Article Sidebar

Submitted
Mar 11, 2020
Accepted
Aug 13, 2020
Published
Aug 31, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1464 Download : 1135

Main Article Content

Abstract

E-Learning environment implies self-motivation and perseverance in study and completion of learning tasks. However, the more autonomy students have in managing their e-Learning, the harder they cope with distractions and remaining focused and engaged. This research study aims to assess the level of student engagement in four e-Learning platforms (CoLaB Tutor, AC-ware Tutor, CM Tutor and Moodle) in higher education. A model for Tracking Student Learning and Knowledge (TSLAK) is developed and based on two sets of variables: variables tracking student’s learning activities (VTL) and variables tracking student’s knowledge (VTK). This study aims to provide answers on how a model for tracking student online learning and knowledge can be formalized for the four e-Learning platforms and how can student learning and knowledge acquisition processes be described and measured by VTL and VTK. The results obtained by VTL and VTK indicate a significant decline in students’ engagement. Out of 218 the most engaged students, 77 (35%) of them used the CoLaB Tutor, 41 (19%) used the AC-ware Tutor, 52 (24%) used the CM Tutor, and 48 (22%) used the Moodle. The research showed that out of the total number of students only 88 (13%) of them were the most engaged and the most successful or more precisely, 63 (71%) graduates and 25 (29%) undergraduates. Such student engagement and success measured by VTL and VTK indicate the necessity of increasing students’ motivation in blended learning environments, strengthening their preparation and introduction to e-Learning platforms, and observing their feedback during a research study.

Keywords

Distributed Learning Environments Evaluation of CAL Systems Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

How to Cite
Grubišić, A., Žitko, B., Stankov, S., Šarić-Grgić, I., Gašpar, A., Tomaš, S., Brajković, E., Volarić, T., Vasić, D., & Dodaj, A. (2020). A common model for tracking student learning and knowledge acquisition in different e-Learning platforms. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(3), 10-23. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135235

References

  1. Abdous, M., He, W., & Yen, C.-J. (2012). Using Data Mining for Predicting Relationships between Online Question Theme and Final Grade. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 77–88.
  2. Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, S., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuiness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & et al. (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/
  3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals, Handbook I Cognitive Domain. Committee of College and University Examiners, Longmans.
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
  5. Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
  6. Dietz-Uhler, B., & Hurn, J. (2013). Using learning analytics to predict (and improve) student success: A faculty perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 17–26.
  7. Falakmasir, M., & Habibi, J. (2010). Using Educational Data Mining Methods to Study the Impact of Virtual Classroom in E-Learning. 241–248. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221570520_Using_Educational_Data_Mining_Methods_to_Study_the_Impact_of_Virtual_Classroom_in_E-Learning
  8. Fletcher, J. D. (2003). Evidence for Learning From Technology-Assisted Instruction. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & R. Perez (Eds.) Technology Applications in Education: A Learning View (pp. 79–100). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://www.questia.com/read/104944485/technology-applications-in-education-a-learning
  9. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
  10. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090604
  11. Grubišić, A. (2012). Adaptive student’s knowledge acquisition model in e-learning systems, PhD Thesis, University of Zagreb, Croatia.
  12. Grubišić, A., Stankov, S., & Žitko, B. (2013). Stereotype Student Model for an Adaptive e-Learning System. International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 7(4), 440–447.
  13. Grubišić, A., Stankov, S., & Žitko, B. (2014, January 1). Adaptive courseware model for intelligent e- learning systems. 2nd International Conference on Computing, E- Learning and Emerging Technologies (ICCEET 2014). http://bib.irb.hr/prikazi-rad?rad=747437
  14. Grubišić, A., Stankov, S., Žitko, B., Tomaš, S., Brajković, E., Volarić, T., Vasić, D., & Šarić, I. (2016). Empirical Evaluation of Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Ontological Domain Knowledge Representation: A Case Study with Online Courses in Higher Education. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2016, 469–470. http://beta.bib.irb.hr/828155
  15. Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (Eds.). (2008). Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations (1 edition). Routledge.
  16. Huang, S., & Fang, N. (2013). Predicting student academic performance in an engineering dynamics course: A comparison of four types of predictive mathematical models. Computers & Education, 61, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.015
  17. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making (Vol. 186). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
  18. Kats, Y. (2010). Learning Management System Technologies and Software Solutions for Online Teaching: Tools and Applications. Information Science Reference - Imprint of: IGI Publishing.
  19. Kearsley, G. (Ed.). (1987). Artificial Intelligence and Instruction: Applications and Methods (F edition). Addison-Wesley.
  20. Knublauch, H., Fergerson, R. W., Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (2004). The Protégé OWL Plugin: An Open Development Environment for Semantic Web Applications. The Semantic Web – ISWC 2004, 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30475-3_17
  21. Kotsiantis, S., Tselios, N., Filippidi, A., & Wade, V. (2013). Using Learning Analytics to Identify Successful Learners in a Blended Learning Course. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., 5(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJ℡.2013.059088
  22. Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
  23. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know about Student Engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
  24. Lin, C. C., & Chiu, C. H. (2013). Correlation between Course Tracking Variables and Academic Performance in Blended Online Courses. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2013.57
  25. Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C.-J. (2009). Community College Online Course Retention and Final Grade: Predictability of Social Presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165–182.
  26. Lykourentzou, I., Giannoukos, I., Mpardis, G., Nikolopoulos, V., & Loumos, V. (2009). Early and dynamic student achievement prediction in e-learning courses using neural networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20970
  27. Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008
  28. Minaei-Bidgoli, B., Kashy, D. A., Kortemeyer, G., & Punch, W. F. (2003). Predicting student performance: An application of data mining methods with an educational web-based system. Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003 33rd Annual, 1, T2A–13. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1263284
  29. Moridis, C., & Economides, A. A. (2009). Prediction of student’s mood during an online test using formula-based and neural network-based method. Computers & Education, 53(3), 644–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.002
  30. Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S.-S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009
  31. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The Origins of the Concept Mapping Tool and the Continuing Evolution of the Tool. Information Visualization, 5(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500126
  32. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
  33. Pardos, Z.A., Baker, R. S., Pedro, M. S., Gowda, S. M., & Gowda, S. M. (2014). Affective States and State Tests: Investigating How Affect and Engagement during the School Year Predict End-of-Year Learning Outcomes. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(1), 107–128.
  34. Pardos, Zachary A., & Heffernan, N. T. (2010). Modeling Individualization in a Bayesian Networks Implementation of Knowledge Tracing. In P. De Bra, A. Kobsa, & D. Chin (Eds.), User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (pp. 255–266). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  35. Psotka, J., Massey, L. D., & Mutter, S. A. (Eds.). (1988). Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lessons Learned. Psychology Press.
  36. Romero, C., Ventura, S., Espejo, P. G., & Hervás, C. (2012). Data Mining Algorithms to Classify Students. EDM 2008. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233782315_Data_Mining_Algorithms_to_Classify_Students
  37. Romero-Zaldivar, V.-A., Pardo, A., Burgos, D., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2012). Monitoring student progress using virtual appliances: A case study. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1058–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.003
  38. Rosic, M., Glavinic, V., & Stankov, S. (2005). Intelligent Tutoring Systems for the New Learning Infrastructure. In Intelligent Learning Infrastructure for Knowledge Intensive Organizations: A Semantic Web Perspective Lytras, M. D. ; Naeve, A. (ed.) (pp. 225–250). Hershey: Idea Group Inc./InfoSci, Information Science Publishing. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/intelligent-tutoring-systems-new-learning/24417
  39. Shih, B., Koedinger, K. R., & Scheines, R. (2010). A Response-Time Model for Bottom-Out Hints as Worked Examples. In Handbook of Educational Data Mining (Vol. 1–0, pp. 201–211). CRC Press. http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/b10274-17
  40. Smith, V. C., Lange, A., & Huston, D. R. (2012). Predictive Modeling to Forecast Student Outcomes and Drive Effective Interventions in Online Community College Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3), 51–61.
  41. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 Blended Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535180
  42. Tadić, M., & Fulgosi, S. (2003). Building the Croatian Morphological Lexicon. Proceedings of the 2003 EACL Workshop on Morphological Processing of Slavic Languages, 41–46. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1613200.1613206
  43. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/studentengagementliteraturereview_1.pdf
  44. Volarić, T. (2017). Knowledge design and delivery model for intelligent learning management systems, PhD Thesis, University of Split, Croatia.
  45. Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2000). Characteristics of Students Who Enroll and Succeed in Psychology Web-based Classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 137–143.
  46. Žitko, B. (2010). Model of Intelligent Tutoring System Based on Processing of Controlled Language over Ontology, PhD Thesis, University of Zagreb, Croatia.