Advertisement

Analyzing Social Learning Management Systems for Educational Environments

  • Paolo Avogadro
  • Silvia Calegari
  • Matteo Dominoni
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 631)

Abstract

A Social Learning Management System (Social LMS) is an instantiation of an LMS where there is an inclusion and strong emphasis of the social aspects mediated via the ICT. The amount of data produced within the social educational network (since all the students are potential creators of material) outnumbers the information of a normal LMS and calls for novel analysis methods. At the beginning, we introduce the architecture of the social learning analytics required to manage the knowledge of a Social LMS. At this point, we adapt the Kirkpatrcik-Phillips model for scholastic environments in order to provide assessment and control tools for a Social LMS. This requires the definition of new metrics which clarify aspects related to the single student but also provide global views of the network as a whole. In order to manage and visualize these metrics we suggest to use modular dashboards which accommodate for the different roles present in a learning institution.

Keywords

Social Learning Management System Social learning analytics KirckPatrick-Phillips model Key performance indicators Dashboard e-Learning platform 

References

  1. 1.
    Almosallam, E.A., Ouertani, H.C.: Learning analytics: definitions, applications and related fields. In: Herawan, T., Deris, M.M., Abawajy, J. (eds.) DaEng 2013. LNEE, vol. 285, pp. 721–730. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-981-4585-18-7_81 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandura, A.: Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, London (1963)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckingham Shum, S., Ferguson, R.: Social learning analytics. Educ. Technol. Soc. 15, 3–26 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butts, C.T.: Social network analysis: a methodological introduction. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 11, 13–41 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claypool, M., Brown, D., Le, P., Waseda, M.: Inferring user interest. IEEE Internet Comput. 5, 32–39 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corrin, L., de Barba, P.: How do students interpret feedback delivered via dashboards? In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK 2015, pp. 430–431. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B., Shah, M.: Referral Web: combining social networks and collaborative filtering. Commun. ACM 40(3), 63–65 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirkpatrick, D.L., Kirkpatrick, J.D.: Evaluating training programs: the four levels. ReadHowYouWant.com/Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Sydney/San Francisco (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nespereira, C.G., Dai, K., Redondo, R.P.D., Vilas, A.F.: Is the LMS access frequency a sign of students’ success in face-to-face higher education? In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, TEEM 2014, pp. 283–290. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newstrom, J.W.: Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, by Donald L. Kirkpatrick. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 6(3), 317–320 (1994, 1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Osguthorpe, R.T., Graham, C.R.: Blended learning environments: definitions and directions. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 4(3), 227–233 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phillips, J.J., Phillips, P.P.: Using action plans to measure ROI. Perform. Improv. 42(1), 24–33 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rössling, G., Joy, M., Moreno, A., Radenski, A., Malmi, L., Kerren, A., Naps, T., Ross, R.J., Clancy, M., Korhonen, A., Oechsle, R., Iturbide, J.A.V.: Enhancing learning management systems to better support computer science education. SIGCSE Bull. 40(4), 142–166 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sakarya, S., Bodur, M., Yildirim-Öktem, Ö., Selekler-Göksen, N.: Social alliances: business and social enterprise collaboration for social transformation. J. Bus. Res. 65(12), 1710–1720 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Santos, J.L., Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Duval, E.: A case study with engineering students. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK 2012, pp. 143–152. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siemens, G., Baker, R.S.J.D.: Towards communication and collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK 2012, pp. 252–254. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Teevan, J., Dumais, S.T., Horvitz, E.: Personalizing search via automated analysis of interests and activities. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2005, pp. 449–456. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tour, F., Ameur, E., Dalkir, K.: AM2O - an efficient approach for managing training in enterprise. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing, pp. 405–412 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J.L., Assche, F., Parra, G., Klerkx, J.: Learning dashboards: an overview and future research opportunities. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 18(6), 1499–1514 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sclater, N., Berg, A., Webb, M.: Developing an open architecture for learning analytics. In: Proceedings of the 21st Congress on Information Systems for Higher Education, EUNIS 2015, Abertay University, Dundee, 10–12 June 2015, pp. 303–313 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Avogadro
    • 1
  • Silvia Calegari
    • 1
  • Matteo Dominoni
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations