Application of the Pedagogical and Andragogical Model in Web-Based Learning Instruction among Non-Major Computer Science Students Learning

Programming

Norah Md Noor, Jamalludin Harun, Baharuddin Aris

Faculty of Education, UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia

*Corresponding author: norah@utm.my

Abstract - This study identified the pedagogical and andragogical learning orientations preferred by non-major Computer Science students in one of the higher education institutions in Malaysia. The pedagogical and andragogical learning orientation model differs in six assumptions about learners, which are: the learner’s need to know, self-concept, existing experience, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation [1]. Questionnaires were developed and distributed among 262 undergraduate students in non-major Computer Science Faculty who took the Introduction to Programming Language course. Descriptive analyses have also been conducted (alpha – 0.958), and the results showed that a majority of the sample in this study (246 respondents or 93.9%) stay under Stage 2 in the four stages of learning development. This means that the respondents had a high preference for pedagogical as well as andragogical learning orientations. Data collected shows that non-major Computer Science students in the age range of 18 to 24 are able to work independently since their self-concept had progressed to the self-directed learning phase. However, they still need guidance from their lecturers. These findings were used to develop a prototype of an individualized online learning environment based on the pedagogy and andragogy as its foundational model. Learners in Stage 2 need goal-setting, learning strategies, and evaluation to be set by the teacher. The online learning environment allowed the student to explore her learning modules from easy to hard levels. However, students were allowed to continue to the next module even though their performance was not yet at the passing level. This is based on andragogical theory; that they are dependent learners with a moderate level of self-directedness. Additional learning materials were also provided that could be freely explored by learners at their own pace. The prototype was tested among one group of 32 students in the Faculty of Education in the course Introduction to Programming using Pre-Experimental Research Design. The statistical analysis conducted indicated that the application of the pedagogical and andragogical Model in web based instruction had a positive effect on learners’ outcomes.

Keyword: pedagogy, andragogy, learning programming for

non-majors

I. INTRODUCTION

The introductory programming course is difficult for many university students, especially students who have little prior exposure to programming [2]. Learning to program is recognized as a difficult task for students. Many students in the introductory course struggle to understand the underlying concepts and to overcome the challenges of implementing error-free programs that meet the stated requirements.

High dropout rates are a concern to computer science educators and the IT profession because of the potential shortage of professional developers [3]–[5]. However, another concern is for the non- professional, or end-user, programmer. Today there is a proliferation of work-related and personal situations in which end-users need to program; for example, creating macros, spreadsheet formulas, and dynamic web applications in the workplace [2], [6]. Even now, almost all of the programmes offered at institutions of higher learning in Malaysia not related to the Information Technology or Computer Science majors requires the introduction of at least one programming subject [7]–[10].

It is likely that non-majors enter the first programming course with less previous experience in programming than Computer Science majors. If that is the case, non-majors may be more likely to fail to complete the course or to complete it with a low grade [2].

In order to support students in the introductory programming course, especially non-majors, we need to understand the factors that affect their success in learning. Some researchers recommend that cognitive factors of high interest in learning to program, such as previous programming experience and knowledge and motivation for learning, should be considered when the instructor plans any learning strategies[2], [11]–[13].

Currently, teaching programming still uses the same practices in which the instructor will make a decision about what will be taught, how it shall be taught, and when it will be taught according to the model of learning pedagogy[14]. Pedagogy is generally focused on the transmission of information from instructor to student in a controlled manner with the assumption that students are still immature [1], [15]. However, it seems that this approach used may be one of the factors associated with the failure of students to master these subjects [16], [17].

Other research proposed to apply the andragogical model to the programming language teaching and learning process since undergraduates are adults. The andragogy model can be described as an instructional

2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering

978-1-4799-3592-5/14 $31.00 © 2014 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.27

106

approach based on self-directed learning theory while pedagogy describes the traditional instructional approach based on teacher-directed learning theory [1].

Research conducted by Delahaye, Limerick, and Hearn [18] found that undergraduate learners could be two dimensional, utilizing both pedagogical and andragogical principles at the same time. They form a model of four stages of learning as shown in Figure 1 and found out that undergraduate learners fall under Stage 2.

Figure 1: Four stages of learning (Source:[18])

The pedagogical model and the andragogical model differ in six assumptions about learners, which are: the learner’s need to know, self-concept, experience, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation. Table 1 summarizes the differences between the pedagogical and andragogical models:

TABLE 1. PEDAGOGICAL AND ANDRAGOGICAL ASSUMPTION ABOUT LEARNERS

No. Aspect Pedagogical Model

Andragogical Model

I. Need to know Learners need to know what the teacher tells them.

Learners need to know why something is important prior to learning it.

II. The learner’s self-concept

Learner has a dependent personality.

Learners are responsible for their own decisions.

III. The role of the learner’s experience

The learner’s experience is of little worth.

The learner’s experience has great importance.

IV. Readiness to learn.

Learners become ready to learn what the teacher requires.

Learners become ready to learn when they see content as relevant to their lives.

V. Orientation to learning

Learners expect subject-centered content.

Learners expect life-centered content.

VI. Motivation Learners are motivated by external forces.

Learners are motivated by primarily by internal forces.

Source: [1]

The pedagogy and andragogy models make crucial assumptions about the characteristics of learners that consider the whole-person perspective in terms of the diagnosis of needs, learning climate, and the role of the learners’ experience [1].

Research conducted among 433 final year pre-service teachers in three educational institutions in Malaysia showed that majority of the pre-service teachers in this study stay under Stage 2 in the four stages of learning development [19]. The majority of the pre-service teachers in this research were around 22 – 25 years old, which counts as young adult. This means that the respondents had high preference for pedagogical as well as andragogical learning orientations.

An interview done by [20] on 2 lecturers teaching Introduction to Programming shows that both of them believe that their undergraduate students demonstrate both andragogy and pedagogy learners’ aspects simultaneously. They still need guidance from their lecturer to pursue most of their learning activities, but they are willing to take charge on some of the self-learning to increase their understanding.

Textbooks are not sufficient to clarify new programming concepts and some alternate methods of learning are required. Additional practical time in the computer lab, although proven to help student performance in learning programming, does not really solve the problem. This would further burden already overburdened instructors with various tasks such as creating and marking examination papers, marking student assignments, engaging in e-learning programs, and academic advising [21].

As computer aided learning software has proven to improve the teaching and learning process [22]–[25], web based learning should be considered to help non-majors to perform in their introductory to programming course. It can be fully utilized by students anytime, anywhere, such as during class or even outside their formal learning time.

Furthermore, as claimed by [18]–[20], we might also need to consider the orthogonal perspective of both the pedagogical model and the andragogical model embedded within web based learning to help the students learn effectively.

II. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

This study has two main objectives. The first objective is to confirm whether non-major undergraduate students taking Introduction to Programming fall under Stage 2 of the four stages of learning. These findings will be used to develop a prototype of an individualized online learning environment based on pedagogy and andragogy as its foundational model (high pedagogy, high andragogy, or orthogonal level).

The second objective is to determine the effect on learners’ performance of use of the online tutoring systems developed based on Stage 2 of the four stages of learning.

Stage 3 Low Pedagogy / High Andragogy

Stage 2 High Pedagogy / Low Andragogy

Stage 4 Low Pedagogy / Low Andragogy

Stage 1 High Pedagogy / Low Andragogy

P E D A G O GY

A N D R A G O G Y

107

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research involved three phases. The first phase was to identify the pedagogical and andragogical learning orientations preferred by non-major Computer Science students using a survey instrument. The second phase was to develop a prototype of an individualized online learning environment based on pedagogy and andragogy as its foundational model. The last phase was an experimental research design, single group pre-post-tests to confirm whether the prototype was able to increase student performance in the test.

IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Phase 1

This research tries to identify the pedagogical and andragogical learning orientation preferred by non-major Computer Science students in one of the higher education institutions in Malaysia by using a survey instrument regarding learning preference based on pedagogical and andragogical assumptions.

469 students had registered to take Introduction to Computer Programming in semester 2 of academic year 2009-2010. The sample of students involved in this research was collected using a stratified random sampling technique (proportional stratified sampling) based on the number of samples per basic programming subject offered. 262 students were involved (greater than the proposed minimum sample by Cochran [26]; 211 in a sample). The quantitative data were collected and analyzed using quantitative data analysis software.

TABLE 2. NUMBER OF POPULATION AND STRATIFIED SAMPLING

Course Name Faculty Population Min Sample

Real Sample

SAB3413 Computer

Programming Civil 174 78 78

SGS1663 Computer

Programming 1 Geoinformation 29 13 25

SME 1013 Programming for

Engineers Mechanical 230 104 123

SPM 2102 Programming Language 1

Education 36 16 36

469 211 262

The survey instrument used in this study was developed based on extensive literature review of pedagogical and andragogical learners’ assumptions. The reliability of the instrument was tested through internal consistency by means of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha value for this instrument is 0.958, thus demonstrating that the scales are consistent and reliable.

The instrument consists of 48 items (24 regarding andragogical assumptions, another 24 regarding pedagogical assumption) using a 5 point scale (1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3= Medium Agreement, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Refer to tables 3 and 4 for the sample of items in the survey instrument.

TABLE 3. SOME OF THE ITEMS UNDER ANDRAGOGICAL ORIENTATION

Item Number Item Description

I – 6 I want an explanations of the benefits of this subject which is useful and could be used at once in the real world

II – 9 I would go for extra information if I am interested in something in order to know it further.

TABLE 4. SOME OF THE ITEMS UNDER THE PEDAGOGICAL ORIENTATION

Item Number Item Description

I – 1 Lecturer is knowledgeable enough to determine which subjects that suit me

V – 7 I prefer the lecturer to show step by step solutions in the topics learned.

In order to classify the four stages of their learning development based on [18], students’ preferences for each pedagogical and andragogical assumption in the instrument were re-categorized based on Table 4 below:

TABLE 5. CATEGORIZATION OF UNDERGRADUATE NON-MAJOR STUDENTS’ PREFERENCE LEVELS ACCORDING TO MEAN SCORE

Total Score Preference Level

1.00 – 2.99 Low

3.00 – 5.00 High

The findings shows that majority of the students

(range between 18 – 24 years old) were in Stage 2 (93.9%) based on the model of four stages of learning development by [18]. This shows that the majority of the undergraduate students in this study also had left Stage 1 and entered Stage 2.

108

TABLE 6. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS BASED ON FOUR STAGES OF LEARNING DEVELOPMENT [18]

Level Number Percent

Level 1 : High Pedagogy / Low Andragogy 6 1.90

Level 2 : High Pedagogy /High Andragogy 246 93.90

Level 3 : Low Pedagogy / High Andragogy 5 1.90

Level 4 : Low Pedagogy / Low Andragogy 5 1.50

Total 262 100.00

This finding was similar to a survey done among 448 youths (aged 18 to 24 years) using the Student Orientation Questionnaire developed by Choy and Delahaye [27]. Their orientation to learning showed a high preference for a combination of structured learning and unstructured learning (high pedagogy/high andragogy based on the SOQ). They then specify the exact characteristics of youth learners as follows.

• Need to know: youths just follow a prescribed curriculum

• The learner’s self-concept: youth still in the process of establishing self-concepts of self-responsibility

• The role of the learner’s experience: the learner’s experience is limited

• Readiness to learn: learning for youth could be seen as a priority as opposed to a voluntary activity

• Orientation to learning: youth have an orientation towards assessment and grades

• Motivation: learners are extrinsically motivated

B. Phase 2

The findings and extensive literature review were used to develop a prototype of an individualized online learning environment based on pedagogy and andragogy as its foundational model. Learners in Stage 2 need a goals, learning strategies, and evaluation to be set by the teacher. The online learning environment allows the student to explore her learning modules from easy to hard levels.

Figure 2: Screenshot of the tutorial mode in the Online Tutoring System.

At each chapter, students can test their own performance by answering the quiz. The questions in the quiz were selected and displayed randomly from the databank. However, students were allowed to continue to the next module even though their performance had not yet achieved the passing level. This feature was based on andragogical theory; that they are independent learners with a moderate level of self-directedness. Additional learning materials were also provided that can freely be explored by learners at their own pace.

Figure 3: Students results in the Online Tutoring System.

C. Phase 3

This study then utilized a pre-experimental one group pre-post-tests design [28] to measure knowledge gained after using the Online Tutoring System.

The experimental study takes about five weeks, in which students were given 2-hour lectures by the instructor and an additional one hour of hands-on lab time assisted by a teaching assistant as usual. Pre-tests were done in the first week. Students were then exposed to the system that has been developed for self-paced learning on a voluntarily basis.

They were under no form of coercion or penalty to ensure that the students use the online tutoring system. In week 5, the treatment group students were given a post-test.

The results of the pre- and post- tests have been utilized to compare the effectiveness of the system used. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare the mean performance scores between pre- and post- tests of the 32 students in the treatment group.

TABLE 7. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR PRE- AND POST- TEST

Test Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Pre 22.17 5.0315 7.0 31

Post 29.45 6.4836 14.5 38.5

109

The null hypothesis to be tested is����� ��� ����, which means:

Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in learning scores before and after using the Online Tutoring Systems developed based on Level 2 learners

Table 8 reflects the analysis for a 95% confidence rating. The results indicate that there was a statistically significant difference (p<.05; t = 8.984) in performance before and after using the Online Tutoring System; thus the hypothesis is rejected.

TABLE 8. PAIRED SAMPLE T TEST ANALYSIS

Pasangan Min Sisihan Piawai df t Sig (2-

tailed)

Post Test – Pre Test 7.3824 4.4297 31 9.718 .000

At week 6, a total of 4 students (randomly chosen) were called for a structured interview. The aim of the interview was to uncover deeper information related to the study. The meeting between the researchers and the students were conducted outside teaching hours by agreement in a period of 10 minutes.

Students were asked whether the Web-based Learning System (PBW) helped to improve their performance in learning the Programming Language course. Their responses to this question reflect a very positive reaction as, follows:

S1 : … PBW dapat saya jadikan rujukan dalam pembelajaran. Secara tidak langsung ia dapat meningkatkan pencapaian saya.

… I can use PBW as a reference in learning. Indirectly, it helps to improve my performance. S2: … ya, saya dapat gunakan sebagai rujukan tambahan dalam pembelajaran.

… Yes, I can use it as a further reference in my study.

S3 : … PBW ini dapat meningkatkan pencapaian saya kerana latihan yang disediakan melibatkan kritikal thinking dan sangat berkesan jika dibuat sebelum mengambil peperiksaan.

The PBW can improve my performance because the exercises provided involve critical thinking and are very much effective to be used prior to a test or exam.

S4 : Ya. Sebab ada latihan dan test. Serta jawapan kita dapat tahu terus. Maka, kita akan tau apa salah kita, dan kita boleh terus baikinya. Sebab semasa dalam kelas, kurang dapat buat latihan disebabkan kekurangan masa. Dengan bantuan PBW ni, saya rasa senang nak ikut. Sebab ada nota dan latihan pada satu masa. Untuk pengukuhan, ada juga test.

Q4: Yes, because there is an exercise and test. And we can know the answer immediately. So, we will know what we did, and we can continue to have it fixed. In class, we can’t do many exercises due to lack of time. With this PBW, I feel good to follow the learning activity, for reinforcement and also for self-testing.

� �����������

As a conclusion, undergraduate non-major Computer Science students between the ages of 18 to 24 in the Introductory Programming Language class clearly show their youth learners’ characteristics as defined by [29].

Undergraduates indicated a high respect for their instructors’ professional knowledge and experience and therefore felt that the teachers were better positioned to be in charge of, and responsible for, their learning. However, there were two strong qualifications – the learning must be relevant and the subject content must be made explicit [29].

They still need guidance from their lecturers. They also were not yet prepared to accept the full responsibility of planning their own learning process. Therefore, the integration of both learning orientation preferences should be considered in classroom learning as well as in designing and developing an online learning application for undergraduate learners.

Learners in online education were pushed to be self-directed, intrinsically motivated, and proficient in computer technology [30]. Compared with a traditional, face-to-face learning environment, online instruction requires more learning autonomy. Independent learning consists of items that assess one's ability to manage time, balance multiple tasks, and set goals, as well as one's disposition regarding self-discipline, self-motivation, and personal responsibility. Research by [31] found that independent learning is positively associated with high self-esteem and Internet self-efficacy, and that students with high independent learning scores had significantly higher course grades than low independent learners.

As shown in this research, undergraduate students are able to work independently since their self-concepts had progressed to the self-directed learning phase. However, these non-major Computer Science students still need some kind of guidance from their instructors as this subject is not in their major field. They cannot be left on their own as they are not yet fully independent. This might be the reason why the performance of students after using the web based learning tool that considers both the pedagogy and andragogy models shows a significant difference.

110

REFERENCES. [1] M. S. Knowles, E. F. Holton, and R. A. Swanson, The Adult

Learner, 5th ed. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1998. [2] S. Wiedenbeck, “Factors affecting the success of non-majors

in learning to program,” Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Computing education research - ICER ’05, pp. 13–24, 2005.

[3] L. Carter, “Why Students with an Apparent Aptitude for Computer Science Don ’ t Choose to Major in Computer Science,” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 27–31, 2006.

[4] Á. Matthíasdóttir, “How to teach programming languages to novice students ? Lecturing or not ?,” in International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies - CompSysTech’06, 2006, pp. 1–7.

[5] D. S. Reese, L. Henderson, and S. Lee, “Impact on Retention from a Change In Undergraduate Computing Curricula,” in 2013 ASEE Southeast Section Conference, 2013.

[6] T. Bailey and J. Forbes, “Just-in-time teaching for CS0,” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 1, p. 366, Feb. 2005.

[7] A. Rohiza, B. Shuib, S. Aliza, and H. A. Hasan, “First Programming Course: Perception and Performance of Students,” in Bengkel Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Pengaturcaraan (ATUR03), 2003.

[8] O. Mohd Khalit, I. Norisma, and R. Y. Raja Jamilah, “Analisa Terhadap Pengajaran bahasa Pengaturcaraan C di Fakulti Sains Komputer dan Teknologi Maklumat, Universiti Malaya,” in Bengkel Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Pengaturcaraan (ATUR03), 2003.

[9] Aziz Deraman, “Kilang Perisian Pengajaran: Satu Pendekatan Untuk Peningkatan Kemahiran Pengaturcaraan,” in Bengkel Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Pengaturcaraan (ATUR03), 2003.

[10] Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia, “Pelan tindakan pengajian tinggi negara fasa 2 (2011 - 2015),” 2011.

[11] J. Rufinus, “Teaching an Introductory Programming Course For Non-Majors Using Python,” vol. 22, pp. 1–6, 2005.

[12] K.-C. (Martin) Yeh, Y. Xie, and F. Ke, “Teaching computational thinking to non-computing majors using spreadsheet functions,” 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. F3J–1–F3J–5, Oct. 2011.

[13] A. Forte and M. Guzdial, “Motivation and Non-Majors in Computer Science: Identifying Discrete Audiences for Introductory Courses,” IEEE Transactions on Education,, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 248–253, 2005.

[14] M. S. Knowles, The Modern Practice of Adult Education : From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Prentice Hall, 1980.

[15] S. Pew, “Andragogy and Pedagogy as Foundational Theory for Student Motivation in Higher Education,” Volume 2, Student Motivation, vol. 2, pp. 14–25, 2007.

[16] K. Halland and K. Malan, “Reflections by Teachers learning to Program,” in Proceedings of SAICSIT 2003, 2003, pp. 165–172.

[17] R. Zhenhui, “Matching teaching styles with learning styles in East Asian context,” The Internet TESOL journal, vol. VII, no. 7, 2001.

[18] B. L. Delahaye, D. C. Limerick, and G. Hearn, “The Relationship between Andragogical aAnd Pedagogical Orientations and The Implications for Adult Learning,” Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 187–200, 1994.

[19] Zaidatun Tasir, Norah Md Noor, Jamaluddin Harun, and Nurul Syazwani Ismail, “A survey on online teaching preference among pre-service teachers in Malaysia: Andragogy vs pedagogy,” in ascilite 2008, 2008, pp. 1022–1027.

[20] Norah Md Noor, Jamalludin Harun, and Baharuddin Aris, “Andragogy and Pedagogy Learning Model Preference among Undergraduate Students,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 56, no. 8 October 2012, pp. 673–678, 2012.

[21] T. Faridatul Akmar, “Kepuasan Bekerja Staf Akademik Jabatan Pendidikan Teknikal dan Kejuruteraan, Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,” Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2008.

[22] Syed Hussain Abid, Samana Zehra, and Haseeb Iftikhar, “Using Computer Aided Language Software for Teaching and Self-Learning,” in 14th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL2011), 2011, no. September, pp. 102–106.

[23] A. H. Noor Dayana, B. A. Muhammad, J. Juhazren, and Y. Noraffandy, “Learning acids and bases through inquiry based website,” in 2010 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS 2010), 2010, pp. 51–56.

[24] A. S. Norazrena, Y. Noraffandy, and B. A. Mohamad, “Individual differences in online personalized learning environment,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 6, no. 7. pp. 516–521, 2011.

[25] H. Hisyamuddin, T. Zaidatun, and M. Siti Khadijah, “E-learning environment for hearing impaired students,” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 67–70, 2013.

[26] W. G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques, 3rd Editio. John Wiley & Sons, 1977, p. 428.

[27] S. Choy and B. L. Delahaye, “Youth Learners : The Authentic Neglected Species Learning for an Unknown Future,” in Proceedings Annual International HERDSA Conference 2003, 2003, pp. 100–107.

[28] D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963.

[29] S. Choy and B. Delahaye, “Some principles for youth learning,” in 8th Annual Conference of the Australian VET Research Association (AVETRA), 2005.

[30] S. yi Lin and C. Chiu, “Factors Affecting Participation in Online Learning : Evidences from Andragogy,” Journal of Global Business Management, vol. 3, no. 1, 2007.

[31] M. S. Kerr, K. Rynearson, and M. C. Kerr, “Student characteristics for online learning success,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 91–105, Apr. 2006.

111