Enhancing academic achievement in an introductory computer programming course through the implementation of guided inquiry-based learning and teaching

The research paradigms symbolise "a worldview which describes, for its holder, the nature of the world, the individual's place in it, and the variety of potential relationships to that world and its parts" (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This research resided under the paragmatic paradigm, thus taking a pragmatic philosophical stand. Pragmatic philosophy refers to the application of both qualitative and quantitative data, depending on the objectives of the study.

The study used a mixed methods approach. With the mixed methods approach to research, researchers incorporate methods of collecting or analysing data from the quantitative and qualitative research approaches in a single research study (Creswell, 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The correlation of both the qualitative and quantitative data assisted the researcher in understanding the application of GIL. This study, as noted, made use of both quantitative and qualitative methods within a case study.

Terre Blanche, Durrheim and Painter (2006) state that the research design is a plan of action that acts as bridge between research questions and the actual implementation of the research and which details the conditions for collection and analysis of data. The research design used for this study was Action Research (AR) within a case study. AR is an iterative research methodology that involves the subjects of the research as active participants - the research is done with, rather than on the participants (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

The population for this study consisted of all 49 students enrolled for the introductory programming course (DEV1120). Twenty learners were selected having given their informed consent. Though it would have been ideal to have 24 students as part of the experimental group, only 20 students voluntarily agreed to participate in the research. The students consisted of males and females of ages ranging between 18 and 22 years. Of the 20 students, one dropped out of the course and the entire programme. This made the effective sample 19 for the experimental group. The remaining 29 students formed part of the control group.

The learner guide for the course, DEV1120 ("Learner Guide - Development Software 1 (DEV1120)," 2016), prescribed that students had to complete four mandatory formative assessments and a final summative assessment during the course of the year. Results of all these assessments formed part of the quantitative data for this study. Focus group interviews with semi-structured, open-ended questions were conducted to collect the qualitative data. This allowed the interviewer to prompt participants for further clarity based on the point of discussion and for respondents to elaborate on their responses. The interview questions were designed to gather qualitative data detailing the learner experience in their own words.

Consistency in producing similar results when repeated measurements are done on the same phenomenon is considered as the reliability factor of an instrument. Cronbach's alpha is a commonly used statistic to ensure reliability of an instrument (Taber, 2017). In any educational research, Cronbach's alpha coefficient value reaching 0.70 is considered as a sufficient measure of reliability (Taber, 2017). Cronbach's alpha coefficient value for this study was 0.883.

Data analysis included grouping and summarising information to establish meaning. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. T-tests and chi-Square tests were conducted using the statistical analysis software SPSS to measure the significance of the findings. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Intervention process (PAR process)

The purpose of the introductory programming course, DEV1120, is to equip learners with a solid understanding of the basic principles of programming that apply to all computer programming languages. Learners are taught how to analyse problems and how to write algorithmic solutions using pseudocode and VB.net (Console Application) programming language. Students are introduced to the program development cycle and are taught how to use the tools associated with each stage.

A typical GIL class session started with the lecturer introducing new course material. In other words, the lecturer introduced the basic programming concepts, principles and theories pertaining to the topic in the course DEV1110. This was followed by the lecturer gaving an example by applying GIL principles: A Problem was given for which a solution was to be formulated. The procedure then followed an analysis of the problem by asking questions (inquiring) about the problem scenario. Answers to these questions were expected to make the process more understandable or might lead to other questions. Following up on all the new questions would eventually give answers to all the unknown information in the problem. The lecturer provided new problems to the groups. Students (group members collectively) were required to formulate the programming solution using the GIL approach. Students collaborated with one another. During this period, the lecturer walked around the class, listening to the discussions and providing guidance where required. The lecturer's role was to act as a facilitator who made sure the group members did not veer off the problem domain in their efforts to formulate the solution through inquiry (discussions).

Once the class had finished, students were given problems to solve in the form of homework. Though students were expected to find solutions alone while they were out of classroom environment, a virtual collaborative group environment was created through a social networking platform (WhatsApp in this study) to facilitate the GIL environment. Groups of four to five students were created over WhatsApp thus replicating the classroom groups. Students in groups were encouraged to engage on discussions through these virtual groups as they would do in the classroom environment. Since the lecturer was part of these groups, the lecturer could observe, encourage discussions and guide them where required.

Students who were part of the control group were taught using the traditional chalk-and-talk approach. A typical class session for this group started with the lecturer introducing new course material followed by the lecturer showing an example by formulating and writing the solution to a problem/question on the chalk-board. This was followed by the lecturer giving new problems to the students. Each individual student was expected to solve the problem by himself/herself. Once the class had finished, students were given homework to which they were expected to find solutions alone. These students did not collaborate with each other to learn computer programming. There was no opportunity provided for discussion between themselves, or between themselves and the lecturer, while they were inside and outside the classroom environment.