One of the many reading reflections for my CS 596 class on Computer Science Education Research.
This semester, I’m taking CS 596, Computer Science Education Research (CSER), taught by the amazing Dr. Miranda Parker. This course explores various aspects of teaching and learning computer science, encompassing the subject’s history and influential works in CSER. We also dive into research study design, current trends in the field, and open research areas for future exploration.
Before every class, we are assigned to read and reflect on one or two research papers. These reading reflections aid in our preparation for class discussions on specific topics. This week, we’re discussing mindsets in computing with two published research papers. I’ve provided the papers, sourced from the ACM Digital Library.
Dangers of a Fixed Mindset: Implications of Self-theories Research for Computer Science Education
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1597849.1384344
In the first paper, “Dangers of a Fixed Mindset: Implications of Self-theories Research for Computer Science Education,” authors Laurie Murphy and Lynda Thomas share the impact that mindset has on success in computer science (CS). They focus on student responses and beliefs about their intelligence, referring to it as a student's 'self-theory’. Murphy and Thomas examine the psychological implications of particular mindsets on students’ learning to program success and their decision to major in CS. They address various Computer Science Education Research (CSER) matters, such as students’ initial exposure to computer programming, the psychology behind women’s enrollment in CS, and CS students’ perceptions of attainability.
How Do Students Talk About Intelligence? An Investigation of Motivation, Self-efficacy, and Mindsets in Computer Science
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3291279.3339413
In the second paper, “How Do Students Talk About Intelligence? An Investigation of Motivation, Self-efficacy, and Mindsets in Computer Science,” authors Jamie Gorson and Eleanor O’Rourke share their small-scale findings of how CS students talk about their intelligence, mindsets, and programming behaviors. They explored criteria that students tend to use when measuring programming intelligence and self-efficacy, which in turn interacted with their mindsets and behaviors. In their study, the authors conducted an interview survey with selected students and studied their spoken word mindset and associative behavior. They found that students either aligned with mindset theory, had a misaligned mindset, or had a mixed mindset, showing attributes of both growth and fixed mindsets.
Mindset theory
In both papers, the authors bring up the idea of mindset theory—research in psychology on students’ perceptions of intelligence malleability. Intelligence malleability refers to the ability of intelligence to change and adapt over time. Students’ mindset strongly impacts their motivation, reaction to challenges, and academic performance. Those with a growth mindset agree that intelligence is malleable and that they can grow through effort and practice. Those with a fixed mindset believe that there’s a limit to one’s potential growth and think that intelligence is an attribute that cannot be changed.
These readings opened me to how, after all of these years, I’m still barely out of the fixed mindset, despite my academic growth as a student in computer science. It makes me wonder if holding onto this fixed mindset all this time contributed to a lot of the frustrations I’ve been facing this entire time, both as a student and a person.
It has.
In Murphy and Thomas’s paper, they bring up examples of CS1 students, Joe and Amanda, who demonstrated classic examples of fixed and growth mindsets. Joe’s story explored his frustration and discomfort with the struggle he faced in CS1, while Amanda’s story shows her persistence and deliberation to understand the material, even after setbacks. I see myself in both of these CS1 students. When I started college as a freshman in 2021, I was set back greatly due to an undermining in my capability to take care of myself for the first time. I performed poorly in school because I didn’t attend classes and turned in assignments atrociously late. I got frustrated at my inability to get the programming assignments done on time like everyone else
Risk avoidance and strategy abandonment
I don’t think I truly learned how to pick myself up until my sophomore year of college. That’s when my fixed mindset really took hold. For the first time, I was getting good grades, but that was partly because that year wasn’t as academically challenging as my freshman year. I was also finally receiving treatment for many of my mental health issues. As a result, I started equating my successes with being “smart” because I was completing assignments on time and doing well on exams. Driven by a fear of falling back into what I call my “freshman-year failures,” I developed a sense of risk avoidance. Unfortunately, this has led me to respond helplessly to new challenges, and often I found myself abandoning strategies, both of which have negatively impacted the quality of my learning experiences in various classes.
This goes hand in hand with the imposter syndrome I now experience, especially in my upper-level, programming-intensive courses. My rough foundation in Java, from introductory and intermediate programming classes (CS-150 and CS-160), was largely due to my lack of engagement. When I took data structures (CS-210) with a professor who wasn’t even comfortable with C++, I earned an “A” on my transcript, but I didn’t actually learn anything. I had abandoned the study strategies I used in other classes because I knew I’d get an “A” regardless of the effort I put in.
These lower-division programming classes were crucial to mastering programming, yet I resorted to risk avoidance and strategy abandonment to protect the idea that I was doing well. In reality, I was sabotaging myself in the long run. By not allowing myself to face the discomfort of debugging and problem-solving, I’ve harmed my growth as a computer science student. This has left me feeling incapable in many of the upper-division programming-heavy courses, especially when we use languages I should already be familiar with.
This problem has extended beyond academics. My approach to applying for internships and jobs as an upperclassman has been to avoid the process entirely, just to escape the possibility of failure from the start.
As a woman in computing...
I wanted to highlight a few excerpts from Murphy and Thomas’s reading about women in computing because I was struck by the uncanny parallels to my own experiences as a girl who grew up labeled as “gifted.”
To compound the difficulties of learning to program, cultural views reinforce a fixed view of intelligence by supporting beliefs that one only “belongs” in a course or discipline if he or she possesses an innate ability (i.e., “a gift”) and when learning is effortless.
Research...found that viewing mathematical ability as a gift “not only can make women vulnerable to declining performance, but it can also make them susceptible to stereotypes, so that when they enter an environment that denigrates their gift, they may lose the desire to carry on in that field.”
…Although high-IQ girls tend to out perform all other groups in elementary school, they are also more likely to have a fixed mindset. As a consequence, they are less inclined to seek out challenges…
Not surprisingly, the transition to middle school is more difficult for students who believe intelligence is fixed. They are less able to adapt to increasing challenges and their math grades are more likely to decline.
When presented with confusing material at the outset of learning a new task, “bright girls did not cope well. In fact, the higher the girl’s IQ, the worse she did…”
In elementary school, my teachers noticed my attention to detail and excellence in all my assignments, and they recommended that I join the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program in my district. At the time, I was thrilled to have my intelligence recognized, and I remember scoring in the top 5% of the entire district after taking the GATE exam at just seven years old. Now, I wish they had kept the label of a “super-smart” second-grader to themselves. It has done more harm than good to my perception of intelligence, and I still struggle with the idea that intelligence isn’t something innate or reserved for only certain people.
Speed != Intelligence
I’m gradually reinforcing the idea that intelligence can be developed, especially with effort and patience. I’ve been improving my study habits, learning concepts early, and seeking help when needed — whether from peers or instructors. I’ve become a highly academically driven individual, and my hard work stands out, even when the course material is challenging.
However, with every positive, there comes a negative.
In a time-driven society, we’ve all internalized the idea that time is precious. The world operates diurnally, so we strive to make the most of each other’s time. However, for as long as I can remember, I’ve been a reckless spender of time, and that self-awareness weighs heavily on me. Watching those around me manage their time wisely, moving on to other tasks and activities while I seem to move in slow motion, often demotivates me. I still recall the loneliness of being the last one doing homework in the after-school program back in elementary school. Even now, I still see the little girl in me, sitting alone at a table, slowly working through her tasks.
I’ve reached a point where I equate the time I spend on tasks with my level of intellect. It’s not that I’m bad at something; in fact, I’m quite persistent and know I can understand things if given enough time. Yet, it takes me forever, and I often get frustrated knowing that while it takes another student X amount of time, it takes me 2–3 times longer to do the same task. I receive accommodations for test-taking because of this; I know the material, but my execution tends to be slow and meticulous as I want to get everything right the first time.
In a prior study by Lewis et al., students typically judge their ability to major in computer science based on three criteria: perceived prior experience, speed, and grades. Gorson and O’Rourke expanded on these self-assessments by focusing specifically on programming abilities. Through surveys and interviews, they found that students evaluate their programming intelligence based on a broad range of criteria, which they systematically tabulated by code to quantify their qualitative findings.
A common theme in both studies is the notion that “faster is better.” Recently, I’ve had several moments where I criticized myself for being “dumb” or “stupid” because of how slowly I was taking to grasp concepts or where I wasn’t able to move on. This isn’t necessarily just in regards to programming.
Outside of academics, someone once told me that I’m not a gamer because I couldn’t master the gameplay of a first-person shooter quickly enough to be ‘fun’ to play with. Although this was an external judgment, it has reinforced my belief in this intelligence criterion.
Other than that time, much of my perception that “faster is better” stems from a lack of self-esteem. My psychiatrist has advised me to work on my confidence, recognizing that I’m capable of great things, but she notes that I won’t believe it until I try. My friends, classmates, and professors admire my excellence and commitment, often encouraging me to push myself further. Maybe that’s a sign that I’m walking the right path.
A shift in perspective
A friend once said to me about my imposter syndrome anxieties flaring up during an attempt to attend a career fair late in my CS journey at SDSU:
“The way you conduct yourself, in addition to your work ethic, puts you ahead.”
This statement has stuck with me because it’s true. I set high standards for myself because I aspire to be successful. I no longer try to cheat the system to avoid failure. Instead, I apply the strategies I’ve learned and adapted during my sophomore and junior semesters at SDSU. This approach is proving to be beneficial for my understanding of various computer science topics.
I’m not as far behind as I sometimes make myself out to be just because I take a bit longer to complete tasks. Without the constraints of society’s time-driven framework, I believe I’m doing quite well. I want to use expectations to guide me, not to dictate my progress. If I continue to improve myself little by little each day, I’ll reach my goals. Perhaps I can leverage my meticulous attention to detail in a job or field where these skills are especially valuable.
Thanks for reading my Medium story! Give me some claps if you can :)
As I was reading the two papers for my assignment, I was already crafting this story in my head, and I’m glad I got it all out in a few hours. For Dr. Parker reading this, this is very much over 1-2 pages, in 12-point font and double-spaced, but I hope that’s okay.
