Application of Construct on Scaffold Concept Map in Mobile Programming Learning with Flutter Layout Topic

Putra Prima Arhandi; Annisa Taufika Firdausi; Vivin Ayu Lestari; Abdurrasyid Muhasibi; Dharma Yudistira Eka Putra; Banni Satria Andoko

doi:10.23887/janapati.v12i2.60629

Authors

Putra Prima Arhandi Politeknik Negeri Malang
Annisa Taufika Firdausi Politeknik Negeri Malang
Vivin Ayu Lestari Politeknik Negeri Malang
Abdurrasyid Muhasibi Politeknik Negeri Malang
Dharma Yudistira Eka Putra Politeknik Negeri Malang
Banni Satria Andoko Politeknik Negeri Malang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23887/janapati.v12i2.60629

Keywords:

Construct on Scaffold, Concept Map, Flutter

Abstract

Flutter is a framework for making mobile applications cross-platform made by Google. From 2019 to 2021 the popularity of flutter is increasing. Flutter use declarative writing style to create layouts. This makes the layout in flutter immutable, and a light blueprint. This research proposes a construct on scaffold concept map method to help students understand the concept of widget arrangement in flutter layout. Construct on scaffold will provide the learner with a framework from an incomplete expert concept map. Some of the nodes and connecting relationships in the framework have been removed, so students must fill in the missing parts with several available answer choices to complete the concept map. To prove the impact of the application of this method, the study was conducted using a pre-post-test group experimental design. Students will do a pre-test, use the EasyFlutter application, and post-test. The results of the pre-test and post-test obtained were tested for normality first, then tested to find out whether there was an average difference between the pre-test and post-test scores. The results of the normality test show that the pre-test data are not normally distributed, and the post-test data are normally distributed, so the next test will use a non-parametric test, namely the Wilcoxon test. The test results show that the post-test mean score is higher than the pre-test mean. Wilcoxon test results also show that the Asymp value. Sig. (2-tailed) of 0.01, so it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores. The application of the construct on scaffold method has a significant positive impact on the post-test scores of students related to the concept of widget arrangement in flutter.

References

M. G. Jamil and S. O. Isiaq, “Teaching technology with technology: approaches to bridging learning and teaching gaps in simulation-based programming education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 25, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0159-9.

S. Bergin, R. Reilly, and D. Traynor, “Examining the role of self-regulated learning on introductory programming performance,” in Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Computing education research - ICER ’05, Seattle, WA, USA: ACM Press, 2005, pp. 81–86. doi: 10.1145/1089786.1089794.

J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen, “Failure rates in introductory programming,” ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 32–36, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1145/1272848.1272879.

S. Bergin and R. Reilly, “The inﬂuence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program,” 2005.

M. N. Giannakos, I. O. Pappas, L. Jaccheri, and D. G. Sampson, “Understanding student retention in computer science education: The role of environment, gains, barriers and usefulness,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2365–2382, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9538-1.

A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree, “Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion,” Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 137–172, Jun. 2003, doi: 10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200.

B. Hanks, C. McDowell, D. Draper, and M. Krnjajic, “Program quality with pair programming in CS1,” in Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, Leeds United Kingdom: ACM, Jun. 2004, pp. 176–180. doi: 10.1145/1007996.1008043.

T. Jenkins, “ON THE DIFFICULTY OF LEARNING TO PROGRAM”.

M. M. Villamor, “A review on process-oriented approaches for analyzing novice solutions to programming problems,” Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 8, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1186/s41039-020-00130-y.

K. Tsutsui and H. Takada, “A classroom SNS to promote reflective activity in programming learning for children,” Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 2, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1186/s41039-018-0069-9.

A. Carbone, J. Hurst, I. Mitchell, and D. Gunstone, “An Exploration of Internal Factors Influencing Student Learning of Programming”.

N. J. G. Falkner and K. E. Falkner, “A fast measure for identifying at-risk students in computer science,” in Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on International computing education research, Auckland New Zealand: ACM, Sep. 2012, pp. 55–62. doi: 10.1145/2361276.2361288.

M.-H. N. C. Vee, B. Meyer, and K. L. Mannock, “Understanding novice errors and error paths in Object-oriented programming through log analysis”.

M. C. Jadud, “A First Look at Novice Compilation Behaviour Using BlueJ,” Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 25–40, Mar. 2005, doi: 10.1080/08993400500056530.

A. Carbone, J. Hurst, I. Mitchell, and D. Gunstone, “An Exploration of Internal Factors Influencing Student Learning of Programming,” p. 11, 2009.

M.-H. N. C. Vee, B. Meyer, and K. L. Mannock, “Understanding novice errors and error paths in Object-oriented programming through log analysis,” p. 8, 2006.

I. Ouahbi, F. Kaddari, H. Darhmaoui, A. Elachqar, and S. Lahmine, “Learning Basic Programming Concepts by Creating Games with Scratch Programming Environment,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 191, pp. 1479–1482, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.224.

C.-Y. Tsai, “Improving students’ understanding of basic programming concepts through visual programming language: The role of self-efficacy,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 95, pp. 224–232, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.038.

A. Biessek, Flutter for beginners: an introductory guide to building cross-platform mobile applications with Flutter and Dart 2. 2019.

S. Giordano and P. Mainkar, Google Flutter Mobile Development Quick Start Guide. Place of publication not identified: Packt Publishing, 2019. Accessed: Nov. 24, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/title/9781789344967/?ar?orpq&email=^u

K. E. Chang, Y. T. Sung, and S. F. Chen, “Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., p. 13, 2001.

J. D. Novak, “Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 937–949, Dec. 1990, doi: 10.1002/tea.3660271003.

K.-E. Chang, Y.-T. Sung, and I.-D. Chen, “The Effect of Concept Mapping to Enhance Text Comprehension and Summarization,” J. Exp. Educ., vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 5–23, Jan. 2002, doi: 10.1080/00220970209602054.

F. G. W. C. Paas, “Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach.,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 429–434, Dec. 1992, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.

A. D. Katayama and D. H. Robinson, “Getting Students ‘Partially’ Involved in Note-Taking Using Graphic Organizers,” J. Exp. Educ., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 119–133, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1080/00220970009598498.

A. M. O’Donnell, D. F. Dansereau, and R. H. Hall, “Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cognitive Processing,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 14, no. 1, 2002.

J. D. Novak and A. J. Cañas, “Theoretical Origins of Concept Maps, How to Construct Them, and Uses in Education”.

I. M. Kinchin, D. B. Hay, and A. Adams, “How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development,” Educ. Res., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 43–57, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1080/001318800363908.

B. S. Andoko, Y. Hayashi, T. Hirashima, and A. N. Asri, “Improving English reading for EFL readers with reviewing kit-build concept map,” Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 7, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1186/s41039-020-00126-8.

V. dos Santos, É. F. de Souza, K. R. Felizardo, and N. L. Vijaykumar, “Analyzing the Use of Concept Maps in Computer Science: A Systematic Mapping Study,” Inform. Educ., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 257–288, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.15388/infedu.2017.13.

T. Hirashima, K. Yamasaki, H. Fukuda, and H. Funaoi, “Framework of kit-build concept map for automatic diagnosis and its preliminary use,” Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 17, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1186/s41039-015-0018-9.

J. Keppens and D. Hay, “Concept map assessment for teaching computer programming,” Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31–42, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1080/08993400701864880.

V. P. Gurupur, G. Pankaj Jain, and R. Rudraraju, “Evaluating student learning using concept maps and Markov chains,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 3306–3314, May 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.016.

K. E. de Ries, H. Schaap, A.-M. M. J. A. P. van Loon, M. M. H. Kral, and P. C. Meijer, “A literature review of open-ended concept maps as a research instrument to study knowledge and learning,” Qual. Quant., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 73–107, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01113-x.

W. Wunnasri, J. Pailai, Y. Hayashi, and T. Hirashima, “Validity of Kit-Build Method for Assessment of Learner-Build Map by Comparing with Manual Methods,” IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst., vol. E101.D, no. 4, pp. 1141–1150, 2018, doi: 10.1587/transinf.2017EDP7177.