Students’ perception regarding their learning contribution

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

The last decade has witnessed tremendous changes in Information Technology (IT). These changes have been brought about by IT developments which have affected the way people live, think and work. For these reasons, information technology skills are in high demand. The question is: Do we have highly qualified people in developing countries? In a country like Nigeria, which is the focus of this study, anecdotal evidence from the national dailies seem to suggest that there is an urgent need for well-trained computer science students, if some of the changes are to be successfully navigated (Adeyemi, 2017, January 9; Kelvin, 2016, November 13). Highly competent teachers at tertiary level, who can provide students with effective learning opportunities and technological know-how for programming.

Problem statement

Students’ learning of programming at colleges of education in Nigeria are marred by low performance rates and unsuitable programming pedagogy. The following discussion elaborates on each of these points.

Purpose statement

The purpose of this study is to explore ways in which a visual programming environment can improve programming skills among first year college students in Nigeria. The study also investigated students’ mental representation of programming concepts in accordance with the Block model. The researcher focused on students’ lived experiences, from visual to procedural programming. This perspective facilitated the design of a teaching and learning framework for programming in Nigerian colleges of education.

Primary research question

The proposed study was guided by the following primary research question: How can the implementation of a visual programming environment inform the design of a new teaching and learning framework and as well support the learning of procedural programming skills in such a manner that teaching intervention planned upon students’ learning approaches is positively experienced while promoting mental representations of the Block model in first year college students?

DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTUALISATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PROBLEM AND PURPOSE STATEMENT
1.2.1 Problem statement
1.2.3 Research Questions
1.2.3.1 Primary research question
1.2.3.2 Secondary research questions
1.3 RESEARCH RATIONALE
1.4 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
1.6 RESEARCH STRUCTURE
1.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 2: PROGRAMMING AND PROGRAM COMPREHENSION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 PROGRAMMING EDUCATION
2.2.1 Expert and novice programmers
2.2.2 Programming paradigms for introductory programming
2.2.2.1 Procedural programming and difficulties experienced by novices
2.2.3 Visual programming languages in introductory programming
2.2.3.1 Scratch programming
2.2.3.2 Transitioning from Scratch to Text-based programming
2.3 PROGRAM COMPREHENSION
2.3.1 Program comprehension process
2.4.1.1 Mental representations and students’ success in programming
2.3.2 Program comprehension models (assimilation process)
2.3.2.1 Top-down comprehension model
2.3.2.2 Bottom-up comprehension model
2.3.2.3 Opportunistic comprehension model
2.3.2.4 Block model
2.4 THE TEACHING OF PROGRAMMING IN NIGERIA
2.4.1 The teaching of procedural programming in Nigerian colleges of education
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3: PERSPECTIVES ON LEARNING AND LEARNING THEORIES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 LEARNING THEORIES, LEARNING DIVERSITY AND TAXONOMIES
3.2.1 Learning defined
3.2.2 Constructivism
3.2.2.1 Cognitive constructivism
3.2.2.2 Social Constructivism
3.2.2.3 Constructionism
3.2.2.4 Constructivist teaching strategies for facilitating programming instruction
3.2.3 Learning diversity in the classroom
3.2.3.1 Herrmann Whole Brain Model
3.2.3.2 Whole brain teaching and learning
3.2.3.2 Kolb’s experiential learning
3.2.4 Educational taxonomies and assessment in programming
3.2.3.1 The Revised Bloom’s taxonomy
3.2.3.2 Structure of the observed learning outcome (SOLO) taxonomy
3.2.2.3 BLOOM’S and SOLO in computer science courses
3.2.2.4 Constructive alignment for designing courses in Higher Education
3.3 TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESS FRAMEWORK
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN PROCESS
4.2.1 Philosophies
4.2.2 Approaches
4.2.3 Choices
4.2.3.1 Hermeneutic phenomenology
4.2.4 Research strategies
4.2.4.1 Action research strategy: ontological and epistemological assumptions
4.2.4.2 Action research characteristics
4.2.4.3 Types of action research
4.2.4.4 Action research models
4.2.4.5 The Action Plan
4.2.4.6 The context
4.2.5 Time horizon
4.2.6 Techniques and procedures
4.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
4.3.1 Population, Sampling and Participants
4.3.2 Learning approaches
4.3.3 Observation of classroom setting
4.3.4 Artefacts
4.3.5 Interviews
4.3.6 Documents
4.4 DATA ANALYSIS
4.4.1 Hermeneutics
4.4.2 Thematic analysis
4.5 TRUSTWORTHINESS
4.6 ETHICS
4.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS AND FINDINGS: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE 1
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 RESEARCH RESULTS – AR CYCLE 1
5.2.1 Learning approaches
5.2.1.1 Description of the researcher’s learning approach
5.2.2.2 Description of participants’ learning approaches
5.2.2 Designing instruction to facilitate learning
5.2.2.1 Feedback on teaching and learning
5.2.2.2 Students’ perception regarding their learning contribution
5.2.2.3 Feedback from non-participant observer
5.2.3 Observation of classroom processes
5.2.3.1 Classroom observation and analysis of Lesson 3
5.2.3.2 Classroom observation and interim analysis of Lesson 8
5.2.3.3 Classroom observation and interim analysis of Lesson 12
5.2.3.7 Structured observation
5.2.4 Artefacts
5.2.4.1 Test of individual concepts
5.2.4.2 Interim test I
5.2.4.3 Interim test II
5.2.4.4 Interim test III
5.2.4.5 Final test
5.2.5 Interview with participants
5.2.5.1 Retrospective think aloud interview
5.2.5.2 Semi-structured interview
5.2.6 Reflective learning journals
5.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS – AR CYCLE 1
5.3.1 Background information of participants
5.3.2 Theme construction
5.3.2 Description of Themes
5.3.2.1 Theme 1: Constructivist strategies for teaching and learning programming
5.3.2.2 Theme 2 – Programming knowledge gained by students
5.3.2.3 Theme 3: Mental representation during programming
5.4 META REFLECTION
5.5 AREAS FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT
5.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 6 – RESULTS AND FINDINGS: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE 2
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESEARCH RESULTS – AR CYCLE 2
6.2.1 Students’ learning approaches
6.2.1.1 Simulated HBDI profile scores of participants
6.2.2.2 HBDI profile of participants
6.2.2 Re-designing instruction to facilitate learning
6.2.2.1 Feedback on teaching and learning
6.2.2.2 Students’ contribution to learning
6.2.2.3 Feedback from non-participant observer
6.2.2.4 Feedback from colleague
6.2.3 Observation of classroom processes
6.2.3.1 Classroom observation: Lesson 9
6.2.3.2 Classroom observation: Lesson 14
6.2.3.3 Classroom observation: Lesson 17
6.2.3.4 Classroom observation: Lesson 19
6.2.4 Artefacts
6.2.4.1 Test of individual concept I
6.2.4.2 Test of individual concept II
6.2.4.3 Interim test I
6.2.4.3 Interim test II
6.2.4.3 Final test
6.2.5 Interview with participants
6.2.5.1 Retrospective think aloud interview
6.2.5.2 Semi-structured interview
6.2.6 Reflective learning journal
6.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS – AR CYCLE 2
6.3.1 Background information of participants
6.3.2 Theme construction
6.3.3 Description of themes
6.3.3.1 Theme 1: Strategies for teaching and learning of programming
6.3.3.2 Theme 2: Programming knowledge gained by students
6.3.3.3 Theme 3: Mental representation and students’ states during programming
6.4 EXPERTS’ REFLECTION ON THE TLPF
6.5 META REFLECTION
6.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
CHAPTER 7: LITERATURE CONTROL, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 LITERATURE CONTROL AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS Primary research question
1.2.3.2 Secondary research questions
7.2.1 Research questions revisited
7.2.2 Emergent findings in the study
7.2.3 Final teaching and Learning Process Framework
7.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
7.4 STUDY IMPACT
7.5 STUDY CONTRIBUTIONS
7.6 STUDY LIMITATION
7.7 RECOMMENDATION
7.7.1 Recommendation for research
7.7.2 Recommendation for policy
7.8 CONCLUSION