to higher education: Information sources and choice factors. Studies in Higher Education 35, 4 (2010).
[34]
Louise Starkey, Allan Sylvester, and David Johnstone. 2017. Negotiating digital divides: Perspectives from the New Zealand schooling system. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 49, 1-2(2017), 31–42.
[35]
Nichole G. Thomas. 2017. Using intrusive advising to improve student outcomes in developmental college courses. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice (2017), 1521025117736740.
[36]
University of Otago. 2020. Learning and Teaching: Terminology. Retrieved 2020-12-02 from https://www.otago.ac.nz/study/terms.html
Index Terms
- Is this Degree for Me?Exploring computing students’ study decisions
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Exploring Experienced Professionals’ Reflections on Computing Education
This exploratory qualitative study examines computing professional’s memories of their own formal and non-formal educational experiences, their reflections on how these have prepared them for their professional roles, and their recommendations for an “...
Comparison of Baccalaureate Nursing Students' Experience of Video-Assisted Debriefing versus Oral Debriefing following High-Fidelity Human Simulation
High-Fidelity Human Simulation HFHS is used in many disciplines, including nursing, as an innovative teaching pedagogy that offers an active learning process. The simulation process involves a number of stages with the most critical stage identified as ...
Computing for STEM majors: enhancing non CS majors' computing skills
SIGCSE '12: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science EducationOne of the challenges facing the U.S. technological workforce is that as fewer students take computing courses, fewer college graduates are being prepared for computing careers. Besides trying to attract more CS majors, another approach is to (i) design ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2021 ACM.
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 ACM 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 [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 17 March 2021
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
ACE '21
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 161 of 359 submissions, 45%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 84Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)5
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 07 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format