MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551907279 · doi:10.5539/jel.v6n1p184

The Impact of Online Algorithm Visualization on ICT Students’ Achievements in Introduction to Programming Course

2016· article· en· W2551907279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatih Saltan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationQualitative propertyComputer scienceTest (biology)VisualizationQualitative researchInformation and Communications TechnologyMultimediaPsychologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online Algorithm Visualization (OAV) is one of the recent developments in the instructional technology field that aims to help students handle difficulties faced when they begin to learn programming. This study aims to investigate the effect of online algorithm visualization on students’ achievement in the introduction to programming course. To achieve this goal, quantitative and qualitative investigations were conducted in a mixed method design. Participants of the study consisted of 40 ICT students who were taking the introduction to programming course for the first time in fall semester. Students were randomly assigned to treatment (n = 20) and control (n = 20) groups. During the first 4 weeks, the treatment group students participated in OAV. Concurrently, students in the control group were taught the semantics of programming and algorithm through traditional approaches. An achievement test consisting of six questions was used to measure ICT students’ performance in computer programming at the end of the introduction to programming course. An open-ended survey and semi-structured interviews were also used to gain qualitative insight. The quantitative data were analyzed using t-test and ANOVA statistical analysis. The qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis techniques. Results showed that the experimental group, for which OAV treatment was implemented, had a higher mean score than the control group, for which traditional methods were implemented. There was a significant mean difference between the experimental group (M = 51.85, SD = 20.34) and the control group (M = 38.75, SD = 12.86). In qualitative analysis, five themes emerged. Students highlighted that OAV contributed to their algorithmic thinking (28%) and progressive thinking abilities (7%), and allowed for explorative learning (7%). Although their reasons varied, most of the students perceived OAV as an engaging instructional tool for learning computer programming.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207