Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
TechTrends
Published in: TechTrends 2/2017

14-12-2016 | Original Paper

Designing Technology-Enabled Instruction to Utilize Learning Analytics

Authors: Randall Davies, Robert Nyland, Robert Bodily, John Chapman, Brian Jones, Jay Young

Published in: TechTrends | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

A key notion conveyed by those who advocate for the use of data to enhance instruction is an awareness that learning analytics has the potential to improve instruction and learning but is not currently reaching that potential. Gibbons (2014) suggested that a lack of learning facilitated by current technology-enabled instructional systems may be due in part to the natural tendency of many designers to focus on the surface layers of instruction (i.e., the content and control layers), while failing to adequately design the internal (less visible) aspects (e.g., the data management layer). In this paper, we outline phases in the design process related to the data management layer that should be considered when integrating learning analytics into a technology-enabled learning system.
previous article TechTrends 2010–2015: A Content Analysis
next article The Effects of Game Design Experience on Teachers’ Attitudes and Perceptions regarding the Use of Digital Games in the Classroom
Literature
Baker, R. S. J. D., & Yacef, K. (2009). The state of educational data mining in 2009: a review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 3–16.
Behrens, J., & DiCerbo, K. (2013). Harnessing the currents of the digital ocean. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: from research to practice (pp. 38–60). New York: Springer.
Behrens, J., & DiCerbo, K. (2014). Harnessing the currents of the digital ocean. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: from research to practice (pp. 39–60). New York: Springer.
Brooks, C., Greer, J., & Gutwin, C. (2013). The data-assisted approach to building intelligent technology-enhanced learning environments. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: from research to practice (pp. 123–156). New York: Springer.
Campbell, J. P., DeBlois, P. B., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Academic analytics: a new tool for a new era. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(4), 40–42.
Chung, G. K., & Kerr, D. S. (2012). A primer on data logging to support extraction of meaningful information from educational games: an example from save patch. (CRESST Report 814). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), 27. Retrieved from http://​files.​eric.​ed.​gov/​fulltext/​ED531284.​pdf
Cizek, G. J. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: history, characteristics, and challenges. In G. J. Cizek & H. L. Andrade (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York: Routledge.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.CrossRef
Davies, R., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in school settings. In M. Spector, M. J. Bishop, M. D. Merrill, & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 841–853). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRef
DiCerbo, K., & Behrens, J. (2012). Implications of the digital ocean on current and future assessment. In R. Lissitz & H. Jiao (Eds.), Computers and their impact on state assessment: recent history and predictions for the future (pp. 273–306). Charlotte: Information Age.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2009). On the design of collective applications. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, 4, 368–374.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97.
ElAtia, S., Ipperciel, D., & Hammad, A. (2012). Implications and challenges to using data mining in educational research in the Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(2), 101–119.
Fairweather, P. G., & Gibbons, A. S. (2000). Distributed learning: two steps forward, one back? One forward, two back? IEEE Concurrency, 8(2), 8–9,79.
Gibbons, A. S. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.
Gibbons, A. S., Merrill, P. F., Swan, R., Campbell, J. O., Christensen, E., Insalaco, M., et al. (2008). Reexamining the implied role of the designer. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 127–137.
Graesser, A. C., Conley, M. W., & Olney, A. M. (2012). Intelligent tutoring systems. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), The APA educational psychology handbook (pp. 451–473). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.​1037/​13275-018.
Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: a generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.
Hendricks, M., Plantz, M. C., & Pritchard, K. J. (2008). Measuring outcomes of United Way funded programs: expectations and reality. In J. G. Carman & K. A. Fredricks (Eds.), Nonprofits and evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 119, 13–35.
Keefe, J. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217–223.CrossRef
Koskas, E. O. (2004). U.S. Patent No. 6,711,563. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Marzano, R. J. (2009). Formative versus summative assessments as measures of student learning. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 261–271). New York: Routledge.
Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Davies, P. (2006). Implications of threshold concepts for course design and evaluation. In J. H. G. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Nicholson, P. (2007). A history of e-learning: echoes of the pioneers. In B. Fernández Manjón (Ed.), Computers and education: e-Learning, from theory to practice (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
Oblinger, D. G. (2012). Let’s talk analytics. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(4), 10–13.
Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. (2014). Learning analytics and educational data mining in practice: a systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Educational Technology and Society, 17(4), 49–64.
Pardoe, A. (2013). Designing learning analytics experiences. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: from research to practice (pp. 15–38). New York: Springer.
Picciano, A. (2012). The evolution of big data and learning analytics in American higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3), 9–20.
Pistilli, M., Willis, J., & Campbell, J. (2013). Analytics through an institutional lens: definition, theory, design, and impact. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: from research to practice (pp. 77–102). New York: Springer.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 5–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Robson, R. (2013). The changing nature of e-learning content. In R. H. Kinshuk & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Reshaping learning: frontiers of learning technology in a global context (pp. 177–196). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.CrossRef
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
Thille, C., Schneider, E., Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., Halawa, S. A., & Greene, D. K. (2014). The future of data-enriched assessment. Research & Practice in Assessment. Special Issues: Big Data & Learning Analytics, 9, 5–16.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An Issue Brief. Washington, D.C., 2012.
White, B., & Larusson, J. (2013). Identifying points for pedagogical intervention based on student writing: two case studies for the “point of originality.”. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics: from research to practice (pp. 157–190). New York: Springer.
Metadata
Title
Designing Technology-Enabled Instruction to Utilize Learning Analytics
Authors
Randall Davies
Robert Nyland
Robert Bodily
John Chapman
Brian Jones
Jay Young
Publication date
14-12-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
TechTrends / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Electronic ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0131-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

TechTrends 2/2017 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Glass Vision 3D: Digital Discovery for the Deaf

Original Paper

The Effects of Prior Beliefs on Student Interactions in Online Debates

Original Paper

Gender Differences in Teens’ Digital Propensity and Perceptions and Preferences With Regard to Digital and Printed Text

Column: Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century

Uncreativity: a Discussion on Working Creativity Before and After Ideation with Dr. Chris Bilton

Editor’s Notes

Editor’s Notes

Original Paper

The Effects of Game Design Experience on Teachers’ Attitudes and Perceptions regarding the Use of Digital Games in the Classroom

Premium Partner

    Image Credits