Résumés
Abstract
The increasing use of digital systems to support learning leads to a growth in data regarding both learning processes and related contexts. Learning Analytics offers critical insights from these data, through an innovative combination of tools and techniques. In this paper, we explore students’ activities in a MOOC from the perspective of personal constructivism, which we operationalized as a combination of learning behaviour and learning progress. This study considers students’ data analyzed as per the MOOC Process Mining: Data Science in Action. We explore the relation between learning behaviour and learning progress in MOOCs, with the purpose to gain insight into how passing and failing students distribute their activities differently along the course weeks, rather than predict students' grades from their activities. Commonly-studied aggregated counts of activities, specific course item counts, and order of activities were examined with cluster analyses, means analyses, and process mining techniques. We found four meaningful clusters of students, each representing specific behaviour ranging from only starting to fully completing the course. Process mining techniques show that successful students exhibit a more steady learning behaviour. However, this behaviour is much more related to actually watching videos than to the timing of activities. The results offer guidance for teachers.
Keywords:
- social learning analytics,
- constructivism,
- learning analytics,
- learning behavior,
- educational data mining,
- process mining
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students "construct" according to constructivism in science education? Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477-2496. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9369-7
- Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 44-56. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/bali_0314.pdf
- Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students' self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 161-185. doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9107-6
- Bogarín, A., Cerezo, R., & Romero, C. (2018). A survey on educational process mining. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(1). doi: 10.1002/widm.1230
- Brooks, C., & Thompson, C. (2017). Predictive modelling in teaching and learning. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. F. Wise, & D. Gasevic (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Analytics (pp. 61-68). doi: 10.18608/hla17
- Bruner, J. (1996). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Buckingham Shum, S., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social learning analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 3-26. Retrieved from https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/15_3/2.pdf
- Chi, M. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK '13 (p. 185). Leuven, Belgium: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2460296.2460332
- Conijn, R., Van den Beemt, A., & Cuijpers, P. (2018). Predicting student performance in a blended MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 615-628. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12270
- Emond, B., & Buffett, S. (2015). Analyzing student inquiry data using process discovery and sequence classification. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (p. 412-415). Madrid, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2015/proceedings/edm2015_proceedings.pdf
- Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis. London: Wiley.
- Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.004
- Henderikx, M. A., Kreijns, K., & Kalz, M. (2017). Refining success and dropout in massive open online courses based on the intention-behavior gap. Distance Education, 38(3), 353-368. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2017.1369006
- Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students' and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
- Kahan, T., Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2017). Types of participant behavior in a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3087
- Kennedy, G., Coffrin, C., & De Barba, P. (2015). Predicting success: How learners' prior knowledge, skills and activities predict MOOC performance. In Proceedings of the Fifth International conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (pp. 136-140). New York: ACM Press.
- Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK '13 (p. 170). Leuven, Belgium: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2460296.2460330
- Koller, D., Ng, A., Chuong, D., & Zhenghao, C. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses. Educause Review, (May/June), 62-63. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1337.pdf
- Lackner, E., Kopp, M., & Ebner, M. (2014, April 24 - 25). How to MOOC? - A pedagogical guideline for practitioners. In Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, (pp. 215-222). Bucharest: Editura Universitatii Nationale de Aparare "Carol I".
- Lee, D., Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2019). Systematic literature review on self - regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 28-41. doi: 10.14742/ajet.3749
- Loyens, S. M. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 351-357. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4
- Maldonado-Mahauad, J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Kizilcec, R. F., Morales, N., & Munoz-Gama, J. (2018). Mining theory-based patterns from big data: Identifying self-regulated learning strategies in massive open online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 179-196. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.011
- Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers and Education, 80, 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005
- McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for migital practice. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/wp-content/uploads/MOOC_Final.pdf
- Peña-Ayala, A. (Ed.). (2017). Learning analytics: Fundaments, applications, and trends (Vol. 94). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52977-6
- Peña-Ayala, A. (2018). Learning analytics: A glance of evolution, status, and trends according to a proposed taxonomy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(3), 1-29. doi: 10.1002/widm.1243
- Reigeluth, C. M. (2016). Instructional theory and technology for the new paradigm of education. Revista de Educación a Distancia, (50), 1-18. doi: 10.6018/red/50/1b
- Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK '12 (pp. 252-254). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2330601.2330661
- Sinha, T., Jermann, P., Li, N., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Your click decides your fate: Inferring Information Processing and Attrition Behavior from MOOC Video Clickstream Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 3-14. Doha, Qatar: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/v1/W14-4102
- Song, M., & Van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2007). Supporting process mining by showing events at a glance. In K. Chari & A. Kumar (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS 2007; pp. 139-145). Montreal.
- Trcka, N., Pechenizkiy, M., & Van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2011). Process mining from educational data. In C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, & R. Baker (Eds.), Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 123-142). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
- Vahdat, M., Oneto, L., Anguita, D., Funk, M., & Rauterberg, M. (2015). A learning analytics approach to correlate the academic achievements of students with interaction data from an educational simulator. In G. Conole, T. Klobučar, C. Rensing, J. Konert, & E. Lavoué (Eds.), Design for teaching and learning in a networked world (pp. 352-366). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Van der Aalst, W., Adriansyah, A., & Van Dongen, B. (2012). Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(2), 182-192. doi: 10.1002/widm.1045
- Van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2016). Process Mmining: Data science in action. Heidelberg: Springer.
- Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013-2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448
- Watson, S. L., Loizzo, J., Watson, W. R., Mueller, C., Lim, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Instructional design, facilitation, and perceived learning outcomes: An exploratory case study of a human trafficking MOOC for attitudinal change. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1273-1300. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9457-2
- Wen, M., & Rose, C. P. (2014). Identifying latent study habits by mining learner behavior patterns in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management - CIKM '14 (pp. 1983-1986). Shanghai, China: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2661829.2662033
- Winne, P. H., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (2013). The potentials of educational data mining for researching metacognition, motivation and self-regulated learning. JEDM | Journal of Educational Data Mining, 5(1), 1-8. Retrieved from: Retrieved from https://jedm.educationaldatamining.org/index.php/JEDM/article/view/28
- Winne, P. & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker, J.E. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice. (pp. 277-304). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Yang, H.-H., & Su, C.-H. (2017). Learner behaviour in a MOOC practice-oriented course: in empirical study integrating TAM and TPB. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2991