International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
International Association of Educators

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2021, Vol. 16(2) 276-294

Investigation of Project-Based Learning Method in Teaching Programming in terms of Academic Achievement, Cognitive Load and Behavior Change

Fatma Uca Öztürk, Muzaffer Özdemir & Durmuş Özbaşı

pp. 276 - 294   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.345.12   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2012-17-0002.R1

Published online: May 27, 2021  |   Number of Views: 208  |  Number of Download: 594

Save PDF

Abstract

This study aims to reveal how project-based teaching method affects students' achievement, cognitive load and behaviors in programming teaching. In the study, the pretest-posttest, unequaled control group quasi-experimental model, which is one of the experimental models, was used. The participants of the study were sixth grade students who take the elementary school Information Technologies and Software lesson (N = 55). Achievement test, cognitive load scale and behavior management tool ClassDojo were used as data collection tools in the study. In the experimental group, the subjects were taught with project-based teaching method (student-centered and with teacher guidance). Besides, subjects in the control group were taught with traditional teaching method (teacher-centered). The implementation process took six weeks. Two-Factor ANOVA for Mixed Measures was used to examine the difference between the achievement of the groups. At the end of each lesson, the cognitive load scale was applied to the groups and the data obtained was analyzed by using the Cramer V Coefficient. During the study, the students got positive and negative scores according to their behaviors in the classroom, and the significance of the difference between the two percentages was tested according to their positive behavior percentages. As a result of the study, it was found that the academic achievement and in-class behavior scores of students who learned programming with project-based teaching method differed significantly from those who learned with the traditional method. In addition, it was concluded that project-based teaching method used in programming education did not make a significant difference on students' cognitive load.

Keywords: Academic Achievement, ClassDojo, Behavior Management, Programming Education, Project-Based Learning

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ozturk, F.U., Ozdemir, M. & Ozbasi, D. (2021). Investigation of Project-Based Learning Method in Teaching Programming in terms of Academic Achievement, Cognitive Load and Behavior Change . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(2), 276-294. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.345.12

Harvard
Ozturk, F., Ozdemir, M. and Ozbasi, D. (2021). Investigation of Project-Based Learning Method in Teaching Programming in terms of Academic Achievement, Cognitive Load and Behavior Change . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(2), pp. 276-294.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozturk, Fatma Uca, Muzaffer Ozdemir and Durmus Ozbasi (2021). "Investigation of Project-Based Learning Method in Teaching Programming in terms of Academic Achievement, Cognitive Load and Behavior Change ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 16 (2):276-294. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.345.12.
References
  1.  Acaray, C. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde proje tabanlı öğrenme yönteminin çevre bilgisine ve enerji farkındalığına etkisi (Unpublished master thesis). Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akgül, E. (2011). İlköğretim 4. sınıf öğrencilerine matematik dersinde “açılar” konusunun öğretilmesinde proje tabanlı öğretim yönteminin etkisinin incelenmesi (Unpublished master thesis). Marmara University, Istanbul. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akhun, İ. (1982). İki yüzde arasındaki farkın manidarlığının test edilmesi. Ankara University Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 240-259. [Google Scholar]
  4. Akpınar, Y., & Altun, A. (2014). Bilgi toplumu okullarında programlama eğitimi gereksinimi. İlköğretim Online, 13(1), 1-4. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ala-Mutka, K. (2004). Problems in learning and teaching programming-a literature study for developing visualizations in the Codewitz-Minerva project. Codewitz needs analysis, 20. [Google Scholar]
  6. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81. [Google Scholar]
  7. Alioğlu, E. (2014). Proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının ortaokul 6. sınıf görsel sanatlar dersi ebru ünitesinin öğrenci başarısına, tutumuna ve kalıcılığa etkisi (Unpublished master thesis). Dicle University, Diyarbakır. [Google Scholar]
  8. Altun, S. (2008). Proje tabanlı öğretim yönteminin öğrencilerin elektrik konusu akademik başarılarına, fiziğe karşı tutumlarına ve bilimsel işlem becerilerine etkisinin incelenmesi (Unpublished phD thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum. [Google Scholar]
  9. Anastasiadou, S. D., & Karakos, A. S. (2011). The beliefs of electrical and computer engineering students' regarding computer programming. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 7(1), 37-51. [Google Scholar]
  10. Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for Java Programming among engineering students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1). [Google Scholar]
  11. Atıcı, B., & Polat, H. (2010). Web tasarımı öğretiminde proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin akademik başarısı ve görüşlerine etkisi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 122-132. [Google Scholar]
  12. Barbetta, P. M., Norona, K. L., & Bicard, D. F. (2005). Classroom behavior management: A dozen common mistakes and what to do instead. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 11- 19. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.49.3.11-19 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Başaran, İ. E. (2005). Eğitim psikolojisi: Gelişim, öğrenme ve ortam. Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (22. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  15. Byrne, P., & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49-52. [Google Scholar]
  16. Çatlak, Ş., Tekdal, M., & Baz, F. Ç. (2015). Scratch yazılımı ile programlama öğretiminin durumu: Bir doküman inceleme çalışması. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 4(3), 13-25. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cevahir, H., & Özdemir, M. (2017). Programlama öğretiminde karşılaşılan zorluklara yönelik öğretmen görüşleri ve çözüm önerileri. 11. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu içinde (s. 320-335). Malatya: İnönü University. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chiarelli, M., Szabo, S., & Williams, S. (2015). Using classdojo to help with classroom management during guided reading. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 3(2), 81-88. [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dabbagh, N., & Denisar, K. (2005). Assessing team-based instructional design problem solutions of hierarchical versus heterarchical web-based hypermedia cases. Educational technology research and development, 53(2), 5-22. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dede, D. (2008). Bilgisayar destekli proje tabanlı öğretim ile geleneksel proje tabanlı öğretim stratejilerinin, öğrencilerin fen bilgisi ve bilgisayar dersi akademik başarılarına ve portfolyo değerlendirme sonuçlarına etkilerinin karşılaştırılması (Unpublished master thesis). Marmara University, Istanbul. [Google Scholar]
  22. Demirer, V. & Sak, N. (2016). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de programlama eğitimi ve yeni yaklaşımlar. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 521-546. [Google Scholar]
  23. Elliott, C. (2017). Increasing student perceptions of teacher caring using class dojo (Unpublished master thesis). California State University, Monterey Bay. [Google Scholar]
  24. Farkas, D., & Murthy, N. (2005). Attitudes toward computers, the introductory course and recruiting new majors: Preliminary results. In 17th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Sussex University (pp. 268-277). [Google Scholar]
  25. Fırat, Ş. (2008). İlköğretim 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyal bilgiler dersine yönelik akademik başarıları üzerinde proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının etkisi (Unpublished master thesis). İnönü University, Malatya. [Google Scholar]
  26. Futschek, G. (2006). Algorithmic thinking: the key for understanding computer science. In International conference on informatics in secondary schools-evolution and perspectives (pp. 159-168). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [Google Scholar]
  27. Futschek, G., & Moschitz, J. (2010). Developing algorithmic thinking by inventing and playing algorithms. Proceedings of the 2010 Constructionist Approaches to Creative Learning, Thinking and Education: Lessons for the 21st Century (Constructionism 2010), 1-10. [Google Scholar]
  28. Garcia, E., & Hoang, D. (2015). Positive behavior supports: Using Class Dojo as a token economy point system to encourage and maintain good behaviors. Online Submission, 1-7. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to Program - Difficulties and Solutions. International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007, (s. 1-5). Coimbra, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gündüz, M. (2014). İlköğretim 3. sınıf hayat bilgisi dersinde “sorumluluk” değerinin proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımı ile öğretiminin akademik başarı ve tutuma etkisi (Unpublished phD thesis). Gazi University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  31. IBM. (2019). Cramer’s V https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEP7J_11.1.0/com.ibm.swg.ba.cognos.ug_ca_dshb.doc/cramersv.html Accessed on: 13.03.2019. [Google Scholar]
  32. İmal, N., & Eser, M. (2009). Programlama dili öğrenmedeki zorluklar ve çözüm yaklaşımları. Elektrik Elektronik Bilgisayar Biyomedikal Mühendislikleri Eğitimi IV. Ulusal Sempozyumu. [Google Scholar]
  33. Karabak, D. & Güneş, A. (2013). Ortaokul birinci sınıf öğrencileri için yazılım geliştirme alanında müfredat önerisi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3),163-169. [Google Scholar]
  34. Karasar, N. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler (32.baskı). Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaucic, B., & Asic, T. (2011). Improving introductory programming with Scratch?. In 2011 Proceedings of the 34th International Convention MIPRO (pp. 1095-1100). IEEE. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kert, S. B., & Uğraş, T. (2009). Programlama eğitiminde sadelik ve eğlence: Scratch örneği. In The First International Congress of Educational Research, Çanakkale, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kılıç, A. G. E., & Karadeniz, Ö. G. Ş. (2004). Hiper ortamlarda öğrencilerin bilişsel yüklenme ve kaybolma düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 40(40), 562-579. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kızkapan, O., & Bektaş, O. (2017). The effect of project based learning on seventh grade students' academic achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 37-54. [Google Scholar]
  39. Korkmaz, Ö. (2013). Prospective cite teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions on programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 639-643. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Korkmaz, Ö., & Altun, H. (2013). Engineering and ceit student’s attitude towards learning computer programming. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies International Journal of Social Science, 6(2), 1169-1185. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Jarvinen, H. M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. Acm Sigcse Bulletin, 37(3), 14-18. doi: 10.1145 / 1067445.1067453 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. MacLean-Blevins, A. O. (2013). Class dojo: supporting the art of student self-regulation. Rising Tide, 6, 1-20. [Google Scholar]
  43. Maclean-Blevins, A., & Muilenburg, L. (2013). Using Class Dojo to support student self-regulation. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 1684-1689). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [Google Scholar]
  44. Mannila, L., Peltomaki, M., & Salakoski, T. (2006). What about a simple language? Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program. Computer Science Education, 16(3), 211-227. doi: 10.1080/08993400600912384 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Mason, R, Cooper G & Wilks, B. (2015). Using cognitive load theory to select an environment for teaching mobile apps development. In D D'Souza & K Falkner (eds), Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 47-56). Sydney, Australia. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mead, J., Gray, S., Hamer, J., James, R., Sorva, J., Clair, C. S., & Thomas, L. (2006). A cognitive approach to identifying measurable milestones for programming skill acquisition. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(4), 182-194.  [Google Scholar]
  47. Övez, M. G. (2007). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf matematik öğretiminde proje tabanlı öğretimin öğrenci başarısına etkisi (Unpublished master thesis). Balıkesir University, Balıkesir. [Google Scholar]
  48. Özbaşı, D. (2009). Sınıf öğretmenleri için öğrenci başarısını ölçme ve değerlendirme ile ilgili yeterlik göstergelerinin ve bunlara ilişkin algılarının incelenmesi (Unpublished master thesis). Ankara University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  49. Özbek, Ö. (2010). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinde küresel ısınma konusunun proje tabanlı öğretim modelinde incelenmesi (Unpublished master thesis). İnönü University, Malatya. [Google Scholar]
  50. Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (5.baskı). Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi. [Google Scholar]
  51. Özyurt, Ö., & Özyurt, H. (2015). A study for determining computer programming students’ attitudes towards programming and theirprogramming self- efficacy. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(1), 51-67. [Google Scholar]
  52. Paas, F. G., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human factors, 35(4), 737-743. doi: 10.1177/001872089303500412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 1-8. [Google Scholar]
  54. Peng, J., Wang, M., & Sampson, D. (2017). Scaffolding project-based learning of computer programming in an online learning environment. In 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp.315-319). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2017.17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Powers, K., Gross, P., Cooper, S., McNally, M., Goldman, K. J., Proulx, V., & Carlisle, M. (2006). Tools for teaching introductory programming: what works?. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 560-561). [Google Scholar]
  56. Redmond, K. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on student achievement in a fourth grade classroom (Unpublished master thesis). Montana State University Bozeman, Montana. [Google Scholar]
  57. Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Saeger, A. M. (2017). Using Classdojo to promote positive behaviors and decrease undesired behaviors in the classroom (Unpublished master thesis). Rowan University, U.S.A. [Google Scholar]
  59. Shu, N. C. (1999). Visual programming: Perspectives and approaches. IBM Systems Journal, 38(2.3), 199-221. doi: 10.1147/sj.382.0199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Şişman, B., & Küçük, S. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının robotik programlamada akış, kaygı ve bilişsel yük seviyeleri. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8(2), 108-124. [Google Scholar]
  61. Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. (2000). Programming by example: novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 75-81. [Google Scholar]
  62. Stachel, J., Marghitu, D., Brahim, T. B., Sims, R., Reynolds, L., & Czelusniak, V. (2013). Managing cognitive load in introductory programming courses: A cognitive aware scaffolding tool. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 17(1), 37-54. [Google Scholar]
  63. Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44-58. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1046 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Turan, Z., Avinc, Z., Kara, K., & Goktas, Y. (2016). Gamification and education: Achievements, cognitive loads, and views of students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 11(07), 64-69. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v11i07.5455  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Wachendorf, M. (2017). A comparative study of traditional token economies and Classdojo (Unpublished master thesis). Western Illinois University, U.S.A. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang, L., & Chen, M. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference-matching on flow experience and programming performance in gamebased learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52. Doi: 10.1080/14703290903525838 [Google Scholar]
  67. Ward, J. J. (2015). The effect of Classdojo and Go Noodle on the behavioral and off-task disruptions of third grade students (Unpublished master thesis). Goucher College, Graduate Programs in Education.  [Google Scholar]
  68. Wilson, R. M. (2017). Classdojo.com: The effects of a digital classroom management program (Unpublished phD thesis).  Trevecca Nazarene University, U.S.A. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yiğit, M. F. (2016). Görsel programlama ortamı ile öğretimin öğrencilerin bilgisayar programlamayı öğrenmesine ve programlamaya karşı tutumlarına etkisinin incelenmesi (Unpublished master thesis). Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun. [Google Scholar]
  70. Yüksel, S. (2017). Scratch programı öğretiminde ayrılıp birleşme tekniği kullanımının öğrencilerin derse yönelik tutumuna, akademik başarısına ve kalıcılığa etkisi (Unpublished master thesis). Adnan Menderes University, Aydın. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang, J., & Wang, H. (2009). An exploration of the relations between external representations and working memory. PloS one, 4(8), e6513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006513  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  72. Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Enhancing student academic and health functioning: A self-regulatory perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(1), 47-66. doi: 10.1037/h0088920 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 16 Issue 2

June 2021

All Articles

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.