Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 1919–1932 | Cite as

Students motivation for adopting programming contests: Innovation-diffusion perspective

  • Raghu Raman
  • Hardik Vachharajani
  • Krishnashree Achuthan


Within the context of Rogers theory of perceived attributes, authors propose a framework that can predict students’ motivation to adopt programming contest like ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC). In this paper we investigate the attributes for adoption of programming contest in a social group comprising of (N = 1245) undergraduate engineering students from the regional finals of the contest held in India over a period of 3 years. The results revealed that student motivations are strongly associated with attributes like relative advantage, compatibility, ease of use, peer influence, perceived enjoyment and perceived usefulness. Overall, students expressed positive attitude towards adopting programming contests as it helped improve their problem solving and programming skills and overall employability. Both gender was in agreement that joining and winning programming contests is a status symbol.


Innovation Diffusion Computer science ICPC Programming Competition 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Agarwal, R. (2000). Individual acceptance of information technologies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 90–102.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, M., & Kydd, C. (1997). Individual characteristics associated with world wide web use: An empirical study of playfulness and motivation. ACM SIGMIS Database, 28(2), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benokraitis, V. J., Shelton, R. D., Bizot, B., Brown, R., & Martens, J. (2009). Reasons for CS decline: Preliminary evidence. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3), 161–162.Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, A. (2018). Fewer than 5% of engineers trained in India are cut out for high-skill programming jobs. [online] Quartz. Available at:
  5. Blom, A. & Saeki, H. (2011). Employability and skill set of newly graduated engineers in India. New Delhi: World Bank.Google Scholar
  6. Bloomfield, A. & Sotomayor, B. (2016). A programming contest strategy guide. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 609–614). ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Bowring, J. F. (2008a). A new paradigm for programming competitions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowring, J. F. (2008b). A new paradigm for programming competitions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brabham, D. C. (2008). Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: The composition of the crowd and motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. First Monday, 13(6).
  10. Bui, H. Q. & Van Zyl, L. T. (2016). Talent acquisition gamified: Insights from playing the game at PwC Hungary. Lund: Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Cerny, T., & Mannova, B. (2011). Competitive and collaborative approach towards a more effective education in computer science. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(2), 163–173.Google Scholar
  12. Chavey, D., Monrey, T.L., Van Brackle, D., Werth, J. and Chairman-Bagert, D. (1991). Preparing a team for the ACM scholastic programming contest (panel session). In Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on computer science (p. 701). ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Colkin, Eileen (2002). Cultivating next-generation IT talent, information week online (02/27/02).Google Scholar
  14. Dagienė, V. (2010). Sustaining informatics education by contests. Teaching fundamentals concepts of informatics (pp. 1–12). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Dagiene, V. and Skupiene, J., (2004). Learning by competitions: olympiads in informatics as a tool for training high-grade skills in programming. In Information Technology: Research and Education, 2004. ITRE 2004. 2nd International Conference on (pp. 79–83). IEEE.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2006). Gender and programming contests: Mitigating exclusionary practices. Informatics in Education, 5(1), 47–62.Google Scholar
  17. Gan, C., Kosonen, M. and Blomqvist, K. (2012), September. Knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing–it is more than motivation. In 13th European Conference on Knowledge Management. Academic Conferences Limited, 380.Google Scholar
  18. Hromkovič, J. (2009). Algorithmic adventures: From knowledge to magic. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  19. (2018). Indian computing olympiad - online programming contest - IARCS. Available at: Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  20. Jenkins, T. (2001, June). The motivation of students of programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 53–56). ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, T. (2002, August). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (Vol. 4, No. 2002, pp. 53–58).Google Scholar
  22. Kearse, I. B., & Hardnett, C. R. (2008). Computer science olympiad: Exploring computer science through competition. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 92–96.Google Scholar
  23. Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maloney, J.H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M. and Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch (Vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 367–371). ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Manzoor, S. (2001). Common mistakes in online and real-time contests. Crossroads, 7(5), 4–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Teaching for transfer of problem-solving skills to computer programming. In Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 193–206). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Minds, A. (2016). National employability report: Engineering graduates, annual report 2011. Gurgaon: Aspiring Minds.Google Scholar
  28. Moore G. C. & Benbasat I. (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2(3), 192–222.Google Scholar
  29. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qidwai, U., Riley, R., & El-Sayed, S. (2013). Attracting students to the computing disciplines: A case study of a robotics contest. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 520–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raman, R., Achuthan, K., Nedungadi, P., Diwakar, S., & Bose, R. (2014a). The vlab oer experience: Modeling potential-adopter student acceptance. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57(4), 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raman, R., Nedungadi, P., & Ramesh, M.V. (2014b). Modeling diffusion of tabletop for collaborative learning using interactive science lab simulations. In ICDCIT (pp. 333–340).Google Scholar
  33. Revilla, M. A., Manzoor, S., & Liu, R. (2008). Competitive learning in informatics: The UVa online judge experience. Olympiads in Informatics, 2, 131–148.Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press (2003).Google Scholar
  35. Shilov, N. V., & Yi, K. (2002). Engaging students with theory through acm collegiate programming contest. Communications of the ACM, 45(9), 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. (2016). India - number of students graduated in computer science engineering stream by gender 2016 | Statistic. [online] Statista. Available at:
  37. Sun, D., Wang, L. & Zou, Z. (2013). ACM ICPC in China: Learning from contests. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS) (p. 1). The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp).Google Scholar
  38. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2,53–55.Google Scholar
  39. Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2008). Development and validation of a computer attitude measure for young students (CAMYS). Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2659–2667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. The Hindu Business Line. (2017). 95% engineers in India unfit for software development jobs: study. [online] Available at:
  41. Trotman, A., & Handley, C. (2008). Programming contest strategy. Computers & Education, 50(3), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verdú, E., Regueras, L. M., Verdú, M. J., Leal, J. P., de Castro, J. P., & Queirós, R. (2012). A distributed system for learning programming on-line. Computers & Education, 58(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verhoeff, T. (1997). The role of competitions in education (1997). Future World: Educating for the 21st Century.Google Scholar
  44. Zheng, H., Li, D., & Hou, W. (2011). Task design, motivation, and participation in crowdsourcing contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amrita School of BusinessAmrita Vishwa VidyapeethamCoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.Australian Institute of Higher EducationSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Center of Cybersecurity Systems and NetworksAmrita Vishwa VidyapeethamAmritapuriIndia

Personalised recommendations