ارزیابی انگیزش دانش آموزان در یادگیری مشارکتی مفاهیم برنامه نویسی تحت پشتیبانی کامپیوتر

Motivation is a very important factor for successful instruction. This factor is especially relevant in collaborative learning contexts, where social interaction plays an important role. In this paper we present an evaluation of motivation in 139 students who were instructed under four pedagogical approaches: traditional lecture, collaborative learning, collaborative learning guided by CIF (an instructional framework for collaborative learning), and collaborative learning guided by CIF and supported by MoCAS (a collaborative learning tool). We considered the four dimensions of motivation according to self-determination theory. The statistical results show that, in global terms, students were more motivated by jointly using the collaborative instructional approach CIF and the MoCAS tool than by using a collaborative approach. Detailed analysis of the different kinds of motivation yields mixed results. Students who were instructed with CIF and especially those students instructed with CIF and MoCAS exhibited higher intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, students instructed with CIF and MoCAS were the most extrinsically motivated via identified regulation. With respect to extrinsic motivation via external regulation, students instructed in a traditional, individual way were more motivated than students instructed collaboratively. Finally, high levels of amotivation were also associated to instruction using CIF and MoCAS. In summary, our results suggest that CIF and MoCAS are associated with high levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, a finding that can aid in improving the learning processes, but they are also, unexpectedly, associated with amotivation, suggesting an overall increase in activation in the students who show mixed motivators.

The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) promotes the use of instructional models where students play a more active role than in traditional instruction. There are different pedagogical approaches that encourage an active role of the student, such as problem-based learning (Dochy et al., 2003 and Ellis et al., 1998), project-oriented learning (Jones, Rasmussen, & Moffitt, 1997) or case-based learning (Harvard Business School, 2013). These approaches can be combined with collaborative learning if several students work together to achieve a common goal (Dillenbourg, 1999). The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) field gives computer support to these approaches. In a previous work (Serrano-Cámara, Paredes-Velasco & Velázquez-Iturbide, 2011), we proposed an instructional framework aimed at designing and developing collaborative learning activities based on educational objectives, called CIF (Collaborative Instruction Framework). In short, CIF combines CSCL activities (Bonwell and Eison, 1991 and Koschmann, 1996) and learning goals, stated in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001 and Bloom et al., 1956). CIF is supported by the system MoCAS (Mobile Collaborative Argument Support), which was designed to cope with a range of different screen sizes, from PCs to mobile phones. The CIF framework has been used with students enrolled in a course on introduction to computer programming (usually known in the computing community as CS1). The learning outcomes of several instructional methods were compared (Serrano-Cámara, Paredes-Velasco & Velázquez-Iturbide, 2012). We obtained a statistically significant improvement in the learning outcomes of students jointly using the CIF framework and the MoCAS system. We also obtained anecdotal evidence of the higher motivation of these students. Given the importance of motivation for learning, we considered important to have more founded knowledge on the influence of CSCL on students’ motivation. The aim of this study is to evaluate student’s motivation using CIF and MoCAS as CSCL materials. In order to obtain as much information as possible, we compared the same four instructional methods as used in the previous evaluation of learning outcomes (Serrano-Cámara et al., 2012). The joint use of CIF and MoCAS is the experimental group and the three control groups instructed students: in a traditional form, in a collaborative form, and collaboratively with CIF (but without the support given by MoCAS). To conduct the evaluation, we measured self-determination and the four dimensions of motivational by means of the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) developed by Guay, Vallerand, and Blanchard (2000), in its Spanish adaptation and validation (EMSI, see Martín-Albo, Núñez, & Navarro, 2009). The article is structured into several sections. Section 2 contains a description of the state of the art on motivation and CSCL in education, mainly in computer programming education. Section 3 describes previous concepts related to our research, namely the CIF framework, the MoCAS platform, and EMSI motivational motivation scale. Sections 4 and 5 describe the experiment design and method, and the results, respectively. Finally, in Section 6 we present a brief discussion and our conclusions.

We have presented an evaluation of collaborative learning involving 139 college students. Our purpose was to evaluate the students’ levels of motivation with respect to four pedagogical methodologies with and without computer support: traditional lectures, collaborative learning, collaborative learning guided by the CIF framework, and collaborative learning guided by the CIF framework and supported by the MoCAS tool. The results obtained allow us to claim that CIF and especially CIF combined with MoCAS are the pedagogical methodologies that the most intrinsic motivation produced in students. Furthermore, students instructed with CIF and MoCAS exhibit higher extrinsic motivation via identified regulation. With respect to extrinsic motivation via external regulation, students instructed in a traditional, individual way were more motivated than students instructed collaboratively without the use of CIF. Finally, high levels of amotivation were also related with the joint use of CIF and MoCAS. In sum, our results suggest that CIF and MoCAS are associated with high levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which can improve the learning processes, but also, unexpectedly, with amotivation, suggesting an overall increase in activation in the students who show mixed motivators in their learning activities. We feel unable to give an explanation without having available more founded data, thus it is an open issue for the future. Prior research shows a direct relationship between intrinsic motivation and positive consequences, whereas the less self-determined kinds of motivation (amotivation and external regulation) lead to more negative consequences (Martín-Albo et al., 2009 and Vallerand, 1997). These relations indicate that students who feel pleasure and satisfaction when performing an academic task may have higher levels of persistence to continue to carry out the task in the future, and vice versa. Future research should explore whether different motivational orientations based on a learning methodology (especially in collaborative learning strategies like those used in our study) are related to students’ behaviors and their subsequent academic outcomes. One relatively minor concern for the adoption of CIF and MoCAS is that some extra time is required for students to get familiarized with the MoCAS system. In our evaluation, this drawback was alleviated by the aid provided by an assistant. In real settings, it would be more realistic to schedule a short session to let groups of students practice and become familiarized with the system. In retrospective, we have conducted two evaluations of CIF and MoCAS with respect to other three instructional approaches; one evaluation was of educational effectiveness, and the evaluation reported here was of motivation. In both cases, the joint use of CIF and MoCAS proved to yield higher results. We consider that this is an important contribution to the current literature on CSCL in programming education. In the near future, we plan to evaluate the impact of motivation on students’ educational effectiveness. As explained in Section 3.C, students also filled in a pre-test and a post-test, so the joint evaluation of all the tests can be even further illuminating about the effects of CSCL on students.