Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Leveraging the full value of learning analytics: The power of learning design

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
κατηγορούμενο
κατηγορούμενο
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 33 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Leveraging the full value of learning analytics: The power of learning design (20)

More from LACE Project (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Leveraging the full value of learning analytics: The power of learning design

  1. 1. Leveraging the full value of learning analytics: The power of learning design @DrBartRienties Reader in Learning Analytics 9th of October 2015 Milton Keynes
  2. 2. Belinda’s part here http://bcomposes.wordpress.com/
  3. 3. Assimilative Finding and handling information Communicati on 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. Toetenel, L. & Rienties, B. (Forthcoming). Analysing 157 Learning Designs using Learning Analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision-making. British Journal of Educational Technology.
  6. 6. Toetenel, L. & Rienties, B. (Forthcoming). Analysing 157 Learning Designs using Learning Analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision-making. British Journal of Educational Technology.
  7. 7. Findings: Patterns in LD 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 assimilative findinginfo communication productive experiential interactive assessment Cluster 1: constructivist Cluster 2: assessment-driven Cluster 3: balanced-variety Cluster 4: social constructivist
  8. 8. Constructivist Learning Design Assessment Learning Design Balanced-variety Learning Design Socio-construct. Learning Design VLE Engagement Student Satisfaction Student retention Learning Design 40+ 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.
  9. 9. Cluster 1 Constructive
  10. 10. Cluster 4 Socio-constructive
  11. 11. 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*
  12. 12. 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**
  13. 13. M SD 1 Assimilative 2Finding info 3 Communication 4 Productive 5 Experiential 6 Interactive 7 Assessment Total 21Registrations 559.05 720.83 .391** -.07 -.27 .00 -.15 -.03 -.25 -.07 22CompletedofRegisteredStarts 77.36 11.18 -.327* .12 .18 .12 -.03 -.06 .22 -.10 23PassedofCompleted 93.60 6.48 -.25 .04 .01 .11 .04 .02 .18 -.25 24PassedofRegisteredStarts 72.80 13.31 -.332* .10 .14 .13 -.01 -.05 .22 -.15 24Level 2.30 1.20 -.382** .398** .166* .00 .222** -.13 .11 .394**
  14. 14. Constructivist Learning Design Assessment Learning Design Balanced-variety Learning Design Socio-construct. Learning Design VLE Engagement Student Satisfaction Student retention Learning Design 40+ 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
  15. 15. Toetenel, L., Rienties, B. (Submitted) Learning Design – creative design to visualise learning activities. Open Learning.
  16. 16. Leveraging the full value of learning analytics: The power of learning design @DrBartRienties Reader in Learning Analytics 9th of October 2015 Milton Keynes

Editor's Notes

  • Learning Design Team has mapped 100+ modules
  • For each module, the learning design team together with module chairs create activity charts of what kind of activities students are expected to do in a week.
  • For each module, detailed information is available about the design philosophy, support materials, etc.
  • Explain seven categories
  • 5131 students responded – 28%, between 18-76%

  • This came as a surprise as LD is implemented as a unique, creative process.
  • Cluster analysis of 40 modules (>19k students) indicate that module teams design four different types of modules: constructivist, assessment driven, balanced, or socio-constructivist. The LAK paper by Rienties and colleagues indicates that VLE engagement is higher in modules with socio-constructivist or balanced variety learning designs, and lower for constructivist designs. In terms of learning outcomes, students rate constructivist modules higher, and socio-constructivist modules lower. However, in terms of student retention (% of students passed) constructivist modules have lower retention, while socio-constructivist have higher. Thus, learning design strongly influences behaviour, experience and performance. (and we believe we are the first to have mapped this with such a large cohort).
  • Cluster analysis of 40 modules (>19k students) indicate that module teams design four different types of modules: constructivist, assessment driven, balanced, or socio-constructivist. The LAK paper by Rienties and colleagues indicates that VLE engagement is higher in modules with socio-constructivist or balanced variety learning designs, and lower for constructivist designs. In terms of learning outcomes, students rate constructivist modules higher, and socio-constructivist modules lower. However, in terms of student retention (% of students passed) constructivist modules have lower retention, while socio-constructivist have higher. Thus, learning design strongly influences behaviour, experience and performance. (and we believe we are the first to have mapped this with such a large cohort).

×