A Comparative Study on the Influence between Interaction and Performance in Postgraduate In-Class and Distance Learning Courses Based on the Analysis of LMS Logs

  • Félix Pascual-Miguel
  • Julián Chaparro-Peláez
  • Ángel Hernández-García
  • Santiago Iglesias-Pradas
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 73)

Abstract

Learning Management Systems’ use has been rapidly increasing during the last ten years, mainly in online distance learning courses but also in in-class courses. In parallel, technological advances have made it possible to track and store all the activity taking place in the LMS, and therefore to register the participation and interaction of students. This paper addresses two key questions: a) Is student interaction in the LMS an indicator of the final academic performance in a course?; and b) Is this interaction carried out in a different way in distance and in-class education, with different final results?. In order to answer this question, different types of interaction have been classified and extracted from Moodle LMS activity record logs during two years in one master program with online distance learning and in-class learning modalities at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. The results show partial or no evidence of influence between interaction indicators and academic performance. The last section of this study covers a discussion of results and implications.

Keywords

e-learning interaction student performance LMS activity logs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gal-Ezer, J., Lupo, D.: Integrating internet tools into traditional CS distance education: students’ attitudes. Computers & Education 38, 319–329 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Nokelainen, P., Tirri, H.: The Role of the Learning Platform in Student-Centered E-Learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2004), August 30 - September 01, pp. 540–544. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams, J.B., Goldberg, M.: The evolution of e-learning. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ASCILITE Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dimai, B., Ebner, M.: Community without a vision won’t work. In: 1st Global Conference, Interactive Convergence: Research in Multimedia (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dowming, Y., Chun-Hsiung, L., Pei-Chen, S.: The analysis of learning records and learning effect in blended e-Learning. Journal of Information Science and Engineering 21, 973–984 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kickul, J., Kickul, G.: New pathways in e-learning: the role of student proactivity and technology utilization. In: Midwest Academy of Management Proceedings (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramos, C., Yudko, E.: Hits (not “Discussion Posts”) predict student success in online courses: A double cross-validation study. Computers & Education 50, 1174–1182 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moreira, P., Teixeira, V., Valente, H., et al.: E-learning in human nutrition: a pilot study. In: EUNIS 2005 Proceedings (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arbaugh, J.B., Benbunam-Fich, R.: The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decision Support Systems 43, 853–865 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Black, E.W., Dawson, K., Priem, J.: Data for free: Using LMS activity logs to measure community in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education (2008), doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris, L.V., Finnegan, C., Wu, S.S.: Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. Internet and Higher Education 8, 221–231 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G.: OnLine, Web Based Learning Environment for an Information Systems course: Access logs, Linearity and Performance. In: ISECON 1997, Orlando, Florida, pp. 92–99 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dawson, S., McWilliam, E.: Investigating the application of IT generated data as an indicator of learning and teaching performance. A report produced for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Queensland University of Technology and the University of British Columbia (October 2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beer, C., Jones, D., Clark, K.: The indicators project indentifying effective learning: Adoption, activity, grades and external factors. In: Proceedings of ascilite Auckland (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nagi, K., Suesawaluk, P.: Research analysis of Moodle reports to gauge the level of interactivity in eLearning courses at Assumption University, Thailand. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering 2008, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 13-15, pp. 772–776 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alberca, G.P., Loja, F.J., Agila, M.V., Valdiviezo, P.M., Jiménez, J.C.: Recolección de datos de interacción de alumnos en una plataforma E-learning para obtener indicadores de interés de su actividad aplicando técnicas de aprendizaje automáticoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tseng, S.C., Tsai, C.C.: On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education 49, 1161–1174 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fritsch, H.: Host contacted, waiting for reply. In: Final report and documentation of the virtual seminar for professional development in distance education, pp. 355–378. Bibliotecks und Informations- systems der Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg (1997) (Virtual seminar held January–March)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beaudoin, M.F.: Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online student. Internet and Higher Education 5, 147–155 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tallent-Runnels, M.K., et al.: Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research 76(1), 93–135 (Spring 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Connolly, T.M., Macarthur, E., Stansfield, M., Mclellan, E.: A quasi-experimental study of three online learning courses in computing. Computers & Education 49, 345–359 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roblyer, M.D., Freeman, J., Donaldson, M.B., Maddox, M.: A comparison of outcomes of virtual school courses offered in synchronous and asynchronous formats. Internet and Higher Education 10, 261–268 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spooner, F., Jordan, L., Algozzine, B., Spooner, M.: Student Ratings of Instruction in Distance Learning and On-Campus Classes. The Journal of Educational Research 92 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sapp, D.A., Simon, J.: Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses: Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition 22, 471–489 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garson, G.D.: Regression Analysis, en Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis (online), http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm (retrieved: April 20, 2008)
  26. 26.
    Moodle.org: Modules and plug-ins. Block: Course dedication block, http://moodle.org/mod/data/view.php?d=13&rid=1876 (retrieved: January 18, 2010)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Félix Pascual-Miguel
    • 1
  • Julián Chaparro-Peláez
    • 1
  • Ángel Hernández-García
    • 1
  • Santiago Iglesias-Pradas
    • 1
  1. 1.Grupo de Tecnologías de la Información para la Gestión Empresarial, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de TelecomunicaciónMadrid

Personalised recommendations