Efficacy of Blended Learner-Centric Approaches in Computer Programming Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v5n1a1522Abstract
This research evaluates the effectiveness of blended learner-centric approaches (BLCA) to programming education for several student cohorts in a multitude of disciplines. In a mixed-method design, 427 undergraduate students participated in a quasi-experimental study comparing traditional instruction to a BLCA. Quantitative data were analyzed using hierarchical linear modelling (HLM), while qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis. The quantitative results indicated a statistically significant difference in computer programming skill improvement between the control group (ΔM=9.40, SD=4.80) and experimental group (ΔM=18.70, SD=5.20), coupled with a large effect size (Cohen’s d=1.86, p<.001). This highlights the efficacy of BLCA in enriching problem-solving capabilities and cross-field transferability. Quantitative results revealed a statistically significant difference in programming proficiency gains between the experimental (ΔM=18.70, SD=5.20) and control groups (ΔM=9.40, SD=4.80), with a large effect size (Cohen’s d=1.86, p<.001). This underscores BLCA’s superiority in fostering interdisciplinary relevance and problem-solving skills. The effect size, Cohen’s d = 1.86, indicates huge practical significance. Qualitative findings included increased engagement, improved problem-solving ability, and increased perceived relevance of programming to primary fields of study. On the negative side, the challenges to time management and integration of programming concepts with domain-specific knowledge were raised. It provides the refined models of blended learning for programming education, along with pedagogical implications of teaching programming to non-computer science majors.
Downloads
References
Gutierrez-Cardenas, J. (2023). Introductory Programming Course for Data Science in Non-STEM Disciplines. ACM Inroads, 14(4), 66–72.
Settle, A., Goldberg, D. S., & Barr, V. (2013). Beyond computer science. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 311–312.
Sun, L., & Zhou, D. (2024). K‐12 teachers’ programming attitudes among different disciplines: Analysis of influential factors. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 538–556.
Boveda, M., Reyes, G., & Aronson, B. (2019). Disciplined to access the general education curriculum: Girls of color, disabilities, and specialized education programming. Curriculum Inquiry, 49(4), 405–425.
Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping Computational Thinking Through Programming in K-12 Education: A Conceptual Model based on a Systematic Literature Review. Computers & Education, 162(162), 1–23.
Vihavainen, A., Airaksinen, J., & Watson, C. (2014). A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success. ICER 2014 - Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, 19–26.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.
Ünver, H. A. (2019). Computational international relations what can programming, coding and internet research do for the discipline? All Azimuth, 8(2), 157–182.
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 137–172.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.
Rajan, P. R., Charles, R. S., Kavitha, D., & Baskar, S. (2020). Enhanced Learning through Blended IC and DCN Strategies in C Programming for Non-Computer Science Students. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 33(0), 541.
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3.
Luxton-Reilly, A., Simon, Albluwi, I., Becker, B. A., Giannakos, M., Kumar, A. N., Ott, L., Paterson, J., Scott, M. J., Sheard, J., & Szabo, C. (2018). A review of introductory programming research 2003–2017. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 342–343.
Luxton-Reilly, A., Simon, Albluwi, I., Becker, B. A., Giannakos, M., Kumar, A. N., Ott, L., Paterson, J., Scott, M. J., Sheard, J., & Szabo, C. (2018). Introductory programming: A systematic literature review. Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, 55–106.
Littenberg-Tobias, J., & Reich, J. (2020). Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: A case study of a MOOC-based blended professional degree program. Internet and Higher Education, 47.
Vlachou, V., Tselios, D., & Aspridis, G. (2020). Studying ICT teachers’ experiences and perceptions of MOOCs. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(3), 275–289.
Aylward, R. C., & Cronjé, J. C. (2022). Paradigms extended: how to integrate behaviorism, constructivism, knowledge domain, and learner mastery in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(2), 503–529.
Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.
Stapleton, L., & Stefaniak, J. (2019). Cognitive Constructivism: Revisiting Jerome Bruner’s Influence on Instructional Design Practices. TechTrends, 63(1), 4–5.
Braithwaite, D. W., & Sprague, L. (2021). Conceptual Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge, and Metacognition in Routine and Nonroutine Problem Solving. Cognitive Science, 45(10).
Li, C., He, J., Yuan, C., Chen, B., & Sun, Z. (2019). The effects of blended learning on knowledge, skills, and satisfaction in nursing students: A meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 82, 51–57.
Weese, J. L., & Feldhausen, R. (2017). STEM outreach: Assessing computational thinking and problem solving. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2017-June.
Uziak, J. (2016). A project-based learning approach in an engineering curriculum. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 119–123.
Chang, S. C., & Wongwatkit, C. (2024). Effects of a peer assessment-based scrum project learning system on computer programming’s learning motivation, collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and cognitive load. Education and Information Technologies, 29(6), 7105–7128.
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277.
Balakrishnan, B., & Long, C. Y. (2020). An Effective Self-directed Personalized Learning Environment for Engineering Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Advances in Engineering Education, 8(4), 1–8.
Choi, I., & Jie, F. Z. (2021). “Time to Be an Academic Influencer”: Peer-to-Peer Learning Enhances Students’ Self-Directed Learning with Disparate Knowledge Background in CAD. Cubic Journal, 4, 54–69.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Association Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2006). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging Practice and Research in Blended Learning. In Handbook of Distance Education (Vol. 3, pp. 333–350). Routledge.
Herlambang, A. D., Ririn, R., & Rachmadi, A. (2024). The flipped-classroom effect on vocational high school students’ learning outcomes. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 13(3), 1807.
Herlambang, A. D., & Rachmadi, A. (2023). The Online Learning Interest and Learning Outcomes Through Mobile and Desktop Application Based on the Indonesian Information Technology Majoring Vocational High School Student’s Perspective. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 354–360.
Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2013). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17–28.
Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165.
Flórez, F. B., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a Generation’s Way of Thinking: Teaching Computational Thinking Through Programming.
Wu, B., Hu, Y., Ruis, A. R., & Wang, M. (2019). Analysing computational thinking in collaborative programming: A quantitative ethnography approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12348
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2022). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw Hill LLC.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Sergis, S., Sampson, D. G., & Pelliccione, L. (2018). Investigating the impact of Flipped Classroom on students’ learning experiences: A Self-Determination Theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 368–378.
Farnsworth, V., Kleanthous, I., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2016). Communities of Practice as a Social Theory of Learning: a Conversation with Etienne Wenger. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(2), 139–160.
Anthonysamy, L., Koo, A. C., & Hew, S. H. (2020). Self-regulated learning strategies and non-academic outcomes in higher education blended learning environments: A one decade review. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3677–3704.
Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning Journal, 23(2), 145–178.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (Eds.), Piaget and His School (pp. 11–23). Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Social Constructivism - Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. In Full-Text. (N.D.). Harvard University Press.
Duran, R., Zavgorodniaia, A., & Sorva, J. (2022). Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A Review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(4).
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, J. R. (2018). From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213–233.
Leppink, J. (2017). Cognitive load theory: Practical implications and an important challenge. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(5), 385–391.
Lai, R. P. Y. (2022). Beyond Programming: A Computer-Based Assessment of Computational Thinking Competency. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(2), 27 Pages.
Raj, N. S., & Renumol, V. G. (2022). A systematic literature review on adaptive content recommenders in personalized learning environments from 2015 to 2020. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(1), 113–148.
Herlambang, A. D., & Rachmadi, A. (2024). Student’s Perception of Technology-Rich Classrooms Usage to Support Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge Delivery in Higher Education Computer Science Course. Procedia Computer Science, 234, 1500–1509.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Qubahan Academic Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
