• P-ISSN 0974-6846 E-ISSN 0974-5645

Indian Journal of Science and Technology


Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Year: 2020, Volume: 13, Issue: 13, Pages: 1440-1449

Original Article

Performance evaluation of students using online courses

Received Date:28 February 2020, Accepted Date:19 April 2020, Published Date:25 May 2020


Objectives: The present study was aimed to find the effective method to assess the performance of students and their interest towards e-learning. Methods: Questionnaire survey was conducted among Indian students and their response were identified on various aspects; assessment, interaction, evaluation and feedback. Statistical analysis: The responses were collected and the data were analyzed with statistical software. Results: Interaction and evaluation aspects had high impact; signifying 40% of the students agree that online learning is more effective, innovative and convenient than the conventional way of learning. Assessment and interaction showed the highest positive correlation (0.564) when compared to the evaluation and feedback (0.440). The evaluation has attained significant value in the statistical analysis of ANOVA.

Keywords: Internet; Assessment; e-learning; Statistical software; Correlation


  1. Deborah R, Barnett. Partnering industry and education for curricular enhancement: A response for greater educational achievement. Online Journal of workplace and Development. 2011;(2) 1–15.
  2. Leidner DE, Jarvenpaa SL. The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View. MIS Quarterly. 1995;19(3):265. doi: 10.2307/249596
  3. Alavi M, Yoo Y, Vogel D. Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of Management Journal. 1997;40(6):1310–1333.
  4. Smith PL, Dillon CL. Lead article: Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: Conceptual considerations. American Journal of Distance Education. 1999;13(2):6–23. doi: 10.1080/08923649909527020
  5. Garrison DR. Three generations of technological innovations in distance education. Distance Education. 1985;6(2):235–241.
  6. Coombs, Hall P. International Conference on the World Crisis in Education 1967. Williamsburg, Va; Oxford U.P. The world educational crisis: a systems analysis, Oxford U.P. . Williamsburg, Va; Oxford U.P. 1967.
  7. Vaizey J. The costs of education. London, Faber. 1958.
  8. Schultz T. Investment in human capital. American Economic Review. 1961;51:1–17.
  9. Rumble G. 1999. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1999.tb00133.x
  10. Jamison DT, Klees SJ, Wells, Stuart. The costs of educational media. Guidelines for planning and evaluation. Beverly Hills, Sage. 1978.
  11. Eicher JC. Some thoughts on the economic analysis of new educational media. In: UNESCO. (Vol. 2) The UNESCO Press. 1980.
  12. Eicher JC, Hawkridge D, Mcanany E, Mariet F, Orivel F. Cost and effectiveness overview and synthesis. (Vol. 3) Paris. The UNESCO Press. 1982.
  13. O, JBaR, G., eds. Educación a Distancia en America Latina: Analysis de costo-efectividad. Washington, D.C., World Bank. 1992.
  14. Fielden J, Pearson PK. 1978. Available from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/10026672
  15. University D. Further investigations into activity costing in a mixed mode institution. Commonwealth of Australia. 1989.
  16. Kaplan-Leierson, Glossary. E.E-learning glossary. 2006. Available from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.html
  17. Halverson LR, Graham CR, Spring KJ, Drysdale JS, Henrie CR. A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education. 2014;20:20–34. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
  18. Fix N, Kolesnikov S, Petrova G. Using Electronic Courses in Teaching Master's Degree Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;206:262–266. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.021
  19. Carranza RR, Márquez AA, Rodríguez FML, León OG, Becerril MNP, Bermúdez JRG. Numerical Methods: An Online Course. AASRI Procedia. 2014;8:63–67. doi: 10.1016/j.aasri.2014.08.011
  20. Zhuhadar L, Kruk SR, Daday J. Semantically enriched Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) platform. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;51(51):578–593. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.067
  21. Spector JM. Emerging educational technologies: Tensions and synergy. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences. 2014;26(1):5–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.009
  22. Cercone K. Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE Journal. 2008;16(2):137–159.
  23. Moore MG, Kearsley G. Distance education: a systems view. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth. 1996.
  24. Mueller J. 2006. Available from: http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/
  25. Consortium C. E-learning model for online courses. The Concord Consortium. 2002.
  26. Bransford JD, Vye N, Bateman H. PAGNGS., ed. Creating High Quality Learning Environments: Guidelines from Research on How People Learn. Washington DC. National Academy Press. 2002.
  27. Robles M, Braathen S. Online assessment techniques. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal. 2002;44(1):39–49.


© 2020 Danish, Ashraf, Ganesh, J, Sein. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Published By Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee)


Subscribe now for latest articles and news.