Do Optional Activities Matter in Virtual Learning Environments?
Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) provide studentts with activities to improve their learning (e.g., reading texts, watching videos or solving exercises). But VLEs usually also provide optional activities (e.g., changing an avatar profile or setting goals). Some of these have a connection with the learning process, but are not directly devoted to learning concepts (e.g., setting goals). Few works have dealt with the use of optional activities and the relationships between these activities and other metrics in VLEs. This paper analyzes the use of optional activities at different levels in a specific case study with 291 students from three courses (physics, chemistry and mathematics) using the Khan Academy platform. The level of use of the different types of optional activities is analyzed and compared to that of learning activities. In addition, the relationship between the usage of optional activities and different student behaviors and learning metrics is presented.
Keywordsoptional activities Khan Academy learning analytics MOOCs
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Dyckhoff, A.L., Lukarov, V., Muslim, A., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U.: Supporting Action Research with Learning Analytics. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 220–229. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
- 2.Muñoz-Merino, P.J., Kloos, C.D., Seepold, R., García, R.M.C.: Rating the importance of different LMS functionalities. In: 36th Annual Conference on Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. 13–18. IEEE, San Diego (2006)Google Scholar
- 4.Rabbany, R., Elatia, S., Takaffoli, M., Zaïane, O.R.: Collaborative learning of students in online discussion forums: A social network analysis perspective. In: Educational Data Mining. SCI, vol. 524, pp. 1–25. Heidelberg, Germany (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.Brinton, C.G., Lam, H., Ming, F., Wong, F.M.F.: Learning about social learning in MOOCs: From statistical analysis to generative model. CoRR, abs/1312.2159 (2013)Google Scholar
- 8.Zhou, Y., Freedman, R., Glass, M., Michael, J.A., Rovick, A.A., Evens, M.W.: Delivering hints in a dialogue-based intelligent tutoring system. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 199), pp. 1–7. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park (1998)Google Scholar
- 10.Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, M.A., Hartmann, B.: Should your MOOC forum use a reputation system? In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW 2014), pp. 1176–1187. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
- 11.Hecking, T., Ziebarth, S., Hoppe, H.U.: Analysis of dynamic resource access patterns in a blended learning course. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 173–182. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
- 12.Santos, J.L., Klerkx, J., Duval, E., Gago, D., Rodríguez, L.: Success, activity and drop-outs in MOOCs an exploratory study on the UNED COMA courses. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 98–102. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
- 14.Munoz-Organero, M., Munoz-Merino, P.J., Delgado Kloos, C.: Student behavior and interaction patterns with an LMS as motivation predictors in e-learning settings. IEEE Transactions on Education 53(3), 463–470 (2010)Google Scholar
- 15.Gafni, R., Geri, N.: The value of collaborative e-learning: Compulsory versus optional online forum assignments. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects 6, 335–343 (2010)Google Scholar
- 16.Gasevic, D., Mirriahi, N., Dawson, S.: Analytics of the Effects of Video Use and Instruction to Support Reflective Learning. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 123–132. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
- 17.Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Roll, I., Koedinger, K.R.: Toward Meta-cognitive Tutoring: A Model of Help Seeking with a Cognitive Tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 16(2), 101–128 (2006)Google Scholar
- 18.Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J., Treglia, M.: Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education 3(1), 30–43 (2000)Google Scholar
- 19.Muñoz-Merino, P.J., Ruipérez, J.A., Delgado, C.: Inferring higher level learning information from low level data for the Khan Academy platform. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 112–116. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
- 20.Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K.: Participation in class and in online discussions: Gender differences. Computers & Education 50(3), 718–724 (2008)Google Scholar