skip to main content
10.1145/3144826.3145391acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Analytics-driven redesign of an instructional course

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning Analytics1 is a powerful tool that provides rich information for students, teachers and academic authorities. There is a wide range of possible applications, and one of them is leveraging the information to improve the instructional design of a course. In this research, we introduce the results of a Learning Analytics engine to improve all the stages of an Action Research experience. We have carried out three iterations: iteration 1, devoted to design an instructional course using an automated learning platform that collects data from the students; iteration 2, focused on the analysis of the individual and aggregated data collected from the students to obtain group behaviors; and iteration 3, currently under way, devoted to improve the structure of the course using the results of the previous iterations. We have made use of some graphical representations of the data that help to understand the aggregated data and to detect important events and moments of intervention. We have detected that the behavior of the students is strongly conditioned by the deadline structure of the course and that there is usually a crucial moment, by halfway of the course, where the situation is tending to stabilize and which is a good moment to reinforce the supervision on the student. Finally, we have stated that low performance students are usually recoverable to the last moment.

References

  1. John P. Campbell and Diana G. Oblinger. 2007. Academic Analytics. Educase (2007). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB6101.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Wilfred Carr and Stephen Kemmis. 1986. Becoming critical: education, knowledge, and action research. Falmer Press, London; Philadelphia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Francisco José Gallego-Durán, Carlos José Villagra-Arnedo, Faraón Llorens-Largo, and Rafael Molina-Carmona. 2007. PLMan: A Game-Based Learning Activity for Teaching Logic Thinking and Programming. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 33, 2(B) (2007), 807--815.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Philip J. Goldstein and Richard N. Katz. 2005. Academic Analytics: The Uses of Management Information and Technology in Higher Education. Educase (2005). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0508/ekf0508.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Phillip A. Harris. 2013. Data Driven Design: How Today's Product Designer Approaches User Experience to Create Radically Innovative Digital Products (1 edition ed.). K & R Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Magnus Karlberg, Magnus Löfstrand, Stefan Sandberg, and Michael Lundin. 2013. State of the art in simulation-driven design. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 18, 1 (2013), 68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. S. B. Kotsiantis. 2012. Use of Machine Learning Techniques for Educational Proposes: A Decision Support System for Forecasting Students' Grades. Artif. Intell. Rev. 37, 4 (April 2012), 331--344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ioanna Lykourentzou, Ioannis Giannoukos, Vassilis Nikolopoulos, George Mpardis, and Vassili Loumos. 2009. Dropout prediction in e-learning courses through the combination of machine learning techniques. Comput. Educ. 53, 3 (2009), 950--965. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Leah P. Macfadyen and Shane Dawson. 2010. Mining LMS Data to Develop an "Early Warning System" for Educators: A Proof of Concept. Comput. Educ. 54, 2 (February 2010), 588--599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Marriner David Merrill. 2009. Instructional-design Theories and Models: Building a common knowledge base. In A Reigeluth C.M. & Carr-Chellman (ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 41--56. Retrieved from https://books.google.es/books?id=MazF0wv5lkQCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Eric Miller. 2004. Analysis Driven Design For Electronic Systems. Phoenix Analysis & Design Technologies. Retrieved July 27, 2017 from http://www.ansys.com/-/media/Ansys/corporate/resourcelibrary/conference-paper/2004-Int-ANSYS-Conf-145.PDFGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gary R. Morrison (Ed.). 2011. Designing effective instruction (6th ed ed.). Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lori Niles-Hofmann. Data-Driven Learning Design. Retrieved July 26, 2017 from http://www.loriniles.com/ebook/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Charles M. Reigeluth. 2011. An instructional theory for the post-industrial age. Educ. Technol. Mag. 51, 5 (October 2011), 25--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Robert A. Reiser and John V. Dempsey. 2007. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed ed.). Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P.D. Schalk, D.P. Wick, P.R. Turner, and M.W. Ramsdell. 2011. Predictive assessment of student performance for early strategic guidance. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2011, S2H--1--S2H--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. George Siemens. 2012. Learning analytics: envisioning a research discipline and a domain of practice. In In: International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK, 4--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Carlos Villagra-Arnedo, Francisco J. Gallego-Durán, Patricia Compañ-Rosique, Faraón Llorens-Largo, and Rafael Molina-Carmona. 2016. Predicting academic performance from behavioural and learning data. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 11, 3 (2016). Retrieved from http://www.witpress.com/journals/dneGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlos Villagrá Arnedo, Francisco J. Gallego-Durán, Faraón Llorens Largo, Patricia Compañ, Rosana Satorre Cuerda, and Rafael Molina-Carmona. 2015. Detección precoz de dificultades en el aprendizaje. Herramienta para la predicción del rendimiento de los estudiantes (Early detection of learning difficulties. Tool for predicting student performance). In La Sociedad del Aprendizaje. Actas del III Congreso Internacional sobre Aprendizaje, Innovación y Competitividad. CINAIC 2015. Fundación General de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Carlos Villagra-Arnedo, Francisco J. Gallego-Durán, Rafael Molina-Carmona, and Faraón Llorens-Largo. 2015. Boosting the Learning Process with Progressive Performance Prediction. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World, Gráinne Conole, Tomaž Klobučar, Christoph Rensing, Johannes Konert and Élise Lavoué (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 638--641. Retrieved January 28, 2016 from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_77Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Alvin Y. Wang and Michael H. Newlin. 2002. Predictors of performance in the virtual classroom: Identifying and helping at-risk cyber-students. J. High. Educ. 29, 10 (2002), 21--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Analytics-driven redesign of an instructional course

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          TEEM 2017: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
          October 2017
          723 pages
          ISBN:9781450353861
          DOI:10.1145/3144826

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 18 October 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          TEEM 2017 Paper Acceptance Rate84of109submissions,77%Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader