Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a Learning Analytics Intervention in E-learning to Enhance Students’ Learning Performance: A Case Study

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The emergence of Learning Analytics has brought benefits to the educational field, as it can be used to analyse authentic data from students to identify the problems encountered in e-learning and to provide intervention to assist students. However, much is still unknown about the development of Learning Analytics intervention in terms of providing personalised learning materials to students to meet their needs in order to enhance their learning performance. Thus, this study aims to develop a Learning Analytics intervention in e-learning to enhance students’ learning performance. In order to develop the intervention, four stages of Learning Analytics Cycle proposed by Clow: learner, data, metrics and intervention were carried out, integrating with two well-known models: Felder-Silverman’s and Keller’s Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction (ARCS) models in e-learning, to develop various Learning Objects in e-learning. After that, a case study was carried out to assess this intervention with various validated research instruments. A quantitative approach involving a one-group pre-test–post-test experimental design was adopted, which consists of a population of 50 undergraduate students who enrolled in the Information System Management in Education course. The results indicated that the Learning Analytics intervention is useful, as it overall helped the majority of students to enhance their motivation, academic achievement, cognitive engagement and cognitive retention in e-learning. From this study, readers can understand the way to implement the Learning Analytics intervention which is proved to made positive impact on students’ learning achievement with the Cohen’s d of 5.669. Lastly, this study contributes significant new knowledge to the current understanding of how Learning Analytics intervention can perform to optimize students’ learning experience and also serves to fill a gap in research on Learning Analytics, namely the lack of development of interventions to assist students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguiar, E., Chawla, N. V., Brockman, J., Ambrose, G. A., & Goodrich, V. (2014). Engagement vs Performance: Using Electronic Portfolios to Predict First Semester Engineering Student Persistence. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(3), 7–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study.". Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akçapınar, G., Altun, A., & Aşkar, P. (2019). Using learning analytics to develop early-warning system for at-risk students. InterNational Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, A., & Grönlund, A. (2009). A conceptual framework for E-learning in developing countries: A critical review of research challenges. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 38(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D., Richardson, J., Zygouris-Coe, V., Brown, R., & Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Research Committee Issues Brief: An Exploration of At-risk Learners and Online Education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning, 1–24.

  • Baepler, P., & Murdoch, C. J. (2010). Academic Analytics and Data Mining in Higher Education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, J., Melitski, J., & Zahradnik, A. (2015). Using Learning Analytics to Predict At-Risk Students in Online Graduate Public Affairs and Administration Education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(2), 247–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. S., Lindrum, D., Lindrum, M. J. and Perkowski, D. (2015). Analyzing Early At-risk Factors in Higher Education E-learning Courses. Retrieved from www.upenn.edu/learninganalytics/ryanbaker/2015paper41.pdf

  • Bakharia, A., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., Kennedy, G., Gašević, D., Mulder, R., et al. (2016). A conceptual framework linking learning design with learning analytics In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp 329–338). New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, A., Brown, S., Lutz, B., et al. (2020). Development of the student course cognitive engagement instrument (SCCEI) for college engineering courses. IJ STEM Ed, 7, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00220-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, J.E., Mostow, J. (2008). How who should practice: Using learning decomposition to evaluate the efficacy of different types of practice for different types of students. In: Woolf B.P., Aïmeur E., Nkambou R., Lajoie S. (eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5091, 353–362. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_39

  • Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of Engagement. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, Technology and Transformation for an Unknown Future (pp. 75–86). Ascilite.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and Satisfaction in Internet-supported Learning Environments: A Review. Educational Technology and Society, 13(2), 116–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Trends and issues in student-facing learning analytics reporting systems research. Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027403

  • Choi, S. P. M., Lam, S. S., Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T. M. (2018). Learning Analytics at Low Cost: At-risk Student Prediction with Clicker Data and Systematic Proactive Interventions. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 273–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK ’12, 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330636

  • Coffrin, C., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., & Kennedy, G. (2014). Visualizing patterns of student engagement and performance in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (p. 83–92). ACM.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2015). Exploring issues about computational thinking in higher education. TechTrends, 59(2), 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz-Uhler, B., & Hurn, J. E. (2013). Using learning analytics to predict (and improve) student success: A faculty perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning., 12(1), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diseth, Á. (2011). Self-Efficacy, Goal Orientations and Learning Strategies as Mediators between Preceding and Subsequent Academic Achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 191–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, A. (2000). Learning styles measurement–the revised approaches to studying inventory (RASI). Bristol Business School Teaching and Research Review, 3, 1–23.

  • Dung, P. Q., & Florea, A. M. (2012). An approach for detecting learning styles in learning management systems based on learners’ behaviours. International Conference on Education and Management Innovation, 30, 171–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • EDUCAUSE. (2010). Next Generation Learning Challenges: Learner Analytics Premises. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/NextGenerationLearningChalleng/215028

  • Er, E. (2012). Identifying At-risk Students Using Machine Learning Techniques: A Case Study with IS 100. International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, 2(4), 476–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting learning success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84.

  • Gonzalez, A. S. (2015). The influence of cultural contexts in learners’ attributions for success and failure in foreign language learning. Cambridge Scholars Publ.

  • Graf, S. (2007). Adaptivity in learning management systems focussing on learning styles [PhD Thesis, Vienna University of Technology]. http://sgraf.athabascau.ca/publications/PhDthesis_SabineGraf.pdf

  • Gülbahar, Y., & Alper, A. (2011). Learning preferences and learning styles of online adult learners. In Méndez-Vilas, A. (Ed). Education in a Technological World: Communicating Current and Emerging Research and Technological Efforts, 270–278. Badajoz, Spain: Formatex.

  • Hamada, A. K., Rashad, M. Z., & Darwesh, M. G. (2011). Behavior Analysis in a Learning Environment to Identify the Suitable Learning Style. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 3(2), 48–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs. National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities in Schools Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrer, A., & Göhnert, T. (2015). Integrated representations and small data: Towards contextualized and embedded analytics tools for learners. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge, 406–407. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723665

  • Hicks, M. A. (2007). Cognitive Retention of Generation Y Students through the Use of Games and Simulations. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://works.bepress.com/melanie_hicks/1/

  • Hsieh, S. W., Jang, Y. R., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, N. S. (2011). Effects of Teaching and Learning Styles on Students’ Reflection Levels for Ubiquitous Learning. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1194–1201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Y. H., Lo, C. L., & Shih, S. P. (2014). Developing Early Warning Systems to Predict Students’ Online Learning Performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93–135.

  • Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A. & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report. Austin, TX: The new media consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2011-Horizon-Report.pdf

  • Joo, K. P., Andrés, C., & Shearer, R. (2014). Promoting Distance Learners’ Cognitive Engagement and Learning Outcomes: Design-Based Research in the Costa Rican National University of Distance Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), 189–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Lozano, J. M., Rua-Vieites, A., Bilbao-Calabuig, P., & Casadesús-Fa, M. (2020). University student retention: Best time and data to identify undergraduate students at risk of dropout. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1502090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are There Cultural Differences in Learning Style? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and Use of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner Motivation and e-learning Design: A Multinationally Validated Process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kew, S. N., Petsangsri, S., Ratanaolarn, T., & Tasir, Z. (2018). Examining the motivation level of students in e-learning in higher education institution in Thailand: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2947–2967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kew, S. N., & Tasir, Z. (2017). A Systematic Review of Learning Analytics Intervention Contributing to Student Success in Online Learning. IEEE Conference Proceedings of LaTiCE, Hong Kong, 2017, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2017.18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kew, S. N., & Tasir, Z. (2021). Learning Analytics in Online Learning Environment: A Systematic Review on the Focuses and the Types of Student-Related Analytics Data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09541-2

  • Kew, S. N., & Tasir, Z. (2021b). Analysing students’ cognitive engagement in e-learning discussion forums through content analysis. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 13(1), 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • LarrabeeSønderlund, A., Hughes, E., & Smith, J. (2019). The efficacy of learning analytics interventions in higher education: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2594–2618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D.-Y.T., Froissard, J.-C., Richards, D., & Atif, A. (2015). An enhanced learning analytics plugin for Moodle: student engagement and personalised intervention. In T. Reiners, B.R. von Konsky, D. Gibson, V. Chang, L. Irving, & K. Clarke (Eds.),Globally connected, digitally enabled. Proceedings ascilite 2015 in Perth (pp. FP:168- FP:177)

  • Lonn, S., Aguilar, S. J., & Teasley, S. D. (2015). Investigating Student Motivation in the Context of a Learning Analytics Intervention during a Summer Bridge Program. Computer in Human Behavior, 47, 90–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwrens, N., & Hartnett, M. (2015). Student and Teacher Perceptions of Online Student Engagement in an Online Middle School. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 19(1), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyke, J. A., & Kelaher Young, A. J. (2006). Cognition in Context: Students’ Perceptions of Classroom Goal Structures and Reported Cognitive Strategy Use in the College Classroom. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 477–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W. W. A. (2009). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning and Higher Order Thinking Skills: A Case Study of Textile Studies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Elearning and Learning Objects., 5, 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in Academic Work: The Role of Learning Goals, Future Consequences, Pleasing Others, and Perceived Ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 388–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mpungose, C. B. (2020). Is Moodle or WhatsApp the preferred e-learning platform at a South African university? First-Year Students’ Experiences. Educ Inf Technol, 25, 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10005-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Na, K. S., Petsangsri, S., & Tasir, Z. (2020). The relationship between academic performance and motivation level in e-learning among Thailand university students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 10(03), 184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patronis, M. (2005). Motivational Constructs in an Online Learning Environment in a UAE University. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/emel2005/people/patronis/MP%20Paper2005.doc

  • Perera, L., & Richardson, P. (2010). Students’ Use of Online Academic Resources within a Course Web Site and Its Relationship with their Course Performance: An Exploratory Study. Accounting Education International Journal, 19, 587–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rana, H., & Rafiv, & Lal, M. (2014). E-learning: Issues and Challenges. International Journal of Computer Applications, 97(5), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The Role of Students’ Cognitive Engagement in Online Learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rienties, B., Cross, S., & Zdrahal, Z. (2016). Implementing a Learning Analytics Intervention and Evaluation Framework: what works. In B. Motidyang & R. Butson (Eds.), Big Data and Learning Analytics in Higher Education Current Theory and Practice. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. R., & McNeil, K. (2009). Student Learning Styles and Online Course Performance: An Empirical Examination of Student Success in Web-Based Management Courses. Business Education Digest, 18, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saadé, R. G., He, X., & Kira, D. (2007). Exploring dimensions to online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1721–1739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeed, N., Yang, Y., & Sinnappan, S. (2009). Emerging Web Technologies in Higher Education: A Case of Incorporating Blogs, Podcasts and Social Bookmarks in a Web Programming Course based on Students’ Learning Styles and Technology Preferences. Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 98–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, M., & Yurgudul, H. (2017). The framework of intervention engine based on learning analytics. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, 255–258.

  • Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclater, N., Peasgood, A. & Mullan, J. (2016). Learning Analytics in Higher Education: A Review of UK and International Practice. Bristol: Jisc. Retrieved from www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/learning-analytics-in-higher-education

  • Sfenrianto, A., Zainal, H., Heru, S., & Nungki, S. (2014). An Approach to Detect Learning Types Based on Triple-Factor in E-Learning Process. Journal of next Generation Information Technology (JNIT), 5(1), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibani, A. (2018). Developing a Learning Analytics Intervention Design and tool for Writing Instruction. Companion Proceedings 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 1–7). Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shroff, R. H., Vogel, D. R., Coombes, J., & Lee, F. (2007). Student e-learning intrinsic motivation: A qualitative analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 19(1), 12.

  • Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). A predictive model to evaluate students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4844–4853.

  • Swanberg, A. B., & Martinsen, L. (2010). Personality, Approaches to Learning and Achievement. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarimo, W. T., Deeb, F. A., & Hickey, T. J. (2016). Early Detection of At-risk Students in CSL Using Teachback/Spinoza. JCSC, 3(1), 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2010). Development and validation of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM). The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 148–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tie, H., & Umar, I. N. (2010). The impact of learning styles and instructional methods on students' recall and retention in programming education. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 191–195).

  • Topçu, A. (2008). Intentional Repetition and Learning Style: Increasing Efficient and Cohesive Interaction in Asynchronous Online Discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 901–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Barneveld, A., Arnold, K. & Campbell, J. (2012). Analytics in higher education: Establishing a common language. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), 1, 1–11.

  • Van der Meijden, H. (2005). Knowledge Construction through CSCL: Student Elaborations in Synchronous, Asynchronous, and Three-Dimensional Learning Environments. Duiven: Drukkerij Tamminga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Harmelen, M. & Workman, D. (2012). Analytics for Learning and Teaching. CETIS Analytics Series, 1(3)

  • Van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2015). Teacher regulation of cognitive activities during student collaboration: Effects of learning analytics. Computers & Education, 90, 80–94.

  • Vatrapu, R., Teplovs, C., Fujita, N., & Bull, S. (2011). Towards visual analytics for teachers’ dynamic diagnostic pedagogical decision-making. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK ’11, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/2090116.2090129

  • Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 98–110.

  • West, D., Tasir, Z., Luzeckyj, A., Na, K. S., Toohey, D., Abdullah, Z., & Price, R. (2018). Learning analytics experience among academics in Australia and Malaysia: A comparison. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3836

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2010). Self-regulated Learning and Sociocognitive Theory. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education, 5 (pp. 503–508). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A., Zhao, Y., & Hausknecht, S. (2014). Learning Analytics for Online Discussions: Embedded and Extracted Approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 48–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S.-P., & Chen, Y.-L. (2018). Effects of Multimodal Learning Analytics with Concept Maps on College Students’ Vocabulary and Reading Performance. Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 12–25.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. T., & Li, K. C. (2020). A review of learning analytics intervention in higher education (2011–2018). J. Comput. Educ., 7, 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., Huang, L., & Zou, R. (2015). The Design of Intervention Model and Strategy based on the Behavior Data of Learners: A Learning Analytics Perspective. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, Y., Li, H., Kornhaber, M. L., Suen, H. K., Pursel, B., & Goins, D. D. (2015). Examining the Relations among Student Motivation, Engagement, and Retention in a MOOC: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Global Education Review, 2(3), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamada, M., Shimada, A., Okubo, F., Oi, M., Kojima, K., & Ogata, H. (2017). Learning analytics of the relationships among self-regulated learning, learning behaviors, and learning performance. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Z., & Na, K. S. (2021). A Data-Driven Emotion Model for English Learners Based on Machine Learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(8), 34–46.

  • Zhou, M. (2011). Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in College English Teaching. International Education Studies, 4(1), 73–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H. R., Zeng, H., Zhang, H., Zhang, H. Y., Wan, F. J., Guo, H. H., & Zhang, C. H. (2018). The preferred learning styles utilizing VARK among nursing students with bachelor degrees and associate degrees in China. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 31, 162–169.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) for their support in making this project possible and those who helped in this research. This research was supported by Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) through Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2020/SSI0/UTM/02/11).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Language Academy, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

    Si Na Kew

  2. School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

    Zaidatun Tasir

Authors
  1. Si Na Kew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zaidatun Tasir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Si Na Kew.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Tables 15, 16 and 17

Table 15 Indicators for at-risk students
Full size table
Table 16 At-risk students’ details
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 17 Learning objects based on the adapted Keller’s ARCS model and Felder-Silverman Learning Style model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kew, S.N., Tasir, Z. Developing a Learning Analytics Intervention in E-learning to Enhance Students’ Learning Performance: A Case Study. Educ Inf Technol 27, 7099–7134 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10904-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10904-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation