Students' Perceived Learning Outcomes from a Web-Based Programming Learning Resource in Resource-Constrained Secondary Schools

Ian Luciaja Tiao, Renald Jay o. Fio, Renjun A. Orain, Mark Anthony P. Cezar, Merlin A. Marfa, Pepito R. Guerrero Jr., Milagros V. Ortega

Abstract

Programming education still faces teaching challenges in secondary schools that have limited resources. In those resource-constrained schools, students do not have much access to teaching tools and opportunities to practice programming for a long time, which can affect how students learn. This study examined how students believe they have learned when using a web-based programming learning resource in resource-constrained schools. The study focused on students’ views of performance and student engagement. The study also examined how students’ opinions about the web-based programming learning resource relate to learning outcomes that students think they have achieved. A quantitative correlational research design was employed among Senior High School Information and Communications Technology students from selected resource-constrained secondary schools. Data were collected through a validated, structured questionnaire regarding students' use of the learning resource and were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson Product–Moment Correlation. Students generally reported positive perceptions of academic performance and student engagement. The analysis also showed positive and statistically significant associations between students' evaluation of the learning resource and both dimensions of perceived learning outcomes. These findings suggest that web-based programming learning resources may support classroom instruction by providing students opportunities to practice programming and helping to keep them engaged, especially in settings where resources are limited. The study offers evidence to help teachers, curriculum developers, and researchers consider how to include online learning tools in programming classes. Since the study relied on self-reported data and used an approach, the results show connections and what learners felt they learned, but they don’t prove cause-and-effect or that students improved academically

Keywords

Educational Technology, Perceived Learning Outcomes; Programming Education; Student Engagement; Web-Based Learning

Full Text:

PDF

References

Agbo, F. J., Olivia, C., Oguibe, G., Sanusi, I. T., & Sani, G. (2025). Computing education using generative artificial intelligence tools: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education Open, 9, 100266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100266

Alghamdi, M. Y. (2025). Measuring the impact of web-based educational tools on enhancing student learning indicators in programming skills, computational thinking, and problem-solving. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 33, e70011. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.70011

Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Abdullah, A., Ming, G. L., et al. (2022). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27, 531–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z

Barikzai, S., Bharathi S, V., & Perdana, A. (2024). Challenges and strategies in e-learning adoption in emerging economies: A scoping review. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2400415. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2400415

Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & Del Rosario, L. S. (2021). Students' online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7321–7338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00282-x

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6

Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119239086

Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097

Fodouop Kouam, A. W. (2025). Transforming programming education: A comparative study of traditional and tech-enhanced online learning for undergraduates and graduates. Discover Education, 4, Article 575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00981-x

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review.

Katona, J., & Katonane Gyonyoru, K. I. (2025). AI-based adaptive programming education for socially disadvantaged students: Bridging the digital divide. TechTrends, 69, 925–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01088-8

Kohen-Vacs, D., Usher, M., & Jansen, M. (2025). Integrating generative AI into programming education: Student perceptions and the challenge of correcting AI errors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35, 3166–3184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00496-4

Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001

Lin, H.-C. K., Tseng, C.-H., & Chen, N.-S. (2025). Enhancing programming education: The impact of AI-based pedagogical agents on student self-efficacy, engagement, and learning outcomes. Educational Technology & Society, 28(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202504_28(2).TP02

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K–12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009

Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355

OECD. (2021). The state of school education: One year into the COVID-19 pandemic. OECD Publishing.

Omeh, C. B., Olelewe, C. J., & Ohanu, I. B. (2025). Impact of artificial intelligence technology on students' computational and reflective thinking in a computer programming course. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 33, e70052. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.70052

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y

Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.

Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher's perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Yuana, R. A., Sajidan, S., Wiranto, W., & Nizam, M. (2025). Strategies for integrating computational thinking and scientific approaches in programming education: A systematic literature review. Discover Education, 4, Article 371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00834-7

Zhang, S., Jaldi, C. D., Schroeder, N. L., López, A. A., Gladstone, J. R., & Heidig, S. (2024). Pedagogical agent design for K–12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 223, 105165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105165

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/paedagogia.v29i3.125769

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.