A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in Learning Assembly Programming Language using Online EdSim51 Simulator vs. In-lab Micro TRAK/51-C2 Kit

  • Amal Mohammad Alsaleh

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine which method proved more effective in learning assembly programming language over the period of 6 years. This study was implemented in microcontroller laboratory CPE-364 at Computer Engineering Department, Kuwait University. The first group is composed of 120 students attending the traditional in-lab classes, while the second group comprises 86 students attending online classes due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The study determines which modality resulted in better student performance to learn the assembly language. In microcontroller laboratory, students usually learn to become familiar with programming model and instruction set of 8051, understand the process of assembling and running an 8051 program, debug and run the program. The in-lab students use the Micro TRAK/51-C2 kit with the Micro IDE software. However, the online students use the 8051 Simulator EdSim51. Data was analyzed using one-way ANOVA and t-test. Results from the current study showed that there are no significant differences between the two group scores. The p-value= 0.072> α =0.05 for both tests, where α is the significance level of the test. These data translate the similarity of students’ performance in learning assembly programming language in both in-lab Micro TRAK kit with Micro IDE software and online EdSim simulator.

References

1. Paul J and Jefferson F (2019) A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. Front. Comput. Sci. 1:7. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007.
2. Tadesse, S. and Muluye, W. (2020) The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Education System in Developing Countries: A Review. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 159-170. doi: 10.4236/jss.2020.810011.
3. Liu, Y. (2005). Effects of online instruction vs. traditional instruction on student's learning. Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Learn. 2, 57–64.
4. Herman, T., and Banister, S. (2007). Face-to-face versus online coursework: a comparison of costs and learning outcomes. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 7, 318–326.
5. Dell, C. A., Low, C., and Wilker, J. F. (2010). Comparing student achievement in online and face-to-face class formats. J. Online Learn. Teach. Long Beach 6, 30–42.
6. Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundation of american education course. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. J. 4, 196–213.
7. Werhner, M. J. (2010). A comparison of the performance of online versus traditional on-campus earth science students on identical exams. J. Geosci. Educ. 58, 310–312. doi: 10.5408/1.3559697.
8. Paul J and Jefferson F (2019) A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. Front. Comput. Sci. 1:7. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007.
9. CpE 364 Microcontroller and Embedded systems Laboratories lab manual, Computer engineering department, Kuwait university.
10. Wekipedia (2017), assembly language, Web site https://www. electronicshub.org /8051-Microcontroller-Assembly-Language-Programming/
11. Gurhan Can, Mustafa Saglam, Bahdir Eristi and Dirlruba Kurum Novermber (2007). A Comparative Study on Student Perceptions of Face-to-Face Learning and Online Learning; 6th WSEAS International Conference on Educational and Educational Technology.
12. Vesna Dimitrievska RISTOVSKA, Emil STANKOV and Petar SEKULOSKI (2021). Teaching and Examination Process of Some University Courses before vs during the Corona Crisis; Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University st. Rugjer Boshkovikj 16 Skopje, Macedonia. Olympiads in Informatics, vol. 15, 91–104 © 2021 IOI, Vilnius University DOI: 10.15388/ioi.2021.08.
13. F. García-Carballeira, A. Calderón-Mateos, S. Alonso-Monsalve and J. Prieto-Cepeda, "WepSIM: An Online Interactive Educational Simulator Integrating Microdesign, Microprogramming, and Assembly Language Programming," in IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 211-218, 1 Jan.-March 2020, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2019.2903714.
14. Vielma K, Brey EM (2020) Using Evaluative Data to Assess Virtual Learning Experiences for Students During COVID-19. Biomedical Engineering Education: 1–6.
15. Saw GK, Chang C, Lomelí U, Zhi M (August 2020) Gender Disparities in Remote Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of STEM Faculty and Students. https://nreeducation.wordpress.com Network for Research and Evaluation in Education (NREED) Data brief. 1–5 p.
16. Shadnaz Asgari, Jelena Trajkovic, Mehran Rahmani, Wenlu Zhang, Roger C. Lo and Antonella Sciortino (2021); An observational study of engineering online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041.
17. Mohammed Amin Almaiah, Ahmad Al-Khasawneh, and Ahmad Althunibat (2020);
Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5261–5280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y .
Published
2021-09-01
How to Cite
ALSALEH, Amal Mohammad. A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in Learning Assembly Programming Language using Online EdSim51 Simulator vs. In-lab Micro TRAK/51-C2 Kit. International Journal of Advanced Research in Technology and Innovation, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 3, p. 1-11, sep. 2021. ISSN 2682-8324. Available at: <https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijarti/article/view/15043>. Date accessed: 24 oct. 2021.
Section
Articles