**4. Impact of using innovative methods**

### **4.1 Comparison of practical grades**

In the above chapters, I have presented the changes made in Algorithms and Data Structures I and II and the positive feedback of the students, but I think it is more important that the positive impact of the changes is reflected in the student's grades, so I have researched this as well.

In my research, I compared the results of my experimental groups with the results of groups whose courses did not include the innovative elements I introduced. Completing the course is a two-step process, students must first obtain a practical grade and then take an exam. Although the primary objective of the course I taught was to obtain a practical grade, I made a comparison of the results of both grades.

For the practical grade, I used my previous groups as a control group, whose students attended the course in a traditional way. During the semester, students are required to write two tests. The tests of the "Test" groups consisted of five tasks, for which they were supposed to be given 1.5 hours, but I allowed an extension of time for those who requested. The "Innovative" groups consisted of 6 tasks per test, also given 1.5 hours, but the extension of time was not automatic, but conditional. (Students can get "opportunities" during the lessons, which can also be used to


*Innovative Methods in Computer Science Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109708*

> **Table 1.**

*Comparison of practical grades.*

extend time.) Five tasks of the test were similar to the "Test" group, and task 6 was to write an algorithm using a learned technique. (The students found this task the most difficult.) It can therefore be said that the "Innovative" groups had to solve a more difficult test in the same amount of time compared to the "Test" groups. **Table 1** shows the results of my "Test" and "Innovative" groups. My "Innovative" group scored 8.464 (39 and 31.306) better on average on the mid-term test and 12.125 (42.355 and 30.23) better on the end-term test, for a total of 23.29 (87.6075 and 64.316) more points for the semester, for an average grade improvement of 1.55 (3.75 and 2.2). The changes in the standard deviation values of my "Innovative" groups (2.013 lower than the mid-term paper, 1.3 higher than the end-term paper, 0.4 lower for the total score, and 0.07 lower for the marks) indicate, that the students performed more consistently. The mode of grades of the "Innovative" groups varied between 3 and 5 (average 3.75), while this value of the "Test" groups ranged between 1 and 3 (average 2.2). In the "Innovative" groups, the median of the grade also ranged between 3 and 5 (average 3.75), while in the "Test" groups this value ranged between 2 and 3 (average 2.6).

The results also show that the students took advantage of the opportunities to get extra points, so they invested more work in the course during the semester.
