Do Optional Activities Matter in Virtual Learning Environments?

  • José A. Ruipérez-Valiente
  • Pedro J. Muñoz-Merino
  • Carlos Delgado Kloos
  • Katja Niemann
  • Maren Scheffel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8719)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

optional activities Khan Academy learning analytics MOOCs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. 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
  3. 3.
    Clarebout, G., Elen, J.: Tool use in computer-based learning environments: Towards a research framework. Computers in Human Behavior 22(3), 389–411 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Cutrim, E.S.: Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education 50(1), 338–356 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kennedy, G.E., Cutts, Q.I.: The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21(4), 260–268 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., Martínez-Herráiz, J.J.: Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education 63, 380–392 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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
  13. 13.
    Davies, J., Graff, M.: Performance in learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(4), 657–663 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • José A. Ruipérez-Valiente
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pedro J. Muñoz-Merino
    • 1
  • Carlos Delgado Kloos
    • 1
  • Katja Niemann
    • 3
  • Maren Scheffel
    • 4
  1. 1.Universidad Carlos III de MadridLeganés, MadridSpain
  2. 2.IMDEA Networks InstituteLeganés, MadridSpain
  3. 3.Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT)Sankt AugustinGermany
  4. 4.Open Universiteit NederlandAT HeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations