skip to main content
10.1145/2883851.2883875acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

The impact of 151 learning designs on student satisfaction and performance: social learning (analytics) matters

Published:25 April 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

An increasing number of researchers are taking learning design into consideration when predicting learning behavior and outcomes across different modules. This study builds on preliminary learning design work that was presented at LAK2015 by the Open University UK. In this study we linked 151 modules and 111.256 students with students' satisfaction and performance using multiple regression models. Our findings strongly indicate the importance of learning design in predicting and understanding performance of students in blended and online environments. In line with proponents of social learning analytics, our primary predictor for academic retention was the amount of communication activities, controlling for various institutional and disciplinary factors. Where possible, appropriate communication tasks that align with the learning objectives of the course may be a way forward to enhance academic retention.

References

  1. Ferguson, R. and Buckingham Shum, S. Social learning analytics: five approaches. ACM, City, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Thompson, K., Ashe, D., Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., Kelly, N. and Parisio, M. Processing and Visualizing Data in Complex Learning Environments. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 10 (October 1, 2013 2013), 1401--1420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E. and Dawson, S. Informing Pedagogical Action: Aligning Learning Analytics With Learning Design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 10 (October 1, 2013 2013), 1439--1459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Lockyer, L. and Dawson, S. Learning designs and learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2011). ACM, {insert City of Publication},{insert 2011 of Publication}. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Lockyer, L. and Dawson, S. Where learning analytics meets learning design. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2012). ACM, {insert City of Publication},{insert 2012 of Publication}. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Conole, G. Designing for Learning in an Open World. Springer, Dordrecht, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. MacLean, P. and Scott, B. Competencies for learning design: A review of the literature and a proposed framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 4 2011), 557--572.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Armellini, A. and Aiyegbayo, O. Learning design and assessment with e-tivities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 6 2010), 922--935.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Rienties, B., Toetenel, L. and Bryan, A. "Scaling up" learning design: impact of learning design activities on LMS behavior and performance. ACM, City, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Li, N., Marsh, V. and Rienties, B. Modeling and managing learner satisfaction: use of learner feedback to enhance blended and online learning experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Calvert, C. E. Developing a model and applications for probabilities of student success: a case study of predictive analytics. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29, 2 2014), 160--173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, S., Galley, R., Brasher, A. and Weller, M. Final Project Report of the OULDI-JISC Project: Challenge and Change in Curriculum Design Process, Communities, Visualisation and Practice. JISC, York, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross, S., Galley, R., Brasher, A. and Weller, M. Final Project Report of the OULDI-JISC Project: Practice, Challenge and Change in Curriculum Design Process, Communities, Visualisation and Practice. City, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Toetenel, L. and Rienties, B. Analysing 157 Learning Designs using Learning Analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision-making. British Journal of Educational Technology2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckingham Shum, S. and Ferguson, R. Social Learning Analytics. Journal of educational technology & society, 15, 3 2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Marsh, H. W. SEEQ: a reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students' evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 521982), 77--95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., Collins, K. M. T., Filer, J. D., Wiedmaier, C. D. and Moore, C. W. Students' Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers: A Validity Study of a Teaching Evaluation Form Using a Mixed-Methods Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 1 (March 1, 2007 2007), 113--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Zerihun, Z., Beishuizen, J. and Os, W. Student learning experience as indicator of teaching quality. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 2 (2012/05/01 2012), 99--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Richardson, J. T. E. Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 0 (8//2013), 74--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Arbaugh, J. B. and Duray, R. Technological and Structural Characteristics, Student Learning and Satisfaction with Web-Based Courses: An Exploratory Study of Two On-Line MBA Programs. Management Learning, 33, 3 (September 1, 2002 2002), 331--347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Arbaugh, J. B. System, scholar, or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 4 2014), 349--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D. and Arbaugh, J. B. A Structural Equation Model of Predictors for Effective Online Learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 4 (August 1, 2005 2005), 531--563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Rienties, B., Kaper, W., Struyven, K., Tempelaar, D. T., Van Gastel, L., Vrancken, S., Jasinska, M. and Virgailaite-Meckauskaite, E. A review of the role of Information Communication Technology and course design in transitional education practices. Interactive Learning Environments, 20, 6 2012), 563--581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B. and Giesbers, B. In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning Analytics in a data-rich context. Computers in Human Behavior, 472015), 157--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R. E. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 2 (2006/06/01 2006), 75--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Koedinger, K., Booth, J. L. and Klahr, D. Instructional Complexity and the Science to Constrain It. Science, 342, 6161 (November 22, 2013 2013), 935--937.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The impact of 151 learning designs on student satisfaction and performance: social learning (analytics) matters

      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
        LAK '16: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
        April 2016
        567 pages
        ISBN:9781450341905
        DOI:10.1145/2883851

        Copyright © 2016 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 the author(s) 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: 25 April 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        LAK '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of116submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader