“Learning Analytics: The good, the bad, or perhaps ugly?”

@DrBartRienties

Reader in Learning Analytics

17th of October 2015Moscow

6th International Conference on“Rethinking Students: Ideas and New Research Approaches”

What is learning analytics?

http://bcomposes.wordpress.com/

(Social) Learning Analytics“LA is the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the environments in which it occurs” (LAK 2011)

Social LA “focuses on how learners build knowledge together in their cultural and social settings” (Ferguson & Buckingham Shum, 2012)

How can we filter the “good” from “bad”, or even ugly analytics:

1. What evidence is there that analytics actually helps learners to reach their potential?

2. How does the Open University UK use analytics to provide support for students and teachers?

3. How can we make learning more personalised, adaptive and meaningful, and what are the implications for Moodle?

Q1: http://evidence.laceproject.eu/

B) Linking learning design 150+ moduleswith learning analytics

A) How does the OU use LA? OU Analyse

C) How do students choose collaboration tools?

D Learning analytics with120+ variables

Q2 Learning Analytics at OU: OU Analyse• 15+ modules, 20K+ students• 4 different analytics approaches• Based upon Moodle/SAS data

warehouse• Developed in house by Knowledge

Media Institute (Prof Zdrahal)

Important VLE activities

XXX1: Forum (F), Subpage (S), Resource (R), OU_content (O), No activity (N)

Possible activities each week are: F, FS, N, O, OF, OFS, OR, ORF, ORFS, ORS, OS, R, RF, RFS, RS, S

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

Start

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

Pass Fail No submit TMA-1time

VLE opens

Start

Activity space

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

Start

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

Pass Fail No submit TMA-1time

VLE opens

Start

VLE trail: successful student

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

Start

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

FSF RFSOFS ORFN O SRFROF OR ORSORFS OS RS

Pass Fail No submit TMA-1time

VLE opens

Start

VLE trail: student who did not submit

Action/activity type:– Forumng – Oucontent– ouwiki – URL – Homepage – Subpage – …

Mapping module materials to activity space

Probabilistic model: Markov chaintime

TMA1

VLE

start

Module VLE Fingerprint

Four predictive models

1. Case-based reasoning (reasoning from precedents, k-Nearest Neighbours)

A. Based on demographic dataB. Based on VLE activities

2. Classification and Regression Trees (CART)3. Bayes networks (naïve and full)4. Final verdict decided by voting

Try the demo version yourself!

URL: http://analyse.kmi.open.ac.uk

Select Dashboard in the horizontal bar on top of the screen. Username: demo, Password: demo

This fully anonymised version does not use data of any existing OU module. Consequently, the STUDENT’S ACTIVITY RECOMMENDER (see the Student view) referring to the module material could not be included.

Module view

Student view

Study recommender

Q2/Q3 Learning analytics on meso

• 157+ modules, 60K+ students• Learning design linked toa. Student experienceb. Learning behaviourc. Learning performance

Method – data sets• Combination of two different data sets:

• learning design data (157 modules)• student feedback data (51)• VLE data (42 modules)• Academic Performance (51)

• Data sets merged and cleaned• 29537 students undertook these modules

Method – LD process• Mapping of modules to create learning

design data by OU’s LD specialists• Importance of consistency in mapping

process; validated in team and by Faculty• Use of seven activity categories, derived

from five year study across eight HE institutions

  Assimilative Finding and handling information

Communication

Productive Experiential Interactive/

Adaptive

Assessment

Type of activity

Attending to information

 

Searching for and processing information

 

Discussing module related content with at least one other person (student or tutor)

Actively constructing an artefact

 

Applying learning in a real-world setting

 

Applying learning in a simulated setting

 

All forms of assessment, whether continuous, end of module, or formative (assessment for learning)

Examples of activity

Read, Watch, Listen, Think about, Access, Observe, Review, Study

List, Analyse, Collate, Plot, Find, Discover, Access, Use, Gather, Order, Classify, Select, Assess, Manipulate

Communicate, Debate, Discuss, Argue, Share, Report, Collaborate, Present, Describe, Question

 

Create, Build, Make, Design, Construct, Contribute, Complete, Produce, Write, Draw, Refine, Compose, Synthesise, Remix

Practice, Apply, Mimic, Experience, Explore, Investigate, Perform, Engage

 

Explore, Experiment, Trial, Improve, Model, Simulate

 

Write, Present, Report, Demonstrate, Critique

Findings: Patterns in LD

assimilative findinginfo communication productive experiential interactive assessment

-0.0999999999999998

2.4980018054066E-16

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Cluster 1: constructivistCluster 2: assessment-drivenCluster 3: balanced-varietyCluster 4: social constructivist

Constructivist Learning Design

Assessment Learning Design

Balanced-variety Learning Design

Socio-construct. Learning Design

VLE Engagement

Student Satisfaction

Student retention

Learning Design40+ modules

Week 1 Week 2 Week30+

Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., Bryan, A. (2015). “Scaling up” learning design: impact of learning design activities on LMS behavior and performance. Learning Analytics Knowledge conference.

Cluster 1 Constructive

Cluster 4 Socio-constructive

M SD Assimilative Finding

information Communication Productive Experiential Interactive Assessment total

VLE visits 123.01 66.35 .069 .334 .493** -.102 .327 -.106 -.435* .581**

Average Time per week 57.42 39.97 -.063 .313* .357* -.038 .341* -.159 -.253 .494**

Week-2 59.08 32.30 -.015 .072 -.057 -.087 .108 -.016 .03 .236

Week-1 84.97 46.55 -.138 .2 .077 -.033 .137 .025 .021 .19

Week0 133.29 103.55 -.131 .25 .467** -.116 0 .105 -.034 .377*

Week1 147.93 118.03 -.239 .608** .692** -.051 .13 -.041 -.175 .381*

Week2 151.44 118.16 -.27 .649** .723** -.029 .193 -.055 -.208 .381*

Week3 136.10 106.53 -.169 .452** .581** -.026 .284 -.048 -.262 .514**

Week4 165.03 210.88 -.184 .787** .579** .004 .054 -.055 -.253 .159

Week5 148.85 144.59 -.233 .714** .616** .046 .101 -.095 -.231 .272

Week6 130.41 117.27 -.135 .632** .606** -.022 .093 -.164 -.245 .308*

Week7 113.30 93.13 -.117 .545** .513** -.07 .132 -.181 -.185 .256

Week8 112.50 89.95 -.113 .564** .510** -.021 .119 -.172 -.227 .183

Week9 108.17 95.11 -.232 .682** .655** .013 .117 -.087 -.222 .212

Week10 105.27 99.97 -.156 .618** .660** -.024 .098 -.056 -.263 .331*

M SD 1

Assimilative

2 Finding

info 3

Communication 4

Productive 5

Experiential 6

Interactive 7

Assessment total

9 Overall I am satisfied with the quality of the course 81.29 14.51 .253 -.259 -.315* -.11 .018 .135 -.034 .002

10 Overall I am satisfied with my study experience 80.52 13.20 .303* -.336* -.333* -.082 -.208 .137 .039 -.069

11 The module provided good value for money 66.86 16.28 .312* -.345* -.420** -.163 -.035 .197 .025 -.05

12 I was satisfied with the support provided by my tutor on this module 83.42 13.10 .230 -.231 -.263 -.049 -.051 .189 -.065 -.1

13 Overall I am satisfied with the teaching materials on this module 78.52 15.51 .291* -.257 -.323* -.091 -.134 .16 -.021 -.063

14 Overall I was able to keep up with the workload on this module 78.75 11.75 .182 -0.259 -.337* -.006 -.274 .012 .166 -.479**

15 The learning outcomes of this module were clearly stated 89.09 7.01 .287* -.350* -.292* -.211 -.156 .206 .104 -.037

16 I would recommend this module to other students 74.30 16.15 .204 -.285* -.310* -.086 -.065 .163 .052 -.036

17 The module met my expectations 74.26 14.44 .267 -.311* -.381** -.049 -.148 .152 .032 -.041

18 I enjoyed studying this module 75.40 15.49 .212 -.233 -.239 -.068 -.1 .207 -.017 .016

19 Average learning experience 77.53 13.34 .277* -.308* -.346* -.106 -.103 .177 .017 -.036

20 Average Support and workload 81.09 9.22 .277* -.327* -.399** -.038 -.211 .139 .061 -.377**

M SD 1

Assimilative 2 Finding

info 3

Communication 4

Productive 5

Experiential 6

Interactive 7

Assessment Total

21 Registrations 559.05 720.83 .391** -.07 -.27 .00 -.15 -.03 -.25 -.07

22 Completed of Registered Starts 77.36 11.18 -.327* .12 .18 .12 -.03 -.06 .22 -.10

23 Passed of Completed 93.60 6.48 -.25 .04 .01 .11 .04 .02 .18 -.25

24 Passed of Registered Starts 72.80 13.31 -.332* .10 .14 .13 -.01 -.05 .22 -.15

24 Level 2.30 1.20 -.382** .398** .166* .00 .222** -.13 .11 .394**

Constructivist Learning Design

Assessment Learning Design

Balanced-variety Learning Design

Socio-construct. Learning Design

VLE Engagement

Student Satisfaction

Student retention

Learning Design40+ modules

Week 1 Week 2 Week30+

Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., Bryan, A. (2015). “Scaling up” learning design: impact of learning design activities on LMS behavior and performance. Learning Analytics Knowledge conference.

Workload

Q3 Online acculturation/introduction course Economics• Economics/acculturation• (Nearly) 1st year international students• Distance Education• -6 – 0 weeks before starting @uni• Problem-Based Learning• N=110

+ e-book system

Dynamic interaction of sychronous and asychronous learning

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D.T., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30-50. Impact factor: 1.632.

Intrinsic Motivation ↑ initial asynchronous contributions ↑ in asynchronous and synchronous contributions

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D.T., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30-50. Impact factor: 1.632.

Introduction math/stats

• Business• 1st year students• Blended• 0-12 weeks after start studying• Adaptive learning/Problem-Based

Learning• N=990

DiagnosticEntryTests

Week 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 6Week 5

Quiz 1 Quiz 2 Quiz 3

Final Exam

• Math-Exam

• Stats-Exam

--------------------------------------------- BlackBoard LMS behaviour -----------------------------------------

Week 7

Mastery scores MyMathlab

Mastery scores

Practice time # Attempts

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores MyMathlab

Practice time # Attempts

Mastery scores MyStatlab

Mastery scores

Practice time # Attempts

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores

Practice time# Attempts

Mastery scores MyStatlab

Practice time# Attempts

Demogra-phic data

QMTotal

Week 8

Learning Styles, Motivation,

Engagement

Learning Emotions -Learning dispositions ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------

Tempelaar, D., Rienties, B., Giesbers., B. (2015). In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning Analytics in a data-rich context. Computers in Human Behaviour. Impact factor: 2.067.

LMS prediction Not great

E-tutorials prediction Substantial improvement!

Entry test and quizes Even better!

All elements combined:

Using track data we can follow: -who is struggling?-where?-when?-why?

Who is struggling in week 3?

What can be done about this?• (Personalised) feedback• (Personalised) examples• Peer support• Emotional/learning support

Is data from Virtual Learning Environment systems (e.g., Blackboard, Moodle) useful for learning (analytics)? What else should we focus on to improve our understandings of social interaction?

• “Raw” VLE data does not seem very useful

• (entry)quizzes/formative learning outcomes in combination with learning dispositions provide good early-warning systems

Implications for EURO CALL1. What evidence is there that analytics actually helps learners to reach their potential?

• http://evidence.laceproject.eu/2. How does the Open University UK use

analytics to provide support for students and teachers?

• OU Analyse• Information Office Model• Predictive Z-score• Analytics4Action

Implications for EURO CALL3. How can we make learning more personalised, adaptive and meaningful, and what are the implications for Moodle?• Need to incorporate learning design• Individual differences? Learning

dispositions?• Emotions? • Ethics?

“Learning Analytics: The good, the bad, or perhaps ugly?”

@DrBartRienties

Reader in Learning Analytics

17th of October 2015Moscow

6th International Conference on“Rethinking Students: Ideas and New Research Approaches”