Advertisement

Educational Theories and Learning Analytics: From Data to Knowledge

The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts
  • Jacqueline WongEmail author
  • Martine Baars
  • Björn B. de Koning
  • Tim van der Zee
  • Dan Davis
  • Mohammad Khalil
  • Geert-Jan Houben
  • Fred Paas
Chapter

Abstract

The study of learning is grounded in theories and research. Since learning is complex and not directly observable, it is often inferred by collecting and analysing data based on the things learners do or say. By virtue, theories are developed from the analyses of data collected. With the proliferation of technology, large amounts of data are generated when students learn online. Therefore, researchers not only have data on students’ learning performance, but they also have data on the actions students take to achieve the desired learning outcomes. These data could help researchers to understand how students learn and the conditions needed for successful learning. In turn, the information can be translated to instructional and learning design to support students. The aim of the chapter is to discuss how learning theories and learning analytics are important components of educational research. To achieve this aim, studies employing learning analytics are qualitatively reviewed to examine which theories have been used and how the theories have been investigated. The results of the review show that self-regulated learning, motivation, and social constructivism theories were used in studies employing learning analytics. However, the studies at present are mostly correlational. Therefore, experimental studies are needed to examine how theory-informed practices can be implemented so that students can be better supported in online learning environments. The chapter concludes by proposing an iterative loop for educational research employing learning analytics in which learning theories guide data collection and analyses. To convert data into knowledge, it is important to recognize what we already know and what we want to examine.

Keywords

Learning theories Big data Learning analytics Study success 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by Leiden-Delft-Erasmus Centre for Education and Learning.

References

  1. Alexander, P. A. (2006). Evolution of a learning theory: A case study. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.Google Scholar
  4. Atif, A., Bilgin, A., & Richards, D. (2015). Student preferences and attitudes to the use of early alerts. In Paper Presented at the Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  5. Ausubel, D. P. (1969). A cognitive theory of school learning. Psychology in the Schools, 6(4), 331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barba, P. D., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bos, N., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2016). Student differences in regulation strategies and their use of learning resources: Implications for educational design. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 344–353).Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, C., Erickson, G., Greer, J., & Gutwin, C. (2014). Modelling and quantifying the behaviours of students in lecture capture environments. Computers & Education, 75, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2016) With a little help from my friends: An empirical study of the interplay of students’ social activities, programming activities, and course success. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 201–209).Google Scholar
  12. Carter, A. S., Hundhausen, C. D., & Adesope, O. (2015). The normalized programming state model: Predicting student performance in computing courses based on programming behavior. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 141–150).Google Scholar
  13. Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 272–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Joksimovic, S. (2014). Current state and future trends: A citation network analysis of the learning analytics field. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 231–240).Google Scholar
  16. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 304–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.Google Scholar
  22. Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., & Winne, P. H. (2007). Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Learning analytics design. In L. Lin & M. Spector (Eds.), The sciences of learning and instructional design: Constructive articulation between communities (pp. 202–211). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Loughin, T. M., Kovanović, V., & Hatala, M. (2015). Learning at distance: Effects of interaction traces on academic achievement. Computers & Education, 87, 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jovanović, J., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., & Mirriahi, N. (2017). Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Junco, R., & Clem, C. (2015). Predicting course outcomes with digital textbook usage data. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, D., Park, Y., Yoon, M., & Jo, I. H. (2016). Toward evidence-based learning analytics: Using proxy variables to improve asynchronous online discussion environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, K., & Moon, N. (2017). A model for collecting and analyzing action data in a learning process based on activity theory. Soft Computing, 22, 6671–6681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knight, S., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2017). Theory and learning analytics. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. F. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.), The handbook of learning analytics (pp. 17–22). Alberta, Canada: Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu, S., & d’Aquin, M. (2017). Unsupervised learning for understanding student achievement in a distance learning setting. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017 IEEE (pp. 1373–1377).Google Scholar
  32. Lonn, S., Aguilar, S. J., & Teasley, S. D. (2015). Investigating student motivation in the context of a learning analytics intervention during a summer bridge program. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marbouti, F., Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Madhavan, K. (2016). Models for early prediction of at-risk students in a course using standards-based grading. Computers & Education, 103, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  35. Murphy, P. K., & Knight, S. L. (2016). Exploring a century of advancements in the science of learning. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 402–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Na, K. S., & Tasir, Z. (2017). A systematic review of learning analytics intervention contributing to student success in online learning. In International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE) 2017 (pp. 62–68).Google Scholar
  37. Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Phillips, D. C. (2014). Research in the hard sciences, and in very hard “softer” domains. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romero-Zaldivar, V. A., Pardo, A., Burgos, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2012). Monitoring student progress using virtual appliances: A case study. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rowe, E., Asbell-Clarke, J., Baker, R. S., Eagle, M., Hicks, A. G., Barnes, T. M., … Edwards, T. (2017). Assessing implicit science learning in digital games. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. SCImago. (2007). SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from http://www.scimagojr.com.
  43. Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., & de Weerdt, J. (2014). Process mining analysis of conceptual modeling behavior of novices–empirical study using JMermaid modeling and experimental logging environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 486–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siadaty, M., Gašević, D., & Hatala, M. (2016). Associations between technological scaffolding and micro-level processes of self-regulated learning: A workplace study. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1007–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. Educause Review, 48(5), 31–40.Google Scholar
  46. Skinner, B. F. (1977). Why I am not a cognitive psychologist. Behavior, 5(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  47. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tabuenca, B., Kalz, M., Drachsler, H., & Specht, M. (2015). Time will tell: The role of mobile learning analytics in self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 89, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tan, J. P. L., Yang, S., Koh, E., & Jonathan, C. (2016). Fostering twenty-first century literacies through a collaborative critical reading and learning analytics environment: user-perceived benefits and problematics. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 430–434).Google Scholar
  50. Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., & Chen, N. S. (2016). Role of personality in computer based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 805–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33(2), 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 423–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yassine, S., Kadry, S., & Sicilia, M. A. (2016). A framework for learning analytics in moodle for assessing course outcomes. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2016 IEEE (pp. 261–266).Google Scholar
  56. You, J. W. (2016). Identifying significant indicators using LMS data to predict course achievement in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhao, Y., Davis, D., Chen, G., Lofi, C., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2017). Certificate achievement unlocked: how does MOOC learners’ behaviour change? In Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 83–88).Google Scholar
  58. Zhuhadar, L., Yang, R., & Lytras, M. D. (2013). The impact of Social Multimedia Systems on cyberlearners. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 378–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233–262). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline Wong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martine Baars
    • 1
  • Björn B. de Koning
    • 1
  • Tim van der Zee
    • 2
  • Dan Davis
    • 3
  • Mohammad Khalil
    • 4
  • Geert-Jan Houben
    • 3
  • Fred Paas
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Centre for the Science of Learning and TechnologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  5. 5.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations