A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System Irene Govender and Desmond Wesley Govender University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
[email protected];
[email protected]
Abstract The teaching of programming and problem solving has been a challenge and has excited much debate in the literature, so too has been the use of learning management systems (LMSs) to facilitate teaching and enhance learning. In this case study we explore students’ perceptions and expectations of the effectiveness of using a constructivist approach for a LMS in a programming course. The constructivist theory was used as a framework for the implementation of a LMS. Interviews and a survey method were used to gather information after participants completed the course. Qualitative and quantitative findings have been presented. Findings showed that the respondents rated the communication and discussion aspects among the highest and guidance to solving problems among the lowest. While discussion and the chat forums are important and support collaboration and social learning, learning problem solving in programming is considered not fully supported. This paper constitutes an important contribution to research in teaching and learning programming using LMSs. While the constructivists approach to using the LMS in programming courses has proved useful, it alerts instructors to the importance of faceto-face learning in the development of problem solving skills (using higher levels of thinking) as well. Some implications for instructors are described. Keywords: Learning management systems, Programming, Face-to-face and Online learning
Introduction With demands to offer quality courses in higher education to meet the needs of increasing numbers of students, learning management systems (LMSs) are often perceived as a significant part in the delivery of any learning programme. A learning management system is a software application used to plan, implement and assess a specific learning process (Cavus, 2007). Typically a learning management system provides an instructor with a way to create and deliver content, monitor student participation and assess student performance. While the uptake of LMSs has grown exponentially there are still debatable issues regarding the link between pedagogy and the use of technology (in this case LMSs). Programming courses in particular have been cited as difficult to learn and teach (Govender, 2010). Problem solving abilities, amongst the key outcomes of any programming course, have proven to be particularly problematic. The literature, mainly based on data from outside Southern Africa, provides some evidence that LMSs offer considerable learning opportunities. Consequently, several faculties of Informatics or Computing Education consider expanding their current use of the LMS as well as revising existing LMS-based courses in order to improve overall course quality and student satisfaction. However before general adoption of such systems is decreed, research into the student experience with LMSs is required in order to guide the pedagogic use of LMSs for undergraduate programming students. 238
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 238
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
African Journal of Research in MST Education, Volume 16 (2) 2012, pp. 238–252
Bruner’s (1996) theory on social constructivism has been used as a conceptual framework for structuring a first year programming course. Since social constructivist learning relies on the quality and nature of the interaction between peer learners and knowledgeable others, this study explores the extent to which such a constructivist approach to learning to program may be facilitated by LMSs. This exploratory case study specifically gathered information on students’ perceptions of effective learning of LMS delivery of a constructivist approach in a programming course. Three research questions guided this study. The first question was designed to evaluate the students’ perception of using a LMS in a programming course to facilitate problem solving, a problematic aspect of learning to program. The second question sought to determine the students’ perceived expectations or needs of a LMS as an instructional tool in a programming course. It is necessary to point out that only after experiencing the course can students critically determine their needs or expectations. The third question seeks to determine how student characteristics may influence their learning, particularly programming courses through a LMS. It is hoped that the results of the study will inform teaching practices as well as provide information on ways of improving the quality of the LMS experience for future students of programming (Calloway, 2008; Cuthrell & Lyon, 2007).
Literature Survey While there is a variety of digital resources and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools to assist learning and teaching, technology is being used by most faculty “primarily as an administrative tool … rather than as a tool anchored in pedagogy or cognitive science models” (Mott & Wiley, 2009, p. 4). The LMS enables students to access course notes on the web, to carry out quizzes and surveys, and to communicate outside the classroom by means of chat facilities and discussion forums. An important feature of a LMS is that it lends itself to webbased learning environments. The driving force for adopting the technology of a LMS is often related to improved communication between lecturers and students in large classes (Eyitayo, 2005; Hardy, Bates, Antonioletti & Seed, 2005). Another benefit is the improved access to course content, which encourages consolidation of what has been learned in lectures (Hardy et al., 2005). For example, these authors report some evidence that students who use the LMS have a higher achievement. In another study of a physics foundation course, Govender and Grayson (2007) found that students who performed well used the LMS almost twice as much as others did. Although there may not be a direct relationship between using the LMS and high performance, these findings suggest that more use of resources (including LMS) may help improve learning. Much has been written about the benefits of LMSs since its widespread adoption by many universities (Gautreau, 2011). There are however, some problematic issues regarding LMSs that need highlighting as well. For example, low rates of participation, learner resistance, high noncompletion rates, and poor learner performance have been identified in some of the literature related to eLearning that is linked to LMSs (Bates, 2005). Kanuka (2006) believes that these concerns can be addressed by working with a team of instructional design experts. He notes that different users, amongst instructors and students, may be comfortable with different levels of usage of a LMS. For example, an instructor who requires an easy way to communicate with students to post documents, receive assignments and carry out a traditional threaded discussion
239
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 239
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
will tend to show great satisfaction. On the other hand, those instructors who are experienced with Web 2.0 applications may want to present learning experiences based on audio, visual or mixed media formats, and find these LMSs not so useful. Similarly, technically savvy students may expect more innovative methods of teaching, while others may be satisfied with the basic use of a LMS. Furthermore, results from a study by Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, Collins, Filer, Wiedmaier and Moore (2007) indicate that graduate students placed stronger emphasis on a structured classroom environment as opposed to undergraduate students. Hence faculty and to some extent student satisfaction rates may vary depending on needs and expectations. Since “students’ prior knowledge and experience have been found to affect how they process new knowledge being taught” (Laurillard, 1993), knowing students’ prior experience and knowledge can help the instructor to develop realistic expectations of students’ learning. Furthermore, this knowledge can help the instructor in adapting learning activities to the students’ current level of ability or just beyond it. LMS enables collaboration-based learning activity amongst students (for instance, see Cavus (2007) for the learning of the Java programming language). There are a number of advantages to giving students assignments that they can work on collaboratively as recognized in commerce and engineering for some time (William & Upchurch, 2001). According to Roschelle (2003) and Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, and Glaser (1989) students are able to take on more complex problems and gain a better understanding of the subject matter when the work is done collaboratively. Thomas, Fernández and Manjón (2010) emphasize that working in teams helps in problem based learning. Pairing students to learn programming or work on a programming task is a form of collaborative work. Although in general the advantages of collaborative work have been recognized there are still some uncertainties about it. For instance, is it better to pair a novice with an expert or pair two novices, or perhaps pair two experts? Are individuals better at learning a programming language than pairs? Smith (1996) observes that LMS resources allow simulated and real world models, problem solving and role-playing activities. He further confirms that the social and affective strategies built-in through an LMS include the collaboration and cooperation that occurs in discussion boards, group pages, and chat sessions. The use of LMSs in the facilitation of programming courses has not been fully explored. Esteves, Fonseca, Morgado and Martins (2011) explored the use of Second Life, a social network site, and found that collaborative learning which relates directly to learning in a social context enhances effective learning to program. It follows that learning to program may be enhanced by LMSs since they enable collaborative learning as mentioned earlier. However, Mohorovičić and Tijan (2010) found that many LMS users emphasise the importance of face-to-face teaching because that method of teaching makes it easier for them to grasp the concept of programming and the style of writing the programming code. This perspective casts face-to-face teaching also as a social event: students attend together and experience the teacher’s opinions and perspectives. This shared experience can initiate discussion among students.
Conceptual Framework Bruner’s (1973, 1996) theory of constructivism was used as a conceptual framework for this study to examine the use of a learning management system in the delivery of a course. The intent of constructivists’ learning theory is to give the learner control to respond to personal learning goals, which may extend beyond those identified by the course facilitator. According to Bruner (1973) learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas based upon their 240
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 240
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
African Journal of Research in MST Education, Volume 16 (2) 2012, pp. 238–252
current and past knowledge (including personal interest, context, opportunities for application, etc.). The learning space and tools used should therefore permit learner control. The rapid development of increasingly powerful computer and communication systems has implications for the constructivist approach to education. It offers an enormous amount of information, tools for creativity and development, and various environments and forums for communication. Within a student-centered curriculum, LMSs provide many opportunities for students and teachers to build knowledge in an engaged setting. This is even more so since the theory of constructivism promotes a learning experience in which the learning approach for each learner would be different. The constructivist’s learning theory is a proponent of supporting learning rather than controlling learning, because the learning outcome may not always be predictable (Siemens, 2004). Constructivist principles are applied in instructional design within the use of a LMS that may have links to hypertext and hypermedia, where the learner can gain access to a wider field of learning. This approach to learning does not suggest simply letting students loose on the web, neither does it suggest confining the activities of students to a system. Instead, it is seen as important to support students’ independent work and actively facilitate relations between collaborating students and also between students and teachers connected to the same course. Hence a LMS supports constructivist learning, in particular social constructivism, by using the chat and discussion forums. Constructivists believe that the design of an instructional environment should encompass student-centredness, collaborative learning, assistance with teacher scaffolding, and cooperative learning amongst other explicit constructivist characteristics. Such a learning environment involves a number of tools to increase communication and to access realistic and practical examples, stimulate insightful thinking, and modeling problem solving by experts in a context domain (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). Quite often learning theories describe how learning takes place, without proposing what kind of instructional intervention should be employed to support learning (Smith & Ragan, 1999). In this study, it is hoped that this gap can be reduced by using a constructivist approach within the LMS in the delivery of a programming course.
Methods Yin (2003) defines a case study research method as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context. For any case study the researcher is called upon to work with a situation as it presents itself. The case study, therefore, seemed to be the appropriate method for obtaining a rich understanding of students’ perspectives of using the LMS to learn programming. A mixed methods research was employed.
Course design The traditional face-to-face course is typical of most medium-sized lecture courses with one lecturer teaching the students. Weekly lectures take place and the face-to-face class is supported by the learning management system asynchronously. The instructor supplements the lectures with online materials such as PowerPoint slides and multiple-choice quizzes and linked references using the LMS. Within each module, students are required to participate in an asynchronous threaded discussion, complete written homework assignments and solve programming tasks. While most course discussions occur in class, online supplements are utilized. The instructor
241
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 241
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
provides example problems related to the concepts taught and then asks students to solve similar problems. While some students prefer the face-to-face interaction between instructor and student, others find it intimidating. In this way the LMS offers students an alternative way of relating with their peers over problems or experiences of learning and then initiate a harmonized show of support. Students are encouraged to provide examples and explanations, and to ask questions during the chat and discussion forums by allocating 10 percent of the final mark to their participation in the LMS or in class. The LMS has been developed in-house, and has also integrated Moodle features.
Participants Participating students were enrolled in two modules (n=30 and n=26) using the LMS within a traditional face-to-face course of an introductory level programming course. All students (n=56) from each course were included in the study. Participants are similar in age (between18-20), and most of them had no prior programming knowledge. These students were studying towards a Batchelor of Education Degree specialising in computer science and the teaching thereof at high schools. No distinction was made between male and female students in this study. The study took place at a research-intensive South African university. Table 1 provides some pertinent demographic information for the students in the sample. Table 1: Participant characteristics (n =56) Characteristic
N
%
Previous high school programming knowledge
9
17
Computing skills High (extensive computer experience) Medium(some computer experience) Low (no computer experience)
23 17 16
42 30 28
Employment status Part-time Not working
11 45
19 81
16 25
28 44 28
Weekly hours spent on LMS 0-2 hours 3-5 hours More than 5 hours
15
Data collection Written questionnaires and interviews were used in order to examine the effectiveness of the LMS and students’ perceptions of the LMS. In the questionnaire students were asked about the system’s benefits and features with regard to programming. Quantitative data were collected through closed questions with Likert scale responses. Qualitative data were drawn from openended questions asking participants to comment on what they liked and disliked about the system. Questionnaire data from the whole sample (n=56) were supplemented with interviews of 10 randomly selected students which yielded a convenience sample. We realize that few students
242
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 242
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
African Journal of Research in MST Education, Volume 16 (2) 2012, pp. 238–252
can give expert opinions on instructional methods or LMSs, but this study sought their opinions and perceptions which do contribute insight on these issues.
Data Analysis To analyze data from the responses received to the open-ended questions and the interview transcriptions, initial themes were identified by repeatedly reading through the responses, and then refined further using a software programme (NVivo), a qualitative data analysis software package. Quantitative data were analyzed by determining the mean scores and standard deviations for the features of the LMS and determining the count for the various ratings of the different statements. Some demographic data were used to determine correlations between characteristics of students and the features of the LMS.
Results The findings focus on students’ experiences and expectations of using the instructional technology LMS for the programming course. Themes obtained from the initial analysis of student likes and dislikes around the LMS itself and on the ways it was used are summarized in Table 2. The claims and interpretation of the results are supported, where applicable, by quotations. The qualitative analysis is then further supported by the quantitative analyses. Table 2: Themes in student responses on the use of the LMS Themes
Details
1.
Module organization and preparation
- Course information helped students to “plan ahead and prepare” - Provided more clarity about requirements for assignments, tests and course outcomes - Students could check class marks and tests online.
2.
Better learning through information availability
- Availability of PP slides used in lectures allowed students to listen more attentively in lectures and concentrate on understanding the work - Useful resources and links for assignments (reduced anxiety) - Hints and feedback “increased my motivation to learn” - Links to other sites increased relevance, understanding, interest and broadened my knowledge.
3.
Improved learning through many to many communication
- A conducive environment in which to ask questions: - Increased speed of feedback: Good way of sharing ideas and solving problems quickly; getting quick responses to questions before tests or while working on assignments - Peer tutoring: “Interesting to see what other students think”; “I feel a sense of not being alone in the difficult aspects of programming”; - Self assessment: “forum made it possible to assess my progress in comparison to other students”
243
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 243
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
4.
Wider use required
Many students proposed that the LMS should be more widely used at the university.
5.
Flexibility in learning
Students were glad to have the flexibility of catching up with learning material/lectures they may have missed
6.
Lack of consistency across courses
While, this study dealt with the programming course in question, students’ responses to some aspects were related to other courses. They made mention that the manner in which the system was used across courses were inconsistent. They asked for a dependable high standard of use.
7.
Guidance to problem solving
A predominant message was that students felt that the LMS was not sufficiently helpful to them to solve programming problems. “I don’t know where to start to solve the programming task” “We need more structured way of solving programming problems”
The themes in Table 2 cover four major areas, i.e. views on the role of the LMS in organizing learning (1 and 5), its role in communication (3), its contribution to affective outcomes (2 and some 3) and to problem solving skills (7). In addition, themes emerged about the generic use of the LMS (4 and 6).
The LMS from the student perspective The data show that 75% of students agreed that the LMS had provided a useful resource. It provided convenient access to course material and an increased engagement with the course. In open-ended questions, 17% of students identified the LMS as one of the outstanding aspects of the course, while only 3% of students identified it as a non-beneficial area. Students in this study did not use the LMS in other courses they took which may account for the appreciation of the LMS. In responses to the specific open-ended question on their experience of the LMS, 83% of the sample reported that they had found the LMS useful, 33% of whom specifically mentioned the discussion forums. Students used the LMS in a variety of ways. The LMS appears to have been useful in module organization and preparation for students, who appreciated the guidance communicated via the LMS, as well as the greater clarity about course outcomes, assessment methods and criteria. The improved lecturer-to-student communication also enhanced learning through the timely provision of additional resources which increased both interest in the course and motivation. This communication provided many benefits including a non-intimidating environment in which to ask questions and improved speed of feedback with general issues of the course. In short, the LMS enhanced class discussions and dialogue as well as introduced a social aspect to the course, which supports the theory proposed by Bruner. These data correspond to the theme Improved learning through many to many communications in Table 2. Participants rated each of the features in response to “How valuable were these features in facilitating your learning of programming?” Point values for the responses were assigned as follows: very valuable (4), valuable (3), not sure (2), and not valuable (1). Means and standard 244
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 244
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
African Journal of Research in MST Education, Volume 16 (2) 2012, pp. 238–252
deviations were calculated for each feature. Table 3 presents the participants’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the features related to their learning of programming. Table 3: Perceived Effectiveness of OLS Features Feature
n
Mean
Std. Deviation
Keeping track of grades on assignments
56
1.86
0.89
Access to sample exams and quizzes for learning purposes
56
2.60
1.02
Online readings and links to text-based course materials
56
1.63
0.76
Sharing materials among students
56
1.90
0.96
Online discussion board
56
2.58
0.80
Access to course materials (powerpoint slides, lecture notes etc.)
56
2.83
0.65
Announcements
56
1.69
0.82
Communication
56
3.02
0.69
Guidance in solving a problem
56
1.22
0.54
The high ratings of some of the features of the LMS such as communication and discussion forum speak to the importance of communication and collaboration that students require. This emphasis affirms the benefits of social constructivism. The features rated as most effective were those related to some form of interaction between students and tutor, as one participant elaborated: The students communicate at a different level on the [LMS] as compared to in the classroom. Some students are shy - in this way they can express their views and in the process learn. I use the communication on the [LMS] to learn from other learners from evaluating [my solution] and figuring out where they went wrong.
Even though the communication and discussion features were rated among the highest, some participants reported dissatisfaction with the unavailability of other students and tutors at the time when they needed immediate response. The students and tutor may not be online at the same time to answer questions and queries. Others indicated that detailed explanations of problems or diagrams cannot be given using the communication feature of the LMS: ‘It is just preferable to learn face-to-face, but for the tasks and announcements it’s fine.’ Since it is generally agreed that the Net Generation students are considered interactive and “internet savvy” (Caruso, 2006), online discussion boards could provide great potential to engage students in the subject matter. In this study, however, although the online discussion was rated highly, student interviews (of those who had computer experience) revealed that online discussions were perceived as “busy work” and sometimes done to accumulate marks for engaging in the discussion forum, but that useful discussions about the method of solving
245
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 245
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
problems did not take place. Instead, it was suggested that a well-administered and synchronized online discussion would be very useful. Access to course materials, syllabus and sample quizzes were the next highly rated features, but online readings and links to text-based course materials was not considered very valuable. This suggests a strong dependence on the lecturer and the materials used specifically in the formal lectures. If students were absent from a lecture, their anxiety was reduced by the LMS because they would still be up to date with the lectures and learning. This notion was corroborated by the responses to the open-ended questions indicating the convenience of having access to course materials without having to be at lectures, as indicated in the following quotations: Notes are put up so learners would not have to keep asking for notes or solutions to programming tasks. and It is useful because I may want something from the lecture after hours, only to find out that the lecturer is not around but with the system it is very useful.
Participants were not satisfied with the level of guidance obtained in solving programming problems using the discussion forum, as such guidance was least rated. They preferred face-toface lectures in these instances, as ’detailed explanation of problems (diagrams) cannot be given over communication’.
Student needs and expectations of the course using the LMS In addition to the participant responses to open-ended questions in the questionnaire, perceptions on the LMS’s role in learning were explored through the survey question “Please rate how well you think you will be able to use the LMS to learn and problem solve in programming”. Table 4: Perception of using LMS to learn and learn problem solving (total n=56) Response
count
%
It will be easy for me to use LMS to learn
22
39
It will be moderately easy for me to use the LMS to learn
15
27
It will be moderately difficult for me use the LMS to learn
10
18
It will be difficult for me to use LMS to learn
9
16
It will be easy for me to use LMS to learn problem solving in programming
3
5
It will be moderately easy for me to use the LMS to learn problem solving in programming
5
9
It will be moderately difficult for me to use the LMS to learn problem solving in programming
17
31
It will be difficult for me to use the LMS to learn problem solving in programming
31
55
246
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 246
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
African Journal of Research in MST Education, Volume 16 (2) 2012, pp. 238–252
The majority of the students (86%) felt that it would be moderately difficult to difficult to learn problem solving and programming using the LMS. However, it was found that a fair proportion of participants (66%) felt that it would be moderately easy to easy to manage their studies for effective learning. Furthermore, it was determined that students’ perceptions emerged into expectations of the LMS. Many students’ comments were strongly related to their expectations around how the system should be used. While students embraced the LMS for its efficiency in accessing information and keeping on track with the module expectations, it was not effective to learn the particular skills required of programming. The following quotes from participants’ responses to open-ended questions indicate some of their expectations: The more courses that use the system, the more often, people will log on, so more frequent discussions will take place. Special discussion groups with experts from across [the university] taking turns to be ‘live’ on the system to answer questions, maybe online tutorial sessions may be helpful.
Another participant said: If possible for the next module can we have maybe about 80% of the lecture face-to-face and 20% of it on the OLS so that we will learn to work individually?
The above quotations give a sense of student expectations of the use of a LMS in teaching and learning. However, at the same time, students felt that more was required for programming questions and some concerns are indicated in the quote below: However, it will be more interesting if the lecture can answer the LMS question in the class. I still require face-to-face help in solving programming problems.
Effects of student demographics on perceptions on learning programming using LMS The undergraduate students were mostly young adults just out of high school, who for most part had no previous programming background. A clear majority of the students (58%) had either limited or no prior computer experience. Any computer skill or experience was gained at university. Many of these students had come from previously disadvantaged backgrounds where computers were not part of their high schools’ mode of operation. In this survey 44% reported spending 3 to 5 hours per week on the LMS outside of formal lectures and 28% of the students reported that they spent more than 5 hours per week using the LMS, including the time spent for other courses. The low percentage of usage of the LMS may be attributed to the non-adoption of the LMS by other courses as is supported in the quote “…the more courses that use the system, the more often, people will log on, so more frequent discussions will take place…”. Hence students do not often log in to the system, which would otherwise encourage more assertive use of discussions and other features of the system. It is also possible that less technological proficiency would adversely affect students’ usage of the system. We were particularly interested in how their computer skills and prior programming knowledge affected their interaction with the system. Using cross- tabulation of these skills with two LMS features gives some indication of their influence.
247
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 247
9/21/2012 2:09:00 PM
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
Table 5: The relationship of computer skill and prior programming experience with appreciation of the LMS communication feature Communication not valuable Computer skill Total Prior Programming
not sure
valuable
very valuable
Low Medium High
6 2 0 8
5 2 1 8
1 5 9 15
4 8 13 25
16 17 23 56
No
8
8
11
20
47
Yes Total
Total
0
0
4
5
9
8
8
15
25
56
Table 5 indicates that all nine students who have prior programming knowledge rated communication as valuable to very valuable. Similarly, those students that have medium to high computer competency skills rated communication (discussion and chat forums) as valuable to very valuable. Table 6: The relationship of computer skill and prior programming experience with appreciation of the LMS guidance to problem solving Guidance
not valuable Computer skill
not sure
valuable
low
16
0
0
16
medium
17
0
0
17
high
15
4
4
23
48
4
4
56
47 1 48
0 4 4
0 4 4
47 9 56
Total Prior Programming Total
No Yes
Total
Overall most students found guidance to problem solving not valuable irrespective of their computer competency as shown in Table 6. However, it must be noted that those who found guidance to problem solving valuable were those who had high computer competency skill or prior programming knowledge.
Discussion The themes represented in Table 2 and the items reflected in Tables 3 and 4 may be grouped into management and organization outcomes, cognitive outcomes and affective outcomes. The findings suggest that students are positive about the LMS support for their control (management and organization) over their learning and about their affective aspects of the LMS. While many 248
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 248
9/21/2012 2:09:01 PM
African Journal of Research in MST Education, Volume 16 (2) 2012, pp. 238–252
of the general aspects of LMS fore-grounded by the students are very similar to other studies, one important aspect that is particularly interesting in this study is the cognitive outcomes perceived by students. In other words, the LMS is perceived as less effective in the cognitive outcomes, specifically the problem solving skills. However, the constructivist approach has gained positive feedback from students as indicated in the quote: “I use the communication on the [LMS] to learn from other learners, from evaluating [my solution] and figuring out where they went wrong.” Onwuegbuzie et al. (2007) in their study have indicated that the graduate (older) students were more inclined to have a structured classroom environment than the undergraduate (younger) students. In this study, however, it is interesting to note that most students (who are considered young adults) seem to suggest that they would rather attend face-to-face lectures for the aspect of problem solving in programming than access the LMS. Hence, this conjecture requires further study. The evidence presented suggests that the strong reliance on lecturer support may be due to the immaturity of (undergraduate) students in the use of technology in higher education learning and the throwback from teacher dependence in high school. The use of LMS can to some extent reduce this dependency. Using the LMS also creates a sense of learners taking responsibility for their learning, for which many of these students may not be ready. For example the low rating of one of the features, online readings and links to text-based course materials as indicated in Table 3 supports this notion to some extent. These students seem to require a more structured classroom environment. Literature indicates that a collaborative environment can be effectively used to enhance student learning, by designing interactive learning grounded in pedagogy (Karunanayaka, 2006). By mediating the interaction that is collaborative in nature, and placing a greater emphasis on the quality of the interactions that occur, a successful learning experience for learners could be ensured using the potential of the discussion and chat facilities of the LMS. However, we have to be careful with what the data seem to suggest. A broader perspective reveals that while students would prefer face-to-face support for the specific aspect of problem solving, they enjoy the increased communication and discussion forums that the LMS offers that are in keeping with one of the principles of social constructivism. Therein lays the commitment of the instructor to design pedagogy for developing problem solving skills in programming making use of the theory of social constructivism embedded in the system.
Conclusion This study proved to be informative in identifying those features of the LMS that the face-to-face students rated as most and least effective in learning programming. The features, communication and access to course materials of the LMS were rated most effective. However, communication and online readings were rated valuable by all students who had a fairly good knowledge of programming and computer competency skill. It would appear that these students are more inclined to use the LMS voluntarily because of their technological mastery and less anxiety in the use of technology. The discussion forums (affective outcome) brought the greatest satisfaction among students in addition to the benefits enjoyed by large classes – managing administrative and organizational outcome The increased communication, via the forums, helped lecturers respond to problem areas quickly and to be more responsive to student learning needs. However, it was noted and documented
249
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 249
9/21/2012 2:09:01 PM
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
that while the use of the LMS was innovative and increased student interest and control of their learning, it did not specifically meet the main learning outcome of the course, which is learning to solve computer programming problems– the cognitive outcome. LMS is simply a means by which instructors can use to involve students and purposefully promote students’ increased engagement with course material and discussion so that more opportunity for learning will take place, which is supported by the constructivist’s approach. Hence in this study, the LMS is seen as complementary rather than as a substitute for face-to-face lectures in the programming course. While LMS supports flexible access to course content and facilitation improves overall learning, it falls short in some aspects specific to computer science education, in particular problem solving in programming–the cognitive outcome. However, a more informed Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Govender & Grayson, 2010) is necessary to improve the overall learning experience especially for those students who have lower computer competency skills.
Implications for Instructors While the findings suggest that the LMS on its own is not supportive of learning to program, instructors have a role to play in designing activities that would engage and take full advantage of the potential benefits derived from a constructivist’s approach embedded in the LMS. For example one particular feature of the LMS that brought the greatest satisfaction was the discussion forum. Using Bruner’s theory of social constructivism instructors may design activities that allow students to critically analyze solutions to a problem placed in the LMS or a step by step demonstration of how a problem is solved can be implemented using the discussion forum. Alternatively, if LMS is coupled with a collaborative tool as indicated in the review, learning can be improved (Cavus, 2007), which again makes use of Bruner’s theory of learning in a social constructivist environment. The facilitator of a programming course may also build additional tools to help learn problem solving in programming. As indicated in the conclusion, lecturers were able to be more responsive to student learning needs and perhaps learning styles as well. To some extent the faculty’s desire to expand its current use of LMS can be achieved if not to support problem solving in programming, then at least to improve their overall quality and student satisfaction with the LMS learning experience by making it mandatory for all courses to use LMS in its delivery. Since the primary aim of this study was to explore student experiences of using the LMS in learning programming and not measure actual learning gains at this time, future work is planned for the refinement of activities using the LMS to measure and track learning gains resulting from the use of problem based learning using the constructivists approach embedded in the LMS.
References Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed). New York: Routledge Falmer. Bruner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Calloway, C. (2008). Let students be your guide- as lesson evaluators. Tech Learning: Educators’ eZine. retrieved July 3, 2012, from http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=196605246
250
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 250
9/21/2012 2:09:01 PM
African Journal of Research in MST Education, Volume 16 (2) 2012, pp. 238–252
Caruso, J.B. (2006). Measuring student experiences with course management systems. ECAR Research Bulletin No.19 retrieved July 3, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/library/REB0609 Cavus, N. (2007). Assessing the success rate of students using a learning management system together with a collaborative tool in web-based teaching of programming languages. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3), 301-321. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182. Cuthrell, K., & Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 357-362. Esteves, M., Fonseca, B., Morgado, L., & Martins, P. (2011). Improving teaching and learning of computer programming through the use of the Second Life Virtual World. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 624–637. Eyitayo, O. (2005). Experimenting eLearning with a large class. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 1(3). Gautreau, C. (2011). Motivational factors affecting the integration of a earning Management System by faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 8(1). Govender, I. (2010). From procedural to Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) – An exploratory study of teachers’ performance. South African Computer Journal, 46, 14-23. Govender, I., & Grayson, D. J. (2007). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ experiences of learning to program in an object-oriented language. Computers & Education, 51, 874-885. Hardy, J., Bates, S., Antonioletti, M., & Seed, T. (2005). Integrating e-learning and on-campus teaching II: evaluation of student use. In J. Cook and D. Whitelock (eds.): Exploring the frontiers of e-learning. Research Proceedings of the 12th Association of Learning Technology Conference, pp. 140-153. Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional Design and eLearning: A Discussion of Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a missing construct. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2), 1-17. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17-27. Karunanayaka, S. (2006). First Experiences on Collaborative Online Learning: A case Study. The Fourth Pan Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge. Mohorovičić, S., &Tijan, E. (2010). New Technologies in Teaching University Level Programming. MIPRO 2010 Proceedings of the 33rd International Convention. Opatija, Croatia. (pp. 1024-1028) Mott, J,. & Wiley, D. (2009). Open For Learning: The CMS and the Open Learning Network. Education exploring our connective educational landscape, 15(2). Onwuegbuzie, E., Witcher, A., Collins, K., Filer, J., Wiedmaier, C., & Moore, C. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective College Teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-methods analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 113-160. Roschelle, J. (2003). Learning by collaborating: conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
251
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 251
9/21/2012 2:09:01 PM
A constructivist approach to a programming course: Students’ responses to the use of a Learning Management System
Siemens, G. (2004). Learning Management Systems: The wrong place to start learning. Elearnspace: everything Elearning. Retrieved July 3, 2012 from http://www.Elearningspace.org/Articles/lms.htm Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional Design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Smith, K. L. (1996). Preparing faculty for instructional technology: From education to development to creative independence. Paper presented at 1996 CAUSE Annual Conference. Retrieved July 3, 2012 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/CNC9659.pdf Thomas, P.S., Fernández, R.F., & Manjón, B.F. (2010). Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education, 53(2), 517-531. William, L., & Upchurch, R.L. (2001). In support of student pair-programming. Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 327-331), Charlotte, North Carolina. Yin, R.K. (2003). Applications of case study research. 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
252
AJRMSTE 16(2) 2012_layout.indd 252
9/21/2012 2:09:01 PM
