DOI : https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.14.4.19976

Quantitative Analysis of Online Courses for Learning the JavaScript Programming Language

Sergii Sharov (1), Supriya Chakraborty (2), Anatolii Zemlianskyi (3), Vira Kolmakova (4), Tetiana Prosiankina-Zharova (5)
(1) Department of Computer Sciences, Dmytro Motornyi Tavria State Agrotechnological University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
(2) Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Brainware University Kolkata, Kolkata, India
(3) Department of Computer Sciences, Dmytro Motornyi Tavria State Agrotechnological University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
(4) Department of Computer Science, Information and Communication Technologies, Pavlo Tychyna Uman State Pedagogical University, Uman, Ukraine
(5) Institute of Telecommunications and Global Information Space, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine
Fulltext View | Download
How to cite (IJASEIT) :
Sharov, Sergii, et al. “Quantitative Analysis of Online Courses for Learning the JavaScript Programming Language”. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 14, no. 4, Aug. 2024, pp. 1216-25, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.14.4.19976.
Citation Format :
Today, the JavaScript programming language ranks first both in the world well-known programming rankings and those in Ukraine in particular. The purpose of the research is quantitative analysis of online courses on learning JavaScript on well-known MOOC platforms. In order to achieve the purpose of our research, we used theoretical and quantitative (descriptive) methods. Also, we analyzed such well-known online platforms as Alison, Codecademy, Udemy, edX, Coursera as of December 2023. The number of online courses on each platform, their cost, an approximate user level, video length, etc. was used as criteria for the analysis. The analyzed MOOC was found to offer 1,795 online courses on learning the JavaScript programming language. Among them, 1,077 courses (60%) are paid, 201 courses (11%) can be taken for free, and 517 courses (29%) require optional payment. Most of the online JavaScript courses (788 courses, 44%) are developed for the Beginner level. Only 37 courses are available for experienced JavaScript programmers, which is 2% of the total number of online JavaScript courses. It was found that Codecademy and Udemy online platforms offer their users additional opportunities to learn JavaScript: programming projects (67 online courses); coding exercises (99 online courses); Practice test (55 online courses). The obtained results made it possible to formulate some proposals for choosing the optimal MOOC which helps to learn JavaScript, considering several selection criteria.

V. Voronkova, V. Nikitenko, R. Oleksenko, R. Andriukaitiene, J. Kharchenko, and E. Kliuienko, “Digital Technology Evolution of the Industrial Revolution From 4G to 5G in the Context of the Challenges of Digital Globalization,” TEM Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 732–742, May 2023, doi: 10.18421/TEM122-17.

B. S. Rêgo, D. Lourenço, F. Moreira, and C. S. Pereira, “Digital transformation, skills and education: A systematic literature review,” Industry and Higher Education, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi:10.1177/09504222231208969.

A. Androniceanu and I. Georgescu, “Digital competences and human development: a canonical correlation analysis in Romania,” Polish Journal of Management Studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 43–61, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.17512/pjms.2023.28.1.03.

J. Skalka et al., “Conceptual framework for programming skills development based on microlearning and automated source code evaluation in virtual learning environment,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1–30, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13063293.

K. T. Mon, K. H. Wai, N. Funabiki, and H. H. S. Kyaw, “Value Trace Problems for Code Reading Study of JavaScript Programming,” International Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 430–435, May 2022, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.5.1637.

S. I. Malik, R. Mathew, A. Al-Sideiri, J. Jabbar, R. Al-Nuaimi, and R. M. Tawafak, “Enhancing problem-solving skills of novice programmers in an introductory programming course,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 174–194, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1002/cae.22450.

S. I. Malik, M. Al-Emran, R. Mathew, R. M. Tawafak, and G. AlFarsi, “Comparison of E-learning, M-learning and game-based learning in programming education,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 15, no. 15, pp. 133–146, 2020, doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i15.14503.

H. Hiranishi, Y. Imai, A. Ohno, P. Podržaj, and T. Hattori, “Application of Web-based Visual Compiler to Computer Education,” IEEJ Transactions on Electronics, Information and Systems, vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 389–394, 2022, doi: 10.1541/ieejeiss.142.389.

Q. Batiha, N. Sahari, N. Aini, and N. Mohd, “Adoption of Visual Programming Environments in Programming Learning,” Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1921–1930, 2022, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.12.5.15500.

R. Hosseini et al., “Improving Engagement in Program Construction Examples for Learning Python Programming,” Int J Artif Intell Educ, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 299–336, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40593-020-00197-0.

R. Maskeliūnas, A. Kulikajevas, T. Blažauskas, R. Damaševičius, and J. Swacha, “An interactive serious mobile game for supporting the learning of programming in javascript in the context of eco-friendly city management,” Computers, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1–18, 2020, doi:10.3390/computers9040102.

Y. Zhao, L. Guo, H. Liu, and W. Zheng, “Design of programming experiment course platform based on MOOCs,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 208–216, 2019, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v14i10.10330.

W. Chansanam, K. Poonpon, T. Manaku, and U. Detthamrong, “Success and Challenges in MOOCs: A Literature Systematic Review Technique,” TEM Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1728–1732, 2021, doi:10.18421/TEM104-32.

L. Cilliers, H. Twinomurinzi, and O. Murire, “Motivational Factors that Influence the Course Completion Rate of Massive Open Online Courses in South Africa,” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 212–225, 2023, doi:10.26803/ijlter.22.6.12.

M. Rõõm, P. Luik, and M. Lepp, “Learner success and the factors influencing it in computer programming MOOC,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 8645–8663, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11535-1.

A. Babori, “Analysis of Discussion Forums of a Programming MOOC,” TEM Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1442–1446, 2021, doi:10.18421/TEM103-56.

L. Feklistova, M. Lepp, and P. Luik, “Learners’ performance in a mooc on programming,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 11, no. 9, 2021, doi:10.3390/educsci11090521.

M. Säde, R. Suviste, and P. Luik, “Measuring the post-impact of programming MOOCs: Development and validation of an instrument,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 11, no. 12, Dec. 2021, doi:10.3390/educsci11120811.

C. C. Aguirre, N. González-Castro, C. D. Kloos, C. Alario-Hoyos, and P. J. Muñoz-Merino, “Conversational agent for supporting learners on a mooc on programming with java,” Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1271–1286, 2021, doi:10.2298/CSIS200731020C.

E. Kaila and K. Lemström, “To Schedule or Not to Schedule: The Effects of Course Structure on Programming MOOC Performance,” Informatics in Education, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 635–650, 2023, doi:10.15388/infedu.2023.27.

N. González-Castro, P. J. Muñoz-Merino, C. Alario-Hoyos, and C. D. Kloos, “Adaptive learning module for a conversational agent to support MOOC learners,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 24–44, 2021, doi: 10.14742/AJET.6646.

S. A. Abdulkareem and A. J. Abboud, “Evaluating Python, C++, JavaScript and Java Programming Languages Based on Software Complexity Calculator (Halstead Metrics),” IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, vol. 1076, no. 1, p. 012046, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/1076/1/012046.

S. Proskura, S. Lytvynova, and O. Kronda, “The use of WEB-oriented Technologies in the Process of WEB-programming Teaching for Technical Universities Students,” in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS, 2022, pp. 129–140. doi: 10.31812/educdim.4724.

S. Sharov, S. Tereshchuk, A. Tereshchuk, V. Kolmakova, and N. Yankova, “Using MOOC to Learn the Python Programming Language,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 17–32, 2023, doi:10.3991/ijet.v18i02.36431.

A. Çetinkaya and Ö. K. Baykan, “Prediction of middle school students’ programming talent using artificial neural networks,” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1301–1307, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jestch.2020.07.005.

H. N. Go, S. W. Kim, and Y. Lee, “Design and Implementation of a Programming Automatic Assessment System in Jupyter Notebook,” Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1080–1086, 2023, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.13.3.18457.

N. R. Ravari, R. Latih, and A. M. Zin, “Multi-Language Program Understanding Tool,” Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1554–1560, 2023, doi: 10.18517/ijaseit.13.4.18019.

A. Birillo et al., “Detecting Code Quality Issues in Pre-written Templates of Programming Tasks in Online Courses,” in Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, 2023, pp. 152–158. doi:10.1145/3587102.3588800.

K. Litherland and A. Kluge, “Learning to program as empirical inquiry: using a conversation perspective to explore student programming processes,” Computer Science Education, 2023, doi:10.1080/08993408.2023.2290410.

Z. Kanetaki, C. Stergiou, G. Bekas, C. Troussas, and C. Sgouropoulou, “Analysis of Engineering Student Data in Online Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 27–49, 2021, doi:10.3991/ijep.v11i6.23259.

R. Daskalov, G. Pashev, and S. Gaftandzhieva, “Hybrid Visual Programming Language Environment for Programming Training,” TEM Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 981–986, 2021, doi:10.18421/TEM102-63.

S. Sharov, M. Vorovka, T. Sharova, and A. Zemlianska, “The impact of social networks on the development of students’ social competence,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 84–98, 2021, doi: 10.3991/IJEP.V11I3.20491.

A. Deacon, S. Walji, J. Jawitz, J. Small, and T. Jaffer, “Seizing opportunities: MOOC takers making time for change,” Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, vol. 7, no. Special Issue, pp. 20–37, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.14426/cristal.v7iSI.203.

S. White, S. White, and K. Borthwick, “MOOCs, learning designers and the unbundling of educator roles in higher education,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 71–84, 2020, doi: 10.14742/ajet.6111.

C. T. Swai, Q. Liu, and L. Wu, “Teachers’ professional growth on SCT strategies: Mwalimu hub MOOC analytics,” Interactive Learning Environments, pp. 1–15, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2174141.

D. Jaramillo-Morillo, M. Solarte, and G. Ramírez-González, “Extraction of Student Interaction Data from an Open edX Platform,” Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín, vol. 20, no. 38, pp. 87–98, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.22395/rium.v20n38a5.

S. Sharov, V. Kolmakova, T. Sharova, and A. Pavlenko, “Analysis of MOOC on Programming for IT Specialist Training,” TEM Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1884–1894, 2021, doi: 10.18421/TEM104-52.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).