<p>At SigCSE this year a session participant said, roughly, &quot;research shows that there is no correlation between 'early skill' is CS and a student's ultimate success in the field.&quot; Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a citation of the study or studies that came to this conclusion.</p>
<p>I teach high school CS and have a significant number of students for whom my class is their first significant exposure to &quot;rigorous&quot; CS (where &quot;rigor&quot; means, more or less, attempting to develop the foundational skills and confidence to go on in CS, rather than &quot;just playing&quot;). I also have some students in every class who are real &quot;rock stars.&quot; I've been telling my students that they start where they start and their curiosity and persistence have a greater bearing on their success than their initial &quot;acceleration&quot; so I was thrilled to hear that there might be actual research that backs this up – especially if there is insight into how best to support the students who need time to build confidence and a foundation.</p>
<p>Have you heard of research along these lines? Any pointers on finding it?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-02T21:38:45.510Z
Ask the session chair put you in contact with the speaker if you don't have info and then ask. But I don't think the statement is all that controversial. People learn and develop differently.
Buffy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-02T21:46:49.620Z
Thanks! It was a comment in a discussion and I lost track of who it was. I'm hoping to find some "big guns" to bring to bear both on counselors and the math department, but also to use to help bolster the confidence of students who try but get discouraged.
dlu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-02T21:54:59.110Z
And don't lose track of the fact that you aren't "training" professionals. We teach everyone math (I hope) but don't expect them to become mathematicians. But computational thinking is useful in a lot of ways, as is history, writing, and all the rest.
Buffy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-02T22:00:24.660Z
Exactly, I want to "snare" the curious and intrigue them and create a space where they can start doing computational thinking and other "CSish stuff" and experience the fun and challenges that lurk within without doubting their worth as they see others for whom in seems easy.
dlu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-03T10:30:49.687Z
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark, and stated so strongly that it's almost certainly untrue.  How could there be no *correlation*, unless we also come to the conclusion that those with early, obvious talent are no more likely to pursue the field than students who struggle mightily right out the gate?
Ben I.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-15T22:42:03.167Z
As best I know, about half of all research is not reproducible. It is also the case that 'research' can demonstrate any point someone wishes to make. Some students eventually do well in a subject area, or even get jobs in that area, and others do not. This is the great mystery of having 7 billion people. I came to the conclusion a while back that the results of teaching is not my concern. I have no control over how it is received or used. As long as I put the info out in a good way and am as helpful as I can manage, that is it. Forget about the results.
Scott Rowe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-04T05:48:26.693Z
I can't seem to cough it up right now, but a fairly old paper talked about how the single thing that predicted how introductory computer science students did was "Ability to build a consistent mental model."  They backed this up by giving out a test at the beginning of the semester which was just arbitrary rules and directions.  The students who could build a consistent mental model *even if incorrect* and then apply it did well in the course even if they started out knowing nothing about computers.
Andrew Lentvorski
<scientific-papers>
Growth of Early CS Students
# Growth of Early CS Students

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-02)

At SigCSE this year a session participant said, roughly, "research shows that there is no correlation between 'early skill' is CS and a student's ultimate success in the field." Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a citation of the study or studies that came to this conclusion.

I teach high school CS and have a significant number of students for whom my class is their first significant exposure to "rigorous" CS (where "rigor" means, more or less, attempting to develop the foundational skills and confidence to go on in CS, rather than "just playing"). I also have some students in every class who are real "rock stars." I've been telling my students that they start where they start and their curiosity and persistence have a greater bearing on their success than their initial "acceleration" so I was thrilled to hear that there might be actual research that backs this up – especially if there is insight into how best to support the students who need time to build confidence and a foundation.

Have you heard of research along these lines? Any pointers on finding it?

**Tags:** scientific-papers

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Ask the session chair put you in contact with the speaker if you don't have info and then ask. But I don't think the statement is all that controversial. People learn and develop differently.  
> **username_0**: Thanks! It was a comment in a discussion and I lost track of who it was. I'm hoping to find some "big guns" to bring to bear both on counselors and the math department, but also to use to help bolster the confidence of students who try but get discouraged.  
> **username_1**: And don't lose track of the fact that you aren't "training" professionals. We teach everyone math (I hope) but don't expect them to become mathematicians. But computational thinking is useful in a lot of ways, as is history, writing, and all the rest.  
> **username_0**: Exactly, I want to "snare" the curious and intrigue them and create a space where they can start doing computational thinking and other "CSish stuff" and experience the fun and challenges that lurk within without doubting their worth as they see others for whom in seems easy.  
> **username_2**: It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark, and stated so strongly that it's almost certainly untrue.  How could there be no *correlation*, unless we also come to the conclusion that those with early, obvious talent are no more likely to pursue the field than students who struggle mightily right out the gate?  
> **username_3**: As best I know, about half of all research is not reproducible. It is also the case that 'research' can demonstrate any point someone wishes to make. Some students eventually do well in a subject area, or even get jobs in that area, and others do not. This is the great mystery of having 7 billion people. I came to the conclusion a while back that the results of teaching is not my concern. I have no control over how it is received or used. As long as I put the info out in a good way and am as helpful as I can manage, that is it. Forget about the results.  
> **username_4**: I can't seem to cough it up right now, but a fairly old paper talked about how the single thing that predicted how introductory computer science students did was "Ability to build a consistent mental model."  They backed this up by giving out a test at the beginning of the semester which was just arbitrary rules and directions.  The students who could build a consistent mental model *even if incorrect* and then apply it did well in the course even if they started out knowing nothing about computers.  

---

## 0 answers

