Learner analytics: Hindsight evaluation at course-level

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Research in Education and Learning Innovation Archives-REALIA Pub Date : 2023-07-26 DOI:10.7203/realia.30.25526
Rachel Cliodhna Bassett-Dubsky
{"title":"Learner analytics: Hindsight evaluation at course-level","authors":"Rachel Cliodhna Bassett-Dubsky","doi":"10.7203/realia.30.25526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of student engagement is a contentious construct. The task of learner analytics (LA) to meaningfully measure student engagement is therefore complicated both by a lack of agreement over what is being measured and a discomfort or lack of confidence around what collated data might believably indicate. This challenge is made harder by availability, accuracy and reliability of data feeds. The aim of LA would be to collate and share early measures of engagement that can be used predictively to support learners’ experience and outcomes. However, most HEI LA are descriptive and therefore of limited utility. Where the LA available are descriptive, this paper explores how credible such LA might be when used at course level.   This study supports an analysis of comprehensive data gathered within and beyond LA for a level 4 cohort in one programme across the 2019-20 academic year. It also draws on data relating to study completion, with the benefit of hindsight giving further insights to the utility of LA data available earlier in students’ journeys. Given the actual outcomes for these 2019 starters, the study cohort’s understanding of ‘engagement’ is then applied to support insights to their own measurable indicators of interaction and actions that might best enable constructive engagement. Meaningful correlations were noted between use of E-resources and student outcomes and the most significant indicators of risk were found to be extensions, fails and non-submissions for assignments in the first semester of level 4 and average grades <39% by the end of level 4. Study recommendations include supporting better and more confident access to literature content and targeting timely interventions at students flagged by the most significant indicators of risk.","PeriodicalId":40166,"journal":{"name":"Research in Education and Learning Innovation Archives-REALIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Education and Learning Innovation Archives-REALIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7203/realia.30.25526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of student engagement is a contentious construct. The task of learner analytics (LA) to meaningfully measure student engagement is therefore complicated both by a lack of agreement over what is being measured and a discomfort or lack of confidence around what collated data might believably indicate. This challenge is made harder by availability, accuracy and reliability of data feeds. The aim of LA would be to collate and share early measures of engagement that can be used predictively to support learners’ experience and outcomes. However, most HEI LA are descriptive and therefore of limited utility. Where the LA available are descriptive, this paper explores how credible such LA might be when used at course level.   This study supports an analysis of comprehensive data gathered within and beyond LA for a level 4 cohort in one programme across the 2019-20 academic year. It also draws on data relating to study completion, with the benefit of hindsight giving further insights to the utility of LA data available earlier in students’ journeys. Given the actual outcomes for these 2019 starters, the study cohort’s understanding of ‘engagement’ is then applied to support insights to their own measurable indicators of interaction and actions that might best enable constructive engagement. Meaningful correlations were noted between use of E-resources and student outcomes and the most significant indicators of risk were found to be extensions, fails and non-submissions for assignments in the first semester of level 4 and average grades <39% by the end of level 4. Study recommendations include supporting better and more confident access to literature content and targeting timely interventions at students flagged by the most significant indicators of risk.
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
学习者分析:课程层面的后见评估
学生参与的概念是一个有争议的概念。因此,学习者分析(LA)的任务是有意义地衡量学生的参与度,这一任务变得复杂起来,一方面是对所衡量的内容缺乏共识,另一方面是对整理后的数据可能可信地表明的内容感到不安或缺乏信心。数据源的可用性、准确性和可靠性使这一挑战变得更加困难。LA的目的是整理和分享参与的早期测量,这些测量可以预测性地用于支持学习者的体验和结果。然而,大多数HEI LA是描述性的,因此效用有限。在可用的LA是描述性的地方,本文探讨了在课程水平上使用这种LA的可信度。本研究支持对2019-20学年一个项目4级队列在洛杉矶内外收集的综合数据进行分析。它还利用了与学习完成情况有关的数据,后见之明的好处是,可以进一步了解学生早期学习过程中可用的洛杉矶数据的效用。考虑到这些2019年新人的实际结果,研究队列对“参与”的理解随后被应用于支持他们自己的可衡量的互动指标和行动,这些指标和行动可能最能实现建设性的参与。电子资源的使用与学生成绩之间存在显著的相关性,最显著的风险指标是第4级第一学期的延期、不及格和未提交作业,第4级结束时的平均成绩<39%。研究建议包括支持更好和更自信地获取文献内容,并针对被最重要的风险指标标记为学生的及时干预措施。
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
16.70%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reducing Underachievement and Promoting Critical Thinking Skills in Computer Studies Through a Culturally Sensitive Instructional Method El tratamiento de las lenguas adicionales en el Proyecto Lingüístico de Centro: TILC y AICLE a revisión en el contexto valenciano Learner analytics: Hindsight evaluation at course-level Exploring the Positive Experiences of Senior High School Teachers in Teaching the Sports Track during the K-12 Transition Years in Southern Philippines Implicación y afectividad en el ejercicio profesional del Trabajo Social y la Educación Social
×
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