International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 3 (March 2023), Pages: 196-204

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Towards enhancing teaching and learning computer programming in Saudi Arabia

 Author(s): 

 Ahmed Abba Haruna *

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Computer Science, College of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Hafr Al Batin, Hafr Al Batin, Saudi Arabia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2488-7438

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.03.024

 Abstract:

Globally, numerous students struggle with understanding computer programming, which is one of the most difficult courses in the computer science curriculum as stated in the literature. This is especially true in a diverse learning environment where students come from different disciplinary backgrounds, language skills, and cultures. Hence, to improve on the aforementioned challenges, another research introduces a framework that combines constructivist and collaborative learning theories with a student-centered teaching pedagogy for teaching postgraduate introductory programming classes at Central Queensland University, Australia. However, the framework will not work effectively when teaching computer programming courses to undergraduate students in Saudi Arabia. This is due to geographical differences, study levels, negative emotional issues, and stress affecting students' learning. Such as students' first view that programming is difficult, or the difference between students' and teachers' perspectives on learning (disciplinary backgrounds, language skills, and cultures). Therefore, this paper proposed a student-centered learning and teaching method that combines constructive alignment (consistency), collaborative learning theory (collaboration, conception, and cognition), and bits of Maslow's theory (love/belonging and self-actualization) in a student-centered teaching pedagogy. The research findings reveal that when using the existing method to teach Introduction to Computing-II (Object Oriented Programming in Java) at the University of Hafr Al Batin, Saudi Arabia, only 87.5% of students passed the course, while 12.5% failed. However, when using the proposed method 95.2% of the students passed the course, while only 4.8% failed. Thus, the proposed method clearly shows significant improvement, with the failure rate reducing from 12.5% to only 4.8%.

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Improving computer programming teaching, Learning, Student-centered, Teaching pedagogy, Flip classroom

 Article History: Received 7 March 2022, Received in revised form 6 December 2022, Accepted 29 December 2022

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Haruna AA (2023). Towards enhancing teaching and learning computer programming in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(3): 196-204

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2

----------------------------------------------    

 References (28)

  1. Biggs J and Tang C (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Figueiredo J and García-Peñalvo FJ (2018). Building skills in introductory programming. In the 6th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain: 46-50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284190   [Google Scholar] PMid:28736922
  3. Hamal O (2022). Intelligent system using deep learning for answering learner questions in a MOOC. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(2): 32-42. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i02.26605   [Google Scholar]
  4. Imenda SN (2018). On the unity of behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism in teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 20(1-3): 86-95. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2018/20.1-3.11   [Google Scholar]
  5. Iskrenovic-Momcilovic O (2018). Learning a programming language. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 55(4): 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720918773975   [Google Scholar]
  6. Jenkins T (2001). Teaching programming–A journey from teacher to motivator. In The 2nd Annual Conference of the LSTN Center for Information and Computer Science, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Jenkins T (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. In the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (LTSN-ICS), Loughborough, UK: 53-58.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Kanaparan G, Cullen R, and Mason D (2019). Effect of self-efficacy and emotional engagement on introductory programming students. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1825   [Google Scholar]
  9. Knowles MS, Holton E, and Swanson R (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 6th Edition, Elsevier, Burlington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Konecki M and Kadoić N (2015). Intelligent assistant for helping students to learn programming. In the 38th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics, IEEE, Opatija, Croatia: 924-928. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPRO.2015.7160406   [Google Scholar]
  11. Krpan D, Mladenović S, and Rosić M (2015). Undergraduate programming courses, students’ perception and success. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174: 3868-3872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1126   [Google Scholar]
  12. Larkin H and Richardson B (2013). Creating high challenge/high support academic environments through constructive alignment: Student outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2): 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.696541   [Google Scholar]
  13. Lu B and Zheng F (2022). Influence of experiential teaching and itinerary assessment on the improvement of key competencies of students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(2): 173-188. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i02.29007   [Google Scholar]
  14. Maslow A (1974). A theory of human motivation. Lulu Press, Morrisville, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Mazur E (2017). Peer instruction. In: Kurz G and Harten U (Eds.), Peer instruction: 9-19. Springer Spektrum, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54377-1   [Google Scholar]
  16. McLeod S (2007). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology. Available online at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html                  
  17. Mohorovicic S and Strcic V (2011). An overview of computer programming teaching methods. In the Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, Varazdin, Croatia: 47-52.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Papp-Varga Z, Szlávi P, and Zsakó L (2008). ICT teaching methods–programming languages. Annales Mathematicae et Informaticae, 35(1): 163-172.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Rogers CR, Stevens B, Gendlin ET, Shlien JM, and Van Dusen W (1967). Person to person: The problem of being human: A new trend in psychology. Real People Press, Moab, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Saito D and Yamaura T (2013). A new approach to programming language education for beginners with top-down learning. In the IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering, IEEE, Bali, Indonesia: 752-755. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2013.6654538   [Google Scholar]
  21. Sangin M, Molinari G, Nüssli MA, and Dillenbourg P (2011). Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3): 1059-1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.032   [Google Scholar]
  22. Smart KL, Witt C, and Scott JP (2012). Toward learner-centered teaching: An inductive approach. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4): 392-403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912459752   [Google Scholar]
  23. Tan PH, Ting CY, and Ling SW (2009). Learning difficulties in programming courses: Undergraduates' perspective and perception. In the International Conference on Computer Technology and Development, IEEE, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: 42-46. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCTD.2009.188   [Google Scholar]
  24. Tom M (2015). Five C framework: A student-centered approach for teaching programming courses to students with diverse disciplinary background. Journal of Learning Design, 8(1): 21-27. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v8i1.193   [Google Scholar]
  25. Wang L (2022). Influence of teacher behaviors on student activities in information-based classroom teaching. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(2): 19-31. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i02.28271   [Google Scholar]
  26. Welkener MM (2013). Understanding the complexities of cognition and creativity to reform higher education practice. International Journal of Educational Reform, 22(3): 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791302200302   [Google Scholar]
  27. Wright GB (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1): 92-97.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Xu Z, Ritzhaupt AD, Umapathy K, Ning Y, and Tsai CC (2021). Exploring college students’ conceptions of learning computer science: A draw-a-picture technique study. Computer Science Education, 31(1): 60-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1783155   [Google Scholar]