skip to main content
10.1145/2567574.2567586acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Visualizing patterns of student engagement and performance in MOOCs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 March 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the last five years, the world has seen a remarkable level of interest in Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs. A consistent message from universities participating in MOOC delivery is their eagerness to understand students' online learning processes. This paper reports on an exploratory investigation of students' learning processes in two MOOCs which have different curriculum and assessment designs. When viewed through the lens of common MOOC learning analytics, the high level of initial student interest and, ultimately, the high level of attrition, makes these two courses appear very similar to each other, and to MOOCs in general. With the goal of developing a greater understanding of students' patterns of learning behavior in these courses, we investigated alternative learning analytic approaches and visual representations of the output of these analyses. Using these approaches we were able to meaningfully classify student types and visualize patterns of student engagement which were previously unclear. The findings from this research contribute to the educational community's understanding of students' engagement and performance in MOOCs, and also provide the broader learning analytics community with suggestions of new ways to approach learning analytic data analysis and visualization.

References

  1. G. Balakrishnan and D. Coetzee. Predicting student retention in massive open online courses using hidden markov models. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2013/EECS-2013-109.html, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Bostock, V. Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D3: Data-driven documents. IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. B. Breslow, D. E. Pritchard, J. De Boer, G. S. Stump, A. D. Ho, and D. Seaton. Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edx's first mooc. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8:13--25, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C. G. Brinton, M. Chiang, S. Jain, H. Lam, Z. Liu, and F. M. F. Wong. Learning about social learning in moocs: From statistical analysis to generative model. CoRR, abs/1312.2159, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Clow. Moocs and the funnel of participation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK '13, pages 185--189, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. F. Dochy, M. Segers, and M. M. Buehl. The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of educational research, 69(2):145--186, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. E. Duval. Attention please!: learning analytics for visualization and recommendation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK '11, pages 9--17, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Ellis and P. Goodyear. Students' experiences of e-learning in higher education: the ecology of sustainable innovation. Routledge, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. G. D. Haertel, H. J. Walberg, and T. Weinstein. Psychological models of educational performance: A theoretical synthesis of constructs. Review of Educational Research, 53(1):75--91, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. T. S. Judd and G. E. Kennedy. More sense from audit trails: Exploratory sequential data analysis. In Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, pages 476--484, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. G. E. Kennedy and T. S. Judd. Making sense of audit trail data. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1):18--32, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. R. F. Kizilcec, C. Piech, and E. Schneider. Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK '13, pages 170--179, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. R. Kop, H. Fournier, and J. Mak. A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. A. Littlejohn. Understanding massive open online courses. http://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/EdTech%20Notes%202_Littlejohn_final_1June2013.pdf, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. MOOCs@Edinburgh Group. Moocs @ edinburgh 2013: Report #1. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6683, May 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. Olmos and L. Corrin. Learning analytics: A case study of the process of design of visualizations. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3):39--49, June 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. P. R. Pintrich, R. W. Marx, and R. A. Boyle. Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational research, 63(2):167--199, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2008. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Siemens and P. Long. Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. Educause Review, 46(5):30--32, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Waite, J. Mackness, G. Roberts, and E. Lovegrove. Liminal participants and skilled orienteers: Learner participation in a mooc for new lecturers. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2):200--215, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Visualizing patterns of student engagement and performance in MOOCs

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        LAK '14: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge
        March 2014
        301 pages
        ISBN:9781450326643
        DOI:10.1145/2567574

        Copyright © 2014 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 March 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        LAK '14 Paper Acceptance Rate13of44submissions,30%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader