Technology Enhanced Learning – Multicultural view

Mirjana Ivanović1, Stelios Xinogalos2, Tomáš Pitner3, Miloš Savić1

1Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

2Department of Technology Management, University of Macedonia, Greece3Department of Computer Systems and Communications, Faculty of

Informatics, Masaryk University, Czech Republic

ContentIntroduction

OOP courses in our three institutions

Technology enhanced learning of OOP

Evaluation results

Conclusions2 / 26

ContentIntroduction

OOP courses in our three institutions

Technology enhanced learning of OOP

Evaluation results

Conclusions3 / 26

IntroductionChallenges

Object-first or structured-first approach Choice of the first programming language

Our institutions (UNS-PMF, UOM-TMD, MUNI-FI) Structured-first approach OOP course based on Java Technology enhanced learning of programming

Analysis and comparison of TEL-based OOP courses Design of OOP courses Usage of TEL tools Students’ feedbacks and opinions

4 / 26

ContentIntroduction

OOP courses in our three institutions

Technology enhanced learning of OOP

Evaluation results

Conclusions5 / 26

Common goals of OOP coursesFocus on fundamental OO software development

tasks and programming concepts rather than simply learning Java constructs

Comprehending and using standard library-classes, analyzing/extending existing user-defined classes

Becoming familiar with the language syntax and semantics, implementing programs, designing simple OO applications

6 / 26

Comparison of OOP coursesUOM-TMD UNS-PMF MUNI-FI

Course Object-oriented design and programming

Object-oriented programming

Programming in Java

Semester 3 3 3 (mostly)

Duration 13 weeks 13 weeks 13 weeks

Lectures 2 2 + 2 2

Labs (hours/week)

2 hours/week, groups of 25-30 students

2 hours/week, groups of 10-15 students

2 hours/week, groups of 16-20 students

Homework Weekly assignments None None

Evaluation (Grading)

Homework (20%), middle-term (20%) and final exams (60%)

Practical assignments (30%), three interim theoretical tests (30%), oral exam (60%)

In-lab tasks (36% ), In-lab quizzes (9%), Two midterm practical tests (28%), final exam (27%).

7 / 26

Comparison of teaching approachesUOM-TMD UNS-PMF MUNI-FI

Project-driven, iterative approach based on BlueJ, active learning

Use of a microworld and an educational IDE.

Objects-first (within the course).

Blended learning, learner-centered

Several practical assignments, from simple to more complicated

Objects-first (within the course).

Project-driven, semi-constructivistic approach, development in BlueJ.

Objects-first (within the course)

8 / 26

ContentIntroduction

OOP courses in our three institutions

Technology enhanced learning of OOP

Evaluation results

Conclusions9 / 26

Main issues in TEL based courses

Learning management (LMS) and tutoring systems

Programming environments and tools

Assessment procedures and tools

Communication and cooperation

10 / 26

LMS and tutoring systemsUOM-TMD

in-house LMS CoMPUs (Course Management Platform for Universities)

UNS-PMFLMS Moodle with extended personalization featuresMag, web-based tutoring system

MUNI-FI In-house university information system featuring

both study administration and TEL functionalities

11 / 26

Programming environments and toolsUOM-TMD

programming microworld objectKarel in the first two lessons smoother transition from structured to OO programming

IDEs: BlueJ, JCreator, and Eclipse

UNS-PMF Svetovid, in-house IDE and submission system BlueJ, Eclipse (IDEs), Jeliot (code visualization)

MUNI-FI IDEs: BlueJ, NetBeans Basic command line tools (javac, javadoc) JUnit to write and run automated unit tests

12 / 26

Assessment procedures and toolsUOM-TMD UNS-PMF MUNI-FI

LMS’s tool for assignment, submission and management of programming projects.

Correction of assignments, midterm and final exams is done manually.

LMS Moodle as a tool for testing students’ theoretical knowledge (using Quiz module) and small tests for self-evaluation.

In-house Svetovid system for assessing students programs.

Moodle for administration of all points and final grades.

LMS’s tool for assignment and submission (“vaults”).

Correction of midterm and final exams is done manually.

Correction of tasks may be in some groups done semi-automatically.

13 / 26

Communication and cooperationUOM-TMD UNS-PMF MUNI-FI

Announcement tool with integrated e-mail system & discussion forum of the LMS

However, and despite the strong encouragement to use LMS for communication, students prefer to contact the instructor in person or through email.

The forum is used rarely and by very few students.

E-mails and LMS Moodle: discussion forums, instant messages, chat sessions, e-mail.

Wikis as obligatory part of team-work projects in several courses.

Students still are not very eager to use e-learning 2.0 communication capabilities.

Announcement tool with integrated e-mail system & discussion forum of the LMS

The social networking functionality that is experimentally used in selected advanced courses has not been introduced here (yet).

Students prefer to contact the teacher directly

14 / 26

ContentIntroduction

OOP courses in our three institutions

Technology enhanced learning of OOP

Evaluation results

Conclusions15 / 26

QuestionnaireTo investigate students’ perception of importance or

actual utilization of services that are or could be provided by TEL tools

14 questions in two parts five-point Likert scale for 12 questionsnot at all (1), slightly (2), averagely (3), much (4), very much (5) two explanatory questions

Demographic data: year of study and average grade (not obligatory to fill in)

16 / 26

Questionnaire, part oneItem How important do you consider

E1 Use of CMS/Moodle for the organization and distribution of didactical material

E2 Use of CMS/Moodle for assigning and submitting (weekly) assignments

E3 Posting “Announcements” to CMS/Moodle and automatic notification at email

E4 Ability to post questions at the course’s forum

E5 Did you use the “Forum” in the context of programming courses

E6 I didn’t use “Forum” because…

E7 Did you use any instant messaging tools to communicate with the instructors?

E8 I didn’t use instant messaging tools because… 17 / 26

Questionnaire, part twoItem How important do you consider the support that could be

provided by TEL tools

H1 Online self-evaluation quizzes regarding your knowledge of the programming concepts of each lesson (unit)

H2 Supplementary educational material with the form of e-lessons, repository of papers, video material, etc.

H3 Ability to adapt the content of e-lessons (e.g. presentation of the content and selection by the student of the units to be studied)

H4 Tracking the students’ learning style through an online questionnaire or an intelligent adaptive system and adaptation of the way of presenting the available material according to each student’s learning style

H5 Exemplary solved problems with comments regarding the solution (methodology) and the source code. 18 / 26

SamplesQuestionnaire offered online using CMS/MoodleStudents that enrolled programming courses

Internal consistency of questionnaire data investigated using Cronbach’s α statisticsInstitution Sample size

UOM-TMD 93

UNS-PMF 113

MUNI-FI 80

19 / 26

Statistical analysisDescriptive statistics

Central tendencies: median (M) and mode (F) Variability: Inter-quartile range (IQR)

Non-parametric statistical tests to investigate if there are statistically significant differences between independent groups Mann-Whitney U test Two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA

20 / 26

Example of statistical processingE1: How important do you consider the use of CoMPUs/MOODLE for the

organization and distribution of didactical material

Summary of non-parametric statistical tests

Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA: statistically significant differences among countries

H (2, N = 282) = 33.49394 p =.0000

Mann-Witney test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test: there are no statistically significant differences between MUNI-FI and UNS-PMF

MW: U = 4416, Z = -0.499, p = 0.617

KS: D = 0.05, p > 0.1

Box plot of central tendencies

Histograms of students’ opinions

Summary of descriptive statisticsE1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E7 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

UOM-TMD M/F 5/5 5/5 5/5 4/4 1/1 1/1 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/5 5/5

IQR 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 0

UNS-PMF M/F 4/5 4/4 5/5 4/4 2/2 1/1 3/3 4/4 3/3 3/3 4/5

IQR 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2

MUNI-FI M/F 4/4 4/4 4/5 4/4 3/2 1/1 3/4 4/4 3/3 3/3 5/5

IQR 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1.5 1 2 1

Red: high (4) or very high (5) importance or utilization of

corresponding TEL aspect

Conclusions from non-parametric statistical tests

High similarity between PMF-UNS and MUNI-FI regarding the perceived importance of TEL services

Students from UOM-TMD tend to give higher ratings to those items for which statistically significant differences among countries are observed

Perceived importance of TEL services is mostly not affected by year of study

UOM-TMD students with the lowest average grade consider TEL services less important compared to others

Perceived importance of TEL services is not affected by average grade at PMF-UNS and MUNI-FI

23 / 26

ContentIntroduction

OOP courses in our three institutions

Technology enhanced learning of OOP

Evaluation results

Conclusions24 / 26

ConclusionsTEL supported by in-house tools (UOM-TMD, MUNI-FI)

or the combination of Moodle with in-house tools (UNS-PMF)

Students satisfied with organizational services, but do not tend to use communicational services provided by TEL tools

Questionnaire revealed that students are highly interested in: Supplementary educational material in form of e-lessons Exemplary solved problems 25 / 26

Technology Enhanced Learning – Multicultural view

Mirjana Ivanović1, Stelios Xinogalos2, Tomáš Pitner3, Miloš Savić1

1Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

2Department of Technology Management, University of Macedonia, Greece3Department of Computer Systems and Communications, Faculty of

Informatics, Masaryk University, Czech Republic