Pendekatan teknologi persuasif memicu peningkatan motivasi pelajar menangani permasalahan ‘mati akal’ dalam penyelesaian tugasan makmal pengaturcaraan berorientasi objek
List of Authors
  • Elly Johana Johan , Syahanim Mohd Salleh

Keyword
  • tugasan pengaturcaraan makmal OOP, teknologi persuasif, reka bentuk sistem persuasif

Abstract
  • Satu kaedah untuk menilai, kefahaman pelajar dalam pembelajaran pengaturcaraan berorientasi objek (OOP) adalah melalui tugasan pengaturcaraan yang biasanya dijalankan semasa sesi makmal. Walaupun banyak contoh dan latihan dibincangkan semasa kuliah, pelajar masih mempunyai masalah untuk menulis kod atur cara secara individu. Secara tradisional, tugasan makmal OOP yang diberikan kepada pelajar adalah dalam bentuk huraian berasaskan masalah. Masalah biasanya dihuraikan seperti dalam buku teks tanpa sebarang bimbingan untuk membantu pelajar menyelesaikannya. Kajian kesusasteraan mendapati pelajar yang disuruh menulis atur cara lengkap berada dalam keadaan dibelenggu tekanan, tidak pasti bagaimana untuk bermula, dan terkapai-kapai tanpa tujuan. Justeru penyelidikan ini mengetengahkan konsep baharu dalam penyediaan tugasan makmal OOP. Penyelidikan ini mempunyai objektif utama untuk mereka bentuk tugasan makmal bagi kursus pengaturcaraan berorientasi objek menggunakan teknologi persuasif. Setiap komponen tugasan pengaturcaraan makmal OOP dipetakan kepada sepuluh prinsip teknologi persuasif. Ia melibatkan lima prinsip dari kategori Sokongan Tugasan Utama iaitu kesepadanan, keringkasan, kekhususan, pemantauan diri dan simulasi. Tiga prinsip dari kategori Sokongan Dialog iaitu kesukaan, cadangan dan persamaan manakala dua prinsip lagi adalah kepakaran dan kerjasama masing-masing dari kategori Sokongan Kredibiliti Sistem dan Sokongan Sosial. Secara purata, 80% pelajar bersetuju bahawa setiap komponen tugasan makmal tersebut memberi impak positif kepada mereka mengikut prinsip persuasif yang diadaptasi. Hasil kajian menunjukkan tugasan makmal OOP persuasif yang dihasilkan berjaya mengubah sikap pelajar menjadi lebih positif, bermotivasi dan bertanggungjawab dalam menyelesaikan tugasan yang diberi.

Reference
  • 1. Abd Rahaman, S. F., & Othman, Z. (2011). Teknologi pujukan dalam kesedaran teknologi terhadap perisian SiPadi.

    2. Almaliki, M., & Ali, R. (2016, April). Persuasive and culture-aware feedback acquisition. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 27-38). Springer, Cham.

    3. Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2005). The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program.

    4. Brindal, E., Hendrie, G., Freyne, J., Coombe, M., Berkovsky, S., & Noakes, M. (2013). Design and pilot results of a mobile phone weight-loss application for women starting a meal replacement programme. Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 19(3), 166-174.

    5. Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The Impact of Teaching Strategies on Intrinsic Motivation.

    6. Carbone, A., Hurst, J., Mitchell, I., & Gunstone, D. (2000, December). Principles for designing programming exercises to minimise poor learning behaviours in students. In Proceedings of the Australasian conference on Computing education (pp. 26-33).

    7. Carbone, A., Hurst, J., Mitchell, I., & Gunstone, D. (2009, January). An exploration of internal factors influencing student learning of programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 95 (pp. 25-34).

    8. Carter, J., & Boyle, R. (2002). Teaching delivery issues: Lessons from computer science. Journal of Information Technology Education, 1(2), 65-90.

    9. Cheang, B., Kurnia, A., Lim, A., & Oon, W. C. (2003). On automated grading of programming assignments in an academic institution. Computers & Education, 41(2), 121-131.

    10. Daud, N. A., Redzuan, F., Nasruddin, Z. A., Ashaari, N. S., & Muda, Z. (2017, November). Persuasive web design for online islamic education. In 2017 6th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

    11. Daud, N. A., Sahari, N., & Muda, Z. (2013). An initial model of persuasive design in web based learning environment. Procedia Technology, 11, 895-902.

    12. Dolhalit, M. L., & Salam, S. N. A. (2014). Exploring persuasive multimedia techniques in attitude and behavior change: A comparative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155, 386-391.

    13. Entwistle, N. (2014). Motivation and approaches to learning: motivating and conceptions of teaching. In Motivating students (pp. 25-34). Routledge.

    14. Filippou, J., Cheong, C., & Cheong, F. (2016). Modelling the impact of study behaviours on academic performance to inform the design of a persuasive system. Information & Management, 53(7), 892-903.

    15. Fogg, B. J. (1998, January). Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 225-232).

    16. Fogg, B. J. 2003. Persuasive technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann.

    17. Fogg, B. J., Cueller, G., & Danielson, D. (2007). Motivating, influencing, and persuading users: An introduction to captology. In The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 159-172). CRC press.

    18. Fritz, T., Huang, E. M., Murphy, G. C., & Zimmermann, T. (2014, April). Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 487-496).

    19. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007, September). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE (Vol. 7).

    20. Gomes, A., Mendes, A. J., & Marcelino, M. J. (2015). Computer Science Education Research: An Overview and Some Proposals. Innovative Teaching Strategies and New Learning Paradigms in Computer Programming, 1-29.

    21. Gouveia, R., & Karapanos, E. (2013, April). Footprint tracker: supporting diary studies with lifelogging. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2921-2930).

    22. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic commerce research and applications, 12(4), 236-245.

    23. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Pakkanen, T. (2014, May). Do persuasive technologies persuade?-a review of empirical studies. In International conference on persuasive technology (pp. 118-136). Springer, Cham.

    24. Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2009, April). Understanding persuasive software functionality in practice: a field trial of polar FT60. In proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology (pp. 1-9).

    25. Harun, J., & Abidin, S. N. M. Z. (2010). Pembangunan Modul Pembelajaran Berbantukan Video Interaktif Bagi Pembelajaran Pengaturcaraan Visual Basic Berdasarkan Pendekatan Projek. http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/10830/1/Pembangunan_Modul_Pembelajaran_Berbantukan_Video_Interaktif_Bagi_Pembelajaran_Pengaturcaraan

    26. Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133-153.

    27. IJsselsteijn, W., De Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., & Van Den Hoven, E. (2006, May). Persuasive technology for human well-being: setting the scene. In International conference on persuasive technology (pp. 1-5). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

    28. Jenkins, T. (2001, June). The motivation of students of programming. In Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 53-56).

    29. Kumar, B., & Khurana, P. (2012). Gamification in education-learn computer programming with fun. International Journal of Computers and Distributed Systems, 2(1), 46-53.

    30. Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003, January). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and bloom. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 143-147).

    31. Martins, S. W., Mendes, A. J., & Figueiredo, A. D. (2010, October). A strategy to improve student's motivation levels in programming courses. In 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. F4F-1). IEEE.

    32. Matthews, J., Win, K. T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Freeman, M. (2016). Persuasive technology in mobile applications promoting physical activity: a systematic review. Journal of medical systems, 40(3), 72.

    33. McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B. D., ... & Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 125-180).

    34. McGettrick, A., Boyle, R., Ibbett, R., Lloyd, J., Lovegrove, G., & Mander, K. (2005). Grand challenges in computing: Education—a summary. The Computer Journal, 48(1), 42-48.

    35. Mirolo, C., & Izu, C. (2019, July). An Exploration of Novice Programmers' Comprehension of Conditionals in Imperative and Functional Programming. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 436-442).

    36. Mühling, A., Schulte, C., Bennedsen, J., Budde, L., & Große-Bölting, G. (2019, November). Assessing students' understanding of object structures. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 1-10).

    37. Munson, J. P., & Zitovsky, J. P. (2018, February). Models for early identification of struggling novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 699-704).

    38. Ng, G. S., & Ng, E. Y. K. (1997). Undergraduate students in a computer engineering course: a perspective of their learning approaches and motivation factors. Innovations in education and training international, 34(1), 65-69.

    39. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 28.

    40. Omahen, D. A. (2009). The 10 000-hour rule and residency training. Cmaj, 180(12), 1272-1272.

    41. Paay, J., Kjeldskov, J., Brinthaparan, U., Lichon, L., Rasmussen, S., Srikandaraja, N., ... & Ploderer, B. (2014, October). Quitty: using technology to persuade smokers to quit. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 551-560).

    42. Pappas, I. O., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2016, July). Investigating factors influencing students' intention to dropout computer science studies. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 198-203).

    43. Perkins, D. N., Hancock, C., Hobbs, R., Martin, F., & Simmons, R. (1986). Conditions of learning in novice programmers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 37-55.

    44. Rahmat, M., Shahrani, S., Latih, R., Yatim, N. F. M., Zainal, N. F. A., & Ab Rahman, R. (2012). Major problems in basic programming that influence student performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 287-296.

    45. Reeves, B., Cummings, J. J., Scarborough, J. K., & Yeykelis, L. (2015). Increasing energy efficiency with entertainment media: An experimental and field test of the influence of a social game on performance of energy behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 102-115.

    46. Rodziah, L. (2018). Pendekatan pembelajaran berpusatkan pelajar (PBP) untuk mengukuhkan kemahiran penyelesaian masalah dalam kursus pengaturcaraan. Laporan Teknikal. http://www.ftsm.ukm.my/file/research/technicalreport/LP-FTSM-2018-004.pdf [10 Jun 2021].

    47. Sancho-Thomas, P., Fuentes-Fernández, R., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education, 53(2), 517-531.

    48. Sivasakthi, M., & Rajendran, R. (2011). Learning difficulties of ‘object-oriented programming paradigm using Java’: students’ perspective. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 4(8), 983-985.

    49. Tabanao, E. S., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Jadud, M. C. (2011, August). Predicting at-risk novice Java programmers through the analysis of online protocols. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 85-92).

    50. Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 197-212.

    51. Zumaytis, S., & Karnalim, O. (2017). Introducing an educational tool for learning branch & bound strategy. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Business Intelligence, 3(1), 8-15.