Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The use of an online learning and teaching system for monitoring computer aided design student participation and predicting student success

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we report on the use of a purpose built Computer Support Collaborative learning environment designed to support lab-based CAD teaching through the monitoring of student participation and identified predictors of success. This was carried out by analysing data from the interactive learning system and correlating student behaviour with summative learning outcomes. A total of 331 undergraduate students, from eight independent groups at the University of Surrey took part in this study. The data collected included: time spent on task, class attendance; seating location; and group association. The application of ANOVA and Pearson correlation to quantized data demonstrated that certain student behaviours enhanced their learning performance. The results indicated that student achievement was positively correlated with attendance, social stability in terms of peer grouping, and time spent on task. A negative relationship was shown in student seating distance relative to the lecturer position. Linear regression was used in the final part of this study to explore the potential for embedding predictive analytics within the system to identify students at-risk of failure. The results were encouraging. They suggest that learning analytics can be used to predict student outcomes and can ensure that timely and appropriate teaching interventions can be incorporated by tutors to improve class performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akhtar, S. A., Warburton, S., & Xu, W. (2013). Development and preliminary evaluation of an Interactive system to support CAD teaching. In 2013 IEEE international symposium on multimedia (pp. 480–485). IEEE.

  • Antonio, A. L. (2004). The influence of friendship groups on intellectual self-confidence and educational aspirations in college. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 446–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 267–270).

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology. Key readings in social psychology (pp. 285–298). Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., & Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 2–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An issue brief. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/edm-la-brief.pdf

  • Bichsel, J. (2012). Analytics in higher education: Benefits, barriers, progress, and recommendations. Retrived from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1207/ers1207.pdf

  • Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An issue brief (pp. 1–57). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology, US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University. 20036-1183

  • Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Avebury: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K. S. (1993). Learning from video: Factors influencing learners’ preconceptions and invested mental effort. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., & Shum, C. (1997). Class attendance and student perfromance. Financial Practice & Education, 7(2), 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfield, G. T. (2013). The role of technology in a 21st century pedagogy. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Teesside. Retrived from http://hdl.handle.net/10149/301642

  • Dolton, P., Marcenaro, O. D., & Navarro, L. (2003). The effective use of student time: A stochastic frontier production function case study. Economics of Education Review, 22(6), 547–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosen, A. S., Sher, W., Gajendran, T., & Gu, N. (2012).Teaching cad: The challenges of online delivery to distance learning students. In Proceedings 37th AUBEA international conference (pp. 48–56).

  • Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurung, R. A. R., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. (2010). Focusing on how students study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. In Proceedings of the tenth americas conference on information systems, New York, August 2004.

  • Harmelen, M., & Workman, D. (2012). Analytics for learning and teaching. CETIS Analytics Series, 1(3), March 2013. Retrievd from http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2012/513

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., et al. (2010). Horizon report: 2010. New Media Consortium. Retrived from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2010-Horizon-Report.pdf

  • Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, D., & van Harmelen, M. (2012). Analytics for the whole institution; balancing strategy and tactics. CETIS Analytics Series, 1(2), 1067591–1067598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinarthy, E. L. (1975). The effect of seating position on performance and personality in a college classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 4A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, A., & McElroy, B. (2003). The effect of attendance on grade for first year economics students in University College Cork. The Economic and Social Review, 34(3), 311–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2008). The role of experience and innovation characteristics in the adoption and continued use of e-learning websites. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1405–1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacNeill, S. (2012). Analytics; what is changing and why does it matter? CETIS Analytics Series, 1(1), March 2013. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2012/513

  • Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, T., et al. (2002). Learning from watching others learn. In V. Steeples, C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 213–227). Springer.

  • Peberdy, D. (2014). Active learning spaces and technology: Advances in higher and further education, UK: Droitwich Net. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KpZ7oAEACAAJ

  • Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2005). The surprising impact of seat location on student performance. The Physics Teacher, 43, 30–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P., Baker, E. L., & McGaw, B. (2010). International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Elsevier: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1074-8121&volume=9&issue=6&articleid=1532747&show=html

  • Resta, P. E. (1995). Project CIRCLE: Student mentors as a strategy for training and supporting teachers in the use of computer-based tools for collaborative learning. In The first international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 280–282).

  • Rodgers, J. R. (2001). A panel-data study of the effect of student attendance on university performance. Australian Journal of Education, 45(3), 284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, D. (1993). Do students go to class? Should they? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 167–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, 40(6), 601–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, T. P., & Stahl, J. N. (2005). Wireless audience response system: Does it make a difference? Journal of Extension, 43(3). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/rb10p.shtml

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schell, J., Lukoff, B., & Mazur, E. (2013). Catalyzing learner engagement using cutting-edge classroom response systems in higher education. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 6, 233–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G., & d Baker, R. S. J. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 252–254).

  • Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., et al. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by a University of Surrey access grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology Enhanced Learning, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK

    S. Akhtar, S. Warburton & W. Xu

Authors
  1. S. Akhtar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Warburton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Warburton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akhtar, S., Warburton, S. & Xu, W. The use of an online learning and teaching system for monitoring computer aided design student participation and predicting student success. Int J Technol Des Educ 27, 251–270 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9346-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9346-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation