Student perspectives on data provision and use: starting to unpack disciplinary differences

J. McPherson, H. L. Tong, S. Fatt, Danny Y. T. Liu
{"title":"Student perspectives on data provision and use: starting to unpack disciplinary differences","authors":"J. McPherson, H. L. Tong, S. Fatt, Danny Y. T. Liu","doi":"10.1145/2883851.2883945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How can we best align learning analytics practices with disciplinary knowledge practices in order to support student learning? Although learning analytics itself is an interdisciplinary field, it tends to take a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to the collection, measurement, and reporting of data, overlooking disciplinary knowledge practices. In line with a recent trend in higher education research, this paper considers the contribution of a realist sociology of education to the field of learning analytics, drawing on findings from recent student focus groups at an Australian university. It examines what learners say about their data needs with reference to organizing principles underlying knowledge practices within their disciplines. The key contribution of this paper is a framework that could be used as the basis for aligning the provision and/or use of data in relation to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment with disciplinary knowledge practices. The framework extends recent research in Legitimation Code Theory, which understands disciplinary differences in terms of the principles that underpin knowledge-building. The preliminary analysis presented here both provides a tool for ensuring a fit between learning analytics practices and disciplinary practices and standards for achievement, and signals disciplinarity as an important consideration in learning analytics practices.","PeriodicalId":343844,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge","volume":"253 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883945","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

How can we best align learning analytics practices with disciplinary knowledge practices in order to support student learning? Although learning analytics itself is an interdisciplinary field, it tends to take a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to the collection, measurement, and reporting of data, overlooking disciplinary knowledge practices. In line with a recent trend in higher education research, this paper considers the contribution of a realist sociology of education to the field of learning analytics, drawing on findings from recent student focus groups at an Australian university. It examines what learners say about their data needs with reference to organizing principles underlying knowledge practices within their disciplines. The key contribution of this paper is a framework that could be used as the basis for aligning the provision and/or use of data in relation to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment with disciplinary knowledge practices. The framework extends recent research in Legitimation Code Theory, which understands disciplinary differences in terms of the principles that underpin knowledge-building. The preliminary analysis presented here both provides a tool for ensuring a fit between learning analytics practices and disciplinary practices and standards for achievement, and signals disciplinarity as an important consideration in learning analytics practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学生对数据提供和使用的看法:开始揭示学科差异
为了支持学生的学习,我们如何才能最好地将学习分析实践与学科知识实践结合起来?虽然学习分析本身是一个跨学科领域,但它倾向于采取“一刀切”的方法来收集、测量和报告数据,忽视了学科知识实践。根据高等教育研究的最新趋势,本文考虑了现实主义教育社会学对学习分析领域的贡献,借鉴了澳大利亚一所大学最近的学生焦点小组的研究结果。它考察了学习者所说的关于他们的数据需求的参考组织原则,这些原则是他们学科内知识实践的基础。本文的主要贡献是提供了一个框架,可以作为将课程、教学法和评估相关数据的提供和/或使用与学科知识实践相一致的基础。该框架扩展了最近在合法化法典理论方面的研究,该理论从支撑知识建设的原则方面理解学科差异。本文提出的初步分析提供了一种工具,确保学习分析实践与学科实践和成就标准之间的契合,并表明学科性是学习分析实践的重要考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Topic modeling for evaluating students' reflective writing: a case study of pre-service teachers' journals Learning through goal setting Reflecting on reflective writing analytics: assessment challenges and iterative evaluation of a prototype tool Evaluation of an adaptive practice system for learning geography facts Student perspectives on data provision and use: starting to unpack disciplinary differences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1