MAIN-TRACK PERSISTENCE AND PLATFORM ENGAGEMENT OF INCLUSIVE LEARNERS IN AN INTENSIVE PEER-TO-PEER CODING ENVIRONMENT
PDF

Keywords

inclusive learners; main-track persistence; platform engagement; peer-to-peer education; learning analytics; learning trajectories

How to Cite

Ibrogimova Nodira. (2026). MAIN-TRACK PERSISTENCE AND PLATFORM ENGAGEMENT OF INCLUSIVE LEARNERS IN AN INTENSIVE PEER-TO-PEER CODING ENVIRONMENT. WORLD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, 1(9), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23131825

Abstract

This study examines main-track persistence and platform engagement among inclusive learners after entry into the Digital Engineering School (DES), Tashkent main track. The empirical analysis uses six main-track cohort rosters dated 16 May 2026 and platform profile exports for the inclusive learner population. Thirteen inclusive learners appeared in the main-track rosters; three were recorded as deactivated and ten as active, producing a deactivation rate of 23.1%. Among non-inclusive learners in the corresponding cohorts, 195 of 1,184 were deactivated (16.5%). Fisher’s exact test showed no statistically significant aggregate difference (p = 0.46). Within the inclusive group, learners who passed the pool had a median cumulative XP of 4,162 compared with 0 XP among those who did not; Mann–Whitney U = 117, two-sided p = 0.00009, with complete rank separation. Completed and failed project counts also differed. The findings show that main-track persistence, platform engagement and administrative exit status represent distinct dimensions of learner trajectory and should not be collapsed into a single indicator of inclusion.

PDF

References

1. CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org

2. Khalil, M., Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2024). Learning analytics in support of inclusiveness and disabled students: A systematic review. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36, 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09363-4

3. Kerman, N. T., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., Er, E., van Ginkel, S., & Noroozi, O. (2024). Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 763–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8

4. Tarling, G., Melro, A., Kleine Staarman, J., & Fujita, T. (2023). Making coding meaningful: University students’ perceptions of bootcamp pedagogies. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 18(4), 578–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2022.2077338

5. Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2023). Passive, active, and constructive engagement with peer feedback: A revised model of learning from peer feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, 102160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102160

6. Prinsloo, P., Khalil, M., & Slade, S. (2024). Learning analytics as data ecology: A tentative proposal. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36, 154–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09355-4