Predictors of Academic Achievement in Blended Learning: the Case of Data Science Minor

Abstract

This paper is dedicated to studying patterns of learning behavior in connection with educational achievement in multi-year undergraduate Data Science minor specialization for non-STEM students. We focus on analyzing predictors of aca-demic achievement in blended learning taking into account factors related to initial mathematics knowledge, specific traits of educational programs, online and of-fline learning engagement, and connections with peers. Robust Linear Regression and non-parametric statistical tests reveal a significant gap in achievement of the students from different educational programs. Achievement is not related to the communication on Q&A forum, while peers do have effect on academic success: being better than nominated friends, as well as having friends among Teaching Assistants, boosts academic achievement.

Scientific Performance and Mapping of the Term STEM in Education on the Web of Science

“…For this reason, the term of STEM education should be taken with caution, since for some authors it is represented as a pedagogical action that prepares students for university engineering courses; others value it as a career path for an engineering profession, while others value it as a component of general education, when trying to improve STEM knowledge in the population [21]. The use of STEM in education involves students working as a team, to focus on problem solving, to increase decision making and creativity, to improve critical thinking and self-esteem, to acquire significant learning, to develop interaction between peers, to enhance self-efficacy, scientific identity and an attitude towards mathematics and science, to develop active learning, to improve reasoning skills, collaboration and the self-regulation of learning [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38].…”

Trends of the Implementation of Hybrid Teaching and Learning in Mathematics Education: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Wang, 2021;Wu et al, 2021), followed by 12 articles published in 2022 (Brunetto et al, 2022;Cavanaugh et al, 2022;DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;Durandt et al, 2022;Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022;Gehrtz et al, 2022;Giberti et al, 2022;Kier & Johnson, 2022;Kurianski et al, 2022;Rocha et al, 2022;Segerby, 2022;P. Wang, 2022), 5 articles in 2020 (Bakar, Mohamad & Ismail, 2020;Jeong et al, 2020;Panisoara et al, 2020;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020;Van Nuland et al, 2020), 4 articles in 2018 (Chen & Huang, 2018;Golding & Bretscher, 2018;Lambert & Alony, 2018;Muirhead et al, 2018) and finally 2 articles have been published in 2019 (Musabirov et al, 2019;Trenholm et al, 2019). The year with the highest number of published articles was 2021.…”

“…In general, research approaches can be divided into two, namely quantitative and qualitative. Based on Figure 3 shows the research approach that can be analyzed from 41 articles in this study where the highest is using a qualitative research approach of 19 articles (Ashraf et al, 2021;Bakar et al, 2020;Batra et al, 2021;Bouck & Long, 2021;Brunetto et al, 2022;Church et al, 2021;Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022;Gehrtz et al, 2022;Golding & Bretscher, 2018;Goulart et al, 2021;Kier & Johnson, 2022;Kurianski et al, 2022;Lambert & Alony, 2018;Muirhead et al, 2018;Pourdavood & Song, 2021;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020;Trenholm et al, 2019;Nuland et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2020), 16 articles use a quantitative research approach (Aristika et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Cavanaugh et al, 2022;Chen & Huang, 2018;Durandt et al, 2022;Fujita et al, 2021;Giberti et al, 2022;Jeong et al, 2020;Musabirov et al, 2019;Nair & Nair, 2021;Panisoara et al, 2020;Pavlysh et al, 2021;Pócsová et al, 2021;Rasheed et al, 2021;P. Wang, 2022;Wu et al, 2021) and 6 articles using a mixed method research approach (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;…”

“…Furthermore, six studies have been published on hybrid teaching and learning in China which is known to be a country that has been very affected by the Covid-19 pandemic (Ashraf et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Cao et al, 2021;Wang, 2021;Wang, 2022;Wu et al, 2021), three studies focused on Canada (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022;Le Pichon et al, 2021;Muirhead et al, 2018), Malaysia (Bakar et al, 2020;Rasheed et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2020), two studies focused on South Africa (Durandt et al, 2022;Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020), India (Batra et al al., 2021;Nair & Nair, 2021), Italy (Brunetto et al, 2022;Giberti et al, 2022), Australia (Lambert & Alony, 2018;Trenholm et al, 2019). Meanwhile, one study focused on Belarus (Pavlysh et al, 2021), Brazil (Goulart et al, 2021), Indonesia (Aristika et al, 2021), Ireland (Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022, Japan (Ní Fhloinn & Fitzmaurice, 2022), England (Golding & Bretscher, 2018), Romania (Panisoara et al, 2020), Russia (Musabirov et al, 2019), Spain (Jeong et al, 2020), Slovakia (Pócsová et al, 2021, Sweden (Segerby, 2022) and United Kingdom (Shaw & Tranter, 2021). Based on the analysis that has been carried out, the United States and China recorded the publication of a high number of articles compared to other countries.…”

Factors Affecting Mathematics Achievement In Central Asian Specialized Universities

“…For example, a study carried out in USA among 80000 students showed 27 % fail rate [7]. Mathematics is considered as complex [8,3,9] and as such it is important to investigate reasons and factors that explain this variability in learning mathematics. In social sciences variable or a factor is any entity that can change.…”