3B Sanal Dünyalarda Tasarlanan Bir Programlama Dersinde Öğrencilerin Memnuniyetine Etki Eden Faktörlerin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı 3B sanal dünyalarda programlamanın temellerini öğretmeyi amaçlayan bir derste öğrencilerin memnuniyet seviyelerini ortaya çıkarmak ve öğrencilerin memnuniyetine etki eden faktörleri belirlemektir. Bu amaçla araştırma yöntemi olarak üç farklı eğitim programında uygulanmış çoklu durum çalışması seçilmiştir. Bu durum çalışmaları sırasıyla müfredata entegre (Durum 1), müfredat dışı (Durum 2) ve okul sonrası (Durum 3) şeklinde eğitim programlarında uygulanmıştır. Alanyazındaki çalışmalardan faydalanılarak uyarlanan memnuniyet ölçeği ile öğrencilerin memnuniyet düzeyi ölçülerken, öğrenci ve öğretmenler ile yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ile memnuniyete etki eden faktörler ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde betimsel analiz yöntemleri kullanılmış olup Durum 1 (M = 4.35), Durum-3 (M = 4.28) ve Durum-2’nin (M = 3.99) öğrencileri sırasıyla, bu ortamlarda verilen programlama dersinden en çok memnun olan öğrenciler olarak belirlenmiştir. Nitel verilerin tekli durum analizi sonuçları memnuniyeti artıran ve azaltan faktörleri ortaya çıkarmıştır. Görevlerin hikayesi dışında, grup çalışması, obje oluşturma, görevlerin olması, görev dışı aktiviteler, 3B ortam ve ortamda gezinme her üç durum çalışmasında da değişken oranlarda memnuniyeti artıran faktörler olarak bulunmuştur. Teknik problemler, yalnız çalışma, görevlerin zorluğu ve avatar ile ilgili problemler her üç durum çalışmasının öğrencileri tarafından memnuniyeti azaltan faktörler olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Durumlar arası analiz sonuçları ise her üç durum çalışması sonuçlarının benzerlik ve farklılıklarını belirten bir tablo ile sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 3B sanal dünyalar,memnuniyeti etkileyen faktörler,memnuniyet,çocuklar için programlama

Investigating the Factors Affecting Students’ Satisfaction in a Programming Course Designed in 3D Virtual Worlds

Öz

The main purpose of this study is to understand the satisfaction level of students to teach the basics of programming in 3D virtual worlds and investigate the factors affecting their satisfaction. Multiple case study with three cases were conducted in three different educational programs: as curricular (Case-1), extra-curricular (Case-2) and after-school (Case-3). Satisfaction scale adopted from previous study was used to understand current level of satisfaction and semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants to reveal factors affecting satisfaction. Descriptive analysis of quantitative data showed that that the most satisfied students were those from Case-1 (M = 4.35), Case-3 (M = 4.28) and Case-2 (M = 3.99), respectively. Single case analysis of qualitative data revealed the factors increasing and decreasing satisfaction of the students. Apart from the story about the tasks, group study, object construction, having tasks, off-task activities, 3D environment and tour in the environment emerged as an increasing factor across all three cases at different ratios. Technical problems, studying alone, difficulty of the tasks, and avatar-related problems were the factors stated by some of the students across all cases as decreasing factors. Cross-case analysis provided a table which shows the similarities and differences among the cases. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 3D Virtual Worlds,factors affecting satisfaction,satisfaction,programming for children

Kaynakça

1. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained : embrace change. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=318762
2. Berland, M. (2017). Constructionist Learning. In K. Peppler (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Out-of-School Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 139–141). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385198.n59
3. Bishop-Clark, C., Courte, J., & Howard, E. V. (2006). Programming in Pairs with Alice to Improve Confidence, Enjoyment, and Achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.2190/CFKF-UGGC-JG1Q-7T40
4. Brennan, K. A. (2013). Best of Both Worlds: Issues of Structure and Agency in Computational Creation, in and Out of School. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, MA.
5. Buffum, P. S., Frankosky, M., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2015). Leveraging collaboration to improve gender equity in a game-based learning environment for middle school computer science. In 2015 Research in Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT.2015.7296496
6. Choudhury, J., & Banerjee, I. (2012). Programming in Virtual Worlds for Educational Requirements: LSL Scripting and Environment Development Challenges. International Journal of Computer Science Research and Application, 2(3), 30–41.
7. Crellin, J., Duke-Williams, E., Chandler, J., & Collinson, T. (2009). Virtual worlds in computing education. Computer Science Education, 19(4), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400903384950
8. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

9. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Research (4th ed., Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
10. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
12. Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2014). Situated Learning in Virtual Worlds and Immersive Simulations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 723–734). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_58
13. Delwiche, A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 160–172.
14. Dickey, M. D. (2005a). Brave new (interactive) worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820500173714
15. Dickey, M. D. (2005b). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–451.
16. Dieterle, E., & Clarke, J. (2006). Multi-User Virtual Environments for Teaching and Learning. In M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking (2nd Editio, Vol. 2, pp. 1033–1041). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Retrieved from http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject
17. Dreher, C., Reiners, T., Dreher, N., & Dreher, H. (2009). Virtual Worlds as a Context Suited for Information Systems Education : Discussion of Pedagogical Experience and Curriculum Design with Reference to Second Life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 211–225.
18. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01056.x
19. Girvan, C., Tangney, B., & Savage, T. (2013). SLurtles: Supporting constructionist learning in Second Life. Computers & Education, 61, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.005
20. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. N. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International Conference on Engineering Education (pp. 1–5). Coimbra, Portugal. Retrieved from http://ineer.org/Events/ICEE2007/papers/411.pdf
21. Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming Environments for Novices. In S. Fincher & M. Petre (Eds.), Computer Science Education Research (pp. 127–154). Lisse, The Netherlands: aylor & Francis.Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x
22. Hulsey, C., Pence, T. B., & Hodges, L. F. (2014). Camp CyberGirls: Using a Virtual World to Introduce Computing Concepts to Middle School Girls. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE ’14 (pp. 331–336). New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538881
23. Kafai, Y., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code : why children need to learn programming. MIT Press.
24. Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the Barriers to Programming : a survey of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83–137. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089733.1089734
25. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
26. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Messinger, P. R., Stroulia, E., Lyons, K., Bone, M., Niu, R. H., Smirnov, K., & Perelgut, S. (2009). Virtual worlds — past, present, and future: New directions in social computing. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.014
28. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
29. Neale, P., Thapa, S., & Boyce, C. (2006). Preparing a case study : A guide for designing and conducting a case study for evaluation input. Pathfinder International Tool Series, (May), 1–12.
30. Papert, S. (n.d.). Hard fun. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html
31. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. BOOK, Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
32. Pellas, N. (2014). The development of a virtual learning platform for teaching concurrent program- ming languages in Secondary education: The use of Open Sim and Scratch4OS. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 10(1), 129–143.
33. Pellas, N., & Kazanidis, I. (2014). Online and hybrid university-level courses with the utilization of Second Life: Investigating the factors that predict student choice in Second Life supported online and hybrid university-level courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.047
34. Pellas, N., & Vosinakis, S. (2017). How can a simulation game support the development of computational problem- solving strategies ? In IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2017). Athens: Greece.
35. Rico, M., Martínez-Muñoz, G., Alaman, X., Camacho, D., & Pulido, E. (2011). A programming experience of high school students in a virtual world platform. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(1), 1–9.
36. Rosenbaum, E. (2008). Scratch for Second Life. In S. V. Harrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008 (pp. 383–391). Utrecht, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1600042
37. Sauppé, A., Szafir, D., Huang, C.-M., & Mutlu, B. (2015). From 9 to 90: Engaging Learners of All Ages. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’15 (pp. 575–580). Kansas City, MO, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677248
38. Seng, K. L. J., & Edirisinghe, E. M. N. S. (2007). Teaching computer science using Second Life as a learning environment. In Ascilite (pp. 583–586).
39. Shih-Wei Chou, & Chien-Hung Liu. (2005). Learning Effectiveness in Web-Based Technology-Mediated Virtual Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.385
40. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., Vol. 3rd, pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip053/2004026085.html
41. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods, practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
42. Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392599
43. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Fourth Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.