article

Connecting performance to social structure and pedagogy as a pathway to scaling learning analytics in MOOCs: an exploratory study

Authors:

J.M. LaffeyAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume 32, Issue 3

Pages 244 - 266

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12129

Published: 01 June 2016 Publication History

Abstract

This exploratory study focuses on the design and evaluation of teaching analytics that relate social learning structure with performance measures in a massive open online course MOOC prototype environment. Using reflexive analysis of online learning trace data and qualitative performance measures we present an exploratory empirical study that: a rigorously evaluates a novel, multi-dimensional performance construct; b describes differences in small group dynamics and structure; and c draws a connection between learning performance and group structure. Performance is operationalized using a combination of knowledge construction measurement from discussion boards, rigorous analysis of student work products and several indicators of small group identity in the course examined. Interview and observational data are used to develop an approach for deriving and validating a model of the social structure of students in the course using traces of interaction data. The connection between performance and structure is developed at the small group unit of analysis. Implications for MOOC design, scaling MOOC analytics and a vision for developing social sensors in MOOC environments are presented in the discussion and conclusion.

References

[1]

Airoldi, E., Blei, D., Fienberg, S., &Xing, E. 2008. Mixed membership stochasitc block models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, Volume 9, pp.1981-2014.

Digital Library

[2]

Amelung, C. 2007. Using social context and e-learner identity as a framework for an e-learning notification system. International Journal on E-Learning, Volume 6 Issue 2, pp.501-517.

[3]

Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., &Berdahl, J. L. 2000. Small groups as complex systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[4]

Baker, R. S. J. D., &Yacef, K. 2009. The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, Volume 1 Issue 1, pp.3-17.

[5]

Bell, S., McDiarmid, A., &Irvine, J. 2011. Nodobo: Mobile phone as a software sensor for social network research. In Proceedings of the 73rd Vehicular Technology Conference pp. pp.1-5. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

[6]

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., &Freeman, L. C. 1999. UCINET 6.2 Version 1.00. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.

[7]

Borge, M., &Goggins, S. 2014. Towards the facilitation of an online community of learners: Assessing the quality of interactions in Yammer. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Learning Sciences pp. pp.753-761. Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

[8]

Brewer, S., &Klein, J. D. 2006. Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development, Volume 54 Issue 4, pp.331-354.

[9]

Bryant, S. L., Forte, A., &Bruckman, A. 2005. Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. In Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work pp. pp.1-10. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[10]

Cadima, R., Ferreira, C., Monguet, J., &Ojeda, J. 2010. Promoting social network awareness: A social network monitoring system. Computers & Education, Volume 54 Issue 4, pp.1233-1240.

Digital Library

[11]

Cakir, M. P. 2007. How online small groups create and use mathematical objects to do collaborative problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning pp. pp.839-841. New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Digital Library

[12]

Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Farooq, U., &Xiao, L. 2009. Beyond being aware. Information and Organization, Volume 19 Issue 3, pp.162-185.

Digital Library

[13]

Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Convertino, G., &Ganoe, C. H. 2006. Awareness and teamwork in computer supported collaborations. Interacting with Computers, Volume 18 Issue 1, pp.21-46.

Digital Library

[14]

Charmaz, K. 2003. Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A.Holstein &J. F.Gubrium Eds., Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns pp. pp.311-330. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[15]

Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B. D., &Ingraffea, A. 2007. Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education, Volume 49 Issue 2, pp.309-329.

Digital Library

[16]

Christakis, N. A., &Fowler, J. H. 2010. Social network sensors for early detection of contagious outbreaks. PLoS ONE, Volume 5 Issue 9, pp.1-8.

[17]

Cress, U., Barquero, B., Buder, J., &Hesse, F. W. 2005. Social dilemma in knowledge communication via shared databases. In Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication Vol. Volume 5, pp. pp.143-167. New York, NY Springer.

[18]

Crowston, K., Wiggins, A., &Howison, J. 2010. Analyzing leadership dynamics in distributed group communications. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences pp. pp.1-10. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Digital Library

[19]

Crowston, K., Wei, K., Howison, J., &Wiggins, A. 2012. Free/libre open source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM Computing Surveys, Volume 44, pp.7.

Digital Library

[20]

Crowston, K., &Howison, J. 2005. The social structure of free and open source software development. First Monday, Volume 10 Issue 2.

[21]

De Groot, R., Drachman, R., Hever, R., Schwarz, B., Hoppe, U., &Harrer, A. 2007. Computer moderation of e-discussions: The ARGUNAUT approach. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning pp. pp.168-170. New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Digital Library

[22]

Dourish, P. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Volume 8 Issue 1, pp.19-30.

Digital Library

[23]

Ellison, N. I. B., Steinfield, C., &Lampe, C. 2007. The benefits of Facebook "friends": Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Volume 12 Issue 4, pp.1143-1168.

[24]

Fuller, M. A., Hardin, A. M., &Davison, R. M. 2007. Efficacy in technology-mediated distributed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 23 Issue 3, pp.209-235.

Digital Library

[25]

Gersick, C. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, Volume 31 Issue 1, pp.9-41.

[26]

Gibson, C., Randel, A. E., &Earley, P. C. 2000. Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organization Management, Volume 25 Issue 1, pp.67-97.

[27]

Goggins, S. P. 2012. Group informatics: A multi-domain perspective on the development of teaching analytics. In Proceedings of the TaPTA Workshop at EC-TEL, Saarbr�cken, Germany.

[28]

Goggins, S. P., &Dyke, G. 2013. Network analytic techniques for online chat. In D.Suthers, K.Lund, C.Teplovs &C. P.Ros� Eds., Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions pp. pp.541-559. New York, NY: Springer.

[29]

Goggins, S. P., &Foster, J. 2011. Infrastructuring new media for education. Retrieved from "/proxy/http://groupinformatics.org/sites/default/files/Goggins_Foster_White_Paper_2.pdf" {Accessed 2/01/2012}.

[30]

Goggins, S. P., Galyen, K. D., &Laffey, J. M. 2010. Network analysis of trace data for the support of group work: Activity patterns in a completely online course. In GROUP'10: Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[31]

Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J. M., &Amelung, C. 2011. Context aware CSCL: Moving toward contextualized analysis. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning pp. pp.591-596. Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

[32]

Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J. M., Amelung, C., &Gallagher, M. 2010. Social intelligence in completely online groups: Toward social prosthetics from log data analysis and transformation. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Conference on Social Computing pp. pp.500-507. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Digital Library

[33]

Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J. M., &Gallagher, M. 2011. Completely online group formation and development: Small groups as socio-technical systems. Information Technology & People, Volume 24 Issue 2, pp.104-133.

[34]

Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J. M., &Galyen, K. D. 2009. Social ability in online groups: representing the quality of interactions in social computing environments. In Proceedings from IEEE Conference on Computer Science and Engineering pp. pp.667-674. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[35]

Goggins, S. P., Mascaro, C., &Valetto, G. 2013. Group informatics: A methodological approach and ontology for sociotechnical group research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 64 Issue 3, pp.516-539.

[36]

Goggins, S. P., &Petakovic, E. 2014. Connecting theory to social technology platforms: A framework for measuring influence in context. American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 58 Issue 10, pp.1376-1392.

[37]

Goggins, S. P., Valetto, G., Mascaro, C., &Blincoe, K. 2013. Creating a model of the dynamics of socio-technical groups. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, Volume 23 Issue 4, pp.345-379.

Digital Library

[38]

Graves, I., McDonald, N., &Goggins, S. P. 2014. Sifting signal from noise: A new perspective on the meaning of tweets about the "big game". New Media & Society, Volume 1-20.

[39]

Gross, T., Stary, C., &Totter, A. 2005. User-centered awareness in computer supported cooperative work systems: Structured embedding of findings from social sciences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 18 Issue 3, pp.323-360.

[40]

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., &Anderson, T. 1997. Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Volume 17 Issue 4.

[41]

Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., &Davison, R. M. 2007. I know I can, but can we?: Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, Volume 38 Issue 1, pp.130-155.

[42]

Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., &Valacich, J. S. 2006. Measuring group efficacy in virtual teams. Small Group Research, Volume 37 Issue 1, pp.65-87.

[43]

Hinds, P., &McGrath, C. 2006. Structures that work: Social structure, work structure and coordination ease in geographically distributed teams. In Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work pp. pp.343-352. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[44]

Howison, J., &Crowston, K. 2014. Collaboration through open superposition: A theory of the open source way. MIS Quarterly, Volume 38 Issue 1, pp.29-50.

Digital Library

[45]

Howison, J., Wiggins, A., &Crowston, K. 2012. Validity issues in the use of social network analysis with digital trace data. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, Volume 12 Issue 12, pp.767-797.

[46]

Howley, I., Mayfield, E., &Ros�, C. P. 2012. Linguistic analysis methods for studying small groups. International Handbook of Collaborative Learning. Abington, UK: Taylor and Francis, Inc. Retrieved from "/proxy/http://learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/5/58/Chapter-Methods-Revised-Final.pdf"

[47]

Johnson, S. D., Suriya, C., Yoon, S. W., Berrett, J. V., &Jason, L. 2002. Team development and group process of virtual learning teams. Computers and Education, Volume 39 Issue 4, pp.379-393.

[48]

Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., &Contractor, N. 2004. Network theory and small groups. Small Group Research, Volume 35 Issue 3, pp.307-332.

[49]

Kim, T. J., Chu, M., Brdiczka, O., &Begole, J. 2009. Predicting shoppers' interest from social interactions using sociometric sensors. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems pp. pp.4513-4518. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[50]

Kittur, A., &Kraut, R. 2008. Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: Quality through coordination. In Proceedings from CSCW 2008 pp. pp.37-46. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[51]

Knowles, & Knowles1955. Introduction to group dynamics. New York, NY: Associated Press.

[52]

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., Jochems, W., &Van Buuren, H. 2004. Determining sociability, social space and social presence in asynchronous collaborative groups. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Volume 7 Issue 2, pp.155-172.

[53]

Krippendorff, K. 2004. Contents analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[54]

Kumar, V. S., Gress, C. L. Z., Hadwin, A. F., &Winne, P. H. 2010. Assessing process in CSCL: An ontological approach. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 26 Issue 5, pp.825-834.

Digital Library

[55]

Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., &Moon, S. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19<sup>th</sup> International Conference on the World Wide Web pp. pp.591-600. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[56]

Lampe, C., Wash, R., Velasquez, A., Ozkaya, E., MacKie-Mason, J., Rader, E., ' <familyNamePrefix>van</familyNamePrefix>Alstyne, M. 2010. Motivations to participate in online communities. In Proceedings from ACM CHI 2010 pp.1927-1936, New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[57]

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., &Steinfield, C. 2006. A face book in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings from CSCW 2006 pp. pp.167-170. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[58]

Lampe, C., Ellison, N. I. B., &Steinfield, C. 2008. Changes in user perception of Facebook. In Proceedings from CSCW 2008 pp. pp.721-730. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[59]

Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., ' Van Alstyne, M. 2009. Social science: Computational social science. Science, Volume 323 Issue 5915, pp.721-723.

[60]

Lonn, S., Aguilar, S., &Teasley, S. D. 2013. Issues, challenges, and lessons learned when scaling up a learning analytics intervention. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge pp. pp.235-239. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[61]

Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., &Klimczak, A. K. 2004. Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research & Development, Volume 52 Issue 2, pp.23-40.

[62]

Martin, F. G. 2012. Will massive open online courses change how we teach? Communications of the ACM, Volume 55 Issue 8, pp.26.

Digital Library

[63]

Mascaro, C., &Goggins, S. P. 2011. Brewing up citizen engagement: The Coffee Party on Facebook. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Communities and Technologies pp. pp.11-20 2011. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[64]

McGrath, J. E. 1997. Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Volume 1 Issue 1, pp.7.

[65]

McGrath, J. E. 1991. Time, interaction and performance TIP: A theory of groups. Small Group Research, Volume 22 Issue 2, pp.147-174.

[66]

McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., &Berdahl, J. L. 2000. The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Volume 4 Issue 1, pp.95-105.

[67]

Michinov, E., &Michinov, N. 2007. Identifying a transition period at the midpoint of an online collaborative activity: A study among adult learners. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 23 Issue 3, pp.1355-1371.

Digital Library

[68]

Michinov, N., &Michinov, E. 2008. Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: ITs impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect and behavior over time. Computers and Education, Volume 50 Issue 4, pp.1540-1557.

Digital Library

[69]

Michinov, N., Michinov, E., &Toczek-Capelle, M. C. 2004. Social identity, group processes, and performance in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Dynamics Theory, Research and Practice, Volume 8 Issue 1, pp.27-39.

[70]

Milrad, M. 2002. Using construction kits, modeling tools and system dynamics simulations to support collaborative discovery learning. Educational Technology & Society, Volume 5 Issue 4, pp.76-87.

[71]

Moore, J. L., &Marra, R. M. 2005. A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Volume 38 Issue 2, pp.191-212.

[72]

Nardi, B. 2010. My life as a night elf priest: An anthropological account of World of Warcraft. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

[73]

Newman, D. R., Webb, B., &Cochrane, C. 1996. A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing & Technology, Volume 3 Issue 2, pp.56-77.

[74]

Paredes, W. C., &Chung, K. S. K. 2012. Modelling learning & performance: A social networks perspective. In LAK'12 Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge pp. pp.34-42. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[75]

Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, T., Panciera, K., Terveen, L., &Riedl, J. 2007. Creating, destroying and restoring value in Wikipedia. In Proceedings from Group '07 pp. pp.259-268. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[76]

Reimann, P., Frerejean, J., &Thompson, K. 2009. Using process mining to identify models of group decision making in chat data. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning pp. pp.98-107. Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Digital Library

[77]

Reynolds, R., &Goggins, S. P. 2013. Designing socio-technical systems to support guided "discovery-based" learning in students: The case of the Globaloria game design initiative. In Proceedings from International Workshop on Teaching Analytics, Leuven, Belgium.

[78]

Romero, C., &Ventura, S. 2007. Educational data mining: A survey from 1995 to 2005. Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 33 Issue 1, pp.135-146.

Digital Library

[79]

Romero, C., &Ventura, S. 2010. Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part C: Applications and Reviews, Volume 40 Issue 6, pp.601-618.

Digital Library

[80]

Rosi, A., Mamei, M., Zambonelli, F., Dobson, S., Stevenson, G., &Ye, J. 2011. Social sensors and pervasive services: Approaches and perspectives. In Proceedings from 2011 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops pp. pp.525-530. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

[81]

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., &Archer, W. 2007. Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, Volume 14 Issue 2, pp.50-71. Retrieved from "/proxy/http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/153/341"

[82]

Silver, N. 2012. The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail - but some don't. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

[83]

Sinha, T. 2014a. Supporting MOOC instruction with social network analysis. Retrieved from "/proxy/http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5175" {Accessed 10/11/2014}.

[84]

Sinha, T. 2014b. Together we stand, together we fall, together we win: Dynamic team formation in massive open online courses. In Proceedings from Fifth International Conference on the Applications of Digital Information and Web Technologies pp. pp.107-112. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

[85]

Stahl, G. 2006. Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Digital Library

[86]

Strauss, A., &Corbin, J. M. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[87]

Suthers, D., Lund, K., Teplovs, C., Law, N., &Dyke, G. 2013. Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York, NY: Springer.

Digital Library

[88]

Tajfel, H. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, Volume 13 Issue 2, pp.65-93.

[89]

Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups. New York, NY: Academic Press.

[90]

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social identity and intergroup relations. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[91]

Tapia, A. H., Bajpai, K., Jansen, B. J., Yen, J., &Giles, L. 2011. Seeking the trustworthy tweet: Can microblogged data fit the information needs of disaster response and humanitarian relief organizations. In Proceedings of the Eighth International ISCRAM Conference pp. 1-10. Retrieved from "/proxy/http://www.iscramlive.org/ISCRAM2011/proceedings/papers/161.pdf" {Accessed 10/11/2014}.

[92]

Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, Volume 63 Issue 6, pp.384-399.

[93]

Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., &Tajfel, H. 1979. Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 9 Issue 2, pp.187-204.

[94]

Vatrapu, R., Reimann, P., &Hussain, A. 2012. Towards teaching analytics: Repertory grids for formative assessment. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences pp. pp.341-345. Sydney, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

[95]

Vatrapu, R., Teplovs, C., Fujita, N., &Bull, S. 2011. Towards visual analytics for teachers' dynamic diagnostic pedagogical decision-making. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge pp. pp.93-98. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[96]

Wasserman, S., &Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. London: Cambridge University Press.

[97]

Whittaker, S. 1996. Talking to strangers: An evaluation of the factors affecting electronic collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work pp. pp.409-418. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[98]

Wise, A. F., Hsiao, Y. T., Marbouti, F., Speer, J., &Perera, N. 2012. Initial validation of "listening" behavior typologies for online discussions using microanalytic case studies. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from "/proxy/http://www.sfu.ca/~afw3/research/e-listening/resources/WiseEtAl-ICLS2012-CaseStudyPaper.pdf" {Accessed 10/11/2014}.

[99]

Xing, W., Chen, X., Chen, B., Wadholm, B., &Goggins, S. P. 2014. Learning analytics at small scale: Exploring a small groups as complex systems model for assessment automation. Manuscript under review.

[100]

Xing, W., &Goggins, S. P. 2014. A candidate participation based student grade prediction model: Integrating learning analytics, educational data mining and theory through genetic programming. Unpublished manuscript.

[101]

Xing, W., Wadholm, B., &Goggins, S. P. 2015. Group learning assessment in CSCL: Developing theory informed analytics. Educational Technology & Society, Volume 18, pp.110-128.

[102]

Xing, W., Wadholm, B., &Goggins, S. P. 2014. Learning analytics in CSCL with a focus on assessment: An exploratory study of activity theory-informed cluster analysis. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge pp. pp.59-67. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Digital Library

[103]

Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., &Ros�, C. P. 2013. Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. Paper presented at the NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education, Lake Tahoe, NV. Retrieved from "/proxy/http://lytics.stanford.edu/datadriveneducation/papers/yangetal.pdf" {Accessed 10/11/2014}.

[104]

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cited By

de Medeiros FGomes A(2022)An Approach Based on Social Network Analysis to Enhance Social Presence in a Collaborative Learning EnvironmentIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2022.315493565:4(608-616)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TE.2022.3154935
Yu Z(2021)A Literature Review on MOOCs Integrated With Learning AnalyticsJournal of Information Technology Research10.4018/JITR.202104010414:2(67-84)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/JITR.2021040104
Castellanos-Reyes D(2021)The dynamics of a MOOC's learner-learner interaction over timeComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2021.106880123:COnline publication date: 1-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106880
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Crowd-sourced learning in MOOCs: learning analytics meets measurement theory
LAK '15: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge

This paper illustrated the promise of the combination of measurement theory and learning analytics for understanding effective MOOC learning. It reports findings from a study of whether and how MOOC log file data can assist in understanding how MOOC ...
Social learning analytics: five approaches
LAK '12: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge

This paper proposes that Social Learning Analytics (SLA) can be usefully thought of as a subset of learning analytics approaches. SLA focuses on how learners build knowledge together in their cultural and social settings. In the context of online social ...
Using learning analytics to explore help-seeking learner profiles in MOOCs
LAK '17: Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference

In online learning environments, learners are often required to be more autonomous in their approach to learning. In scaled online learning environments, like Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), there are differences in the ability of learners to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Volume 32, Issue 3

June 2016

104 pages

ISSN:0266-4909

EISSN:1365-2729

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 June 2016

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 21 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

de Medeiros FGomes A(2022)An Approach Based on Social Network Analysis to Enhance Social Presence in a Collaborative Learning EnvironmentIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2022.315493565:4(608-616)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TE.2022.3154935
Yu Z(2021)A Literature Review on MOOCs Integrated With Learning AnalyticsJournal of Information Technology Research10.4018/JITR.202104010414:2(67-84)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/JITR.2021040104
Castellanos-Reyes D(2021)The dynamics of a MOOC's learner-learner interaction over timeComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2021.106880123:COnline publication date: 1-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106880
Gupta VGiabbanelli PTawfik A(2018)An Online Environment to Compare Students’ and Expert Solutions to Ill-Structured ProblemsLearning and Collaboration Technologies. Learning and Teaching10.1007/978-3-319-91152-6_23(286-307)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-319-91152-6_23

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents