Engineering Students' Perceptions of Self-Efficacy and Engagement in Programming Learning with the Flipped Classroom Model

Abstract

In this case study, it is aimed to design an instructional design including Arduino applications developed for first year engineering students, implement it with a flipped classroom model, and evaluate it in terms of perceived engagement and programming self-efficacy. The online part of the eight-week instructional design, which was developed by considering the difficulties in learning programming, includes interactive videos consisting of screen shots of circuit designs developed in Tinkercad. The face-to-face laboratory activities were designed to include high-level learning objectives based on the online content. Twenty-one volunteers consisting of first-year students from the Department of Software Engineering at Kırklareli University completed the teaching. Focus group discussions and one-on-one interviews were conducted with 10 students selected from among the participants by convenience sampling method. In addition, log records of the participants' interactions with the learning management system were collected. The data obtained from the interviews were analyzed by content analysis and the log records were analyzed by frequency analysis. Within the scope of this study, it was concluded that Arduino programming instruction with the flipped classroom model supported positive development in terms of students' engagement and programming self-efficacy perception.

Keywords

• arduino
• engagement
• flipped classroom
• programming
• self-efficacy
• tinkercad

MÜHENDİSLİK ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN TERS-YÜZ SINIF MODELİ İLE PROGRAMLAMA ÖĞRENİMİNDEKİ ÖZ-YETERLİLİK VE BAĞLILIK ALGILARI

Öz

Bu durum çalışmasında, mühendislik birinci sınıf öğrencileri için geliştirilen Arduino uygulamalarını içeren öğretimin tasarlanması, ters yüz sınıf modeli ile uygulanması, algılanan bağlılık ve programlama öz yeterliliği açısından değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Programlamayı öğrenmedeki zorluklar dikkate alınarak geliştirilen sekiz haftalık öğretim tasarımının çevrimiçi bölümünde, Tinkercad'de geliştirilen devre tasarımlarının ekran çekiminden oluşan etkileşimli videolar yer almaktadır. Yüz yüze laboratuvarda yapılan etkinlikler çevrimiçi içeriği temel alan üst düzey öğrenme hedeflerini içerecek şekilde tasarlanmaya çalışılmıştır. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Yazılım Mühendisliği Bölümünde eğitim alan 1. sınıf öğrencilerinden oluşan 21 gönüllü öğretimi tamamlamıştır. Katılımcılar arasından elverişli örneklem yöntemiyle seçilen 10 öğrenciyle odak grup görüşmeleri ve bire bir görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Buna ek olarak katılımcıların öğretim yönetim sistemiyle etkileşimlerinden oluşan log kayıtları toplanmıştır. Yapılan görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler içerik analizi, log kayıtları frekans analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bu araştırma kapsamında ters yüz sınıf modeliyle gerçekleştirilen Arduino programlama öğretiminin öğrencilerin bağlılık ve programlama öz-yeterlik algısı açısından olumlu yönde gelişmeyi desteklediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• arduino
• bağlılık
• öz-yeterlik algısı
• programlama
• ters yüz sınıf
• tinkercad

References

1. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Aktif öğrenme. Eğtim Dünyası Yayınları.
2. Alammary, A. (2019). Blended learning models for introductory programming courses: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0221765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221765
3. Alhazbi, S., & Halabi, O. (2018). Flipping introductory programming class: Potentials, challenges, and research gaps. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, 27-32. Tokyo Japan: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290511.3290552
4. Arslan, K., & Tanel, Z. (2021). Analyzing the effects of Arduino applications on students’ opinions, attitude and self-efficacy in programming class. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1143-1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10290-5
5. Ay, K., & Dağhan, G. (2022). Sorgulama Topluluğu Modeli İle Desteklenmiş Bir Dönüştürülmüş Öğrenme Ortamına İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşleri: Bir Durum Çalışması.
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Worth Publishers.
7. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
8. Benli̇, K. S., & Tek, F. B. (2021). Programlamaya Giriş Dersini Alan Öğrencilerin Programlama Öz Yeterlilik Algılarının ve Programlamaya Bakış Açılarının İncelenmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 328-347. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.770726

9. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, Or: International Society for Technology in Education.
10. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to student engagement. International Society for Technology in Education.
11. Bergmann, & Sams, A. (2007). Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day.
12. Berssanette, J. H., & Francisco, A. C. de. (2021). Active Learning in the Context of the Teaching/Learning of Computer Programming: A Systematic Review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 20, 201-220. https://doi.org/10.28945/4767
13. Bosse, Y., & Gerosa, M. A. (2017). Why is programming so difficult to learn?: Patterns of Difficulties Related to Programming Learning Mid-Stage. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 41(6), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3011286.3011301
14. Bredow, C. A., Roehling, P. V., Knorp, A. J., & Sweet, A. M. (2021). To Flip or Not to Flip? A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Flipped Learning in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research, 91(6), 878-918. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019122
15. Burke, A. S., & Fedorek, B. (2017). Does “flipping” promote engagement?: A comparison of a traditional, online, and flipped class. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693487
16. Cheah, C. S. (2020). Factors Contributing to the Difficulties in Teaching and Learning of Computer Programming: A Literature Review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep272. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8247
17. Chis, A. E., Moldovan, A.-N., Murphy, L., Pathak, P., & Muntean, C. H. (2018). Investigating Flipped Classroom and Problem-based Learning in a Programming Module for Computing Conversion Course. Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 232-247.
18. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemi Beş Yaklaşıma Göre Nitel Araştırma ve Nitel Araştırma Deseni (M. Bütün, S. B. Demir, & Çev, Ed.).
19. Demirer, V., & Aydin, B. (2017). Ters Yüz Sınıf Modeli Çerçevesinde Gerçekleştirilmiş Çalışmalara Bir Bakış: İçerik Analizi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 7(1), 57-82. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.288488
20. Erol, O. (2020). How do Students’ Attitudes Towards Programming and Self-Efficacy in Programming Change in the Robotic Programming Process? International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.2
21. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (C. 7). McGraw-hill New York.
22. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept,State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
23. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. (2014). A teacher’s view about introductory programming teaching and learning: Difficulties, strategies and motivations. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings. Madrid. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044086
24. Gorson, J., & O’Rourke, E. (2020). Why do CS1 Students Think They’re Bad at Programming? Investigating Self-Efficacy and Self-Assessments at Three Universities. ICER.
25. Kadar, R., Abdul Wahab, N., Othman, J., Shamsuddin, M., & Mahlan, S. B. (2021). A Study of Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Programming: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(3), Pages 591-605. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i3/11100
26. Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education: Flipped Learning in Engineering Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12548
27. Karaca, C., & Ocak, M. A. (2017). Algoritma ve Programlama Eğitiminde Ters Yüz Öğrenmenin Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Akademik Başarısına Etkisi. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2), 527-543.
28. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
29. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What We’re Learning About Student Engagement From. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
30. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature. Natioanl Post Secondary Educational Cooperative.
31. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759
32. Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 837-852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6
33. Mill Eğitim Bakanlığı Hayat Boyu Öğrenme Genel Müdürlüğü [Kamu]. (2019). Geliş tarihi 16 Ağustos 2018, gönderen Kurs Programları website: https://e-yaygin.meb.gov.tr/download.ashx?fileID=61
34. Mok, H. N. (2014). Teaching tip: The flipped classroom. Journal of information systems education, 25(1), 7.Özyurt, H., & Özyurt, Ö. (2018). Analyzing the effects of adapted flipped classroom approach on computer programming success, attitude toward programming, and programming self-efficacy. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(6), 2036-2046. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21973
35. Perera, P., Tennakoon, G., Ahangama, S., Panditharathna, R., & Chathuranga, B. (2021). A Systematic Mapping of Introductory Programming Languages for Novice Learners. IEEE Access, 9, 88121-88136. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3089560
36. Puarungroj, W. (2015). Inverting a Computer Programming Class with the Flipped Classroom.
37. Qian, Y., & Lehman, J. (2017). Students’ Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming: A Literature Review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077618
38. Sadik, A. (2015). The Effectiveness of Flipped Lectures in Improving Student Engagement and Satisfaction. European Conference on E-Learning, 507-XVII.
39. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106349
40. Sobral, S. R. (2021). Teaching and Learning to Program: Umbrella Review of Introductory Programming in Higher Education. Mathematics, 9(15), 1737. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9151737
41. Souza, M., & Rodrigues, P. (2015). Investigating the effectiveness of the flipped classroom in an introductory programming course. The New Educational Review, 40(2), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2015.40.2.11
42. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE.
43. Taşpolat, A., Özdamli, F., & Soykan, E. (2021). Programming Language Training With the Flipped Classroom Model. SAGE Open, 11(2), 215824402110214. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211021403
44. Tomas, L., Evans, N. (Snowy), Doyle, T., & Skamp, K. (2019). Are first year students ready for a flipped classroom? A case for a flipped learning continuum. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0135-4
45. Touchton, M. (2015). Flipping the Classroom and Student Performance in Advanced Statistics: Evidence from a Quasi Experiment. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(1), 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2014.985105
46. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Dimension of Engagement. Lancaster.
47. Türk, M. (2012). Harmanlanmiş Öğrenme Ortamının Meslek Yüksekokulu Öğrencilerinin Derse Katımlarına ve Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi (Yüksek lisans tezi). GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ.
48. Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.004
49. Watson, C., & Li, F. W. (2014). Failure Rates in Introductory Programming Revisited. ITiCSE ’14: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science, 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591749
50. Williams, B. (2013). How I flipped my classroom. NNNC Conference. Norfolk, NE.
51. Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (1999). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (11 baski: 1999-2018).
52. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (8.Tıpkı basım). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
53. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016