Impact of Proficiency in English on the Intuitive Understanding of

Computer Science Concepts

Ismat Aldmour, AlBaha University, Saudi Arabia

The European Conference on Education 2022

Official Conference Proceedings

Abstract
Computer science terms like: Code, Analysis, Protocol, Encapsulation, Validation, Sampling,
Model and many more are borrowed from English with their meanings slightly altered to
suite computer science. This makes initial computer science acquiring more difficult for non-
native English students, while it is facilitated for students of higher English proficiency. This
is sort of a transfer from language proficiency to computer science which is similar to the
known concept of transfer from one language to another in new language acquisition. The
paper presents a test for assessing this transfer by investigating students' understanding of
selected terms in both technical and non-technical contexts. The terms were selected to
represent computer science sub-concepts as defined in the literature; hence,
students’ understanding of these terms in everyday non-technical uses, measures
potential students’ understanding of these same terms in computer science technical uses.
The test was applied on Arabic speaking students of different English proficiency
and different maturity levels. It was found that the intuitive understanding of the terms
in computer science improves with improved English, but no impact of maturity was found.
Computer science students’ records revealed an association between computer science
learning and English level which is attributed partially to this transfer.

Keywords: Computer Science Education, Language and Education, Language Transfer

iafor
The International Academic Forum
www.iafor.org
1. Introduction

Al-Nasser (2015) describes the outcomes of English language acquisition of school leavers in
Saudi Arabia: “after studying English for about 9 years, school leavers are, in most cases,
unable to speak or write a single flawless sentence in English.”. Meanwhile, in Albaha
University in Saudi Arabia, English is the language used to teach computer science (CS).
Therefore, this presents a challenge to inducing an effective teaching-learning process in CS.

Interrelationship between English proficiency and computer science learning is

an underdeveloped problem in literature. Most research focus on programming difficulties
and the errors committed by novice programmers attributed to language in addition to other
factors of math and algebra (Clancy, 2004; Ebrahimi, 1994; Jackson, Cobb, & Carver, 2005;
Miller, 2014, 2016).

In a previous paper (Aldmour & Nylen, 2014), it was proposed that proficiency in English
and the corresponding culture can lead to an intuitive initial understanding of CS terms and
concepts. It was a work in progress paper which proposed also the methodology used here to
test this dependence. The actual testing was conducted at later times with results presented in
this paper.

The approach here is to look at the problem as a transfer from language (English) to CS that
is in favor of native English speakers but may impede the learning of non-native English
speakers. This is similar to the transfer occurring from the knowledge of one language (L1) to
the learning of a second language (L2) in second language acquisition (SLA) concept in
linguistics. A test is designed to measure transfer from English to CS similar to testing
transfer from L1 to L2 in SLA. The test was applied to native Arab students of different
proficiency levels in English. Test results were analyzed to investigate if a connection
between the proficiency in English and the intuitive understanding of computer science terms
and corresponding concepts exists. The connection (if existing) will be of great value as it
sheds light on how non-native English students initially understand computer science terms,
which may contribute to learning the concepts and the related CS tasks.

Additionally, knowing that a connection like this exists, it can provide basis for designing
English courses for a specific purpose of enhancing learning and teaching in CS of non-native
English speakers. This is similar to the recommendations in (Nation, 2003) about the
importance of communicating meaning and respecting the role of the first language in foreign
language learning.

2. Background

2.1 Culture, Language and Learning

Most important forms of human cognitive activity develop through interaction within social
and material environments, including conditions found in instructional settings (Burgstahler,
2011). Lee (2005) assures that “Learning is enhanced—indeed, made possible—when it
occurs in contexts that are culturally, linguistically, and cognitively meaningful and relevant
to students”. For students studying in another language with the associated culture, home
languages and cultures encompass the tools that students use to construct their understandings
of the world. “L1 provides a familiar and effective way of quickly getting to grips with the
meaning and content of what needs to be used in the L2” (Nation, 2003). Many research
works on students learning CS or other disciplines (Tobin & McRobbie, 1996; Tenenberg &
Knobelsdorf, 2014; Lee, 2005) assert the role of students’ cultural-environment and prior
linguistic knowledge factors for limited English proficiency learners. More specifically, in
the domain of CS teaching, Zendler, Spannagel, & Klaudt (2011) say that computer science
curricula must not be based on fashions and trends, but on contents and processes that are,
among other factors, related to everyday language and/or thinking.

Hence, any previous conceptual understanding gained using mother’s language and culture,
e.g. Arabic, will have to be recalled even if the language medium is different, e.g. English.
This is especially true for those concepts that are linguistically or culturally related to science
concepts and terms. Therefore, it is natural to conclude that learning can be more effective if
the learners were developed or trained to obtain everyday English language and cultural
meanings in a way similar to native English learners; i.e. they become more fluent in English
and its culture.

Naturally, the terms and concepts of high importance in this mechanism will be those
contributing toward learning the basic concepts of the discipline studied. Henceforth, central
(basic) concepts in CS are next discussed.

2.2 Central Concepts in CS

Zendler and Spannagel (2008) determined the basic concepts in CS by surveying CS experts’
opinions of what concepts are CS centrals. This results in a catalogue which classifies the
central concepts in CS into 15 central concepts. These are namely: problem, data, computer,
test, algorithm, process, system, information, language, communication, software, program,
computation, structure, and model.

Zendler and Spannagel central concepts are of a wide nature spanning across the different CS
subjects. They also represents what to be acquired by the students (e.g. upon completing the
curriculum). Zendler and Spannagel also recommended that the central concepts have to be
specified in more detail; i.e. subconcepts. For example, course specific concepts, called
concept inventories (CI), to be used to asses gain on course level are obtained in (Goldman et
al., 2010) for three introductory computing subjects: discrete mathematics, programming
fundamentals, and logic design. In obtaining the CIs, they also followed an empirical
approach that is based on Delphi process for collecting information and reaching consensus
in a group of experts.

Hence, computer terms (to be used in the test described later in the paper) are selected to
represent subconcents (or concept inventories) which can be classified under the 15 central
concepts. Moreover, any of the terms selected has to represent a similar concept (have similar
meanings) outside the CS discipline in everyday language. Understanding these terms in a
computing context is therefore a measure of understanding of the wider central CS concepts.

This relation between language and CS terms and concepts is further exemplified by making
reference to the second language acquisition concept and related language transfer
phenomena as outlined in the coming section.
2.3 Language (to language) transfer and Language to CS transfer

The influence of English on learning computer science can, somehow, be looked at as if we

look at the impact of knowing one language (first one) on the learning of a second language
in what is called second language acquisition (SLA). In this analogy, the first language is
English (as it is the medium of instruction) while the second language is computer science.
In SLA, language transfer occurs when the second (new) language learning is influenced by
the previously known language(s) (Zhai, 2012). Transfer is defined in (Ringbom & Jarvis,
2009) as the learners’ reliance on perceived and assumed cross-linguistic similarities and it
can be manifested at three different levels: item transfer (e.g., sound, morpheme, word,
phrase), system transfer or procedural transfer (word forms and order), and overall transfer.

Effect of L1 on L2 learning is limited when considering L1 formal features, but it will be

pervasive when considering L1 meanings (Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner, 2015). This is in line
with our work as it emphasizes the effect of meanings.

Computer science courses are mainly written in English and they utilize the readers’
familiarity with the corresponding culture. Computer science terms generally originate in
English and many computer science terms and concepts are English words for more or less
similar everyday’s phenomena. Examples are: handshaking, protocol, procedure, syntax,
validation and piggybacking. A CS student who first encounters such terms in his CS studies
can immediately build an intuitive initial understanding of their possible meanings and usages
in the discipline provided that he/she is aware of their everyday English meanings and
usages.

As language exists before CS, we view this relevance, as a kind of transfer. Let this transfer
be denoted as Language (English) to Computer Science (L-CS) transfer. In this paper, we
seek to investigate whether the students’ proficiency in English and its culture influence their
intuitive understanding of CS terms and concepts.

3. The Test

3.1. The Role of the Test and its Basis

In this section, we proceed to the test. It is designed to test students’ intuitive understanding
of selected terms in computer science and to correlate this with their knowledge of their
corresponding meanings and usages in everyday English. The selected terms are assured to
represent subconcepts in CS; hence, knowledge of their meanings in CS context is some
indicator of intuitive understanding of CS concepts. Also, knowledge of their English
meanings is some indicator of the students’ proficiency level in English. Both levels are only
indicators and are not meant to be professional English and/or CS proficiency level tests.

We argue that if any intuitive understanding of CS concepts existed in students subjected to

the test, it is attributed to the impact of English on CS; i.e. English is the causal factor in this
association. Consequently, the test is to be used only on students with no knowledge in
computer science, so that the understanding they may show on the test is an intuitive one
attributed to their understanding of the terms based on their language background. Also, other
factors impacting students’ knowledge of CS concepts, beside their English level, are isolated
(as described later). The test is not to find about the impact on CS learning or on the final
understanding of CS concepts. After all, other factors; e.g. enhanced pedagogy, may
overcome initial difficulties.

Using language transfer concept terms from linguistics, the test will detect whether
knowledge of English results in a positive transfer to Saudi students’ ability to get meanings
from unfamiliar computer science terms and concepts. Specifically, it tests the ability to infer
meanings and usages of terms which are of bi-use in both everyday English and in computer
science.

3.2. Characteristics of the Test Groups

In our test, we have test groups to compare that have different English proficiency levels but
can be roughly considered equivalent on all other factors. Also, as other factors of age and the
extent of previous studies have an impact on language transfer in second language acquisition
(Chamot, 2004; Nikolov & Djigunović, 2006; Raheem, 2018; Zhai, 2012), it is reasonable to
assume that maturity is also a factor in L-CS transfer. Students of the same level of study are
considered of the same maturity level (as level of study combines both age and the extent of
previous studies).

Groups of Saudi students at two different levels of maturity and at two different levels of
proficiency in English, all with little knowledge in computer science, are compared.
Basically, these groups were drawn from different majors and grades at the university,
henceforth, with regard to maturity and English level we expect that each group which is of
the same study area and the same level of study to be homogeneous with regard to maturity
and English level.

However, individuals in any group may perform differently on the test due to other factors
out of our control. Examples of these factors that we thought about are students with special
extracurricular training in computer science, students with special past experience, e.g.
students who lived outside the country for some period and students who received special
English training different to others. Those students were excluded from the test. Also,
university GPA and secondary school average (SSA) might contribute to an underlying
aptitude towards both English and computing concepts; i.e. confounding variables. Hence,
Efforts were exerted as well in order to rule out the effect of such confounding variables.

3.3. The Test Parts

The test is composed of two parts. In the first part, the students are asked to provide general
information about themselves such as age, field of study, level of study, status of study, year
of enrollment, accomplished credit hours so far and GPA (or SSA). As well, students who
changed major, repeating students, students who are over aged, and students of exceptional
GPA, were all pinpointed and excluded. Students were also asked to assess the level of their
knowledge in computer science (novice user, intermediate, and programmer) and to provide
information regarding any special training courses on computers, IT, programming, CS and
English, and whether they had been abroad for some prolonged time. We used this
information to exclude the test results of students who appear to be different to the rest of the
group in a way which may impact their classification as students of a certain homogeneous
group. Moreover, no group is created with student studying CS or a related area.
The second part of the test assesses the students' understanding of English words, both in
their everyday use and in their use as computer science terms. Since the students are not
expected to have prior knowledge in computer science, they are asked to use their intuitive
understanding of the word to infer the computer science term meaning(s). For this part, 30
terms in CS are selected. Each one of them is classified as a subconcept under one of the 15
CS central concepts. The terms that are used in the test are purposefully chosen to be of bi-
use in nature. For example, the term Syntax means, in everyday language, “The order,
vocabulary and rules in which the words forming sentences and phrases, in human languages,
come”. In computer science the term Syntax is linked with the basic concept of Language
whereby particular programming language syntax refers to order, spelling and rules with
which the vocabulary, symbols and variables must have in a program depending on the
programming language itself. Hence, ingredients and role of Syntax in English are almost the
same ingredients and role of syntax in CS programming languages. It is therefore expected
that students aware of Syntax meaning(s) in English will be able to infer its extended
meaning(s) within computer languages concept.

# CS Concept CS Term # CS Concept CS Term

1 Problem --- 9 Language Procedural, Syntax
2 Data Abstraction, 10 Communication Protocol
Encapsulation,
Representation, Validation,
Verification
3 Computer Logic, Proxy 11 Software Analysis, Interface
4 Test Reliability 12 Program Code, Control
5 Algorithm Aloha, Piggybacking, 13 Computation ---
Round-Robin
6 Process Batch, Bootstrapping, 14 Structure Substrate
Pipelining, Sampling
7 System Combinational, Embedded, 15 Model Imperative, Simulation,
Timesharing Synthesis
8 Information Non-repudiation
Table1: CS terms used in the test and the concepts they are linked to.

Aldmour & Nylen (2014) initially selected some terms, classified them based on their
experience, and asked a number of colleagues in the field to review the initially selected
terms and their classification and to suggest other terms that they may find more appropriate
as subconcepts. A list is finalized as shown in Table 1 (Aldmour & Nylen, 2014). The table
lists 30 terms together with the concepts that they are linked with, e.g. Code is linked with the
Program concept, Abstraction with Data and Syntax with Language.

The second part of the test contains 30 test questions, one for each term. In any question, the
student is given the first translation shown by Google Translate (translate. Google. com). The
translation is given because we assume that the student will use some kind of quick translator
in his studies. Each question is composed of a question sentence giving the term (and its
translation) followed by two columns. Left column lists four options of everyday meanings,
two of them are correct. Right column also lists four options of CS meanings with two
options correct as well. The different answers are also given in Arabic as we target to test
understanding only.
Table 2 shows how the term Syntax appears in the test (in English) as an example (correct
answers given). The students were instructed to tick two correct answers from the four
options in each column. The test answers are marked and analyzed as described below.

Choose the 2 correct meanings Choose the 2 correct meanings

(left col.) that comes to mind (right col.) you expect
for the term for the term
“Syntax” (‫)اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺐ‬ “Syntax”
in normal English. in computer science
Vocabulary, symbols and variables have
Meanings and vocabulary connotations
particular order which depends on the
which form sentences and phrases
programming language

The order in which the words forming Software lines define processes implemented
sentences and phrases come. by the computer needs to know
Each programming language has basic
Paragraphs consist of words and words
vocabulary set that the programmer has to
consist of letters
know.
programmer needs to know
The vocabulary of different languages The program consists of lines and the lines
of words, symbols and variables.

Table.2: Example of a question from the test.

4. Applying and Analyzing the Test Results

The test was applied on students of Albaha University in Saudi Arabia. It was first applied
on a small group of students for validity and stability purposes and to ensure that the level of
difficulty is appropriate. After adjustments, the test was applied to three different groups of
students defined as follows:

• Group 1: This group is the group of high maturity and low English level (HL Group).
The group consists of final year students in an area other than English and computer science,
who study mainly in Arabic. Students in this group were selected to be Year 4 students with
Arabic literature as their major.

• Group 2: This group is the group of both high maturity and high English level (HH
Group). The group members were selected from Year 4 English literature and Year 4
business students who study mainly in English.

• Group 3: a group of first year students who only know English as a second language
at secondary school level. This group represents the low maturity and low English (LL
Group) level students.

Students in Group 2 (HH) are expected to have significantly more knowledge of English
(Proficient level) than the students in groups 1 and 3 (Primitive level). Hence, any significant
difference the test reveals between group 1 (HL) and group 2 (HH) that is favoring group 2
could be attributed to their higher level of English and could be an evidence of L-CS transfer.

Also, students in group 1 (HL) and group 2 (HH), the two senior level groups different only
in English proficiency, are expected to be more mature than students of group 3 (LL Group of
Year 1). The purpose of testing group 3 is to compare their results to those of group 1 to be
able to investigate the impact of maturity on L-CS transfer.

To quantify the transfer, the following two measures are first defined:

• Every Day English Proficiency (EDEP: score out of 60): Calculated as the sum score
of the scores of the 30 terms on the left column (Everyday English meanings) with every term
has 2 correct answers, hence, scored 0,1,or 2.

• Computer Science Concepts Understanding (CSCU: score out of 60): Calculated as

the sum score of the scores of the 30 terms on the right column (CS meanings) with every
term also has two correct answers, hence, scored 0,1,or 2.

A positive measure of transfer (TR) is then defined as the correct CSCU per correct EDEP per
question (test item).

Notice that we elected not to classify the occurrence of negative transfer (if any) as negative
transfer, or interference. This is following (Ringbom & Jarvis, 2009) in their linguistic study
where they elected to describe this occurrence as the absence of relevant concrete (positive)
transfer.

Table 3 shows how we defined the TR measure. In the table, the extra correct CSCU answers
compared to EDEP answers (Cases A and D) are attributed to randomness, hence, they are
not considered a transfer. Conversely, in cases E and F, EDEP is greater than CSCU, hence,
there is no transfer in Case E (TR=0, students scored 2 correct in EDEP resulted in no correct
CSCU) or partial transfer (TR=1) occurred only in case F (2 resulted in 1 only). The Hit
(Case G), represents the case of a student knowing the two everyday language meanings (two
correct EDEP) resulting in two corresponding correct CSCU answers.

Case EDEP CSCU TR Note

A 0 0, 1, 2 0 No transfer
B 1 0 0 No transfer
C 1 1 1 Transfer of 1
D 1 2 1 Transfer of 1
E 2 0 0 No transfer
F 2 1 1 Transfer of 1
G 2 2 2 Hit (transfer of 2)
Table.3: Positive transfer (TR) definition.

To assess the results of each group in inferring correct CS concepts from their English
knowledge, correlation values between students’ scores on CSCU and students’ scores on
EDEP for each group are obtained. With all the factors isolated as described above, we may
assume causality; i.e. the proficiency in English is the causal factor for understanding the
terms in the computing context. Hence, positive correlation result indicates that the students
score higher in CS when they are more proficient in English. Pearson correlation factor is
calculated for each group. The strength of the correlation, hence, the L-CS transfer level, is
assessed at 5% significance level. Transfer occurs when the correlation is significant. The
square of the correlation values indicates weaker relationships as the correlation values
approach zero.
A null hypothesis is made that CSCU scores are not related to their EDEP scores for each and
every one of the three groups.

Number
Group
Group Description of
Label
Students
High maturity/ Low English
Group 1 (ARA 4) HL 32
(Arabic Literature Students - Y4)
High maturity/ High English
Group 2 (BUS 4+ENG 4) HH 41
Y4(*)
Low maturity/ Low English Y1
Group 3 (PREP) LL 23
Preparatory (Y1) Students
(*) Group 2 is formed from 23 English Students and 18 Business Students Y4
Table.4: Details of student groups.

Group Correlation R R2 Significance P

Group 1 (ARA4) 0.2166 0.0469. 0.320857

Group 2 (BUS4+ENG4) 0.4809 0.2313 0.007142

Group 3 (PREP) 0.2233 0.0499 0.283289

Table.5: A summary of the correlation results.

5. Results and Discussion

Table 4 shows the students’ groups tested and the number of students in each group. Table 5
shows the correlation measure results R, the square of correlation, R2, and the significance of
the correlation results P. From this table we find that R2 values are close to zero for groups 1
and 3, which indicates a weak relationship between CSCU and EDEP. Group 2 correlation
result, as the significance level assures, is the only result of significance at P<5%.

Fig. 1: CSCU versus EDEP for Group 1, ARA 4 (HL).

 Fig. 2: CSCU versus EDEP for Group 2, Bus.4+Eng.4 (HH).

Fig. 3: CSCU versus EDEP for Group 3, Prep. Y1 (LL).

Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 show scattered plots of CSCU versus EDEP for groups 1, 2
and 3 respectively from which we see that a clear correlation pattern exists only for group 2.

The average transfer TR per student per term for group 2, the group with successful result, is
calculated from the raw data and is found to be 0.38.

Hence, Group 2 students, the high English level students, are significantly more successful in
inferring the meanings than the other two groups. That is, being knowledgeable in English
makes acquiring computer science concepts easier. For both final year students studying
mainly in Arabic (Group 1) and first year students (Group 3) the correlation results were
insignificant with small R2 values (weak relationship). Hence, we conclude that maturity has
no impact on L-CS transfer and the results for Group 2 can be only attributed to English.

However, one might inquire whether this necessarily imply that this group (if were to study
CS) would be more successful in the final learning of CS; i.e. the learning assessed by
performance on a programming project, a term/end of term test, or the overall GPA.

Moreover, this study did not object to tell about the amount of direct correlation between
proficiency in English and the final performance on CS as many other factors can take place.
Nevertheless, it is legitimate to extrapolate the above result of positive impact on the initial
acquiring of CS and to expect positive impact on the final CS learning. However, no or little
impact is expected when extra pedagogy or other measures stand for the weakness in English.

Fig. 4: GPA vs. avgEng (Average English Score).

Regardless of above argument, a statistical analysis using the records of third and fourth year
CS students was done to find the correlation between CS students’ proficiency in English
(English 1 and English 2 grades average called avgEng) and their overall performance (GPA).
This kind of analysis is an ex-post facto, non-experimental approach followed in many
research works, e.g. (Martirosyan, Hwang, & Wanjohi, 2015). Figure 4 depicts the results
obtained on a scattered plot of GPA versus avgEng scores of 82 CS students. A correlation
value of 0.645 is calculated. This is a moderate positive correlation, which means that there is
a tendency that a student GPA score goes up whenever his avgEng score goes higher. Again,
we cannot attribute this correlation totally to our suggested transfer mechanism of English to
CS concepts.

6. Conclusions

The paper reports on a test of students' comprehension of terms in both an English-language

context and a computing context. The results showed positive correlation between
proficiency of English and intuitive understanding of CS concepts (limited by the terms used
in the test). In other words; improved English enhances initial acquisition of CS concepts. No
impact of maturity on this relationship was found. This enhanced acquisition of CS is
attributed to transfer from language to CS (L-CS transfer) and is justified in a way similar to
what occurs in second language acquisition (human language to another language transfer).

Finding about the relationship above doesn’t lead immediately to the impact of language on
learning CS in general. This has motivated this work and can motivate more future works as
well. Nevertheless, a non-experimental ex-post facto statistical analysis of CS students’
records revealed that overall CS learning is enhanced in students of high English level
proficiency.
References

Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An

exploratory-cum-remedial study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8),
1612-1619.

Aldmour, I., & Nylen, A. (2014, April, 11-13, 2014). Impact of Cultural and Language
Background on Learning Computer Science Concepts. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering
(LaTiCE), 2014.

Burgstahler, S. (2011). Universal Design: Implications for Computing Education. Trans.

Comput. Educ., 11(3), 1-17.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic
journal of foreign language teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

Clancy, M. (2004). Misconceptions and attitudes that interfere with learning to program. In S.
Fincher & M. Petre (Eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 85-100).

Ebrahimi, A. (1994). Novice programmer errors: Language constructs and plan composition.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41(4), 457-480.

Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G. L., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles,
C. (2010). Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing
subjects. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(2), 1-29.

Jackson, J., Cobb, M., & Carver, C. (2005). Identifying top Java errors for novice
programmers. Paper presented at the Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual
Conference.

Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second
language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207-226).

Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research
agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530.

Martirosyan, N. M., Hwang, E., & Wanjohi, R. (2015). Impact of English Proficiency on
Academic Performance of International Students. Journal of International Students,
5(1), 60-71.

Miller, C. S. (2014). Metonymy and reference-point errors in novice programming. Computer

Science Education, 24(2-3), 123-152.

Miller, C. S. (2016). Human language and its role in reference-point errors. Paper presented
at the PPIG.

Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL
journal, 5(2), 1-8.
Nikolov, M., & Djigunović, J. M. (2006). Recent research on age, second language
acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual review of applied linguistics,
26, 234-260.

Raheem, K. J. (2018). The Role of First Language on the Second Language Acquisition.
International Journal of Kurdish Studies, 4(1), 110-117.

Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign
language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language
teaching (pp. 106-118).

Tenenberg, J., & Knobelsdorf, M. (2014). Out of our minds: a review of sociocultural
cognition theory. Computer Science Education, 24(1), 1-24.

Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Significance of limited English proficiency and cultural
capital to the performance in science of Chinese-Australians. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 33(3), 265-282.

Zendler, A., & Spannagel, C. (2008). Empirical foundation of central concepts for computer
science education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 8(2), 1-
15.

Zendler, A., Spannagel, C., & Klaudt, D. (2011). Marrying content and process in computer
science education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(3), 387-397.

Zhai, C. (2012). On the factors influencing language transfer in sla based on cognitive
science. Paper presented at the 2012 International Conference on Computer Science
and Electronics Engineering.

Contact email: [email protected]