Current teaching methodologies are based on concepts such as continuous work, constructivism, project-based learning, gamification, etc.; in short, more active methodologies on the part of the student in which they acquire a leading role and are more responsible for their own learning. Teachers always insist students on the importance of working continuously. In a subject of computer programming this is especially important. For this reason, in this subject we provide to students numerous materials in various formats (notes, videos, questionnaires) that we consider to be fundamental in the training of our students. From time to time, teachers consult the access that students make to these materials and they are not as frequent as they should be. This leads us to question whether students who work more continuously with the materials provided do better academically than students who do not. The objective of this work is to analyze if the activities carried out by the students (questionnaires, deliverables, downloads of materials), are related to the performance obtained in the subject. Data have been collected on student activity during the academic year. The data collected are very heterogeneous, in some cases it is a flag that indicates whether the material has been downloaded or not, while in other cases it is the result of more dynamic activities such as a questionnaire. It is necessary to carry out a standardisation process that allows us to work with the data as a whole. There are several analyses that can be carried out. A first study would be to consider the different activities that the student can carry out as input variables and the performance obtained in the subject as output variable and to establish whether there is a dependency relationship. The results of these analyses show that there are not as many relationships as expected but the continuous work is slightly related with the theory exam.
[1]
F. Prins,et al.
Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education.
,
2000
.
[2]
Eric Sundstrom,et al.
Intelligence, “Big Five” personality traits, and work drive as predictors of course grade
,
2003
.
[3]
Lynda Thomas,et al.
Can Object (Instance) Diagrams Help First Year Students Understand Program Behaviour?
,
2004,
Diagrams.
[4]
Kirsti Ala-Mutka,et al.
A study of the difficulties of novice programmers
,
2005,
ITiCSE '05.
[5]
D. Darmansyah,et al.
The Effectiveness of the Problem-based Learning- Internet Information Literacy (PBL-IIL) Model in Minimizing Plagiarism among Students
,
2019,
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovation in Education (ICoIE 2018).
[6]
Abdul Nasir Zulkifli,et al.
A study of students’ motivation using the augmented reality science textbook
,
2016
.
[7]
B. de Raad,et al.
Personality in learning and education: a review
,
1996
.
[8]
Kathleen M. Swigger,et al.
A discussion of past programming errors and their effect on learning assembly language
,
1988,
J. Syst. Softw..
[9]
Anabela Gomes,et al.
Learning to program - difficulties and solutions
,
2007
.
[10]
Richard Taylor.
Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: A Basic Review
,
1990
.
[11]
Svante Wold,et al.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
,
1989
.
[12]
Concepció Gotzens Busquets,et al.
Conciencia y trabajo continuo como predictores del rendimiento académico en estudiantes españoles
,
2015
.
[13]
Rafael Molina-Carmona,et al.
Effects of Teaching Methodology on the Students' Academic Performance in an Introductory Course of Programming
,
2019,
HCI.