Learning Topography and Its Impact on Student Behavior: The Use of Microsoft Excel and AutoCAD as an Innovation in an Algerian University
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background Aims: The fast expansion of information and communication technology is altering higher education, and professional software is increasingly replacing conventional, textbook-centered knowledge transfer in technical topics such as topography. This study examines the integration of computer-aided design (CAD) and spreadsheet-based tools in teaching topography, with a focus on how Microsoft Excel and Autodesk AutoCAD influence student learning preferences and behavior at the University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene (USTHB), Algeria.
Methodology: A student cohort engaged in topography learning activities utilizing Microsoft Excel and AutoCAD. Students' software preferences and perceptions of the learning environment were ascertained by statistical analysis of data gathered through investigations and surveys.
Result: According to the analysis, pupils are not very interested in Microsoft Excel and strongly favor Autodesk AutoCAD as their main tool for completing projects involving topography. The findings also reveal institutional constraints that may hinder the modernization of topographical training.
Conclusion: In order to maintain long-term educational quality and sustainability, effective deployment of educational technology necessitates regular evaluation and monitoring by public and academic institutions. These technologies offer evident advantages by permitting flexible learning options and increasing instructional assistance.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Altinok, N., & Bourdon, J. (2012). Les compétences fondamentales et le développement : Peut-on évaluer les systèmes éducatifs par le niveau d’acquisition homogène d’un bloc de compétences de base ? HAL. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00661413
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1972). The fourth revolution: Instructional technology in higher education. McGraw-Hill. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000002999
Guité, F. (2006, November). Obstacles aux TIC pour un prof technophile [Blog post]. Relief. https://www.francoisguite.com/2006/11/obstacles-aux-tic-pour-un-prof-technophile-schema/
Hebenstreit, J. (1969). Computers in education: Things to come. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Technology in Education (Brussels, Belgium).
Hebenstreit, J. (1984). Informatique et enseignement. La Vie des sciences, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1(5), 381–398.
Hebenstreit, J. (1992). Computers in education: The next ten years [Keynote address]. ICTE 92, Paris, France.
Herold, B. (2015, June 10). Why ed tech is not transforming how teachers teach. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/why-ed-tech-is-not-transforming-how-teachers-teach/2015/06
INRE. (2010). Les TIC au service de l’éducation. Institut national de recherche sur l’éducation.
International Telecommunication Union. (2013). Measuring the information society 2013. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/mis2013_without_annex_4.pdf
International Telecommunication Union. (2018). Measuring the information society report 2018 (Vol. 1). https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2018/MISR-2018-Vol-1-E.pdf
Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5
Jones, S. M., & Kahn, J. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting students’ social, emotional, and academic development. The Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/FINAL_CDS-Evidence-Base.pdf
Kayalar, F. (2016). Cross-cultural comparison of teachers’ views upon integration and use of technology in the classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 11–19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1096412.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Trends shaping education 2010. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2010-en
Pantages, A. (1976). Control Data’s education offering: “PLATO would have enjoyed PLATO.” Datamation, 22(5), 183–187.
Richey, R. C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. TechTrends, 52(1), 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0108-2
Scalise, K. (2016). Student collaboration and school educational technology: Technology integration practices in the classroom. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 11(4), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.11.4.6012
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (1994). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990–1994. Interactive Educational Systems Design. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED371726
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9541/954103.PDF
University of Waterloo, Centre for Teaching Excellence. (n.d.). Teaching with technology. https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/support/teaching-technology
