June 23, 2013
June 23, 2013
June 26, 2013
Computers in Education
23.268.1 - 23.268.14
Can undergraduates learn programming with a “Virtual Professor”? Findings from a pilot implementation of a blended instructional strategyThis paper presents the main findings from the pilot implementation of a blendedinstructional strategy in one section of a multi-section course of introduction toprogramming with C++. The implemented strategy blended pre-recorded online lecturesand homework assignments, with one weekly optional face-to-face meeting dedicated toanswering students’ questions related to the assigned instructional task for that period.The same instructor taught both the blended instruction section (treatment group) and onesection using traditional face-to-face lecture approach (control group). In addition, boththe blended and the traditional sections were involved in face-to-face laboratoryactivities.The focus of this study was two-fold: a) to determine whether the blended formatnegatively impacted students’ final performance, and b) to identify the major predictorsof final performance in this course so that we will be able to use them in the future tomonitor course effectiveness throughout the semester. The data was collected usingonline surveys, one at the entry point and second during the last week of the course. Thevariables measured in the entry survey (self-efficacy, perceived engagement and difficult)were used to test the homogeneity of control and treatment group. We found nostatistically significant differences between the control and treatment groups at the entrypoint. A one-way ANOVA analysis indicated no statistically significant differences infinal course performance (final percentage score) between the control (traditionallecture) and the treatment (blended lecture) groups. Overall, the “virtual professor”and the “live” professor performed at a comparable level.To move beyond the overall analysis we proposed and tested a path analysis model that reflects the major predictors of instructional performance as proposed by the educational research literature. The proposed predictors shown inthe path analysis model were measured in the exit survey using validated scales reportedin previous educational research studies. The minimum discrepancy measured by chi-square was not significant (χ2 (3) = .26, p = .97) which indicates that there is an adequateclose fit between the hypothesized model and the perfect fit model.The adequacy of fit is also strengthened by the value of the ratio of the minimumdiscrepancy to the degrees of freedom, CDMIN/DF = .09, which is significantly smallerthan 2.0 as recommended in the literature. The major goodness-of-fit measures supporteda good fit: CFI = .99, RMSEA = .001 and Holter (p = .05) = 1320. The analysis of pathcoefficients indicated several expected findings. First, perceived engagement was asignificant positive predictor of self-efficacy, and self-efficacy was a significant positivepredictor for the final grade. Second, perceived difficulty was a significant negativepredictor for the final grade, and this impact was partially mediated by self-efficacy. Asfor unexpected findings, the enrollment section (1-traditional or 2-blended lecture) had astatistically significant negative impact on the final grade. This finding suggests that theuse of blended lecture has the potential to generate lower grades in the course in a fullimplementation strategy.
Cernusca, D., & Price, C. E. (2013, June), Can undergraduates learn programming with a “Virtual Professor”? Findings from a pilot implementation of a blended instructional strategy Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/19282
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2013 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015