Detecting Learning Strategies with Analytics: Links with Self-reported Measures and Academic Performance

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The use of analytic methods for extracting learning strategies from trace data has attracted considerable attention in the literature. However, there is a paucity of research examining any association between learning strategies extracted from trace data and responses to well-established self-report instruments and performance scores. This paper focuses on the link between the learning strategies identified in the trace data and student reported approaches to learning. The paper reports on the findings of a study conducted in the scope of an undergraduate engineering course (N=144) that followed a flipped classroom design. The study found that learning strategies extracted from trace data can be interpreted in terms of deep and surface approaches to learning. The detected significant links with self-report measures are with small effect sizes for both the overall deep approach to learning scale and the deep strategy scale. However, there was no observed significance linking the surface approach to learning and surface strategy nor were there significant associations with motivation scales of approaches to learning. The significant effects on academic performance were found, and consistent with the literature that used self-report instruments showing that students who followed a deep approach to learning had a significantly higher performance.

The benefits and caveats of using clickstream data to understand student self-regulatory behaviors: opening the black box of learning processes

“…Third, clickstream data allow for novel analyses that aim to advance understanding of how to identify and cluster student subgroups, as well as to personalize interventions to support learning processes. This includes the identification of student subpopulations with respect to their use of online resources (Gasevic, Jovanovic, Pardo, and Dawson, 2017) or students' engagement patterns in MOOC environments (Guo and Reinecke, 2014;Kizilcec, Piech, and Schneider, 2013). These student clusterings may be used in sequential modeling techniques such as recurrent neural network methods that populate a recommendation system of optimal course progression for different types of learners (e.g., Pardos, Tang, Davis, and Le, 2017).…”

Opportunities and Challenges in Using Learning Analytics in Learning Design

“…O3.SO1. Making learning outcomes visible [53,55] is an opportunity applied within these new LDs to be able to create workplace related education, where competences can be proved by a portfolio of work related products or enable students to choose their own learning path. Either option improves student's learning outcome and satisfaction (O3.…”

The importance of students’ motivational dispositions for designing learning analytics

“…They use static and dynamic information about learners and learning environments, assessing, eliciting, and analyzing it, for real-time modeling prediction, and optimization of learning processes, learning environments, and educational decision-making (Ifenthaler 2015). Current research on learning analytics focusses on technical issues and data processing (Berland et al 2014;Costa et al 2017), on data privacy (Drachsler and Greller 2016;Ifenthaler and Schumacher 2016;Rubel and Jones 2016;West et al 2016), on developing user systems (d'Aquin et al 2014), on relationships between learner characteristics and learning outcome (Ellis et al 2017;Gašević et al 2017;Liu et al 2017), or on specific applications for dashboards (Park and Jo 2015;Schumacher and Ifenthaler 2018;Verbert et al 2013). However, linking learning analytics with learning theories is still at an early stage (Marzouk et al 2016).…”