i

PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE PREFERENCES AMONG COMPUTER

SCIENCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (CSIT) STUDENTS

TITLE PAGE

LIRIO V. DANIEL

HAZEL Y. DELA CRUZ

VILMA M. SANTOS

MICHAEL ANGELO P. SULAYAO

SHERILYN P. TOBIAS

College of Information and Computing Sciences

PLT College, Inc.

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

2012

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ..........................................................................................................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................iv

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 4

Theoretical and Analytical Framework ..................................................................... 5

Conceptual Model of the Study ..................................................................... 6

Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 8

Scope and Delimitation ............................................................................................. 9

Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 9

METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 11

Research Method/Design ........................................................................................ 11

Locale/Settings ........................................................................................................ 11

Sources of Data ....................................................................................................... 11

Research Instruments .............................................................................................. 12

Data Gathering Procedure ....................................................................................... 12

Treatment of Data .................................................................................................... 12

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 23

Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 23

Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 23

Recommendations ................................................................................................... 24

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 26

A. Letter to the Respondents ................................................................................ 26

B. Research Instrument ........................................................................................ 27

iii

ABSTRACT

Programming languages play a critical role in computer science and information and

communication technology, its design and implementation has advanced significantly in

the recent past in response to its increasing pervasiveness. Unfortunately, tertiary education

curriculum has not kept pace.

In computer science and information technology education, its curricula are typically

designed to provide students with exposure to the development of problem-solving skills,

further study in research in information and communication technology, analysis, data

structure design, and application of computer programming, which plays a central role -

students are taught one or more programming languages. And at the end of the course,

students are expected to be able to design and deploy a system. However, there has been

major discussion about how to teach programming courses to students. When constructing

an introductory programming course, instructors must consider what language to teach,

how their course will benefit their students’ programming skills for later study or

employment, what paradigm should be used and what tools, if any, could assist in the

teaching of their students, and what language (English/Filipino/Vernacular) to use in

teaching programming.

Though, students fear, and/or do poorly in programming. Other students find programming

interesting and non-threatening. For all students there is a possibility that their attitudes

toward computer programming will change and their language of preference in teaching

programming is affected by factors like: demographic variables, programming experiences,

and their computer programming language preferences.

Keywords: Programming language curriculum, teaching programming languages,

language preferences in teaching programming

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researchers would like to thank:

Dr. Bonifacio V. Ramos, the Research Director of PLT College, Inc. for giving

them the opportunity to work on with this study;

The personnel of the Management Information System Office, for their unwavering

technical support and confidence to the researchers which were one of the primary

motivating factor;

The students and officers of the College of Information and Computing Sciences,

for their strong belief and love to their mentors;

The researchers would also like to thank Mr. Joel B. Doladol, for helping the

researchers with the statistical analysis and interpretation data of this study;

And, last but not the least, the researchers would like to extend their gratitude and

thanks to the people who mean the most to them, their family. Without their constant

support and encouraging words, none of this would have been possible.

1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Programming languages play a critical role in computer science by providing a

flexible and robust means by which human beings interact with and control computer

systems. Programming language design and implementation has advanced significantly

in the recent past in response to the increasing pervasiveness of computer science and

technology. Unfortunately, tertiary-education curriculum has not kept pace, and so it does

not appropriately reflect the expansive growth and evolution. This lag is a critical

challenge because an up-to-date curriculum is essential to prepare a globally competitive

workforce, able to generate and to apply new knowledge, and to take the lead in advancing

computer science and technology. (Lambda the Ultimate.org, 2008)

Programming languages play a central role in every computer sciences and

information technology curriculum. Students are taught one or more programming

languages early in the curriculum, as means to end learning how to program. Later,

depending on the curriculum, students may have an opportunity to study programming

languages as artefacts of interest in their own right. (Watt, 2000)

Computer science and information technology is a well-established field in

education. However, there has been major discussion about how to teach programming

courses to students. When constructing an introductory programming course, instructors

must consider what language to teach, how their course will benefit their students’

programming skills for later study or employment, what paradigm should be used and what

tools, if any, could assist in the teaching of their students. (de Raadt, Watson, & Toleman,

2002)

2

In conceptualizing a curriculum and creating a syllabus, instructors must be

required to consider what language (English/Filipino/Vernacular) to use in teaching

programming, what programming language to teach, how will the course of activities will

help in the competence of students in programming for their later learning and post

baccalaureate studies or career, what model must be utilized and what tools, if any, could

help in imparting knowledge to students. (Iglesias, Gaffud, Pelerio, & Saballa, 2012)

Attitudes toward Programming

“Dalton and Goodrum looked at attitudes in a study on the effect of structured

programming on problem-solving skills. There were 272 students in elementary school and

junior high school in 22 classes with 15 teachers. In this study, they found that those who

studied programming had improved problem-skills and attitudes toward computers over a

control group with no programming. Woodrow also found statistically significant gains in

positive attitudes toward computers with programming in the literacy course. The

computer literacy course was elective and consisted of 36 pre-service teachers. The study

also concluded that it was necessary to include programming in the introductory course

because positive attitudes toward computers contributed to further acquisition of

computing skills. Koohang, using the same scale as this study, investigated the effect of

prior experience in keyboarding, programming, spreadsheets, databases and word

processing on attitudes toward computers. The 81 participants were undergraduate college

students in computer education courses at a Midwestern university. All of the skills, except

for databases, had statistically significant positive attitudes toward computers correlating

with prior knowledge. Contradicting these positive results, Farkas, investigating the

instructional sequence of spreadsheets and programming in the introductory course, found

a statistically significant decrease in positive attitude towards computers as a result of

3

learning programming. This study was conducted with 44 participants in 2 classes. The

course was a required core course for all undergraduates at the Northeastern University and

consisted of liberal arts, education, nursing and business majors. The study described in

this paper repeated the Farkas attitude study with a larger sample population.” (Farkas &

Murthy, 2005)

Programming Language Preferences

Industry, it seems, can influence languages taught within tertiary institutions, and

the languages taught in tertiary institutions in turn influence the languages used within

industry. But which comes first? Is it the chicken or the egg? Who is making the decisions

that will guide the future of programming? Some suggest that we are driven toward debate

over technological issues of introductory programming when we should be focussing on

teaching algorithms and problem solving. Should universities teach generic skills that can

be applied to many languages, or should they teach specific languages in a

technology-based manner? Is it even necessary to introduce any specific language at all in

an introductory course? (de Raadt, Watson, & Toleman, 2002)

Programming Experiences

Like many things in life, first impression matters, and programming is no

exception. The importance of a properly constructed first course in programming cannot be

overstated. A course well experienced will leave students with good programming habits,

the ability to learn on their own, and a favourable impression of programming as a

profession. A poor experience may result in a “just get by” attitude, bad programming

habits, and could lead to a change in majors. Nevertheless, instilling in students the good

4

programming habits and providing them with an enjoyable first experience in

programming is important.

Programing is difficult to learn and there are strategies to overcome them. Example,

combining the use of a modern interactive development environment such as the Netbeans,

with active learning and a breadth-first approach is found to increase student satisfaction,

increase success rates, and lower dropout frequencies. (Pendergast, 2006)

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the demographic variables,

programming experiences, and programming language preferences affects attitudes toward

programming, and their language preference in teaching programming of junior and senior

students in Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (BSCS) and Bachelor of Science in

Information Technology (BSIT) of PLT College, Inc., Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. As a

result, the following problems/questions were determined and answered to accomplish the

purpose of this study:

1. What is the general profile of the respondents?

2. What is the level of programming experiences of the respondents?

3. What is the level of programming language preferences of the respondents?

4. What is the level of attitudes toward programming of the respondents?

5. What is the level of language preferences in teaching programming of the

respondents?

6. Is there a significant relationship between the following:

a. Profile and attitudes toward programming

b. Profile and language preferences in teaching programming.

5

7.

Theoretical and Analytical Framework

The researchers would like to determine whether demographic variables,

programming experiences, and programming preferences influences the respondents’

attitudes toward programming and the preferences in teaching programming

Figured 1 shows the conceptual paradigm of the study. The independent variables

include factors that have been assumed to have an effect on attitudes towards

programming, and the language preferences in teaching programming.

Under demographic variables, the assumed factors that influence attitudes toward

programming and language preferences in teaching programming are: course, sex,

ethnicity, and grade in Introduction to/Fundamentals of Programming/Programming

Principles 1, or related subjects.

In the programming experiences, it has been considered that programming tutorials,

programming skills, and interest influences would affect the attitudes toward programming

and language preferences in teaching programming.

The factors of programming language preferences – programming language

preferences and the reason of preferences have been hypothesized to affect the attitudes

toward programming and language preferences in teaching programming.

6

Conceptual Model of the Study

7

Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

8

Significance of the Study

This study will be beneficial to:

1. Computer Science, Information and Communication Technology Educators.

Results of this study will provide baseline information for the

development of a better programming instruction and transformational changes

needed to best prepare students to participate in the rapidly-changing field of

computer science, information and communication technology in tertiary

education.

2. Curriculum-Makers

Results of this study will serve as catalyst in expanding and improving

curriculum in Computer Science, Information and Communication Technology,

and related courses. Especially, in subjects that have software and system

development or programming activities in tertiary education institutions to

maintain the pace in answer to the growing pervasiveness of computer science,

and information and communication technology to daily life.

3. Students of Computer Science, Information Technology, and related degrees.

Results of this study will give feedback on the students’ attitude toward

programming and the language preference in teaching of programming, and for

them to determine and evaluate themselves in order to have an improved

appreciation with regard to programming or system and software development.

4. Future Researchers

9

The result and insights on the findings of this study will serve as a ready

reference materials, which could be explored to create other strategies in

making an undertakings or studies in other related field of study.

Scope and Delimitation

This study was conducted to determine the attitudes toward programming and the

factors that influence the language preference in teaching programming, the research

subjects were junior and senior students in the BSCS and BSIT program of the school year

2011 – 2012 at the PLT College, Inc., Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. A convenient sample of

these subjects was utilized in the data collection. This demographic profile may not

represent the average student in the BSCS and BSIT program at PLT College, Inc.,

programs and curricula vary from one institution to another. Since the study was only

based on data collected from one institution, the findings of this research should not be

generalized beyond this group of student at this institution

Definition of Terms

The following are defined for the purposes of clarification, and will contribute to

the reader’s understanding of the study:

Attitudes toward Programming Language refers to the respondent’s consistent

tendency to evaluate positively or negatively

Ethnicity refers to the tribal group where the respondents belong. In this study, it

refers to Ilocano and non-Ilocano.

Grade refers to the final rating of the respondents in the subject Introduction

to/Fundamentals of Programming/Programming Principles 1, or related subjects.

10

Language Preference refers to the medium used in the instruction of programming

languages as preferred by the respondents such as English, Filipino, Venacular, etc.

Programming Language Preference A student’s tendency to pursue study in one

programming language over another, as indicated by his or her choices.

Programming Language refers to the programming language preferred by the

respondents like C++, Microsoft Visual Basic, Java, etc.

11

METHODOLOGY

Research Method/Design

This study made use of a descriptive-correlational research design with the purpose

of accessing the whether the respondents’ demographic profile, programming experiences,

and programming language preferences has effects on the respondents' attitudes toward

programming and their preferred language of instruction being used by teachers in

programming.

Locale/Settings

The locale/settings of this study was the College of Information and Computing

Science of the PLT College, Inc. Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.

Sources of Data

The target population of this study were students enrolled in the Bachelor of

Science in Computer Science, and Bachelor of Science in Information Technology

programs at PLT College Inc.

The researchers did not made use of sampling method, since the population of the

BSCS and BSIT students is of manageable size. The sample range were randomly selected

junior (third year) and senior (fourth year) students.

The questionnaires were directly administered to them, the students who were not

able to fill-up the required fields/items/questions, or have put inappropriate response to

12

questions were requested to repeat answering another sheet of the questionnaire, and the

answered questionnaires were immediately collected.

Research Instruments

The instrument that was used in this study was a questionnaire that was used to

solicit information about the selected characteristics of the respondents: course, sex,

ethnicity, and grade in Introduction to/Fundamentals of Programming/Programing

Principles 1 or related subjects.

The questionnaire also asked for level of programming experiences, programming

language preferences, programming interest influences, attitudes toward programming, and

the language preferences in teaching programming.

A four-point Likert-type scale was used in the attitudes toward programming and

the language preferences in teaching programing with the following response choices: 4-

strongly agree, 3 – agree, 2 – disagree, 1 – strongly disagree.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers of this study directly administered the research questionnaires

personally. Questionnaire responses were collected immediately after the respondents

answered it.

Treatment of Data

Frequency and percentage was used to analyse the demographic profiles of

respondents, mean was used in attitudes toward programming, and the language

preferences in teaching programming of the students. The mean, or arithmetic average, is

13

the “most widely used measure of central tendency. The standard deviation basically

indicates the variability between the values in distribution that provided the mean.

Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was used to describe the

relationships between the variables.

14

RESULTS, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

1. Profile of the Respondents

Table I

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents

According to Course and Sex

Course Sex

Total Male Female

BSCS Count 5 5 10

% of Total 10.20% 10.20% 20.40%

BSIT Count 17 22 39

% of Total 34.70% 44.90% 79.60%

Total Count 22 27 49

% of Total 44.90% 55.10% 100.00%

Table I shows that 79.6% are BSIT (f=39) where there are 17 males and 22

females. 20.4% enrolled in BSCS (f=10), equal counts of male and female (f=5 each). This

means that there are more students enrolled in BSIT than BSCS.

Table 2

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents

According to Ethnicity and Sex

Ethnicity Sex

Total Male Female

Ilocano Count 14 18 32

% of Total 28.60% 36.70% 65.30%

Non-Ilocano Count 8 9 17

% of Total 16.30% 18.40% 34.70%

Total Count 22 27 49

15

% of Total 44.90% 55.10% 100.00%

Table 2 shows that there are 65.3% Ilocano (f=32), and 34.7% are non-Ilocano

(f=17). This means that Ilocano prefer to enroll BSIT and BSCS.

Table 3

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents

According to Programming Tutorial Experiences

Tutorial Frequency %

Self tutorial 23 0.47

Peer tutorial 20 0.41

Teacher tutorial (outside official

hours) 14 0.29

Table 3 shows that there are 47 percent of the respondents are having self-tutorial,

41% are into peer tutorial and 29% are into teachers’ tutorial outside official hours. This

means that the students do not only rely on the learning’s acquired in the presence of the

subject teacher.

Table 4

Average and Rank Distribution of the Respondents

According to Factors that Affects their Skills in Programming

Factors Average Rank

Parents 6.31 7

Siblings 7 9

Friends 4.49 4

Relatives 6.33 8

Internet 3.04 2

Media 4.9 5

School/Teacher 2.98 1

Community 5.67 6

16

Self 4.12 3

The table shows that school/teacher is the number one factor which affects their

skills in programming (ave.= 2.98). This means that, if the teacher is not good, the skills of

the students will not be enhance, or vice-versa. Internet is the second factor which affects

the skills of the students. As it is observed that the students are fun on surfing internet. The

more they are using the internet to learn programming the more their skills will be

enhanced. Self is the third factor which affects the students’ skills in programming.

Parents, relatives and siblings are the factors which less affects the skills of the students in

programming. This is because parents, relatives and siblings are not always present when

the students is learning programming, except in some cases where the students learn at

home with them.

Table 5

Average and Rank Distribution of the Respondents

According to Factors that Affects their Interest in Programming

Factors Average Rank

Parents 6.8 8

Siblings 7.61 9

Friends 4.67 5

Relatives 6.41 7

Internet 2.63 1

Media 4.29 4

School/Teacher 2.98 2

Community 5.43 6

Self 3.14 3

The table shows that internet is the number one which affects the interest of the

students in learning programming (ave.=2.63). This is because in the internet, the students

are hearing the narration while viewing. Unlike in school/teacher (ave.=2.98) where they

17

explain during lecture hours and do it during laboratory time. Self (ave.=3.14) is the third

factor which affects the students interest in programming. Relatives, parents, and siblings

are the factors which affects the interest of the students in programming. This means that

family is not the reason why the students have interest in learning programming.

Table 6

Average and Rank of the Respondents According to

Programming Language Preference

Programming

Language Average Rank

Assembly 4.2 5

C/C++/C# 3.3 4

Visual Basic 2.1 1

Java 3 3

HTML/XML/PHP 2.5 2

Others 6 6

With the six programming language, visual basics rank 1, HTML/XML/PHP rank

2, and java rank 3, C/C++/C# rank 5 and others rank 6.

Table 7

Average and Rank of the Factors that Influence the Respondents Language Preference

Reasons Average Rank

Availability/Cost 5 6

Easy to find tutorials/sources/books 3.1 1

Expertise of teacher in teaching programming

subjects 3.2 2

GUI interface/User friendly 9.9 9

Industry Relevance/Marketable 4.2 3

Popularity/Dominancy 4.9 5

Tools (Use of integrated text editor, compiler,

interpreter, debugger, etc) 4.8 4

18

Others 8 7

The table shows that the number one reason for language preference of the

respondents is easy to find tutorials/source/books. Rank 2 is expertise of the teacher in

teaching programming. Third is the industry relevance/ marketability. The last rank is GUI

interface/User friendly.

Table 8

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents according to their

Performance in Programming

PERFORMANCE

Sex Total

QD Male Female

96-100 Count 6 4 10 Excellent

% of Total 12.20% 8.20% 20.40%

91-95 Count 0 1 1

Very

Satisfactory % of Total 0.00% 2.00% 2.00%

86-90 Count 7 5 12

Satisfactory % of Total 14.30% 10.20% 24.50%

81-85 Count 9 17 26

Good % of Total 18.40% 34.70% 53.10%

Total Count 22 27 49

% of Total 44.90% 55.10% 100.00%

The table shows respondents distribution according to grades. It shows further

that 53.1% of the students’ are good in programming (f=26), 24% are performing

satisfactory, 2% are performing very satisfactory and 20% has excellent performance in

programming I.

19

5. Attitudes Toward Programming Of The Respondents

Table 9. Means and Qualitative Description of the Respondents Agreeing Attitudes

Towards Programming

Indicators Mean QD SD

1. I am confident to consider myself as a programmer. 2.43 D 0.82

2. I am excited every time we have a laboratory activity. 2.88 A 0.67

3. I am not interested in programming. 1.92 D 0.73

4. I am well versed with programming language reserved words. 2.49 A 0.65

5. I consider programming as a hobby. 2.16 A 0.66

6. I enjoy talking with others about programming. 2.14 A 0.74

7. I dream of becoming a hacker/cracker 2.53 A 1.02

8. I enjoy experimenting with codes. 2.84 A 0.72

9. I feel bad every time we have a laboratory programming activities. 1.94 D 0.59 10. I feel uneasy when I have an unsolved laboratory programming activity. 3.04 A 0.71

11. I feel victorious to see a no error message in compiling my code. 3.27 A 0.67

12. I gain money in programming. 2.31 A 0.85

13. I gain more friends because of programming. 2.63 A 0.76

14. I gain more friends because of programming. 2.45 A 0.77 15. I hate myself when I am not able to solve a programming problem/activity. 3.02 A 0.85

16. I have a bad experience in programming. 2.78 A 0.87

17. I have a hard time understanding the flow of a program. 2.92 A 0.79 18. I want to become an Information and Communication Technology specialist. 3.37 A 0.73

19. I want to have knowledge in two or more programming language. 3.35 A 0.63

20. I will need a firm mastery of programming for my future work. 3.41 A 0.64

21. It is important to me to do well in my programming classes. 3.31 A 0.58

22. Knowing how to program will increase my job possibilities. 3.41 A 0.61

23. Learning about programming is a waste of time. 1.67 D 0.80

24. Learning about programming is worthwhile. 2.90 A 0.85

25. Programming is enjoyable and stimulating. 2.90 A 0.71

26. Programming is my priority in taking up BSCS/BSIT course. 2.88 A 0.78

27. Programming is not important to me. 1.73 D 0.70

28. Programming is not my past time. 2.55 A 0.79

29. Programming is very difficult. 3.08 A 0.81

30. Programming will not be important in my future work. 1.65 D 0.86

Total 2.66 A 0.74

Legend: SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree

20

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

The table shows the agreeing attitudes of the students towards programming. The

total computed mean is 2.66, qualitatively described as agree. This implies that the students

agree on the attitudes indicated in the above table. The students say that firm mastery of

programming is needed for future work (mean =3,41), and knowing how to program will

increase their job possibilities (mean=3.41). This indicates that the students know the

importance of programming in their future life. They consider it as one of the subjects that

must be mastered especially because they want to become an Information and

Communication Technology specialist (mean=3.37). The students want to have knowledge

in two or more programming language (mean=3.31). This indicates their interest in the

subject. So it is important for them to do well in programming classes (mean=3.31) even

though they finds difficulty in programming (mean=3.08). The students disagree that they

are confident to consider themselves as a programmer (mean=.2.43). This indicates that the

students know that they should learn more about programming especially that they did not

yet took programming II, object oriented programming, and other oriented higher

programming subjects. They also disagree that they feel bad every time they have

laboratory programming activities (mean=1.94). This indicates that they are interested in

learning programming.

21

Table 10. Means and Qualitative Description of the Respondents Language

Preferences in Teaching Programming

Indicators Mean QD SD

1. It is easier to understand programming when taught in English 3.04 A 0.68

2. It is easier to understand programming when taught in Filipino 3.12 A 0.81

3. It is easier to understand programming when taught in Vernacular 2.65 A 0.80

4. It is easier to understand programming when taught in English &

Filipino 3.53 SA 0.54

5. It is easier to understand programming when taught in Filipino &

Vernacular 2.82 A 0.70

6. It is easier to understand programming when taught in English &

Vernacular 2.78 A 0.65

7. It is easier to understand programming when taught in English,

Filipino & Vernacular 3.27 A 0.70

Total 3.03 A 0.70

Legend: SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

The table shows the means and qualitative descriptions of the respondent’s

language preferences in teaching programming. The total computed mean is 3.03,

qualitatively described as agree. It implies that the students in BSIT and BSCS agree that

the enumerated indicators can be used in teaching programming. Most of the students says

that programming is easy to understand when taught in English and Filipino (mean= 3.53).

This indicates that most of the students who finished programming understood the subject

better when English and Filipino was used. There are also students who says that they

understood programming easier when taught in English, Filipino and Vernacular

(mean=3.27). Other students also says that they understood programming better if it was

taught in Filipino (mean=3.12). As it is observed, students who speaks English and Tagalog

inside the class and in the campus understand programming easily as compared to students

who uses vernacular. However, there are students who says they understand programming

easier when taught in vernacular (mean=2.65). These are the students who says that it

22

should be taught in Ilocano. As it is observed in the school most used Ilocano as a medium

when they are having conversation.

Table 11. Relationship between the Respondents Profile and their Attitudes Towards

Programming and their Language Preference in teaching Programming

Attitudes

towards

Programming

Language

Preferences in

teaching

Programming

Grade

Course Pearson Correlation 0.13 -0.12 .044

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.372 0.41 .762

Sex Pearson Correlation 0.075 0.091 .185

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.608 0.534 .204

Ethnicity Pearson Correlation -0.033 -0.08 .267

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.82 0.584 .063

Table ---- shows the relationship between the respondents profile, their attitudes

towards programming and their language preference in teaching programming. It shows

further that course, sex, ethnicity and grade has no significant correlation with that students

attitudes towards programming and their language preferences in teaching programming. It

implies that course, sex and ethnicity of the respondents has no bearing on their attitudes

towards programming. Their language preference in teaching programming and their

grades is not affected by their course, sex and ethnicity.

23

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

1. Most of the respondents are female (f=27) Ilocano (f=32) enrolled in BSIT.

2. The level of the programming experiences of the respondents is more on self-tutorial

(47%) on programming tutorials. School/Teacher on programming skills/Influences

(ave.=2.980, and internet on programming interest (ave.=2.63)

3. The level of programming language preferences of the respondents is visual basic

(ave.=2.1).

4. The level of attitudes of the respondents towards programming is good (mean=2.66)

5. The level of language preferences of the respondents in teaching programming is good

(mean=3.03).

6. The profile of the respondents has no significant relationship with their respondents

attitudes towards programming and their language preference in teaching

programming.

Conclusions

1. Students in programming are female Ilocano taking up BSIT.

2. The students in programming are self-tutorial who always uses the internet. They are

influenced by their school/teacher.

3. The students in programming prefer visual basic as language in programming.

4. Course, sex, and ethnicity of the students have no bearing on their attitudes towards

programming, and their language preference in teaching programming subject.

24

Recommendations

1. Males should be encouraged to enrol in BSCS and BSIT program to equal the

population of the female.

2. Non-Ilocano should be encouraged to enrol in BSCS and BSIT program

3. Students should also use Assembly and C/C++C#

4. Students to learn more about programming so that they will become confident

programmer.

25

REFERENCES

de Raadt, M., Watson, R., & Toleman, M. (2002). Language Trends in Introductory

Programming Courses. Informating Science InSITE - “Where Parallels Intersect”,

329-337.

Farkas, D., & Murthy, N. (2005). Attitudes Toward Computers, the Introductory Course

and Recruiting New Majors: Preliminary Results. New York: Sussex University.

Iglesias, C. V., Gaffud, R. C., Pelerio, E. I., & Saballa, R. B. (2012). A Customized Simple

Statistical Tool. Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya: Nueva Vizcaya State University.

Lambda the Ultimate.org. (2008, March 22). SIGPLAN Workshop on Undergraduate

Programming Language Curriculum. Retrieved from Lambda the Ultimate:

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2731

Pendergast, M. O. (2006). Teaching Introductory Programming to IS Students: Java

Problems and Pitfalls. Florida Gulf Coast University Journal of Information

Technology Education.

Watt, D. A. (2000). Programming Languages - Trend in Education. Glasgow: University of

Glasgow.

26

APPENDICES

A. Letter to the Respondents

College of Information and Computing Sciences

PLT College, Inc. Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN College of Information and Computing Sciences

This Institution

Our Dear Students, Greetings of peace and excellence!

The College of Information and Computing Sciences is conducting a research entitled:

“Programming Language Preferences among Information and Computing Sciences Students.”

The major purpose of this study is to determine the liked programming language of students and

the preferred language of instruction in teaching programming, which will enable us to improve your

learning experience with regard to programming in our college.

In this regard, may I solicit your participation by answering the attached questionnaire based on

your actual preference and experience?

Rest assured that your answer shall be dealt with utmost confidentiality.

Thank you and God bless.

Very truly yours,

____________________ Michael Angelo P. Sulayao

Research Coordinator

College of Information and Computing Sciences

10/10/2013

Noted:

Vilma M. Santos

College Dean

27

B. Research Instrument

28

29

30