My presentation on how we conducted an online blended class involving Python programming for business management students amidst the COVID-19 lockdown. This was presented at Globe FOREFRONT: The 2020 National Conference on Digital Learning.

1. Maximizing academic self-efficacy in
an online course on application
programming for business students:
A COVID-19 experience
Joseph Benjamin ILAGAN
John Gokongwei School of Management
Loyola Schools
Ateneo de Manila University
October 5, 2020

2. 2
Hello!I am Joben Ilagan
Co-Program Director
IT Entrepreneurship Program
John Gokongwei School of Management
Ateneo de Manila University
You can email me at jbilagan@ateneo.edu

3. Challenge

4. 4
Python programming to
non-Computer Science
majors in five (5) weeks
Self-efficacy low as inferred from
informal feedback from the students

5. Self-
efficacy
Judgments of one's
abilities given field with
new, unpredictable, and
stressful aspects
(Bandura, 1977)
5

6. 6
Perceived self-efficacy is
one of the largest
predictors of academic
performance
(Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006;
Downing, 2009; Hodges, 2008)

7. 7
COVID-19: ECQ-GCQ
Remote learning
Limited access to teachers
Limited access to fellow students
Social aspect of learning is somehow
impaired
Social aspect of learning (Vygotsky, 1978)
Risk of impacting learning

8. 8

9. 9
M.G. Moore's
Transactional Distance
Refers to physical (especially in
distance learning), pedagogical and
psychological gaps, particularly
between instructor and student and
among students.
(Moore & Kearsley, 2011)

10. 10
Three Dimensions of Transactional Distance (Shearer 2009)

11. 11
Three Dimensions of Transactional Distance (Shearer 2009)

12. Four sources of self-efficacy
Mastery
Experiences
Enactive mastery experiences
Performance accomplishments
Previous/successful experiences
12
(Bandura, 1977, as cited by Hodges, 2008)

13. Four sources of self-efficacy
Mastery
Experiences
Enactive mastery experiences
Performance accomplishments
Previous/successful experiences
Social Modeling
Vicarious experiences
Knowledge of how others
performed at a similar task
13
(Bandura, 1977, as cited by Hodges, 2008)

14. Four sources of self-efficacy
Mastery
Experiences
Enactive mastery experiences
Performance accomplishments
Previous/successful experiences
Social Modeling
Vicarious experiences
Knowledge of how others
performed at a similar task
14
Social Persuasion
Verbal Persuasion
(Bandura, 1977, as cited by Hodges, 2008)

15. Four sources of self-efficacy
Mastery
Experiences
Enactive mastery experiences
Performance accomplishments
Previous/successful experiences
Social Modeling
Vicarious experiences
Knowledge of how others
performed at a similar task
15
Social Persuasion
Verbal Persuasion
Psychological
States
Stress, emotion, mood
(Bandura, 1977, as cited by Hodges, 2008)

16. 16

17. 17
Students and Class Setup
28 2nd Year BS Management Engineering Students
Generally no problem with online class access
Class was asynchronous (only one sync class)
Canvas Free for Teachers LMS
Videos uploaded to YouTube as Unlisted
Facebook Groups for informal announcements
Facebook Groups for light chat
Zoom for consultations

18. 18
Service Level Mindset
Less than half a day response time
Less than a day resolution time

19. 19
Production Setup
Open Broadcast Software (OBS) for Mac OS
NDI Camera (Wifi) for the iPhone
AirServer to broadcast iPad screens to the Macbook Pro
iPad Notability App
iPad Annotations using Apple Pencil

20. 20
OBS console

21. 21
application window

22. 22
iPad window

23. ScaffoldingCognitive processing support
provided by instruction in order to
allow them to learn complex ideas
that exceed what they could learn
based solely on their own current
cognitive capabilities.
(Vygotsky, 1978; Ragan & Smith
1999, as cited by Schutt, 2003)
23

24. 24
CONTENT ASSESSMENT DELIVERY MANAGEMENT
Mastery
Experiences
Scaffolding;
15-minute videos
make absorption
more manageable;
Start with Digital,
Command Line,
Binary, Hex, etc.
Relate material to
what they already
know.
Embedded
tutorials;
Easy tasks as
warm up
Canvas LMS
YouTube
Videos
Pre-course survey
conducted on past
programming and
business
background +
expectations of the
course;
Informal
announcements on
FB; Formal on
Canvas

25. 25

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32
Looks like an actual receipt

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37
CONTENT ASSESSMENT DELIVERY MANAGEMENT
Vicarious
experience
Live-coding videos
show how the
instructor made
mistakes and how
to recover from
these
Previous classes
share their
notebooks to
prepare the
current students
for tests
Discussion
Boards to
encourage
people to
share their
solutions
Chat groups to help
clarify solutions and
other concerns and
discuss career
options

38. 38

39. 39
Computational Thinking
(CT)
approach to problem
solving that consolidates
logic skills with core
computer science
concepts

40. 40
CONTENT ASSESSMENT DELIVERY MANAGEMENT
Social
Persuasion
Sample
notebooks from
a previous batch
are handed
down to the
current
students.
Discussion
boards have
solution shared
by classmates.
Provide timely
feedback;
Assessment
questions with
real-world
relevance and
familiarity.
Synchronous
consultations
on the Final
Project
involve the
instructor
assessing
feasibility and
explaining
how things
could be
started.
Facebook Groups for
informal announcement
and sharing;
Facebook Messenger for
group consultations;
Zoom for synchronous
consultations
Teachers do not have to
be friends with students
(Wang, Woo, & Quek,
2012)

41. 41

42. 42
CONTENT ASSESSMENT DELIVERY MANAGEMENT
Physiological
State
Inject humor in the
examples
Share memes via
FB Groups
Relaxed
deadlines;
For
assignments,
unlimited tries
to submit
Use a lot of
metaphors
Discuss
previous
difficult
exercises
Check
pulse/sentiment via
Facebook (seems
friendlier; take
advantage of
affordances)
Create the
impression that the
teacher is more
approachable
(Wang, Woo, &
Quek, 2012)

43. 43

44. Final Projects

45. Gaw A., Lim D., Mearns J., & Ong J.H. (2020) Philippine Budget and Procurement
Data Analysis
45

46. Ang, M., Chan, I., Chua, A.J., See, E., & Vicedo, R. (2020) Code to create
end-of-day stock information from the Philippine Stock Exchange
46

47. 47

48. 48
Thanks!Any questions?
You can email me at:
⊚ jbilagan@ateneo.edu

49. 49
References
AteneoBlueCloud.
https://ateneobluecloud.ateneo.edu/?fbclid=IwAR0OMzxYfAHRtXxVCZUw_mXAsZtENfoiLDLLUQLvj0_JTWF6h_xl8z
7acog.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychology Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The clearing house, 83(2), 39-43.
Clifford, B. (2018). Understanding Disinterest: How Online Undergraduate Students Perceive And Respond To
Disengaged Faculty Members. 99. https://dune.une.edu/theses
Dougherty, K. D., & Andercheck, B. (2014). Using Facebook to Engage Learners in a Large Introductory Course. Teaching
Sociology, 42(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X14521022
Eger, L. (2015). Is Facebook a Similar Learning Tool for University Students as LMS? Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 203, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.287
Downing, K. J. (2009). Self-efficacy and Metacognitive Development. International Journal of Learning, 16(4).
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The Determinants of Students’ Perceived Learning Outcomes and
Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Empirical Investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 4(2), 215–235.

50. 50
References
Feng, M., Heffernan, N., & Koedinger, K. (2009). Addressing the assessment challenge with an online system
that tutors as it assesses. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 19(3), 243–266.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-009-9063-7
Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self‐efficacy in the context of online learning environments: A review of the literature
and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3‐4), 7-25.
Kurt, S. (2019). TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework - Educational Technology.
Educational Technology.
https://educationaltechnology.net/technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge-tpack-framework/
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
Qualls, J. A., & Sherrell, L. B. (2010). Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum.
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 66-71.
Rodrigo, M. M. T., Baker, R. S. J. D., & Nabos, J. Q. (2010). The relationships between sequences of affective
states and learner achievement. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education:
Enhancing and Sustaining New Knowledge Through the Use of Digital Technology in Education, ICCE 2010,
56–60.

51. 51
References
Shearer, R. L. (2009). Transactional distance and dialogue: An exploratory study to refine the theoretical
construct of dialogue in online learning.
Schutt, M. (2003). Scaffolding for Online Learning Environments: Instructional Design Strategies that Provide
Online Learner Support. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 43(6),
28–35.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design. John Wiley & Sons.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology
(Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.
Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning
management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428–438.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01195.x

52. 52
References
Weinstein, C. E., Zimmermann, S. A., & Palmer, D. R. (1988). Assessing Learning Strategies: the Design and
Development of the Lassi. In Learning and Study Strategies. ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-742460-6.50009-8
Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI).
Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.