Prior Programming Experience: A Persistent Performance Gap in CS1 and CS2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has reported on the advantageous effects of prior experience in CS1, but it remains unclear whether these effects fade over a sequence of introductory programming courses. Furthermore, while student perceptions suggest that prior experience remains important, studies have reported that a student's expectation of their performance is a more accurate predictor of outcome. We aim to confirm if prior experience (formal or informal) provides short-term and long-term advantages in computing courses or if the advantage fades. Furthermore, we explore whether the expectation of performance is a more accurate predictor of student success than informal and formal prior experience. To explore these questions, we deployed surveys in a CS1 course to gauge students' level of prior experience in programming, prediction of final exam grades, and self-efficacy to succeed in university. Grades from CS1 and CS2 were also collected. We observed a persistent (1-letter grade) gap between the performance of students with no prior experience and those with any experience, but we did not observe a noteworthy gap when comparing student performance based on formal or informal experience. We also observed differences in self-efficacy and retention rates between different levels of prior experience. Lastly, we confirm that success in CS1 can be better reflected and predicted by some controllable factors, such as students' perceptions of ability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".