Advertisement

Learning Analytics Measuring Impacts on Organisational Performance

  • Maria José Sousa
  • Álvaro Rocha
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a research on the effectiveness of digital learning in organisations and how it can be measured. This research aims to bridge the gap between scientific and practice-oriented research about digital learning. The focus will be on learning analytics and measuring its impacts on organisations with the goal to identify the potential of digital learning for organisations. This research is based on a systematic literature review and a survey analysis to answer the following research questions: What are the contexts in which digital learning can take place? What are the main metrics which allows measuring the efficiency of digital learning in organisational contexts? Is there a positive influence of the digital learning contexts supported by organisations, on skills development and impacts on performance analytics that measure the impacts in organisations? And what is the digital learning analytics that measures the impacts on organisations? What is the digital learning analytics that measures the impacts on organisations? The results showed that digital learning analytics can enhance the efficacy of the learning process impact in organisations and that contexts for learning supported on mobile technologies, tablet and smartphone applications become more and more popular among the employees. Additionally, the results helped to create a model of learning analytics and identify impacts of the learning process.

Keywords

Digital learning Learning analytics Impacts on organisations Learning processes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulmajed, H., Park, Y.S., Tekian, A.: Assessment of educational games for health professions: a systematic review of trends and outcomes. Med. Teach. 37 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alhajri, S.: The effectiveness of teaching method used in graphic design pedagogy. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 4(2), 422–425 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amory, A.: Tool-mediated authentic learning in an educational technology course: a designed-based innovation. Interact. Learning Environ. 22(4), 497–513 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barber, W., King, S., Buchanan, S.: Problem based learning and authentic assessment. Electron. J. e-Learning 13(2), 59–67 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, L., Chen, T.L., Chen, N.S.: Student’s perspectives of using cooperative learning in a flipped statistics classroom. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 31(6), 621–640 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curwood, J.S., Tomitsch, M., Thomson, K., Hendry, G.D.: Professional learning in higher education: Understanding how academics interpret student feedback and access resources to improve their teaching. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 31(5), 556–571 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Epure, M., Mihães, L. C.: Critical considerations about the adoption of technology integrated teaching methods in higher education. eLearn. Softw. Educ. 2, 77–83 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friend, J., Militello, M.: Lights, camera, action: advancing learning, research, and program evaluation through video production in educational leadership preparation. J. Res. Leadersh. Educ. 10(2), 81–103 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonçalves, A. C., Sousa, M.J., Cruz, R.: Designing higher education digital course to boost entrepreneurship competencies. In: Edulearn17 Proceedings (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guzman, G., Hernandez, M., Pirez, R.: Uso de gestores de aprendizaje en el pregrado de la Universidad Nacional Abierta de Venezuela. Apertura: Revista de Innovación Educativa 6(1), 1 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E.: Multivariate Data Analysis. Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kocaman-Karoglu, A.: Personal voices in higher education: a digital storytelling experience for pre-service teachers. Educ. Inf. Technol. 21(5), 1153–1168 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kosonen, K., Ilomaki, L., Lakkala, M.: Using a modelling language for supporting university students’ orienting activity when studying research methods. J. Interact. Media Educ. 1(1), 8 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lau, K.H.: Computer-based teaching module design: principles derived from learning theories. Med. Educ. 48(3), 247–254 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liwen, C., Tung-Liang, C., Nian-Shing, C.: Students’ perspectives of using cooperative learning in a flipped statistics classroom. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 31(6), 621–640 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Lundgvist, K., Williams, S.A.: Who are with us: MOOC learners on a Future Learn course. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46(3), 557–569 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacNeill, S.: Analytics, what is changing and why does it matter. Analy. Ser. 1(1), 1–8 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mantri, A.: Working towards a scalable model of problem-based learning instruction in undergraduate engineering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 39(3), 282–299 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin-Garcia, A., Serrano, M., Gomez, M.: Fases y clasificación de adoptantes de blended learning en contextos universitarios. Aplicación del análisis CHAID. Revista Española de Pedagogía 72(259), 457–476 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masterman, E.: Bringing open education practice to a research-intensive university: prospects and challenges. Electron. J. e-Learning 14(1), 31–42 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mattox, J.R.: Measuring the effectiveness of informal learning methodologies: the volume of knowledge that can be shared via informal learning methods is vast, but that doesn’t mean evaluation is impossible. Train. Dev. 66(2), 48–53 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McNaughton, S.M., Westberry, N.C., Billiot, J.M., Gaeta, H.: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of videoconferencing practice through space, movement and the material and virtual environments. Int. J. Multiple Res. Approaches 8(1), 87–99 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moorefielf-Lang, H., Hall, T.: Instruction on the go: reaching out to students from the academic library. J. Libr. Inf. Serv. Distance Learn. 9(1/2), 57–68 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muñoz Gonzáles, J.M., Rubio, S.G., Pichardo, M.C.: Strategies of collaborative work in the classroom through the design of video games. Digit. Educ. Rev. 27, 69–84 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nielsen, W., Hoban, G.: Designing a digital teaching resource to explain phases of the moon: a case study of preservice elementary teachers making a slowmation. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52(9), 1207–1233 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rai, S.S., Gaikwad, A.T., Kulkarni, R.V.: A research paper on simulation model for teaching and learning process in higher education. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Res. 4(15), 582–587 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rudow, J., Sounny-Slitine, M.A.: The use of web-based video for instruction of GIS and other digital geographic methods. J. Geogr. 114(4), 168–175 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salmon, G., Gregory, J., Lokuge, D.K., Ross, B.: Experiential online development for educators: the example of the Carpe Diem MOOC. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46(3), 543–556 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slade, S., Prinsloo, P.: Learning analytics: ethical issues and dilemmas. Am. Behav. Sci. 57(10), 1510–1529 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sousa, M.J., Rocha, Á.: Game-based learning contexts for soft skills development. In: Rocha, Á., Correia, A., Adeli, H., Reis, L., Costanzo, S (eds.) Recent Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. WorldCIST 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 570. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sousa, M.J, Rocha, Á.: Corporate digital learning—proposal of learning analytics model. In: Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S (eds.) Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. WorldCIST’18 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 745. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sousa, M.J., Cruz, R., Martins, J.M.: Digital learning methodologies and tools—a literature review. In: Edulearn17 Proceedings, pp. 5185–5192 (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sohrabi, B., Iraj, H.: Implementing flipped classroom using digital media: a comparison of two demographically different groups perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 60, 514–524 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stansbury, J.A., Earnest, D.R.: Meaningful gamification in an industrial/organizational psychology course. Teach. Psychol. 44(1), 38–45 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stewart, B.: Open to influence: what counts as academic influence in scholarly networked Twitter participation. Learn. Media Technol. 40(3), 287–309 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sungkur, R.K., Panchoo, A., Bhoyroo, N.K.: Augmented reality, the future of contextual mobile learning. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 13(2), 123–146 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tena, R.R., Almenara, J.C., Osuna, J.B.: E-Learning of Andalusian University’s lecturers. Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol. 15(2), 25–37 (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Trotskovsky, E., Sabag, N.: One output function: a misconception of students studying digital systems—a case study. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 33(2), 131–142 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Unger, D.R., Kulhavy, D.L., Busch-Petersen, K., Hung, I.-K.: Integrating faculty-led service learning training to quantify height of natual resources from a spacial science perspective. Int. J. Higher Educ. 5(3), 104–116 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wood, D., Bilsborow, C.: I am not a person with a creative mind: facilitating creativity in the undergraduate curriculum through a design-based research approach. Electron. J. e-Learning 12(1), 111–125 (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu, H.: Faculty use of a learning object repository in higher education. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 46(4), 469–478 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations