Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 177–187 | Cite as

Impact of Adding Internet Technology on Student Performance and Perception of Autonomy in Fundamentals of Electronics Course

  • Carlos Andrés Rosero-Zambrano
  • Alba AvilaEmail author
  • Luz Adriana Osorio
  • Sandra Aguirre


The coupling of the traditional classroom instruction and a virtual learning environment (VLE) in an engineering course is critical to stimulating the learning process and to encouraging students to develop competencies outside of the classroom. This can be achieved through planned activities and the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), resources designed to complement students’ autonomous learning needs. A quantitative analysis of students’ academic performance using final course grades was performed for a fundamentals of electronics course and we examine students’ perception of their autonomy using surveys. The students’ progress and attitudes were monitored over four consecutive semesters. The first began with the design of the intervention and the following three consisted in the implementation. The strategy was focused on the development of course competencies through autonomous learning with ICT tools presented in the VLE. Findings indicate that the students who did the activities in the VLE showed an increase in performance scores in comparison with students who did not do them. The strategy used in this study, which enhanced perceived autonomy, was associated with a positive effect on their learning process. This research shows that a technology-enhanced course supported by ICT activities can both improve academic performance and foster autonomy in students.


Computer-based instruction Student performance 



We gratefully acknowledge the support from Conecta-TE and the Vicerrectoria de Investigaciones, Universidad de Los Andes.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66. Scholar
  2. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. (2012). Engineering Accreditation Commission - ABET. Accessed 19 Aug 2015.
  3. Green, K. R., Pinder-Grover, T., & Millunchick, J. M. (2012). Impact of screencast technology: connecting the perception of usefulness and the reality of performance. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 717–737. Scholar
  4. Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2009). A model for curricular revision: the case of engineering. Innovative Higher Education, 34(1), 51–63. Scholar
  5. Leese, M. (2009). Out of class-out of mind? The use of a virtual learning environment to encourage student engagement in out of class activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 70–77. Scholar
  6. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2004). An activity-theoretical approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools: orienting activities and learner autonomy. Computers & Education, 43(3), 215–236. Scholar
  7. Moskal, B. M., Leydens, J. A., & Pavelich, M. J. (2002). Validity, reliability and the assessment of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 351–354. Scholar
  8. Passow, H. J. (2012). Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work? Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 95–118. Scholar
  9. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rajala, S. A. (2012). Beyond 2020: preparing engineers for the future. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol 100 (special centennial issue), 1376–1383.
  11. Rutz, E., Eckart, R., Wade, J. E., Maltbie, C., Rafter, C., & Elkins, V. (2003). Student performance and acceptance of instructional technology: comparing technology-enhanced and traditional instruction for a course in statics. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(2), 133–140. Scholar
  12. Sampson, D., & Karagiannidis, C. (2010). Personalised learning: educational, technological and standardisation perspective. 4(1):24–39.Google Scholar
  13. Snodin, N. (2013). The effects of blended learning with a CMS on the development of autonomous learning: a case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual. Computers & Education, 61(1), 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110. Scholar
  15. Wallace, D., & Mutooni, P. (1997). A comparative evaluation of World Wide Web based and classroom teaching. Journal of Engineering Education, 6(3), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Center for Innovation in Education and Technology (Conecta-TE)Universidad de los AndesBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations