Keynote EARLI SIG17 The power of learning analytics: a need to move towards new methodologies in education?

Keynote address

The power of learning analytics: a need to move towards new methodologies in education?

EARLI SIG 17, Maastricht, The Netherlands

@DrBartRienties

Reader in Learning Analytics

A special thanks to Avinash Boroowa, Aida Azadegan, Simon Cross, Rebecca Ferguson, Lee Farrington-Flint, Christothea Herodotou, Martin Hlosta, Lynda Prescott, Kevin Mayles, Tom Olney, Jekaterina Rogaten, Dirk Tempelaar, Lisette Toetenel, Thomas Ullmann, Denise Whitelock, John Woodthorpe, Zdenek Zdrahal, and others…A special thanks to Prof Belinda Tynan for her continuous support on analytics at the OU UK

Keynote address


is there still a need for educational research?

EARLI 2017 Tampere, Finland

@DrBartRienties


A special thanks to Avinash Boroowa, Aida Azadegan, Simon Cross, Rebecca Ferguson, Lee Farrington-Flint, Christothea Herodotou, Martin Hlosta, Lynda Prescott, Kevin Mayles, Tom Olney, Jekaterina Rogaten, Dirk Tempelaar, Lisette Toetenel, Thomas Ullmann, Denise Whitelock, John Woodthorpe, Zdenek Zdrahal, and others…A special thanks to Prof Belinda Tynan for her continuous support on analytics at the OU UK

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)

Agenda? You choose 1. The power of 151 Learning Designs on 113K+ students at the

OU?2. Analytics4Action: evidence-based interventions?3. OU Analyse: predictive analytics with automated student

recommender? 4. Key drivers for 100K+ student satisfaction?5. Opportunities of learning analytics/elearning for educational

research, teaching practice, and wider policy implications.

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

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

• learning design data (189 modules mapped, 276 module implementations included)

• student feedback data (140)• VLE data (141 modules)• Academic Performance (151)

• Data sets merged and cleaned• 111,256 students undertook these modules

Toetenel, L. & Rienties, B. (2016). Analysing 157 Learning Designs using Learning Analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision-making. British Journal of Educational Technology.

Constructivist Learning Design

Assessment Learning Design

Productive Learning Design

Socio-construct. Learning Design

VLE Engagement

Student Satisfaction

Student retention

Learning Design151 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.

Disciplines LevelsSize module

Average time spent per week in VLE

Cluster 1 Constructive (n=73)

Cluster 2 Assessment (n=10)

Cluster 3 Productive (n=38)

Cluster 4 Social Constructivist (n=20)

Week Assim Find Com. Prod Exp Inter Asses Total

-2 -.03 .02 -.02 -.09 .20* -.03 .01 .35** -1 -.17* .14 .14 -.01 .30** -.02 -.05 .38**

0 -.21* .14 .37** -.07 .13 .08 .02 .48**

1 -.26** .25** .47** -.02 .28** .01 -.1 .48**

2 -.33** .41** .59** -.02 .25** .05 -.13 .42**

3 -.30** .33** .53** -.02 .34** .02 -.15 .51**

4 -.27** .41** .49** -.01 .23** -.02 -.15 .35**

5 -.31** .46** .52** .05 .16 -.05 -.13 .28**

6 -.27** .44** .47** -.04 .18* -.09 -.08 .28**

7 -.30** .41** .49** -.02 .22** -.05 -.08 .33**

8 -.25** .33** .42** -.06 .29** -.02 -.1 .32**

9 -.28** .34** .44** -.01 .32** .01 -.14 .36**

10 -.34** .35** .53** .06 .27** .00 -.13 .35**

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Level0 -.279** -.291** -.116

Level1 -.341* -.352* -.067

Level2 .221* .229* .275**

Level3 .128 .130 .139

Year of implementation .048 .049 .090

Faculty 1 -.205* -.211* -.196*

Faculty 2 -.022 -.020 -.228**

Faculty 3 -.206* -.210* -.308**

Faculty other .216 .214 .024

Size of module .210* .209* .242**

Learner satisfaction (SEAM) -.040 .103

Finding information .147

Communication .393**

Productive .135

Experiential .353**

Interactive -.081

Assessment .076

R-sq adj 18% 18% 40%

n = 140, * p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 3 Regression model of LMS engagement predicted by institutional, satisfaction and learning design analytics

• Level of study predict VLE engagement

• Faculties have different VLE engagement

• Learning design (communication & experiential) predict VLE engagement (with 22% unique variance explained)


Level0 .284** .304** .351**

Level1 .259 .243 .265

Level2 -.211 -.197 -.212

Level3 -.035 -.029 -.018 Year of implementation .028 -.071 -.059

Faculty 1 .149 .188 .213*

Faculty 2 -.039 .029 .045

Faculty 3 .090 .188 .236* Faculty other .046 .077 .051

Size of module .016 -.049 -.071 Finding information -.270** -.294**

Communication .005 .050

Productive -.243** -.274** Experiential -.111 -.105

Interactive .173* .221* Assessment -.208* -.221*

LMS engagement .117

R-sq adj 20% 30% 31%

n = 150 (Model 1-2), 140 (Model 3), * p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 4 Regression model of learner satisfaction predicted by institutional and learning design analytics

• Level of study predict satisfaction

• Learning design (finding info, productive, assessment) negatively predict satisfaction

• Interactive learning design positively predicts satisfaction

• VLE engagement and satisfaction unrelated


Level0 -.142 -.147 .005

Level1 -.227 -.236 .017

Level2 -.134 -.170 -.004

Level3 .059 -.059 .215

Year of implementation -.191** -.152* -.151*

Faculty 1 .355** .374** .360**

Faculty 2 -.033 -.032 -.189*

Faculty 3 .095 .113 .069

Faculty other .129 .156 .034

Size of module -.298** -.285** -.239**

Learner satisfaction (SEAM) -.082 -.058

LMS Engagement -.070 -.190*

Finding information -.154

Communication .500**

Productive .133

Experiential .008

Interactive -.049

Assessment .063

R-sq adj 30% 30% 36%

n = 150 (Model 1-2), 140 (Model 3), * p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 5 Regression model of learning performance predicted by institutional, satisfaction and learning design analytics

• Size of module and discipline predict completion

• Satisfaction unrelated to completion

• Learning design (communication) predicts completion

Constructivist Learning Design

Assessment Learning Design

Productive Learning Design

Socio-construct. Learning Design

VLE Engagement

Student Satisfaction

Student retention

150+ modules

Week 1 Week 2 Week30+

Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: a cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60 (2016), 333-341

Communication

Toetenel, L., Rienties, B. (2016) Learning Design – creative design to visualise learning activities. Open Learning.

So what does the OU do in terms of interventions on learning analytics?

The OU is developing its capabilities in 10 key areas that build the underpinning strengths required for the effective deployment of analytics

Strategic approach

43

45

Analytics4Action framework

Implementation/testing methodologies

• Randomised control trials• A/B testing

• Quasi-experimental• Apply to all

Communityof inquiry

framework:underpinning

typology

Menu of response actions

Methods of gathering data Evaluation Plans

Evidence hub

Key metrics anddrill downs

Deep dive analysis and

strategic insight

48

Menu of actions Learning design (before start) In-action interventions (during module)

Cognitive Presence Redesign learning materials

Redesign assignments

Audio feedback on assignments

Bootcamp before exam

Social Presence Introduce graded discussion forum activities

Group-based wiki assignment

Assign groups based upon learning analytics

metrics

Emotional questionnaire to gauge students’

emotions

Introduce buddy system

Organise additional videoconference sessions

One-to-one conversations

Cafe forum contributions

Support emails when making progress

Teaching Presence Introduce bi-weekly online videoconference

sessions

Podcasts of key learning elements in the module

Screencasts of “how to survive the first two weeks”

Organise additional videoconference sessions

Call/text/skype student-at-risk

Organise catch-up sessions on specific topics that

students struggle with

Problem specification – the OU model

• Given:– Demographic data at the Start (may include information about student’s

previous modules studied at the OU and his/her objectives)– Assessments (TMAs) as they are available during the module– VLE activities between TMAs– Conditions student must satisfy to pass the module

• Goal: – Identify students at risk of failing the module as early as possible so that

OU intervention is efficient and meaningful.

Available data

• Demographic data: age, gender, new/cont. student, education, IMD, post code, occup. category, motivation, …

• Presentation-related (fluid) data: VLE logs, TMA (score, submission date), CMA, payment dates, TMA/CMA weights, End of module assessment.

• Aggregated VLE data available daily.

Naïve Bayes network

Gender

Education

N/C

VLE

TMA1

• Education:– No formal qualif.– Lower than A level– A level– HE qualif.– Postgraduate qualif.

• VLE:– No engagement– 1-20 clicks– 21-100 clicks– 101 – 800 clicks

• N/C:– New student– Continuing student

• Gender:– Female– Male

Goal:Calculate probability of failing at TMA1 • either by not submitting TMA1,• or by submitting with score < 40.

Bayes network: example• Demographic data

– New student– Male– No formal qualification

Gender

Education

N/CTMA1

Without VLE:Probability of failing at TMA1 = 18.5%

Gender

Education

N/C

VLE

TMA1

With VLE:

Clicks Probability

0 64%1-20 44%

21-100 26%101-800 6.30%

Why TMA1?

• Two reasons:– TMA1 is a good predictor of success or failure– It is enough time to intervene … is it true?

We are hereHistory we know Future we can affect

Predicting final result from TMA1

Gender

Education

N/C

VLE

TMA1 Final resultTMA6TMA2

Pass/Distinction

Fail

TMA1 >=40

TMA1 <40

Bayes minimum error classifierIf student fails in TMA1, he/she is likely to fail the whole module

Module XXX1 2013B

• Total number of students: 2966• Pass or distinction: 1644• Fail or withdrawn: 1322• Prior probabilities:

– P(fail) = 0.45, P(success) = 0.55• After TMA1 (Bayes rule):

– P(fail|TMA1fail) = 0.96, P(success|TMA1fail) = 0.04– P(fail|TMA1pass) = 0.29, P(success|TMA1pass) = 0.71

• 96% students who fail at TMA1 fail the module

Module XXX2 2013B

• Total number of students: 1555• Pass or distinction: 609• Fail or withdrawn: 946• Prior probabilities:

– P(fail) = 0.61, P(success) = 0.39• After TMA1 (Bayes rule):

– P(fail|TMA1fail) = 0.986, P(success|TMA1fail) = 0.014– P(fail|TMA1pass) = 0.46, P(success|TMA1pass) = 0.54

• 98.6% students who fail at TMA1 fail the module

Selected important VLE activities

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

• Possible activity combinations in a week: 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






Pass Fail No submit TMA-1time

VLE opens

Start

Activity space



Start






VLE opens

Start

VLE trail: successful student



Start







VLE opens

Start

VLE trail: student who did not submit

Probabilistic model: all studentstime

TMA1

VLE

start

Module VLE Fingerprint

Four predictive models built from legacy data by Machine Learning

Prediction sheet: example

Dashboard: Module viewTime Machine and VLE overview with notifications

Prediction tableDashboard: Module view

Filter

Dashboard: Module view

Dashboard: Student view

VLE activities, TMA results, time machine

Nearest neighbours, Predictions with real scores, Personalised recommender

Dashboard: Student view

Feedback from tutors

Dashboard: Tutor view

Background of QAA Study

• HE increasingly competitive market: student satisfaction has become an important component of Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Enhancement (QE, Kember & Ginns, 2012; Rienties, 2014).

• Measurement of student satisfaction is important to pinpoint strengths and identify areas for improvement (Coffey & Gibbs, 2001; Zerihun, Beishuizen, & Os, 2012).

• Potential benefits and drawbacks of student evaluations have been well-documented in the literature (see for example Bennett & De Bellis, 2010; Crews & Curtis, 2011),

o Recent research continues to suggest strong resistance amongst academic staff (Crews & Curtis, 2011; Rienties, 2014).

o Most student survey instruments lack of focus on key elements of rich learning, such as interaction, assessment and feedback.

• With the increased importance of NSS and institutional surveys on academic and educational practice, there is a need for a critical review of how these data are used for QA and QE.

Key Questions of the Project

1. To what extent are institutions using insights from NSS and institutional surveys to transform their students’ experience?

2. What are the key enablers and barriers for integrating student satisfaction data with QA and QE

3. How are student experiences influencing quality enhancementsa) What influences students’ perceptions of overall satisfaction the most? Are student

characteristics or module/presentation related factors more predictive than satisfaction with other aspects of their learning experience?

b) Is the student cohort homogenous when considering satisfaction key drivers? For example are there systematic differences depending on the level or programme of study?

Methodology (Logistic Regression) & Validation

Step 1: A descriptive analysis was conducted to discount variables that were unsuitable for satisfaction modelling.

Step 1 also identified highly correlated predictors and methodically selected the most appropriate.

Module

Presentation

Student

Concurrency

Study history

Overall Satisfaction

SEaM

UG new, UG continuing, PG new and PG continuing students were modelled separately at Step 2.

Step 2: Each subset of variables was modelled in groups. The variables that were statistically significant from each subset were then combined and modelled to identify the final list of key drivers

We found at Step 3 that the combined scale provided the simplest and most interpretable solution for PG students and the whole scale for UG students. The solution without the KPI’s included was much easier to use in terms of identifying clear priorities for action.

Step 3 Validation: all models have been verified by using subsets of the whole data to ensure the solutions are robust. A variety of model fit statistics have also been used to identify the optimum solutions.

Satisfaction Modelling:Undergraduate Continuing Students

% planned life cycle

15

Module: Examinable Component

14

Module: Level of

study

13

Module: Credits

12

Q6 Method

of delivery

11

Q11 Assignme

nt completio

n

09

Q23 Tutor knowledg

e

07

Q3 Advice &

guidance

05

Q13 Qualificati

on aim

03

KPI-05 Teaching materials

01

KPI-06Workload

10

Q9 Assignmen

t instruction

s

08

Q14 Career

relevance

06

Q5 Integratio

n of materials

04

Q36 Assessmen

t

02

Importance to Overall Satisfaction

Li, N., Marsh, V., & Rienties, B. (2016). Modeling and managing learner satisfaction: use of learner feedback to enhance blended and online learning experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14 (2), 216-242.

Satisfaction Modelling:Undergraduate New Students

Age

07

Q14 Career

relevance

05

Q3 Advice &

guidance

03

KPI-05 Teaching materials

01

Q13Qualification

aim

06

Q5 Integratio

n of materials

04

Q36 Assessmen

t

02

Importance to Overall Satisfaction

Li, N., Marsh, V., Rienties, B., Whitelock, D. (2016). Online learning experiences of new versus continuing learners: a large scale replication study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1176989.

Conclusions (Part I)

1. Learning design strongly influences student engagement, satisfaction and performance

2. Visualising learning design decisions by teachers lead to more interactive/communicative designs

Conclusions (Part II)

1. 10 out of 11 modules improved retention

2. Visualising learning analytics data can encourage teachers to intervene in-presentation and redesign afterwards

Conclusions (Part III)

1. Need for educational theory to unpack learning analytics

2. Need for educationalists to embrace learning analytics ….

3. Lets work together


EARLI SIG 17, Maastricht, The Netherlands@DrBartRienties
