## 5 Discussion and Conclusions  
Based on the verification of the established hypotheses on the sample of more than 300 students in total, it can be specified that the use of additional interactive concepts in introductory programming courses brings the following benefits:  
**Hypothesis 1 (H1)**. : _The use of LMS objects for the automatic evaluation of source codes improves students' results in the area of introduction to programming._  
The hypothesis was not rejected. The use of automatic evaluation of programs in the introductory chapters of programming courses brought significant differences in student outcomes. These introductory chapters cover essential topics as input/output, variables, data types, nested loops, arrays, exceptions, files, etc. and they are often the reason for students' loss of interest in programming because of a misunderstanding of its principles, problems with memorisation, or loss of the motivation [37; 38]. Successful completion of this part of the introductory course is usually a prerequisite for mastering the second part of the course of the programming course, which is oriented to object-oriented programming. It is often (but not always) the case that students who fail the introductory part do not continue their studies. These students repeat the course a year or more often. The finding that the use of VPL is significant brings these students an increased chance of successful completion of the course. The result is in accordance with the results presented in [21; 23; 39]. At the same time, it should be noted that applying automated assessment is not a solution itself. The quality of the automated assessment is also essential. **Hypothesis 2 (H2)**. : _The use of LMS objects for the automatic evaluation of source codes improves students' results in object-oriented programming._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Test 1—VPL1** & **Test2—VPL2** & **Sum of Tests—Microlearning** \\ \hline
2018 & 0.512 & 0.721 & - \\
2019 & 0.563 & 0.683 & 0.577 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Pearson correlation coefficient between the test results and interactive student activities results. Figure 10: The interactive activities in courses 2018 and 2019 during the weeks of the semester: (**a**) automated source code evaluation activities; (**b**) microlearning activities. The hypothesis cannot be accepted, and the use of automated assessment object in the advanced chapters of introductory programming course does not lead to the significant differences in student's outcomes. The reason for this statement is mainly the fact that this part of the introductory programming course is completed by students who have completed the first part successfully after the most significant dropout occurs. Students who have completed the first part of the course probably have enough motivation to master programming. Their skills have shifted to a matching level to understand the concepts and principles of programming and, in essence, the concept of object-oriented programming. The groups of students in both monitored years have stabilised at approximately the same level of knowledge. As a result, they do not differ significantly between the years. **Hypothesis 3 (H3). **_The use of microlearning principles improves students' results in the area of introduction to programming._  
The hypothesis cannot be accepted. The use of microlearning activities in the introductory chapters of programming courses does not imply significant differences in student outcomes. Although microlearning in its modern form represents a new approach in university education and can produce better results than traditional methods in various areas, it did not ensure a significant change in the level of knowledge of the experimental group of students [40; 41].