INVESTIGATION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSE
CLASSROOMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION DUE TO
DISCREPANCIES IN BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Dimos Triantis and Ioanna Leraki
New Technologies and Methodologies in Education Unit, Technological Educational
Institution (T.E.I.) of Athens, Athens, Greece
Keywords: Diverse Classrooms, Academic Deficiency, Learning Deficit, Classroom Management.
Abstract: This work identifies and addresses problems that are common in first year classrooms of the Department of
Electronic Engineering at the Technological Educational Institution (TEI) of Athens. These classrooms are
normally composed of different sets of students. The students are admitted trough different tracks and via
different entry examinations. Furthermore, the diversity of the classroom is augmented due to the admission
of students transferring from other similar regional departments and who have a significantly lower
academic background than those admitted directly to the Department. Their performance in a rating test is
directly related to their TEI entry grade. Transferees usually face progression difficulties. The course of
action which has been adopted till today to support the weak cohorts of students is described. Last, the
classroom’s performance in a core module of the first semester is recorded and studied against their
performance in the rating test. Additional classroom management action plan is provided.
1 INTRODUCTION
Many classrooms in the Higher Education
Institutions reflect diversity in the student population
in terms of background knowledge and academic
level acquired during their previous training in high
school. A classroom with students of different
academic backgrounds and capabilities definitely
constitutes a diverse classroom and its academic
performance should be monitored by the academic
community (Denig, 2004).
Students with limited academic background
experience difficulties which bring them at a
disadvantageous position, compared to students with
solid background training, upon entering a new
educational setting. Therefore, the Higher Education
instructors sometimes find it difficult to deliver the
material according to the prescribed timetable. This
is particularly visible during the first semester of
studies. A classroom with diverse student population
is quite common in the first semesters of studies,
therefore, a number of teaching strategies and
methods have been developed to ensure equal
learning opportunities for all students (Knight,
Wiseman, 2005). It is essential that the instructor
identifies the level of the students’ background
knowledge, prior to deciding on the optimum
teaching method. This can be achieved by
conducting a test including a set of questions on
topics that the students are supposed to command
through their previous training.
This particular exercise brings to light the
difficulties that exist in the Department of Electronic
Engineering of the Technological Educational
Institution (TEI) of Athens, a department that
usually reflects strong diversity of the admitted
students. This is partly due to the fact that the
students enter the Department having graduated
from two different sorts of high schools, (and
through separate entry requirements for each). This
makes for a segmented cohort in terms of academic
ability: the first cohort includes the students who
have graduated from the General High School and
have a satisfactory background in the core courses,
i.e. Physics and Mathematics. The other cohort
includes students who graduated from the
Vocational High School, where a completely
different curriculum of limited science courses is
delivered.
An additional impediment for the first-year
student population is the fact that the admitted
students show a significant discrepancy in their
161
Triantis D. and Leraki I..
INVESTIGATION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSE CLASSROOMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION DUE TO DISCREPANCIES IN BACKGROUND
KNOWLEDGE.
DOI: 10.5220/0003916401610165
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 161-165
ISBN: 978-989-8565-07-5
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
performance in the National Entry Examinations, as
a large number of students transfer from other
regional Universities which have lower entry
requirements. This means that the academic level of
the transferees is substantially below than that of
those admitted directly to the Athens Department
through the National Entry Examinations.
This works aims at identifying the diversity of
the first-year student population and at correlating
this diversity with the following features:
1. The students’ performance at the National Entry
Examinations, according to which the students
are admitted to the Department of Electronic
Engineering of the TEI of Athens, or similar
regional departments.
2. The students’ performance at a rating test which
checks the required background knowledge.
3. The students’ performance of the final
examinations of the module “Introduction to
Electronic Physics” which is one of the core
modules of the first semester of studies at the
Department of Electronic Engineering.
Last, the authors suggest a course of actions to
support those students who initially find it difficult
to meet the requirements of the first semester of
studies in the Department, through the development
of an educational setting that enhances learning,
assimilation of knowledge and critical thinking, thus
enabling them to successfully continue their studies.
2 THE PROFILE OF A DIVERSE
CLASSROOM
Four groups of students can be identified in the
Department of Electronic Engineering of the TEI of
Athens, thus constituting a diverse classroom in the
first semester. The data presented concern a sample
of 244 newly-admitted students, whose academic
progression has been monitored for a period of three
consequent academic years, i.e. 2007 to 2009. Table
1 describes these four groups of students. Two of
these groups are divided to 3 subgroups, depending
on the performance at the National Entry
Examinations. Table 1 shows the percentage
distribution of these groups and subgroups.
The students of the groups C and D have
attended a different high school curriculum from that
of the students of A and B groups. Furthermore, they
have entered the Department trough different Entry
Examinations. The main feature of the C and D
student groups is the limited background in
Mathematics and Physics. Also, the Entry
Examinations for the C and D groups is focused on a
couple of specialty modules, rather than
emphasizing on Mathematics and Physics.
Furthermore, the amount of knowledge obtained
through these specialty modules is actually poor, as
the material is only superficially covered. For
example, although the students from C and D groups
that enter the TEI Department of Electronic
Engineering have attended introductory courses on
Electronic Physics and Telecommunications, this
does not prove to contribute to their smooth
academic transmission to the Department.
Table 1: Groups and subgroups description, in a diverse
classroom.
Group Group description
Subgroup:
Grade at the
National Entry
Examinations
Percentage
Group /
Subgroup
A
General High School
Graduates
A1: >14/20
A2: 13-14/20
A3: 12-13/20
6%
19%
23%
B
General High School
Graduates
(transferees)
B1:11-12/20
B2:10-11/20
B3: <10/20
10%
7%
8%
C
Vocational High
School graduates
14-16/20 19%
D
Vocational High
School graduates
(transferees)
10-14/20 8%
The background knowledge in Mathematics and
Physics of A and B student groups is also
inadequate, as the courses they have attended have
only covered a narrow range of topics. Hence, they
do not seem to command all basic concepts of
Mathematics and Physics. All the above constitute a
complex issue which the instructors have to address
when teaching the first semester students. They have
to take certain actions in order to facilitate all
students to promptly adapt and assimilate the
curriculum.
3 IDENTIFICATION OF THE
PROBLEM
A rating test of multiple choice questions on
Mathematics and Physics has been designed in order
to address the particular and individual weaknesses
of the newly-admitted students at the Department of
Electronic Engineering of the TEI of Athens. The
questions were simple and focused on basic and core
knowledge which is deemed indispensable and is not
supposed to be covered by the instructor during the
first semester of studies. Two sets of multiple choice
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
162
questions - including pairs of crosschecking -
(Ventouras, Triantis, Tsiakas & Stergiopoulos, 2010;
Ventouras, Triantis, Tsiakas & Stergiopoulos, 2011),
were used in order to ensure the credibility of the
test results.
6.19
5.29
4.44
4.14
3.44
2.30
2.43
1.97
6.41
5.68
4.69
4.29
3.64
2.51
2.44
2.00
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
group
A1
group
A2
group
A3
group
B1
group
B2
group
B3
group
C
group
D
Figure 1: Average performance of students in the rating
test, (: Physics - ◊: Mathematics).
A special assessment algorithm has been drawn
to best reflect the academic level of the examinee
(Ventouras, Triantis, 2011). The test was divided
into two units. The first unit is related to Physics,
with emphasis on Electricity, while the second unit
is related to Mathematics.
3.1 The Results of the Rating Test
The total number of students to undergo the test
during the three academic years was 201. Fig. 1
presents the average grade in the test on a 10 point
scale, while Fig. 2 shows the corresponding success
rates (grade >5) for each student group. Fig. 2 also
shows the percentage contribution of each student
group/subgroup in the total number of students who
took the rating test. Both figures depict the test
performance for each test unit separately (Physics
and Mathematics).
The results indicate a satisfactory performance
only for group A, and particularly for the subgroups
A1 and A2. The results of the rest student groups are
disappointing and reflect a poor background in
Mathematics and Physics among the newly-admitted
students. A systematic discrepancy is also observed
for all student groups regarding their performance in
Physics and Mathematics, with the performance in
Mathematics being considerably lower.
73%
53%
41%
21%
6%
0%
5%
0%
80%
62%
48%
29%
11%
0%
8%
0%
6.1%
17.7%
22.7%
9.4%
9.4%
8.3%
20.4%
6.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
group A1
group A2
group A3
group B1
group B2
group B3
group C
group D
Figure 2: Success rates in the rating test (grade >5) for
each student group (grey bar: Phys. test, white bar: Math.
test, black bar: % contribution of group/subgroup in the
total number of students who took the rating test).
This fact addresses the inefficiency of the
Examination System via which the admission of
undergraduate students to the Higher Educational
Institutions is administered. It is worth to be noted
that the range of material on which the students are
examined for the Entry Examinations in Physics is
quite narrow, and does not include topics such as
Electricity and Optics, which results in a poor
background of students admitted in departments of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering. It should be
mentioned that the instructors of the first semester of
studies would expect the success rate to the test to
definitely exceed 50%, given that it only required a
basic academic level. A success rate of less than
50% indicates a substantial difficulty of these
students to effectively attend the lectures of the first
semester of studies. These students usually feel they
lack the necessary academic level, get quite
disappointed during the first semesters of their
studies and are eventually led to passive drop-out
(non attendance of lectures). These students seem to
constitute a cohort of students who fail to follow a
consistent study programme and significantly extend
their duration of studies.
3.2 Course of Action to Address the
Issue
In addition to the multiform teaching material that
was made available for every module of the
curriculum (Tsiakas, Stergiopoulos, Kaitsa &
Triantis, 2005), access to extra teaching material,
specially designed to cover the gaps form high
school knowledge was offered to the first year
INVESTIGATIONANDMANAGEMENTOFDIVERSECLASSROOMSOFHIGHEREDUCATIONDUETO
DISCREPANCIESINBACKGROUNDKNOWLEDGE
163
students. A special set of self-evaluation tests of
multiple choice questions was made available on-
line. These tests covered introductory concepts to
support certain modules of the curriculum of the
Department of Electronic Engineering. Each self-
evaluation test consisted of five sets of questions and
could be repeated for an indefinite number of times.
After the completion of a set of questions, the
student got a report including his success rate, and
an indication of the wrong answers along with the
correct ones. The self-evaluation tests were also
accompanied by a set of problems with typical
answers and guidelines enhancing critical thinking.
3.3 Students’ Performance in
“Introduction to Electronic
Physics” Module
The module “Introductions to Electronic Physics” is
one of the basic modules of the current curriculum
of the Department of Electronics and is delivered
during the first semester of studies. Knowledge
obtained through this module is essential and
fundamental for the subsequent study of analog and
digital electronics (Triantis, et all, 2007).
85%
69%
59%
42%
21%
6%
32%
7%
5.9%
19.1%
23.2%
10.9%
8.2%
7.7%
18.6%
6.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
group A1
group A2
group A3
group B1
group B2
group B3
group C
group D
Figure 3: Success rates of students in the final examination
of the module “Introduction to Electronic Physics”: black
bar. % contribution of group/subgroup in the total number
of students who took the module exam: grey bar.
Figure 3 shows the success rates of 220 students
in the final examination of the module “Introduction
to Electronic Physics”, and the percentage
contribution of each student group/subgroup in the
total number of students who took the module exam.
The Study Regulation of the TEI of Athens provides
that a student is considered to succeed in a module if
he achieves grade of at least 5 out of 10 in the final
exam. Figure 4 shows the average final exam grade
and the maximum grade achieved in the module
“Introduction to Electronic Physics” for each student
group. The performance of the A group clearly
exceeds that of the other groups. Group A students
present an overall success rate of above 50%, which
gradually decreases across the subgroups A2 and
A3. All subgroups of group B exhibit success rates
less than 50% and tend to decrease. Only one
student from the group C has passed the exam, while
the performance of group D students is totally
disappointing. The overall success rate for the
module is merely 45%. It should be noted that the
success rate for group A is 66%.
7.15
5.50
4.46
3.90
2.96
2.01
3.26
2.11
9.6
9.2
7.2
6.0
5.2
5.0
5.5
5.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
group
A1
group
A2
group
A3
group
B1
group
B2
group
B3
group
C
group
D
Figure 4: Average grade (solid circle) and maximum grade
(solid square) in the module exam.
85%
69%
59%
42%
21%
6%
32%
7%
73%
53%
41%
21%
6%
0%
5%
0%
80%
62%
48%
29%
11%
0%
8%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
group A1
group A2
group A3
group B1
group B2
group B3
group C
group D
Figure 5: Comparative success rates in the module (black
bar) and the rating test (Physics: white bar, Mathematics:
grey bar) for each group/ subgroup.
We will now attempt to correlate the
performance in the rating test and in the final
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
164
examination of the module “Introduction to
Electronic Physics” for each group. Figure 5
presents this correlation in terms of success rates
(where a successful performance is that of >5 out of
10). The conclusion drawn is that a certain
percentage –although low- of group B and C
students have passed the module, although they had
inadequate background knowledge, as shown by
their performance in the rating test. The fact that one
out of three students of group C (which represent the
20% of the newly-admitted students) has succeeded
in the module is considered satisfactory. However,
the success rates of groups B, D, and C remain quite
low and are approximately 22%. The exam records
of the other four modules taught in the first semester
of studies show a similar image, with a declination
of 5%.
4 CONCLUSIONS –
IMPROVEMENTS
The Department of Electronics of the TEI of Athens
has recognized and addressed the issue of
complexity and diversity in classrooms of the first
semester of studies. A significant part of the
admitted students have considerably lower
background in core courses than others. Primarily,
this is a matter that needs to be addressed centrally,
by applying a uniform entry examination system for
the Higher Education Institutions. However, the
problem will still exist as long as a percentage of
students are transferred from similar departments for
social reasons.
Consequently, it rests with the administration of
the School to manage students who enter the
department with a limited or inadequate academic
background, and make sure that they get the highest
possible qualifications and career perspective. In the
same time, the aim is to enhance student motivation
and support systematic attendance of studies.
The accumulated experience leads to the
following action: Upon their admission, the newly-
registered students will have to undertake a rating
test on fundamental knowledge, as described above.
Students who have a poor performance in this test
should attend and successfully complete a tutorial
course of one semester in duration, prior to joining
the regular curriculum. Although it seems
incompatible with the current academic practice in
Greece, the supportive tutorial course, will prove to
be an invaluable tool in the medium and long term
This programme of supportive tutorials has the
following advantages: the students attending will be
able to cover the gaps in the basic courses and have
a normal progression towards graduation, without
loading their individual timetable with re-
examinations of modules. Disappointment, lack of
interest and drop-out rates will decline. Furthermore,
the average time to graduation and the number of
idle students is going to decrease. Last but not least,
the establishment of a supportive tutorial course for
the students of inadequate previous training is
expected to largely contribute to the effective
assimilation of new knowledge, enhance systematic
attendance and lead to qualified graduates, ready to
pursue a successful career.
REFERENCES
Denig, S., 2004. Multiple Intelligences and Learning
Styles: Two Complementary Dimensions. Teachers
College Record, 106(1), 96-111.
Knight, S. L., Wiseman, D. L., 2005. Professional
development for teachers of diverse students: A
summary of the research. Journal of Education for
Students Placed At Risk, 10(4), 387-405.
Triantis, D., Anastasiadis, C., Tsiakas, P., Stergiopoulos
Ch., 2007. Asynchronous teaching methods and
electronic assessment applied to students of the
module “Physics of Semiconductor Devices”. Journal
of Materials Education, 29, 133-140.
Tsiakas, P., Stergiopoulos, C., Kaitsa, M., Triantis, D.,
2005. New technologies applied in the educational
process in the TEI of Athens. The case of “e-
education” platform and electronic examination of
students. Results, WSEAS Transactions on Advances
in Engineering Education, 2, 192-196.
Ventouras, Ε., Triantis, D., 2011. Enhancing electronic
examinations through advanced multiple-choice
questionnaires, in Higher Education Institutions and
Learning Management Systems: Adoption and
Standardization, Eds: Rosalina Babo, Ana Azevedo,
IGI Global, ISBN, Chapter 9, 178-198.
Ventouras, Ε., Triantis, D., Tsiakas, P., Stergiopoulos, C.,
2010. Comparison of examination methods based on
multiple-choice questions and constructed-response
questions using personal computers, Computers &
Education, 54, 455-451.
Ventouras, Ε., Triantis, D., Tsiakas, P., Stergiopoulos, C.,
2011. Comparison of oral examination and electronic
examination using paired multiple-choice questions,
Computers & Education, 56, 616-624.
INVESTIGATIONANDMANAGEMENTOFDIVERSECLASSROOMSOFHIGHEREDUCATIONDUETO
DISCREPANCIESINBACKGROUNDKNOWLEDGE
165
