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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cennamo, K. S. (1993). Learning from video: Factors influencing learners’ preconceptions and invested mental effort. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 33–45.
Chan, K. C., & Shum, C. (1997). Class attendance and student perfromance. Financial Practice & Education, 7(2), 58–65.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kay, D., & van Harmelen, M. (2012). Analytics for the whole institution; balancing strategy and tactics. CETIS Analytics Series, 1(2), 1067591–1067598.
Kinarthy, E. L. (1975). The effect of seating position on performance and personality in a college classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 4A.
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.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
Peterson, P., Baker, E. L., & McGaw, B. (2010). International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Elsevier: Elsevier.
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.
Romer, D. (1993). Do students go to class? Should they? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 167–174.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39.
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.
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.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by a University of Surrey access grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9346-8