Indian Journal of Science and Technology

References

1. McCoy LP, Burton JK. The Relationship of Computer Programming and Mathematics in Secondary Students. Computers in the Schools. 1988;4:159–166. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j025v04n03_17
2. Sari DP, Sukmawati RA, Zulkarnain I. The Relationship Between Mathematical Ability and Programming Ability of Computer Science Education Students. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Creativity, Innovation and Technology in Education (IC-CITE 2018). (Vol. 274, pp. 50-53) 2018.
3. Razak MR, Ismail NZ. Influence of mathematics in programming subject. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC. 1974:50011.
4. Derus SR, Ali AZ. Difficulties in learning programming: Views of students. In: 1st International Conference on Current Issues in Education (ICCIE 2012). p. 74–79.
5. Cooper L, Cooper MW. Introduction to Dynamic Programming. In: International Series in Modern Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. (Vol. 1) Elsevier. 2016.
6. Bellman R, Esogbue AO, Nabeshima I. Mathematical Aspects of Scheduling and Applications. In: Rodin EY., ed. Modern Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. Elsevier. 2014.
7. Balmes IL. Correlation of mathematical ability and programming ability of the computer science students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences. 2017;4(3):85–88.
8. Brookshire RG, Crews TB, III HFB. Student Success in a University Introductory Networks and Telecommunications Course. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. 2009;5(1):53–61. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2009010104
9. Duran IL. The role of mathematics background in the performance of BSCS students in computer programming subject. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Modern Education (IJMRME). 2016;2(1):147–50. Available from: http://rdmodernresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/152.pdf
10. White G, Sivitanides M. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between success in Mathematics and Visual Programming Courses. Journal of Information System Education. 2003;14(4):409–416.
11. Ali PJ, Ali S, Farag WE. An Instrument to Measure Math Attitudes of Computer Science Students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2014;4(5):459–462. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2014.v4.450
12. Owolabi J, Olanipekun P, Iwerima J. Mathematics Ability and Anxiety, Computer and Programming Anxieties, Age and Gender as Determinants of Achievement in Basic Programming. GSTF Journal on Computing (JoC). 2014;3(4):109. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.7603/s40601-013-0047-4
13. Qian Y, Lehman JD. Correlates of Success in Introductory Programming: A Study with Middle School Students. Journal of Education and Learning. 2016;5(2):73. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n2p73
14. Treceñe J, Keneth, Abides R. A Study on the Variations of Internet Usage among Male and Female BS Information Technology Students. International Journal of Advanced Engineering and Management. 2020;5(1):12–17. Available from: https://ijoaemorg.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/ijoaem-5-1-2-1.pdf
15. Patitsas E, Craig M, Easterbrook S. A historical examination of the social factors affecting female participation in computing. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education. p. 111–116.
16. Guzdial M, Ericson B, Mcklin T, Engelman S. Georgia Computes! An Intervention in a US State, with Formal and Informal Education in a Policy Context. ACM Transactions on Computing Education. 2014;14(2):1–29. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2602488
17. Alvarado C, Dodds Z, Libeskind-Hadas R. Increasing women's participation in computing at Harvey Mudd College. ACM Inroads. 2012;3:55–64. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2381083.2381100
18. Dambrot FH, Watkins-Malek MA, Silling SM, Marshall RS, Garver JA. Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1985;27:71–86. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(85)90053-3
19. Makrakis V, Sawada T. Gender, computers and other school subjects among Japanese and Swedish students. Computers & Education. 1996;26(4):225–231. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(95)00085-2
20. Rubio MA, Romero-Zaliz R, Mañoso C, Madrid APd. Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education. 2015;82:409–420. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.003
21. Bruckman A, Jensen C, Debonte A. Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL environment. In: Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community 2002. p. 119–127.
22. Linn MC. Fostering equitable consequences from computer learning environments. Sex Roles. 1985;13:229–240. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00287913
23. Byrne P, Lyons G. The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 2001;33(3):49–52. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/507758.377467
24. Holden E, Weeden E. What Makes Valuable Pre-experience for Students Entering Programming Courses? Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology. 2006;3:279–293. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.28945/891
25. Bergin S, Reilly R. Programming: factors that influence success. In: Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. (pp. 411-415) 2005.
26. Ramalingam V, LaBelle D, Wiedenbeck S. Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 2004;36(3):171. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1026487.1008042
27. Türker PM, Pala FK. The Effect of Algorithm Education on Students’ Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Perceptions and Computational Thinking Skills. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools. 2020;3(3):19–32. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i3.69
28. Haliburton W, Thweatt M, Wahl NJ. Gender differences in personality components of computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 1998;30(1):77–81. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/274790.273166
29. Calitz AP, Watson MB, De V De Kock G. Identification and selection of successful future IT personnel in a changing technological and business environment. Proceedings of the. 1997;p. 31–35.
30. De Los Santos JRN, Cornillez EEC, Carillo V, Santos D, GN. Mobile Games and Academic Performance of University Students. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE). 2020;9.
31. Caluza LJ, Trecene JK. Predicting Academic Performance of Information Technology Students using C4. 5 Classification Algorithm: A Model Development. International Journal of Information Sciences and Application. 2018;10(1):7–21.
32. Borkar S, Rajeswari K. Predicting students academic performance using education data mining. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing. 2013;2(7):273–282.
33. Bhardwaj BK, Pal S. Data Mining: A prediction for performance improvement using classification. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security. 2012;9(4). Available from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1201/1201.3418.pdf
34. Elgamal AF. An educational data mining model for predicting student performance in programming course. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2013;70(17):22–30.
35. Chan AYK, Chow KO, Cheung KS. Online Course Refinement through Association Rule Mining. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2007;36(4):433–477.
36. Norwawi NM, Hibadullah CF, Osman J. Factors Affecting Performance in Introductory Programming. Proceedings of the International Conference on Qualitative Sciences and Its Applications (ICOQSIA). 2005.
37. Cox KA. GJB, KAC, LMC., eds. The Scholar-Practitioner’s Guide to Research Design. Baltimore, MD. Laureate Publishing. 2016.
38. Wagner W. Using IBM SPSS Statistics for research methods and social science statistics. London. Sage. 2015.
39. Christensen LB, Johnson BR, Turner LA. Research Methods, Design, and Analysis (11). Pearson. 2011.
40. Perinetti G. StaTips part VI: Bivariate correlation. South European journal of orthodontics and dentofacial research. 2019;6(1):2–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5937/SEJODR6-21664
41. Rae AWM. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics. In: Colman MA., ed. Companion Encyclopedia of Psychology. (Vol. 2) 2019.
42. Sari DP, Sukmawati RA, Zulkarnain I. The Relationship Between Mathematical Ability and Programming Ability of Computer Science Education Students. In: In1st International Conference on Creativity, Innovation and Technology in Education (IC-CITE 2018). Atlantis Press. .
43. Westhuizen DVD, Barlow-Jones G. High school mathematics marks as an admission criterion for entry into programming courses at a South African university. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning. 2015;10:37–50. Available from: https://journals.co.za/docserver/fulltext/jitl1/10/1/jitl1_v10_a3.pdf
44. Barlow-Jones G, Van Der Westhuizen D. Problem solving as a predictor of programming performance. In: Annual Conference of the Southern African Computer Lecturers' Association. (pp. 209-216) Springer. 2017.
45. Psycharis S, Kallia M. The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science. 2017;45:583–602. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9421-5
46. Korkmaz Ö, Çakir R, Özden MY. A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS) Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;72:558–569. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
47. Aqda MF, Hamidi F, Rahimi M. The comparative effect of computer-aided instruction and traditional teaching on student’s creativity in math classes. Procedia Computer Science. 2011;3:266–270. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.045
48. Palmér H. Programming in Preschool. Focus on Learning Mathematics. International Research in Early Childhood Education. 2017;8(1):75–87.
49. Ayub M, Karnalim O, Risal R, Senjaya WF, Wijanto MC. Utilising pair programming to enhance the performance of slow-paced students on introductory programming. Journal of Technology and Science Education. 2019;9(3):357. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.638
50. Lange B, Lovric M, Scholz F. The Catalytic Action of Adsorbed Thiocyanate Ions and Thiourea in the Electron Transfer from Glassy Carbon to Solid Copper(I) Selenide and Copper(I) Sulfide Particles. ChemInform. 2010;28(11). Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chin.199711013
51. Eid C, Millham R. Should Mathematics Be A Mandatory Fundamental Component Of Any IT Discipline? American Journal of Business Education (AJBE). 2012;6(1):67. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v6i1.7484
52. Kilman TA. The Relationship Between Students’ Applied Mathematics Skills and Students’ Attitudes Towards Mathematics. The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community thesis
53. Sáez-López JM, Sevillano-García ML, Vazquez-Cano E. The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019;67:1405–1425. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
54. McCoy LP, Dodl NR. Computer Programming Experience and Mathematical Problem Solving. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 1989;22(1):14–25. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1989.10781898
55. Gunbatar MS, Karalar H. Gender Differences in Middle School Students' Attitudes and Self-Efficacy Perceptions towards mBlock Programming. European Journal of Educational Research. 2018;7(4):925–958.
56. Kaleva S, Pursiainen J, Hakola M, Rusanen J, Muukkonen H. Students’ reasons for STEM choices and the relationship of mathematics choice to university admission. International Journal of STEM Education. 2019;6(1):43. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0196-x
57. Jr EEC. Instructional quality and academic satisfaction of university students. European Journal of Education Studies. 2019;6(4):13–30.
58. Benton L, Saunders P, Kalas I, Hoyles C, Noss R. Designing for learning mathematics through programming: A case study of pupils engaging with place value. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2018;16:68–76. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.12.004
59. Johansen BCL, Trecene JK, JK. Predicting Academic Performance of Information Technology Students using C4.5 Classification Algorithm: A Model Development . International Journal of Information Sciences and Application. 2018;10(1):7–21. Available from: http://www.irphouse.com/ijisa18/ijisav10n1_02.pdf
60. Paler R. Effectiveness of Assimilating Technology in Drafting. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research. 2019;8(12):1117–1119.
61. Kotsiantis S. Educational data mining: a case study for predicting dropout-prone students. International Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Soft Data Paradigms. 2009;1(2):101. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijkesdp.2009.022718
62. Cahyono AN. Designing the Mobile App-Supported Math Trail Environment in Indonesia. In: In Learning Mathematics in a Mobile App-Supported Math Trail Environment. (pp. 53-83) Springer. 2018.
63. Parker A, Van Belle JP. The iGeneration as Students: Exploring the Relative Access, Use of, and Perceptions of IT in Higher Education. InAnnual Conference of the Southern African Computer Lecturers' Association. (pp. 3-18) Cham. Springer. 2017.
64. Daniel B, Roux DAL, Parry. A New Generation of Students: Digital Media in Academic Contexts. SACLA . 2017;730:19–36.