See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323548936

Analysis of Student Difficulties in Computer Programming

Article · October 2017

DOI: 10.30870/volt.v2i2.2211

CITATION READS
1 1,133

2 authors:

Abdul Baist Aan Subhan Pamungkas

Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang UNTIRTA
8 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pemrograman dengan Scratch View project

THINK PAIR SHARE AND THE POWER OF TWO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aan Subhan Pamungkas on 15 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VOLT
Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro
P-ISSN: 2528-5688
Journal homepage: jurnal.untirta.ac.id/index.php/VOLT
E-ISSN: 2528-5696 Vol. 2, No. 2, October 2017, 81-92

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT DIFFICULTIES IN COMPUTER PROGRAMMING

Abdul Baist1, Aan Subhan Pamungkas2

1Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang, Tangerang 15118, Indonesia

Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]

2Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang 42124, Indonesia

Received: 22 August 2017. Received in revised form: 02 October 2017. Accepted: 02 October 2017

Abstract

Computer programming skills are required in mathematics computing courses. Most students
have difficulty making computer programs. This study aims to identify the difficulties faced by
students in making computer programs. This research is descriptive quantitative research. The
subjects in this study are students of Mathematics Education Departement, Muhammadiyah
University of Tangerang. Based on the results of data analysis, the conclusion is: (1) there are
significant differences in multidimensional array material between high, medium and low group;
(2) there is a significant difference in input / ouput command material between high, medium and
low group; (3) there are significant differences about the difficulties experienced by students in
understanding the basic concept of programming between high, medium and low groups; (4)
there is a significant difference regarding the difficulties experienced by students in finding the
fault of their own programs between high, medium and low groups; (5) there is no significant
difference in situations that may assist students in programming for lab work in the high, medium
and low groups; (6) there is no significant difference in situations that can assist students in
programming to do alone tasks between high, medium and low groups; (7) there is no significant
difference in the lack of examples shown when practice makes poor performance in programming
between high, medium and low groups; (8) there is no significant difference in what makes poor
performance in programming a less conducive atmosphere between high, medium and low
groups.

Keywords: difficulties, computation, programming

© 2017 Department of Electrical Engineering Vocational Education, FKIP, UNTIRTA

INTRODUCTION Mostrom (2011) said that programming

is the act of understanding a problem,
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

formulating a solution, and writing down the The aimi of this study is to find out
solution in such a way that a computer can use difficulties faced by students in computer
the solution to solve the. Therefore a programming. The result of this study is
programmer should understand a problem first. expected to be input for computational
When the problem had been understood, mathematics course. What kind of action is
programmer would use problem solving technic needed so that the outcomes of the lectures get
to solve the problem. At last step a programmer better.
need to communicate that solution so that
computer could follow instruction that been METHOD
given.
Computer programming skill is needed This study used survey method. Groves,
in computational mathematics course. In that Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer, Tourangean
course, problem in mathematics is translated (2009), said that survey is a systematic method
into a computer program. The program is used for gathering information from (a sample of)
to get an answer from a given problem. entities for the purposes of constructing
Making a computer program is not an quantitative descriptors of the attributes of the
easy thing. This skill need another skills, like larger population of which the entities are.
designing algorithm, writing program in certain Systematic is deliberate and meaningfully
program language, and understanding syntax distinguishes surveys from other ways of
from the program (Rahmat, Shahrani, Latih, gathering information. The quantitative
Yatim, Zainal, & Rahman, 2012). descriptors are called statistics.
For most students, programming is a This study used questionnaire adapted
new thing. It needs basic skill to reach advanced from instrument used by Milne and Rowe
level in computer programming. Students need (2002), Tan, Ting, Ling, (2009), and Derus and
to know basic syntax, structure, and style of a Ali (2012). To obtain the necessary information,
program language gradually. These make the questionnaire consists of two major
students feel difficult often. sections, the background information of
Difficulties in programming are respondents in general, and the experience of
common for novice students. As Evan and respondents when learning programming.
Simkin (1989) said that computer The number of respondents in this study
programming is very complicated for many about 132 students. Respondents are sixth
novice students at university level. Meanwhile semester students of Mathematics Education
Ala-Mutka (2004) said that difficulties faced by Department, Muhammadiyah University of
students are not in syntax or understanding of Tangerang
concept, but rather basic program planning
(Mhashi & Alakeel, 2013, pp. 15).
Based on score of computational RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
mathematics courses there are about 70% of
students achieved below grade of B. It indicated Of the 132 respondents who answered
that there are a problem happened. Therefore the questionnaire, 15% were male or about 20
an action is needed to find out the cause. people. While for female respondents 85% or
about 112 people. This can be seen in the
following diagram
82
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

Table 1. Students performance based on groups

Performance Frequency Percentage
(%)
High 10 8
Medium 30 42
Low 92 50

The data used in this study comes from

a questionnaire distributed to students, the
questionnaire is ordinal scale. Questionnaires
Figure 1. Percentage of respondents based on are given to students to know their opinions on
gender understanding the basic material of
programming. The level of understanding of
Regarding the question have they ever students on the basic materials of programming
studied computer programming, most of them can be seen in Table 2. Scale used in each item
have never studied computer programming or is Likert scale. The material is sorted from the
about 98% that is as many as 129 people. This smallest average score. To see if there is a
means that for the first time they are familiar difference between the problems analyzed and
with computer programming. This is illustrated the student's performance, the Kruskal-Wallis
in the following diagram test is used
Table 2. Level of students’ understanding on
basic topic on programming course
Topics Mean Stdev
Multidimensional Array 2,34 0,91
Looping Statements (e.g: 2,45 0,98
while, for)
Function 2,73 0,95
Branch Statements (e.g: if- 2,92 0,97
else, switch)
Array Data Structure 3,11 0,96
Figure 2. Percentage of respondents based on Variables 3,45 0,99
experience learning computer programming Input/Output Statements 3,72 0,93
(e.g: input, fprintf)
Student performance is determined
From the table above can be seen also
based on the score of mathematics
that the average student does not understand
computational exam. the values are grouped
the material Multidimensional Array. This can
into high, medium, and low. This grouping will
be seen further in the following diagram
be used to determine if there is a significant
difference between each problem analyzed and
the student's performance. The grouping can be
seen in the following table.

83
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

was 77.58, and the low group was 60.24. This

means that the level of understanding on
Multidimensional Array material between high,
medium, and low groups differ significantly.
These results indicate that the group is well
versed with Multidimensional Array material.
As for the material Input / Output Input
the average student approaches the category of
understanding with the material. This can be
Figure 3. Level of students’ understanding on seen further in the following diagram
Multidimensional Array

From Figure 3 it is seen that most

students are not familiar with Multidimensional
Array material. Here are the results of testing
the difference rates by group
Table 3. Ranks of students’ understanding on
Multidimensional Array
Ranks
Performance N Mean Rank Figure 4. Level of students’ understanding on
High 10 90.85 Input/Output Statements
Medium 30 77.58
Answer From Figure 4 it can be seen that most of
Low 92 60.24
Total 132 the students are familiar with the Input /
Output Input materials. As many as 54.5% of
Table 4. Test Statistics of students’ students understand the material Input /
understanding on Multidimensional Output Commands. The possibility of this
Array happening because the material is quite easy.
The syntax they learned was not too
Test Statisticsa,b
complicated.
Answer To see further differentiation rates,
Chi-Square 10.114 further testing is required. Here are the results
df 2 of testing the difference rates by group
Asymp. Sig. 0.006 Table 5. Ranks of students’ understanding on
Input/Output statements
From Table 3 and Table 4 it can be seen
Ranks
that there are significant differences in
Performance N Mean Rank
Multidimensional Array material between high,
medium, and low group. The H value of the test High 10 96.30
is 10.114 with degrees of freedom 2 and the Medium 30 79.53
Answer
value p = 0.006. Meanwhile the mean rank of Low 92 59.01
the high group was 90.85, the moderate group Total 132

84
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

Table 6. Test Statistics of students’ Table 7. Difficulty while learning programming

understanding on Input/Output Difficulties Mean Stdev
statements Understanding basic 4,09 0,95
concepts of programming
Test Statisticsa,b structure
Answer Designing a program 3,87 0,98
Chi-Square 14.472 Learning the programming 3,73 0,97
df 2 language syntax
Using program development 3,48 1,04
Asymp. Sig. 0.001 environment
Finding bugs from my own 3,24 1,03
From Table 5 and Table 6 it can be seen program
that there is a significant difference in Input /
Output command material between high, From Table 7 it can be seen that the
medium, and low group. The H value of the test average student has difficulty in understanding
is 14.472 with degrees of freedom 2 and the the basic concept of programming structure.
value p = 0.001. Meanwhile the mean rank of This can be seen further in the following
the high group was 96.30, the mean group was diagram.
79.53, and the low group was 59.01. This means
that the level of understanding of the Input /
Output Input materials between high, medium,
and low groups differs significantly. These
results indicate that the high group
understands the material Input / Output Input.
Overall the level of students'
understanding of basic programming materials
is at a moderate level. From Table 2 it can be
seen that students have difficulty in
Figure 5. Difficulty while understanding basic
understanding the basic material of
concept of structure programming
programming. According to Milne and Rowe
(2002), students' difficulties in learning
From Figure 5 shows that most students
programming is caused by less familiar to
have difficulty when understanding the basic
students with the rules contained in computer
concept of programming structure is about
programs. This is reinforced by interviews with
72.7%. Here are the results of testing the
some students who stated that they have never
difference rates by group.
studied computer program.
The difficulty level when studying the
programming can be seen in Table 7. The scale
used in each item in Table 7 is the Likert scale
(1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, neutral; 4,
agree; 5, strongly agree). Difficulty sorted from
the largest average value.

85
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

Table 8. Ranks of difficulty while understanding

basic concept of structure programming
Ranks
Performance N Mean Rank
High 10 40.40
Medium 30 51.10
Answer
Low 92 74.36
Total 132

Figure 6. Difficulty while finding bugs from my

Tabel 9. Test Statistics of difficulty while
own program
understanding basic concept of
structure programming
From Figure 6 it appears that most
Test Statisticsa,b
students feel neutral meaning they assume that
Answer they sometimes find it difficult and sometimes
Chi-Square 15.147 do not find it difficult to find fault with their
df 2 own program. Here are the results of testing the
Asymp. Sig. 0.001 difference rates by group.
Table 10. Ranks of difficulty while finding bugs
From Table 8 and Table 9 it can be seen from my own program
that there are significant differences regarding
Ranks
the difficulties experienced by students in
Performance N Mean Rank
understanding the basic concept of
High 10 37.55
programming between high, medium, and low
groups. The H value of the test is 15.147 with Medium 30 56.95
Answer
degrees of freedom 2 and the value p = 0.001. Low 92 72.76
Meanwhile the mean rank of the high group Total 132
was 40.40, the moderate group 51.10, and the
low group 74.36. This means that the degree of Table 11. Test Statistics of difficulty while
difficulty in understanding the basic concepts of finding bugs from my own program
programming between high, medium, and low Test Statisticsa,b
groups differ significantly. These results Answer
indicate that the low group has difficulty in Chi-Square 11.712
understanding the basic concepts of
df 2
programming.
Asymp. Sig. 0.003
From Table 7 it can be seen that the
average students tend to be neutral in the
From Table 10 and Table 11 it can be
difficulties they encounter when finding fault
seen that there are significant differences
with their own programs. This can be seen
regarding the difficulties students experience in
further in the following diagram
finding out the errors of their own programs
between high, medium, and low groups. The H
value of the test is 11.712 with the degrees of
86
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

freedom 2 and the value p = 0.003. Meanwhile boratory. This can be seen further in the follow-
the mean rank of the high group was 37.55, the ing diagram
moderate group 56.95, and the low group
72.76. This means that the degree of difficulty
in finding the fault of the program itself
between high, medium, and low groups differed
significantly. These results indicate that the low
group has difficulty finding the fault of their
own program.
From Table 7 it can be seen that there
are three types of interrelated difficulties when
studying programming: i) difficulty Figure 7. Practical in lab would help to learn
understanding basic concepts of programming programming
structure, ii) designing a program, and iii)
studying programming language syntax. These
From Figure 7 it appears that most stu-
three things are common for beginners when
dents agree that practice in the laboratory can
just learning programming. This is because
help them in learning the programming. Here
programming capabilities involve the ability to
are the results of testing the difference rates by
create algorithms, write in certain program
group.
languages, and understand the syntax of the
Table 13. Ranks of practical in lab
program's language (Rahmat, Shahrani, Latih,
Yatim, Zainal, & Rahman, 2012). Ranks
Table 12. Situations that would help to learn Performance N Mean Rank
programming High 10 62.30
Situations Mean Stdev Medium 30 61.77
Answer
Practical in lab 4,06 0,92 Low 92 68.50
Discussion with lecturers 3,91 0,96 Total 132
or friends
In small group exercise 3,68 0,98
Table 14. Test Statistics of practical in lab
sessions
In lectures 3,39 1,00 Test Statisticsa,b
While working alone on 3,06 1,00 Answer
programming coursework
Chi-Square 0.932
df 2
Table 12 is the student's opinion of sit-
uations that they think may help study pro- Asymp. Sig. 0.628
gramming. The scale used in each item in Table
From Table 13 and Table 14 it can be
12 is the Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 2,
seen that there is no significant difference in
disagree; 3, neutral; 4, agree; 5, strongly agree).
situations that may help them in learning pro-
From Table 12 it can be seen that the average
gramming is laboratory practice between high,
student agreed to a situation that can help them
medium, and low groups. The H value of the test
in learning programming is practice in the la-
is 0.932 with degrees of freedom 2 and p value
= 0.628. Meanwhile mean rank of high group
87
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

was 62,30, medium group 61,77, and low group

68,50. This means that practice in the laborato- Table 16. Test Statistics of working alone on
ry as a situation that can help learn the pro- programming coursework
gramming between high, medium, and low
Test Statisticsa,b
groups does not differ significantly.
Answer
From Table 12 it can be seen that the average
Chi-Square 0.176
student's neutral opinion for a situation that
can help them in learning programming is doing df 2
their own programming tasks. This can be seen Asymp. Sig. 0.916
further in the following diagram.
From Table 15 and Table 16 it can be
seen that there is no significant difference in
situations that can help them in learning pro-
gramming is doing their own programming
tasks between high, medium, and low groups.
The H value of the test is 0.176 with degrees of
freedom 2 and the value p = 0.916. Meanwhile
the mean rank of the high group was 68.20, the
group was 64.13, and the low group 67.09. This
means that working on your own programming
Figure 7. Working alone on programming task as a situation that can help learn the pro-
coursework would help to learn programming gramming between high, medium, and low
groups does not differ significantly.
From Figure 7 it appears that most stu- Most students agree that practical activ-
dents are neutral in their view that doing their ities in the laboratory can help them learn the
own programming tasks can help them in learn- basics of programming effectively and discuss
ing the programming. Here are the results of with lecturers or friends. This is similar to what
the differentiation levels based on the group. was revealed by Gomes and Mendes (2007) that
Table 15. Ranks of working alone on learning programming requires intensive prac-
programming coursework tice and practice. Activities in the laboratory
Ranks will certainly help students understand the dif-
Performance N Mean Rank ficulties they experience and arouse students'
Tinggi 10 68.20 interest in programming (Parham, 2003).
Table 17. Factors that lead to poor performance
Sedang 30 64.13
Answer in programming
Rendah 92 67.09
Factors Mean Stdev
Total 132
Less examples of practical 3,48 0,98
use are shown
Computers provided in labs 3,36 0,97
are not functioning well
Teaching methodology is 3,34 0,95
less effective
Students' lack of interest to 3,27 0,93
learn
88
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

Factors Mean Stdev Table 18. Rank of less examples of practical use
Syllabus focuses too much 3,20 0,99 are shown
on theory
Syllabus coverage per 3,14 0,99 Ranks
semester is too wid Performance N Mean Rank
Learning environment that 3,03 0,99 Tinggi 10 60.10
is not conducive Sedang 30 59.40
Answer
Rendah 92 69.51
Table 17 is the student's opinion of the
Total 132
factors that make them get poor performance
when learning programming. The scale used in
Table 19. Test Statistics of less examples of
each item in Table 4 is the Likert scale (1,
practical use are shown
strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, neutral; 4,
agree; 5, strongly agree). Test Statisticsa,b
From Table 17 it can be seen that the Answer
average student believes that the neutral factor Chi-Square 2.186
that makes poor performance in programming df 2
is the lack of examples that are displayed when Asymp. Sig. 0.335
practicing. This factor is at the top of the list.
This can be seen further in the following dia- From Table 18 and Table 19 it can be
gram seen that there is no significant difference in the
lack of examples shown when the practice
makes their performance poorly in program-
ming between high, medium, and low groups.
The H value of the test is 2.186 with the degrees
of freedom 2 and the value p = 0.335. Mean-
while the mean rank of the high group was
60.10, the moderate group was 59.40, and the
low group was 69.51. This means that the lack
of examples shown when the practice of making
Figure 8. Less examples of practical use are poor performance in programming between
shown lead to poor performance in high, medium, and low groups does not differ
programming significantly.
From Table 17 it can be seen that the
average student assumes neutral that the fac-
From Figure 8 it is seen that 49.2% of
tors that make poor performance in program-
students think neutrally against the lack of ex-
ming is less conducive learning atmosphere.
amples shown when practicing. But as many as
This factor is at the bottom of the list. This can
41.6% of students agree to the lack of examples
be seen further in the following diagram
shown when practicing. It may be said that this
indicates that the actual example given by the
lecturer when the practice is still lacking. Here
are the results of testing the difference rates by
group
89
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

groups. The H value of the test is 12.048 with

degrees of freedom 2 and the value p = 0.002.
Meanwhile the mean rank of the high group
was 29.50, the group was 68.50, and the low
group was 69.87. This means that the less con-
ducive learning atmosphere as a situation that
makes performance in programming poorly
between high, medium, and low group signifi-
cantly different. The interesting thing to be
Figure 9. Learning environment that is not found from Table 20 can be seen that significant
conducive lead to poor performance in differences occur in high clusters. The average
high group considers that the less conducive
programming
learning atmosphere makes bad kinreja in pro-
From Figure 9 seen as many as 53.0% of
gramming.
students thought neutral to the less conducive
From the discussion of factors that
learning atmosphere. It may be said that they
make poor performance in programming can be
are in doubt with the learning atmosphere they
said that students have difficulty programming
are experiencing whether making performance
because lecturers do not provide adequate ex-
in programming is bad or not. Here are the re-
amples for students or lack of examples provid-
sults of testing the difference rates by group.
ed, and computer equipment in the laboratory
Table 20. Ranks of learning environment that is
does not work well, and teaching methods used
not conducive
lecturers less effective. Teaching strategies and
Ranks techniques are important in order to convey
Performance N Mean Rank information to students. In order for students to
Tinggi 10 29.50 master basic problem-solving skills, the teach-
Sedang 30 68.50 ing methods used must be applicable and make
Answer
Rendah 92 69.87 students engage in practical activities (Ismail,
Total 132 Ngah, Umar, 2010).

Table 21. Test Statistics of learning CONCLUSION

environment that is not conducive
For beginners, computer programming is
Test Statisticsa,b
not an easy thing. It takes some important skills
Answer
to master programming such as creating a pro-
Chi-Square 12.048
gramming design, and writing it into a particu-
df 2 lar programming language. The difficulties that
Asymp. Sig. 0.002 students face in terms of understanding the
basic programming because they are not yet
From Table 20 and Table 21 it can be familiar with a particular programming lan-
seen that there is a significant difference re- guage. Plus three interrelated things that are
garding what makes their performance poor in programming structure, make design, and pro-
programming is a less conducive learning envi- gramming language syntax they have to master.
ronment between high, medium, and low
90
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

In addition, lecturers do not provide sufficient REFERENCES

examples for students, as well as computer
equipment in the laboratory is not working Derus, S. R. M., & Ali, A. Z. M. (2012). Difficulties
properly, and teaching methods used less effec- in learning programming: Views of stu-
tive lecturers make their performance poor in dents. In 1st International Conference on
learning programming. Current Issues in Education (ICCIE
Based on the results of data analysis, the 2012) (pp. 74-79).
conclusion is: (1) there are significant Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to
differences in multidimensional array material program-difficulties and solutions.
between high, average and low group; (2) there In International Conference on Engineer-
is a significant difference in input / ouput ing Education–ICEE (Vol. 2007).
command material between high, average and Groves, R. M., Fowler, Jr., F. J., Couper, M. P.,
low group; (3) there are significant differences Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., dan
about the difficulties experienced by students in Tourangean, R. (2009). Survey
understanding the basic concept of Methodology (second edition). Wiley &
programming between high, average and low Sons: New Jersey.
groups; (4) there is a significant difference Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010).
regarding the difficulties experienced by Instructional strategy in the teaching of
students in finding the fault of their own computer programming: a need assess-
programs between high, average and low ment analyses. TOJET: The Turkish Online
groups; (5) there is no significant difference in Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2).
situations that may assist students in Mhashi, M. M., & Alakeel, A. L. I. M. (2013). Diffi-
programming for lab work in the high, average culties facing students in learning com-
and low groups; (6) there is no significant puter programming skills at Tabuk Uni-
difference in situations that can assist students versity. In Proceedings of the 12th Inter-
in programming to do alone tasks between national Conference on Education and Ed-
high, average and low groups; (7) there is no ucational Technology (EDU’13), Iwate, Ja-
significant difference in the lack of examples pan (pp. 15-24).
shown when practice makes poor performance Milne, I., dan Rowe, G. (2002). Difficulties in
in programming between high, average and low Learning and Teaching Programming-
groups; (8) there is no significant difference in Views of Students and Tutors. Education
what makes poor performance in programming and Information Technologies, 7:1, 55–66.
a less conducive atmosphere between high, Mostrom, J. E. (2011). A Study of Students
average and low groups; Problems in Learning to Program. Umea:
To overcome the difficulties that students Department of Computing Science, Umea
encounter in learning programming, it takes a University, Sweden.
situation that they think can overcome it. Situa- Parham, J. R. (2003). An Assessment and
tions that can help them in mastering pro- evaluation of computer science education.
gramming, according to them are practical ac- Journal of Computing Sciences in College,
tivities in the laboratory and discussions with vol. 19, no. 2, 115 – 127.
lecturers or friends. Rahmat, M., Shahrani, S., Latih, R., Yatim, N. F.
M., Zainal, N. F. A., & Ab Rahman, R.

91
 A. Baist, A.S. Pamungkas / VOLT: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Teknik Elektro 2 (2) (2017) 81-92

(2012). Major problems in basic pro- courses: undergraduates' perspective and

gramming that influence student perfor- perception. In Computer Technology and
mance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Development, 2009. ICCTD'09. Interna-
Sciences, 59, 287-296. tional Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 42-46).
Tan, P. H., Ting, C. Y., & Ling, S. W. (2009). IEEE.
Learning difficulties in programming

92

View publication stats