Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A computer design method of an effective educational trajectory in blended learning based on students’ assessment

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of students’ motivation to learn an ever-increasing amount of knowledge (especially in the field of information and communication technologies) is more relevant than ever. This problem can be solved on the basis of students’ active involvement in the educational process. This paper surveys modern approaches to motivate students to participate actively in the educational process. A method of involving students in the process of developing a scenario for taking blended learning courses in the university digital educational environment is proposed. The paper provides a detailed description of the method used to design the most preferred educational trajectory with the participation of students, teachers and the university administration. This method was tested by students in the Computer Systems and Networks master’s program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (Russia). The paper provides the methodology and the results of a student survey to assess the preference for various educational trajectory components (educational elements). These elements are ranked according to the criteria set by three sides of the educational process (students, teachers and the university experts). Thus, three possible educational trajectories are constructed according to each group’s preferences. The final educational trajectory is formed according to the ranking method and the Kemeny-Snell median method. A comparison of learning outcomes before and after introducing the design method of an educational trajectory confirms the effectiveness of the proposed method. The diagram of changes in the average grade in the discipline illustrates the positive results of the method’s usage.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. The results received for all elements are not given in the article for their large volume.

  2. mDSS is an original software developed by NRU HSE students (Figure 3) that realises the Kemeny-Snell median method (named MinDistanceMethod here).

References

  • Aleskerov, F., Bouyssou, D., & Monjardet, B. (2007). Utility maximization, choice and preference. 2nd edition. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Amodio, S., D’Ambrosio, A., & Siciliano, R. (2016). Accurate algorithms for identifying the median ranking when dealing with weak and partial ranking under the Kemeny axiomatic approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(2), 667–676.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Association of e-Learning specialists (2019). ElearningNC. http://www.elearningnc.gov. Accessed 29 April 2019.

  • Brint, S. (2017). Schools and societies (3rd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danilov, A. N., Kon, E., Lobov, N. V., Matushkin, N. N., Freyman, V. I., & Yuzhakov, A. A. (2014). Practice of independently established standards for higher education and programs development and application. Higher education in Russia, 6, 5–14 [In Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  • De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer-assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glebova, L. I. (2016). The use of active teaching methods in teachers’ practice Edinoe Informatsionnoe Prostranstvo Obshchego I Professionalnogo Obrazovaniya Rossii. http://www.informio.ru/publications/id243/Primenenie-aktivnyh-metodov-obuchenija-v-praktike-prepodavatelei. Accessed 29 April 2019. [In Russian].

  • Gómez-Rey, P., Fernández-Navarro, F., Barbera, E., & Carbonero-Ruz, M. (2018). Understanding student evaluations of teaching in online learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1272–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1451483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hains-Wesson, R. (2013). Peer and self-assessment. Deakin Learning Futures, Deakin University. http://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/53462/peer-and-self-assessment.pdf. Accessed 29 April 2019.

  • Herrington, T. A. K. (2010). Crossing global boundaries: Beyond intercultural communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(4), 516–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1333656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkka, J., Haatainen O., & Aksela, M. (2017). Integrating art into science education: A survey of science teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(10), 1403–1419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1333656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C. (2010). Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34(7), 1779–1787.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J. G., & Snell, J. L. (1962). Mathematical models in the social sciences. New York: Blaisdell.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J., & Snell, J. (1972). Cybernetic modeling. New York: Some Applications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kon, E. L., Freyman, V. I., & Yuzhakov, A. A. (2013). Practical approach to the formation of the competence model for a technical university graduate. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2(84), 52–58 [In Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglikov, V. N. (1998). Active learning in a technical college: Theory, technology, practice. St. Petersburg: VITU. [In Russian].

  • Kuzminov, Y. I., & Frumin, I. D. (2018). Twelve solutions for new education. Report, Center for Strategic Research and Higher school of Economics.

  • Larichev, O. I. (2002). Theory and methods decision-making, and also Chronicle events in the Magic Countries. 2nd revised edition. Moscow: Logos Publishing House [In Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobanov, A. A. (2015). Preference method as a decision support tool. Perspectives of science and education, 2(14), 36–43 [In Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  • Maimon, O., & Rokach, L. (2010). Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook. 2nd edition. Springer: Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09823-4_1.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, S. M., O’Brien, M., Roberts, K., & Whyte, D. (2018). Critical pedagogy and assessment in higher education: The ideal of ‘authenticity’ in learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghunath, R., Anker, C., & Nortcliffe, A. (2018). Are academics ready for smart learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 182–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, M. (2003). Auditors’ responsibility for fraud detection. Journal of Accountancy, 195(1), 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. R., Atkinson, K. U., Maier, H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M., & Trehan, K. (2000). Assessment: A critical perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070050193406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). Decision making for leaders: The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmenner, R. W. (2013). Teaching as theatre. Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 11(3), 213–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severino, M., & Newman, W. (2011). University lecturers’ perceptions of students evaluation of their instructional practices. The Anthropologist, 13(3), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2011.11891194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakirova, Z. K., & Akhmetshin, D. A. (2015). Smart systems in higher education: Modern scientific researches and innovations. http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2015/07/56409. Accessed 29 April 2019. [In Russian].

  • SMART Technologies (2019). https://education.smarttech.com. .

  • Smith, C. M., & Sodano, T. M. (2011). Integrating lecture capture as a teaching strategy to improve student presentation skills through self-assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411415082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorgenfrei, C., & Smolnik, S. (2016). The effectiveness of e-learning systems: A review of the empirical literature on learner control. Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 154–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, W. W., & Stanton, A. D. (2017). Traditional and online learning in executive education: How both will survive and thrive. Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 15(1), 8–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tikhomirova, N. V. (2019) Global smart society development strategy. MESI on the way to Smart University http://smartmesi.blogspot.ru/2012/03/smart-smart.html. Accessed 29 April 2019. [In Russian].

  • Toloie-Eshlaghy, A., Homayonfar, M., Aghaziarati, M., & Arbabium, P. (2011). A subjective weighting method based on group decision making for ranking and measuring criteria values. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 2034–2040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making: A comparative study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Applied Optimization Series, Vol. 44.

  • Ulger, U. (2017). Comparing the effects of art education and science education on creative thinking in high school students. Arts Education Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1334612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University Informational Learning Space (2019) https://lms.hse.ru. Accessed 29 April 2019.

  • Vishnekov, A. V., & Ivanova, E. M. (2016). Automation of trajectory choice in a smart education environment. Informatsionnye Technologii, 22(9), 684–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waha, B., & Davis, K. (2014). University students’ perspective on blended learning. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(2), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014.884677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weltman, D. (2007). A comparison of traditional and active learning methods: An empirical investigation utilizing a linear mixed model, PhD Thesis, The University of Texas, Arlington.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics, 34, Tallinskaya Street, Moscow, 123458, Russia

    E. M. Ivanova & A. V. Vishnekov

Authors
  1. E. M. Ivanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. V. Vishnekov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. M. Ivanova.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ivanova, E.M., Vishnekov, A.V. A computer design method of an effective educational trajectory in blended learning based on students’ assessment. Educ Inf Technol 25, 1439–1458 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10109-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10109-3

Keywords