CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Student Performance Prediction on Internet Mediated Environments using Decision Trees

by Esther Khakata, Vincent Omwenga, Simon Msanjila
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 181 - Number 42
Year of Publication: 2019
Authors: Esther Khakata, Vincent Omwenga, Simon Msanjila
10.5120/ijca2019918466

Esther Khakata, Vincent Omwenga, Simon Msanjila . Student Performance Prediction on Internet Mediated Environments using Decision Trees. International Journal of Computer Applications. 181, 42 ( Feb 2019), 1-9. DOI=10.5120/ijca2019918466

@article{ 10.5120/ijca2019918466,
author = { Esther Khakata, Vincent Omwenga, Simon Msanjila },
title = { Student Performance Prediction on Internet Mediated Environments using Decision Trees },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { Feb 2019 },
volume = { 181 },
number = { 42 },
month = { Feb },
year = { 2019 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 1-9 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume181/number42/30340-2019918466/ },
doi = { 10.5120/ijca2019918466 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-07T01:08:50.011570+05:30
%A Esther Khakata
%A Vincent Omwenga
%A Simon Msanjila
%T Student Performance Prediction on Internet Mediated Environments using Decision Trees
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 181
%N 42
%P 1-9
%D 2019
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

A decision tree is a data classification technique that is used in mining data. The use of data mining techniques on data related to student performance assists in extracting valuable information from large data sets available within the institutions. This paper discusses the factors that influence the student learning process in an internet mediated environment and presents results from data collected within universities in Kenya. Additionally, this paper uses a decision tree to affirm these factors that affect student performance within the universities. The decision tree generated acts as a prediction tool that assists in the prediction of student performance while using internet technology in the learning process. This enables us determine whether a student is likely to perform well or not while using internet technology in the learning process.

References
  1. Hughes, G., & Dobbins, C. (2015). The utilization of Data Analysis Techniques in Prediction Student Performance in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(10).
  2. Chen, M., Mao, S., & Liu, Y. (2014). Big data : a survey. Mobile Networks and Applications, 19(2), 171-209.
  3. Ramesh, V., Parkavi, P., & Ramar, K. (2013). Predicting student performance: a statistical and data mining approach. International Journal of Computer Applications, 63(8), 35-39.
  4. Brews, P. J., & Tucci, C. L. (2015). Exploring the performance effects of Internetworking. CSI-REPORT-200 5-002.
  5. Mills, K. (2016). Review Possible Effects of Internet Use on Cognitive Development in Adolescence. Media and Communication, 4(3), 4-12. doi:10.17645/mac.v4i3.516
  6. Nwokedi, V. C. (2010). Impact of Internet Use on Teaching and Research Activities of the Academic Staff of Faculty of Medical Sciences: A case study of University of Jos. Gateway Library Journal, 10(1), 13-22.
  7. Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, Students’ Effort, and Academic Achievement. Sociology of Education, 27–49.
  8. Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York, NY: Springer.
  9. Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-19). New York,NY: Springer.
  10. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. doi:10.1037/a0026838
  11. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University Students’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1).
  12. Murugan, A., & Rajoo, L. (2013). Students’ Perceptions of Mathematics Classroom Environment & Mathematics Achievement: A Study in Sipitang, Sabah, Malaysia. Proceeding of The International Conference on Social Science Research, Icssr. Penang, Malaysia.
  13. Ashby, J., Sadera, W., & S, M. (2011). Comparing Student Success Between Developmental Math Courses Offered Online, Blended, And Face-To-Face. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(3).
  14. Frenzel, A., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived Learning Environment and Students’ Emotional Experiences: A Multilevel Analysis of Mathematics Classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17.
  15. Shamaki, T. A. (2015). Influence of Learning Environment on Students’ Academic Achievement in Mathematics: A Case Study of Some Selected Secondary Schools in Yobe State – Nigeria . Journal of Education and Practice, 6(34).
  16. Fuchs, W. (2010). Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School. CESifo.
  17. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
  18. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organization of Behaviour in the Human Decision Process, 50(2), 179–211.
  19. Trafimow, D., & Lench, H. (2015). The sufficiency assumption of the reasoned approach to action. Cogent Psychology, 2(1), x.
  20. Mathieson, K. (2000). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information System Research, 2(3), 173-191.
  21. Bidin, Z., Mohd-Shamsudin, F., Hashim, M. F., & Sharif, Z. (2011). Factors Influencing Students’ Intention to Use Internet for Academic Purposes. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1867902
  22. Mitra, A., & Steffensmeier, T. (2010). Changes in student attitudes and student computer use in a computer-enriched environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 32(3), 417- 433.
  23. Hong, K.-S., Ridzuan, A. A., & Kuek, M.-K. (2017). Students' attitudes toward the use of the Internet for learning: A study at a university in Malaysia. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 45-49.
  24. Croteau, D., & Hoynes, M. (2013). Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences (10th ed.). Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks.
  25. Hussain, A., Mkpojiogu, E., & Yusof, M. M. (2016). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment as drivers for the user acceptance of interactive mobile maps. AIP Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960891 View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1761/1
  26. Huesemann, M., & Huesemann, J. (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment, “The Myth of Value-Neutrality”. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.
  27. Kabra, R., & Bichkar, R. (2011). Performance Prediction of Engineering Students using Decision Trees. International Journal of Computer Applications, 36(11).
  28. Han, J., & Kamber, M. (2011). Data Mining Concepts and Techniques (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, SanFrancisco.
  29. Osmanbegovi´c, E., & Sulji´c, M. (2015). Data mining approach for predicting student performance. Economic Review, 10(1).
  30. Natek, S., & Zwilling, M. (2014). Student data mining solution–knowledge management system related to higher education institutions. Expert systems with applications, 41(14), 6400–6407.
  31. Shahiria, A. M., Husaina, W., & Rashida, N. A. (2015). A Review on Predicting Student’s Performance using Data Mining Techniques. The Third Information Systems International Conference.
  32. Romero, C., Espejo, P., Zafra, A., Romero, J., & Ventura, S. (2013). Web usage mining for predicting final marks of students that use Moodle courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21(1), 135–146. doi:10.1002/cae.20456.
  33. Witten, I., & Frank, E. (2011). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learing Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations. San Diego, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  34. Brownlee, J. (2016). Weka Machine Learning. Retrieved from How to Perform Feature Selection With Machine Learning Data in Weka.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Student performance data mining decision trees performance prediction

Powered by PhDFocusTM