Technology Enhanced Learning – Multicultural view Mirjana Ivanović 1, Stelios Xinogalos 2, Tomáš Pitner 3, Miloš Savić 1 1 Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia 2 Department of Technology Management, University of Macedonia, Greece 3 Department of Computer Systems and Communications, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Czech Republic

Content Introduction OOP courses in our three institutions Technology enhanced learning of OOP Evaluation results Conclusions 2 / 26

Content Introduction OOP courses in our three institutions Technology enhanced learning of OOP Evaluation results Conclusions 3 / 26

Introduction Challenges Object-first or structured-first approach Choice of the first programming language Our institutions (UNS-PMF, UOM-TMD, MUNI-FI) Structured-first approach OOP course based on Java Technology enhanced learning of programming Analysis and comparison of TEL-based OOP courses Design of OOP courses Usage of TEL tools Students’ feedbacks and opinions 4 / 26

Content Introduction OOP courses in our three institutions Technology enhanced learning of OOP Evaluation results Conclusions 5 / 26

Common goals of OOP courses Focus on fundamental OO software development tasks and programming concepts rather than simply learning Java constructs Comprehending and using standard library-classes, analyzing/extending existing user-defined classes Becoming familiar with the language syntax and semantics, implementing programs, designing simple OO applications 6 / 26

Comparison of OOP courses UOM-TMDUNS-PMFMUNI-FI Course Object-oriented design and programming Object-oriented programming Programming in Java Semester333 (mostly) Duration13 weeks Lectures Labs (hours/week) 2 hours/week, groups of students 2 hours/week, groups of students 2 hours/week, groups of students HomeworkWeekly assignmentsNone Evaluation (Grading) Homework (20%), middle-term (20%) and final exams (60%) Practical assignments (30%), three interim theoretical tests (30%), oral exam (60%) In-lab tasks (36% ), In-lab quizzes (9%), Two midterm practical tests (28%), final exam (27%). 7 / 26

Comparison of teaching approaches UOM-TMDUNS-PMFMUNI-FI  Project-driven, iterative approach based on BlueJ, active learning  Use of a microworld and an educational IDE.  Objects-first (within the course).  Blended learning, learner-centered  Several practical assignments, from simple to more complicated  Objects-first (within the course).  Project-driven, semi- constructivistic approach, development in BlueJ.  Objects-first (within the course) 8 / 26

Content Introduction OOP courses in our three institutions Technology enhanced learning of OOP Evaluation results Conclusions 9 / 26

Main issues in TEL based courses Learning management (LMS) and tutoring systems Programming environments and tools Assessment procedures and tools Communication and cooperation 10 / 26

LMS and tutoring systems UOM-TMD in-house LMS CoMPUs (Course Management Platform for Universities) UNS-PMF LMS Moodle with extended personalization features Mag, web-based tutoring system MUNI-FI In-house university information system featuring both study administration and TEL functionalities 11 / 26

Programming environments and tools UOM-TMD programming microworld objectKarel in the first two lessons smoother transition from structured to OO programming IDEs: BlueJ, JCreator, and Eclipse UNS-PMF Svetovid, in-house IDE and submission system BlueJ, Eclipse (IDEs), Jeliot (code visualization) MUNI-FI IDEs: BlueJ, NetBeans Basic command line tools (javac, javadoc) JUnit to write and run automated unit tests 12 / 26

Assessment procedures and tools UOM-TMDUNS-PMFMUNI-FI  LMS’s tool for assignment, submission and management of programming projects.  Correction of assignments, midterm and final exams is done manually.  LMS Moodle as a tool for testing students’ theoretical knowledge (using Quiz module) and small tests for self- evaluation.  In-house Svetovid system for assessing students programs.  Moodle for administration of all points and final grades.  LMS’s tool for assignment and submission (“vaults”).  Correction of midterm and final exams is done manually.  Correction of tasks may be in some groups done semi-automatically. 13 / 26

Communication and cooperation UOM-TMDUNS-PMFMUNI-FI  Announcement tool with integrated system & discussion forum of the LMS  However, and despite the strong encouragement to use LMS for communication, students prefer to contact the instructor in person or through .  The forum is used rarely and by very few students.  s and LMS Moodle: discussion forums, instant messages, chat sessions, e- mail.  Wikis as obligatory part of team-work projects in several courses.  Students still are not very eager to use e-learning 2.0 communication capabilities.  Announcement tool with integrated system & discussion forum of the LMS  The social networking functionality that is experimentally used in selected advanced courses has not been introduced here (yet).  Students prefer to contact the teacher directly 14 / 26

Content Introduction OOP courses in our three institutions Technology enhanced learning of OOP Evaluation results Conclusions 15 / 26

Questionnaire To investigate students’ perception of importance or actual utilization of services that are or could be provided by TEL tools 14 questions in two parts five-point Likert scale for 12 questions not at all (1), slightly (2), averagely (3), much (4), very much (5) two explanatory questions Demographic data: year of study and average grade (not obligatory to fill in) 16 / 26

Questionnaire, part one ItemHow important do you consider E1Use of CMS/Moodle for the organization and distribution of didactical material E2Use of CMS/Moodle for assigning and submitting (weekly) assignments E3Posting “Announcements” to CMS/Moodle and automatic notification at E4Ability to post questions at the course’s forum E5Did you use the “Forum” in the context of programming courses E6I didn’t use “Forum” because… E7Did you use any instant messaging tools to communicate with the instructors? E8I didn’t use instant messaging tools because… 17 / 26

Questionnaire, part two ItemHow important do you consider the support that could be provided by TEL tools H1Online self-evaluation quizzes regarding your knowledge of the programming concepts of each lesson (unit) H2Supplementary educational material with the form of e-lessons, repository of papers, video material, etc. H3Ability to adapt the content of e-lessons (e.g. presentation of the content and selection by the student of the units to be studied) H4Tracking the students’ learning style through an online questionnaire or an intelligent adaptive system and adaptation of the way of presenting the available material according to each student’s learning style H5Exemplary solved problems with comments regarding the solution (methodology) and the source code. 18 / 26

Samples Questionnaire offered online using CMS/Moodle Students that enrolled programming courses Internal consistency of questionnaire data investigated using Cronbach’s α statistics InstitutionSample size UOM-TMD93 UNS-PMF113 MUNI-FI80 19 / 26

Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics Central tendencies: median (M) and mode (F) Variability: Inter-quartile range (IQR) Non-parametric statistical tests to investigate if there are statistically significant differences between independent groups Mann-Whitney U test Two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA 20 / 26

Example of statistical processing E1: How important do you consider the use of CoMPUs/MOODLE for the organization and distribution of didactical material Summary of non-parametric statistical tests Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA: statistically significant differences among countries H (2, N = 282) = p =.0000 Mann-Witney test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov two sample test: there are no statistically significant differences between MUNI-FI and UNS-PMF MW: U = 4416, Z = , p = KS: D = 0.05, p > 0.1 Box plot of central tendencies Histograms of students’ opinions

Summary of descriptive statistics E1E2E3E4E5E7H1H2H3H4H5 UOM-TMDM/F5/5 4/41/1 4/4 4/55/5 IQR UNS-PMFM/F4/54/45/5 4/4 2/21/13/34/43/3 4/5 IQR MUNI-FIM/F4/4 4/54/43/21/13/44/43/3 5/5 IQR Organization of didactical material Submitting assignments Announcements Importance of forums Usage of forums Usage of IMT Self-evaluation quizzes Supplementary material Adaptability of e-lessons Tracking learning style Exemplary solved problems Red: high (4) or very high (5) importance or utilization of corresponding TEL aspect

Conclusions from non-parametric statistical tests High similarity between PMF-UNS and MUNI-FI regarding the perceived importance of TEL services Students from UOM-TMD tend to give higher ratings to those items for which statistically significant differences among countries are observed Perceived importance of TEL services is mostly not affected by year of study UOM-TMD students with the lowest average grade consider TEL services less important compared to others Perceived importance of TEL services is not affected by average grade at PMF-UNS and MUNI-FI 23 / 26

Content Introduction OOP courses in our three institutions Technology enhanced learning of OOP Evaluation results Conclusions 24 / 26

Conclusions TEL supported by in-house tools (UOM-TMD, MUNI- FI) or the combination of Moodle with in-house tools (UNS-PMF) Students satisfied with organizational services, but do not tend to use communicational services provided by TEL tools Questionnaire revealed that students are highly interested in: Supplementary educational material in form of e-lessons Exemplary solved problems 25 / 26

Technology Enhanced Learning – Multicultural view Mirjana Ivanović 1, Stelios Xinogalos 2, Tomáš Pitner 3, Miloš Savić 1 1 Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia 2 Department of Technology Management, University of Macedonia, Greece 3 Department of Computer Systems and Communications, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Czech Republic