• Noradila Nordin Universiti Utara Malaysia



online learning, technology, e-learning, programming, programming language


This study aims to explore the effectiveness of learning programming language using online-based learning compared to traditional-based learning towards undergraduate students in Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). Similar types of learning materials are used with additional forms of assessments to substitute the final exam. The main difference is in the learning approaches which have been switched to online based via various platforms depending on the suitability and preference by the students. This research focuses on identifying and analyzing certain aspects from the students’ perceptions, which are the students’ (1) learning preference; (2) learning engagement; (3) learning assessment, and in terms of their overall (4) satisfaction towards the learning process. This study uses a quantitative approach through the questionnaire as the survey instrument, involving 31 students. The data is analyzed using descriptive statistics (percentage frequency distribution, mean, and standard deviation). Findings show promising results in online-based learning as 48.39% obtained marks above 80% in Lab Test 2, which is doubled compared to the previous test, Lab Test 1, 25.81%. This indicates that while students prefer traditional-based learning, they are able to perform better through online-based learning.


Metrics Loading ...


Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83-102. doi:

Bouhnik, D., Deshen, M., & Gan, R. (2014). WhatsApp goes to school: Mobile instant messaging between teachers and students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13(1), 217-231. doi:

Bradbury, N. A. (2016). Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more?. Adv Physiol Educ, 40(4), 509-513. doi:

Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1438-1443. doi:

Cantabella, M., Guillén, M. Á., López, B., Muñoz, A., & Cecilia, J. M. (2020). Evaluation of parallel programming teaching methodologies: On‐campus versus online methodologies. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(2), 229-238. doi:

Cazzola, W., & Olivares, D. M. (2016). Gradually learning programming supported by a growable programming language. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 4(3), 404-415. doi:

Chimanga, K., Siluyele, N., Langton, S., Nkonde, E., Zhu, Q., Zhou, Z., & Fu, Z. (2021). A Comparative Study of Students Performance in Object Oriented Programming (OOP) Using Java Before and During COVID-19 (A Case of Kapasa Makasa Campus). American Journal of Networks and Communications, 10(1), 1-5. doi:

Guo, S. (2020). Synchronous versus asynchronous online teaching of physics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Physics Education, 55(6), 065007. doi:

Heflin, H., Shewmaker, J., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers & Education, 107, 91-99. doi:

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review, 27, 1-12.

Jou, M., & Wang, J. Y. (2019). A Reflection of Teaching and Learning Cognition and Behavior in Smart Learning Environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 95 177-178. doi:

Liang, K., Zhang, Y., He, Y., Zhou, Y., Tan, W., & Li, X. (2017). Online behavior analysis-based student profile for intelligent E-learning. Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering. doi:

Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48. doi:

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission MCMC. (2020). Media Statement: The People-Centric Economic Stimulus Package (PRIHATIN): No One Will Be Left Behind.

Maltby, J. R., & Whittle, J. (2000). Learning programming online: Student perceptions and performance. In Proceedings of the ASCILITE 2000 Conference.

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, MoHE. (2018). Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0: Future-Proof Talents.

Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2020). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic success in online education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 15-25. doi:

Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.

Njenga, J. K., & Fourie, L. C. H. (2010). The myths about e‐learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 199-212. doi:

Shaw, R. S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Computers & Education, 58(1), 111-120. doi:

Snider, J. G. & Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semantic differential technique: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Tsai, Y. H., Lin, C. H., Hong, J. C., & Tai, K. H. (2018). The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs. Computers & Education, 121, 18-29. doi:

Wang, T., Su, X., Ma, P., Wang, Y., & Wang, K. (2011). Ability-training-oriented automated assessment in introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 56(1), 220-226. doi:

Weinstein, Y. (2018). Mind-wandering, how do I measure thee with probes? Let me count the ways. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 642-661. doi:

Woit, D., & Mason, D. (2003). Effectiveness of online assessment. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 137-141. doi:

Yagci, M. (2017). A Web-Based Blended Learning Environment for Programming Languages: Students' Opinions. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(3), 211-218. doi:




How to Cite