5. Learning & Computers: A case study of engineering students’ use of computers

Learning & Computers: A case study of engineering students’ use of computers

Radha M. Parikh, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information & Communication Technology

Gandhinagar, India

radha_parikh@daiict.ac.in

Abstract

This paper reports the findings of a pilot study of a group of private engineering university students who were surveyed by administering a questionnaire. The main purpose of the research was to understand student behaviors for enhancing the quality of student motivation and academic performance. The questions were developed for responses concerned with: i) student behaviors related to computer and internet use; ii) students’ academic performance, their class attendance and their interactions with faculty; iii) student demographics, including parents’ education and their occupation to examine correlations, if any. The findings indicate a strong correlation between engineering students’ academic performance and their use of internet for entertainment, in the context of an Indian college setting.

Key words: India, computers, students, behaviors, internet, faculty

Introduction

There are some interesting quotes related to teaching: ‘Inertia is an insidiously powerful negative force in teaching – the urge to keep doing things the way we’ve done them for years’ (Weimer, 2002). ‘For the correct analogy for the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting’ (Kidd, 1992).

All over the world a topic of concern among educators is the low motivation, absenteeism, poor academic performance and attrition rate of students in higher education programs. At any given time at least one-third of the students are absent from their class rooms – anywhere between 20 to 40 per cent (Wyatt, 1992). On the other hand, positive student-teacher relationships that are mutually respectful and supportive appear to result in improved attendance and academic performance (Pendergast & Bahr, 2006). In the current educational scenario, excessive use of computers is another related factor that weakens students’ academic performance. The availability of free high-speed internet facility to most university students has been attributed to result in addictive behaviors by some (Yellowlees & Marks, 2007).

The present pilot study of student behaviors was aimed at examining the correlations between students’ interaction with faculty, their use of computers for non-academic purposes and their academic performance. It was also intended to examine students’ family background to study any association with their academic performance. Consequently, the impact of the following factors related to students’ academic performance was addressed in this study:

1. Time spent on playing computer games

2. Time spent on watching movies and on chatting on social networking sites (SNS)

3. Faculty-student interactions

4. Absenteeism

5. Parents’ educational background

Review of literature

A critical issue that affects student learning is the use of computers and internet for non-academic purpose. Excessive use of computers (by 72 per cent males) was found to interfere with students’ academic performance (Anderson, 2010). The usual consequence of excessive use is increase in negative characteristics like low self-esteem, motivation, and loneliness. It was also found that time spent on web-surfing was mostly on non-academic activities. The internet allows students to assume an alternate identity and lose touch with reality (Hardie, 2007). This appears to be an alternate incentive for students with low social skills or low self-esteem to assume the identity of who they would really like to be and interact with others who they cannot see face to face, on the web in their virtual identities, when unable to do so in real life.

Discussions related to student behaviors and their academic performance in large classrooms with low faculty-student ratios continue to prevail around the world in higher education settings (Nyampfene, 2010). Literature on faculty-student interaction indicates that frequency and quality of relationships with faculty have a positive impact on grade point average and, despite their reluctance to initiate contact with faculty interaction with faculty is a strong predictor of student learning for all students (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). Another longstanding research study documents the positive influence of informal faculty-student interactions on student success (Murray & Malmgreen, 2005). It is also clear that faculty members play an important role in the social and academic integration of students (Chickering, 1969). Weekly faculty-student meetings in a scheduled manner, were found invaluable for student success in another related study (Vito, 2007).

Students who liked a course were less likely to be absent from class, for obvious reasons (Wyatt, 1992). Students believed that they could use online lecture notes to make up for being absent from classes that they did not like due to various factors such as: inability to wake up on time to attend morning classes, late nights spent on playing computer games, watching a movie, or partying, lack of interest in the subject, or even dislike of a particular instructor’s teaching style. But it is clear that on an average, better attendance resulted in better academic performance by all students (Nyamapfene, 2010).

While conducting the literature review, a factor that clearly emerged was that hardly any studies were carried out to research these questions in the context of the Indian scenario, apart from one on distance learners’ cause for attrition (Biswas & Mythili, 2004). Hence the present study was undertaken to analyse student behaviors in a private engineering college in India.

In 1951 when India became independent, the literacy rate was 18per cent of the population gradually rising to 52per cent by 1991; yet India had a high 121.3 million adult illiterates in the age group of 15-35 (Sachdeva, 2002). On the other hand, technical education has expanded exponentially with initiatives taken by state governments as well as private sectors. Most parents want their wards to be professional doctors or engineers and believe that is the ultimate purpose of higher education – a good degree that will result in ample remuneration regardless of the student’s personal interest or aptitude. So often engineering students in India are in that program of study due to parental pressure or peer pressure as an engineering degree being one of the better options for earning good pay packets.

Methodology

A pilot study was carried out with the intention of using the findings to conduct a larger multi-university survey. For the pilot study, a group of 20 students were surveyed in a classroom (annexed questionnaire as Appendix 1). The survey was prepared in 3 parts, relating to: i) student demographics, ii) academics (including questions on faculty-student interaction), and iii) computer and internet use, with some of the questions based on earlier studies conducted (Arum & Roksa, 2011). The results were compiled and analysed using Microsoft Excel workbook.

Findings and Discussions

Demographic information

The background of most students’ educational background of parents indicated that their fathers were in higher level salaried jobs (12 in service, 7 business, 1 with missing information); and only four mothers were employed (3 as teachers and one as a doctor). The remaining mothers were home-makers. All the participants were 3rd year (6th semester) students. There were 20 per cent females and 80 per cent males in the sample group, consistent with the pattern of engineering college gender distribution in India. While the entry level performance of all the respondents at higher secondary level was 80 per cent or 8.0 Cumulative Point Index (CPI), their CPI was 6.0 at the time of taking the survey. Majority of the students wished to pursue a Masters degree and follow it up with a managerial position. At both ends of the bell curve, only one respondent wished to start working after a B.Tech degree and another respondent wished to go on to pursue a Ph.D.

Student-faculty interaction

On examining the student-faculty interaction, the quality of their interaction with faculty averaged at 6 (on a scale of 1-10) whereas the number of times they met faculty outside class in a semester was 2.6 times/semester, indicating a need for more interaction outside class considering the finding that on an average students meet a faculty member only 2-3 times in a 13 week semester; and perhaps questioning the earlier interaction quality of 6 with such a low level of interaction. However, student-student interaction to assist each other was rated much higher at 7.6 (on a scale of 1-10). This is in line with later reporting of time spent studying with peers as 50 per cent, compared to time spent studying alone or about half the time spent in class, labs or tutorials.

Computer and Internet use

Findings related to computer and internet use for playing computer games was reported as 9.2 hours a week for self and observing friends playing computer games averaged at 28 hours a week. Perhaps students were reluctant to admit that they play computer games and were quicker to incriminate peers; or perhaps those who are addicted to playing games on the computer are those who are absent from class generally and hence did not participate in the survey as the questionnaires were administered at the end of a class session and hence those attending class may be the students who are less involved in playing computer games and more engaged in their studies.

Web-surfing and Movies

Students spent less time on web-surfing versus playing games (23 hours a week, with 11 of those hours spent on professional work). Friends’ time on web-surfing as reported by survey-takers was the same as self (22.2 hours a week). On examining numbers related to watching movies and interacting on social networking sites (SNS), students reported two and half times less hours of use for self than for friends observed watching movies (8 hours a week vs. 21 hours a week). Reporting for SNS use by self as compared to friends’ time on SNS was quite similar (4 hours a week for self, versus 14 hours a week by friends).

Comments from respondents

Majority of the respondents’ comments revolved around the need for good internet connectivity for academics as well as social networking and entertainment (games and movies). One comment discussed the need for educating students on appropriate use rather than curbing use and that the result of banning Face book during time slots in the daytime only makes usage addictive at nights. Students spent an average of 17.3 s per week attending classes/labs (of the scheduled 35 s). They spent 7.8 s a week studying alone and 4 hrs a week studying with friends. As a cross-check to earlier reference on computer use for professional work, here it was 8.5 s a week (quite close to the figure of 11 hrs reported under computer/Internet use for studies) Overall the gravest area of concern about the use of computers appears to be addiction to playing games. In this context, an interesting possibility is for teachers in higher education to get involved in software development of games useful for academic purposes, similar to games at primary middle school level for teaching students, and perhaps to advocate use of such existing games to colleagues.

Questions for further discussion

Questions arising from the pilot study on what do we need to do to improve learning standards relate to deeper issues such as, should college administration:

  • Enforce attendance in some manner?

  • Make policy changes on internet use? or

  • Monitor student time in hostel rooms during the day time (class and lab hours)? or

  • Enhance quality of faculty-student interaction in some manner to improve student learning?

The relationship between teacher and student has been a focus of inquiry for over 2000 years, since the Upanishads, Plato, Socrates, Confucius, etc. They established much of the philosophical guidelines for teaching, and emphasised the acquisition of knowledge through dialogue. All these philosophers stressed the importance of teacher-student relationship. Yet over the centuries we have moved away from a learner-centric style of pedagogy to a heavy reliance on the‘direct instruction only’ mode, with the teacher center-stage in the role of a sage, doling out wisdom to the listening students.

In most of the professional courses, instructors have to teach large classes. So does class size affect attrition rates? What characteristics should an instructor possess in order to teach large classes? When should student engagement and integration begin and end? Social Constructivist theory focuses on learner-centered teaching where teacher builds the scaffolding for the learning to take place. Students are active learners in the process and not passive recipients of knowledge and their assessment is based on the cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1984) that begins with knowledge leading to critical analysis and synthesis by students, before evaluation takes place. And since the 21st century student enters the classroom at all stages –primary, secondary, or tertiary levels – with a certain level of pre-skills, there is an imperative need for us to re-examine our pedagogical style. “At a recent symposium, a student leader stated that the most common complaint she hears about teaching is that it is ‘so boring.’ Many of the professors in attendance countered with the argument that they are not performers; students should judge them on their ability to educate, not on their ability to entertain (Wyatt, 1992, p.202).” While it is not our role to perform or entertain as observed by certain irate teachers, it is evidently our role to use the best methods to engage students in the learning process.

A learner-centered approach demands more active forms of classroom instruction that engage the students in the process of learning and that also rely on student input for shaping instructional objectives (Diaz & Bontenbal, 2001). Additionally, it opens lines of communication with students early (Minich, 1996). There are many ways of doing this; such as cooperative learning or creating learning communities. The goal of learning communities is for students to work together and expand their knowledge base collaboratively (Anderson, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978). Observing students working in groups, instructors have the opportunity to get to know individual students and assess each student’s pre-existing knowledge, cultural perspectives, and comfort level with technology (Anderson, 2010). To follow a more student-centric style, students need the opportunity to get to know each other and feel comfortable before learning can take place (Rovai, 2002; Tinto, 1993). Research provides evidence that strong feelings of community may not only improve persistence in courses, but may also increase the flow of information among the learners, availability of support, commitment to group goals, cooperation among members and satisfaction with group efforts (Rovai, 2002). When instructors permit group projects and assignments that encourage students to develop relationships with other members of the learning community, then together they can explore existing knowledge and expand their knowledge base with higher long term achievements for all. Learning communities may also help students overcome physical separation, feeling of isolation, and lack of support. Students that engage in the learning process with their cohorts may develop a sense of community thus reducing attrition levels.

Another style of group learning is cooperative learning – instruction that involves students working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that include elements of positive interdependence and individual accountability with assessment of both group and individual learning (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991). Cooperative learning style allows for assessment of both individual work and group work.

The majority of teaching faculty –around 73 to 83 per cent (MacGregor et al, 2000) resort to direct teaching. However some of the hurdles of resistance that prevent us from switching to a more learner-centric style of teaching can be summarised thus:

  • If I spend all this time in class on group exercises, I'll never get through the syllabus.

  • If I don't lecture I'll lose control of the class.

  • If I assign homework in groups, some students will ‘hitchhike,’getting credit for work in which they did not actively participate.

  • I have had major problems with groups not working together well or not getting along at all. I’m not going to waste any more time on this.

After overcoming such hurdles, it is possible to implement innovative pedagogy that is more student-centric in approach, where the onus for learning is on the students as much as on the instructor.

Future directions

A larger college-wide study is imperative to verify the findings from this study and to broaden the scope by comparing the data with another group of engineering students. It appears that we must initiate discussions on how to improve the quality of faculty-student interactions on campus and apply different approaches to teaching large engineering classes. The broader study especially if the data is compared with data of students from a different engineering college has the potential to provide better clarity on issues related to student performance and behaviors.

References

Anderson, K.J. (2010). Internet Use among college students: An exploratory study.

Journal of American College Health, 50(1)

Arum, R & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited learning on college

campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Biswas, P.K. & Mythili, G. (2004). Impact of distance education programmes of IGNOU

on personal and career development of distance learners. Indian Journal of Open

Learning. 13(1), 79-86.

Bloom, B. S. (1984) Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hardie , E. & Tee, M.Y. (2007). Excessive Internet Use: The Role of Personality,

Loneliness and Social Support Networks in Internet Addiction. Australian Journal

of Emerging Technologies and Society, 5(1), pp. 34-47

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom, (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kidd, I.G. (1992). Plutarch: Translation of Essays. London: Penguin Books.

Lundberg C.A. & Schreiner L.A, (2004). Quality and Frequency of Faculty-Student Interaction as Predictors of Learning: An Analysis by Student Race/Ethnicity. Project MUSE, http:muse.jhu.edu 45(5) pp. 549-555.

MacGregor,

Minich, E. (1996). Using student feedback to improve distance education. Florida Community College, Jacksonville. (ERIC No. ED 397893).

Murray. C., & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher-student relationship

program in a high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional and

academic adjustment and lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2),

137-152.

Nyamapfene, A. (2010). Does class attendance still matter?Engineering Education:

Journal of the Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre, 5(1).

Pendergast, D., & Bahr N. (2006). Teaching Middle Years: Rethinking Curriculum,

Pedagogy and Assessment. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1), 1-9.

Sachdeva, S. (2002). Education Scenario and Needs in India: Building a perspective for

2025.

Tinto,V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition

(2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Vito, M.M. (2007). The Impact of Faculty-Student Interaction Outside of Classroom on

Faculty Satisfaction, Engagement, and Retention. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern

Arizona University.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, p.201.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wyatt, G. (1992). Skipping Class: An Analysis of Absenteeism among First-Year

College Students, Teaching Sociology, Pp. 201-207. American Sociological

Association

Yellowlees, P.M. & Marks, S. (2007). Problematic Internet use or Internet addiction?

Computers in human behaviors, 23, pp. 1447-1453.