Main Article Content

Abstract

Engagement analytics is a branch of learning analytics (LA) that focuses on student engagement, with the majority of studies conducted by computer scientists.Thus, rather than focusing on learning, research in this field usually treats education as a scenario for algorithms optimization and it rarely concludes with implications for practice. While LA as a research field is reaching ten years, its contribution to our understanding of teaching and learning and its impact on learning enhancement are still underdeveloped. This paper argues that data-driven modeling of engagement analytics is helpful to assess student engagement and to promote reflections on the quality of teaching and learning. In this article, the authors a) introduce four key constructs (student engagement, learning analytics, engagement analytics, modeling and data-driven modeling); b) explain why data-driven modeling is chosen for engagement analytics and the limitations of using a predefined framework; c) discuss how to use engagement analytics to promote pedagogical reflection using a pilot study as a demonstration. As a final remark, the authors see the need of interdisciplinary collaboration on engagement analytics between computer science and educational science. In fact, this collaboration should enhance the use of machine learning and data mining methods to explore big data in education as a means to provide effective insights for quality educational practice.

Keywords

Engagement Analytics Data Driven Modeling Quality Teaching and Learning

Article Details

How to Cite
Yang, N., Ghislandi, P., Raffaghelli, J., & Ritella, G. (2019). Data-Driven Modeling of Engagement Analytics for Quality Blended Learning. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(3), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135027

References

  1. Al-Shabandar, R., Hussain, A. J., Liatsis, P., & Keight, R. (2018). Analyzing Learners Behavior in MOOCs: An Examination of Performance and Motivation Using a Data-Driven Approach. IEEE Access, 6, 73669-73685.
  2. Blikstein, P., Worsley, M., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal Learning Analytics and Education Data Mining: Using Computational Technologies to Measure Complex Learning Tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 220–238.
  3. Blumenstein, M., Liu, D. Y., Richards, D., Leichtweis, S., & Stephens, J. (2018). Data-informed nudges for student engagement and success. PsyArXiv. March, 27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qjmpn
  4. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
  5. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin (Mar), 3-7.
  6. Dunleavy, J., & Milton, P. (2008). Student engagement for effective teaching and deep learning. Education Canada, 48(5), 4-8.
  7. Ferguson, R. The state of learning analytics in 2012: A review and future challenges [M]. Technical Report KMI-12-01, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, 2012.
  8. Ferguson, R., Barzilai, S., Ben-Zvi, D., Chinn, C. A., Herodotou, C., Hod, Y., ... & Rienties, B. (2017). Innovating Pedagogy 2017: Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers. Open University innovation Report 6. Retrieved from www.open.ac.uk/innovating
  9. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
  10. Author, 2005
  11. Authors, 2015
  12. Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://support.webb.uu.se/digitalAssets/91/a_91639-f_Dimensions-of-Quality.pdf
  13. Goleman, D. (1984). Rethinking I.Q. Tests and Their Value. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/22/weekinreview/rethinking-iq-tests-and-their-value.html
  14. Gombrich, E. H. (1973). Research in the humanities: Ideals and idols. Daedalus, 1-10.
  15. Hung, J. L., Hsu, Y. C., & Rice, K. (2012). Integrating data mining in program evaluation of K-12 online education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 27-41.
  16. Hussain, M., Zhu, W., Zhang, W., & Abidi, S. M. R. (2018). Student Engagement Predictions in an e-Learning System and Their Impact on Student Course Assessment Scores. Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2018.
  17. Jo, Y., Maki, K., & Tomar, G. (2018). Time Series Analysis of Clickstream Logs from Online Courses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04177.
  18. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in higher education, 38(5), 758-773.
  19. Kennedy, W. J., & Bancroft, T. A. (1971). Model building for prediction in regression based upon repeated significance tests. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 42(4), 1273-1284.
  20. Kim, Y., Soyata, T., & Behnagh, R. F. (2018). Towards emotionally aware AI smart classroom: Current issues and directions for engineering and education. IEEE Access, 6, 5308-5331.
  21. Kuh, G. (2004). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_conceptual_framework.pdf
  22. Author, 2018
  23. Liu, F., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). Factors influencing student academic performance in online high school algebra. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 27(2), 149-167.
  24. Liu, D., Richards, D., Froissard, C., & Atif, A. (2015). Validating the effectiveness of the moodle engagement analytics plugin to predict student academic performance. In 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2015 (pp. 1-10). Americas Conference on Information Systems.
  25. Mohammed, M. A., Moles, R. J., & Chen, T. F. (2016). Meta-synthesis of qualitative research: the challenges and opportunities. International journal of clinical pharmacy, 38(3), 695-704.
  26. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press.
  27. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2018). NSSE 2018 overview. Bloomington,
  28. IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/Nsse_overview_2018.cfm
  29. O'Neil, C. (2017). Armi di distruzione matematica. Giunti.
  30. Ramesh, A., Goldwasser, D., Huang, B., Daume, H., & Getoor, L. (2014). Uncovering Hidden Engagement Patterns for Predicting Learner Performance in MOOCs. In [email protected] 2014. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2567857
  31. Richards, G. (2011). Measuring Engagement: Learning Analytics in Online Learning. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/779650/Measuring_Engagement_Learning_Analytics_in_Online_Learning
  32. Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative Ethnography. Madison, Wisconsin: Cathcart Press
  33. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.
  34. Snow, R. E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction. Educational Psychologist, 15(3), 151-158.
  35. Solomatine, D., See, L. M., & Abrahart, R. J. (2008). Data-driven modelling: concepts, approaches and experiences. In Practical hydroinformatics (pp. 17-30). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  36. Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 115-138.
  37. Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018, December 1). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior. Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.027
  38. Vytasek, J. M., Patzak, A., & Winne, P. H. (2020). Analytics for Student Engagement. In Virou, M., Alepis, E., Tsihrintzis, G. A., Jain , L. C. (eds.) Machine Learning Paradigms (pp. 23-48). Switzerland: Springer Nature.
  39. Wen, M., Yang, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2014, May). Linguistic reflections of student engagement in massive open online courses. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
  40. Authors, 2018
  41. Ye, C., & Biswas, G. (2014). Early prediction of student dropout and performance in MOOCs using higher granularity temporal information. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(3), 169-172.