skip to main content
10.1145/2330601.2330616acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Social learning analytics: five approaches

Published:29 April 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes that Social Learning Analytics (SLA) can be usefully thought of as a subset of learning analytics approaches. SLA focuses on how learners build knowledge together in their cultural and social settings. In the context of online social learning, it takes into account both formal and informal educational environments, including networks and communities. The paper introduces the broad rationale for SLA by reviewing some of the key drivers that make social learning so important today. Five forms of SLA are identified, including those which are inherently social, and others which have social dimensions. The paper goes on to describe early work towards implementing these analytics on SocialLearn, an online learning space in use at the UK's Open University, and the challenges that this is raising. This work takes an iterative approach to analytics, encouraging learners to respond to and help to shape not only the analytics but also their associated recommendations.

References

  1. Campbell, J. P., DeBlois, P. B. and Oblinger, D. G., Academic Analytics: A New Tool for a New Era. EDUCAUSE Review, 42, 4 (July/August), (2007), 40--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Norris, D., Baer, L., Leonard, J., Pugliese, L. and Lefrere, P., Action analytics: measuring and improving performance that matters in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 1, (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Wells, G. and Claxton, G., Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. In: G. Wells and G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century. Blackwell, Oxford, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Wertsch, J. V., Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gee, J. P., Thinking, learning and reading: the situated sociocultural mind. In: D. Kirshner and J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: social, semiotic and psychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Inglehart, R., Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Savage, C. M., Fifth Generation Management: Co-Creating through Virtual Enterprising, Dynamic Teaming, and Knowledge Networking. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Lyotard, J. F., The Postmodern Condition. Manchester University Press, manchester, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Claxton, G., Education for the learning age: a sociocultural approach to learning to learn. In: G. Wells and G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century. Blackwell, Oxford, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Futurelab, Developing and Accrediting Personal Skills and Competencies. 2007. http://archive.futurelab.org.ukGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Qualifications & Curriculum Authority, Futures: Meeting the Challenge. 2007. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5529Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Willinsky, J., Just say know? Schooling the knowledge society. Educational Theory, 55, 1, (2005), 97--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hagel, J., Seely Brown, J. and Davison, L., The Power of Pull. Basic Books, New York, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, C. and Steeples, C., Perspectives and issues in networked learning. In: C. Steeples and C. Jones (Eds.), Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues. Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, Lancaster, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Granovetter, M. S., The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6, (1973), 1360--1380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Levin, D. Z. and Cross, R., The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 11, (2004), 1477--1490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Haythornthwaite, C. and de Laat, M., Social networks and learning networks: using social network perspectives to understand social learning. In: 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (Aalborg, Denmark (3-4 May), 3--4 May, 2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gee, J. P., Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. Routledge, New York, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodfellow, R., Virtual Learning Communities: A Report for the National College for School Leadership. 2003. http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=2778Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Cetina, K. K., Sociality with Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies Theory, Culture & Society, 14, 4, (1997), 1--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Schrire, S., Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32, 6, (2004), 475--502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Lapadat, J. C., Discourse devices used to establish community, increase coherence, and negotiate agreement in an online university course. The Journal of Distance Education, 21, 3, (2007), 59--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. O'Halloran, K., Investigating argumentatio in reading groups: combining manual qualitative coding and automated corpus analysis tools. Applied Linguistics, 32, 2, (2011), 172--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Mercer, N., Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 2, (2004), 137--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Mercer, N., The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners. Multilingual Matters Ltd, Clevedon, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mercer, N., Words & Minds: How We Use Language To Think Together. Routledge, London, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Mercer, N. and Littleton, K., Dialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking. Routledge, London and New York, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Mercer, N. and Wegerif, R., Is 'exploratory talk' productive talk? In: P. Light and K. Littleton (Eds.), Learning with Computers: Analysing Productive Interaction. Routledge, London and New York, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Ferguson, R. and Buckingham Shum, S., Learning analytics to identify exploratory dialogue within synchronous text chat. Proc. 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (Banff, 27 Mar-1 Apr, 2011). ACM: NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ferguson, R., The Construction of Shared Knowledge through Asynchronous Dialogue. PhD, The Open University, Milton Keynes. http://oro.open.ac.uk/19908 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. De Liddo, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Quinto, I., Bachler, M. and Cannavacciuolo, L., Discourse-centric learning analytics. Proc. 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (Banff, 27 Mar-1 Apr, 2011). ACM: NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Potter, W. J. and Levine-Donnerstein, D., Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 3, (1999), 258--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Little, S., Llorente, A. and Rüger, S., An overview of evaluation campaigns in multimedia retrieval. In: H. Müller, P. Clough, T. Deselaers and B. Caputo (Eds.), ImageCLEF: Experimental Evaluation in Visual Information Retrieval. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Little, S., Ferguson, R. and Rutger, S., Navigating and Discovering Educational Materials through Visual Similarity Search. Proc. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA) (Lisbon, Portugal, 27 June - 1 July, 2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Clow, D. and Makriyannis, E., iSpot Analysed: Participatory Learning and Reputation. Proc. 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (Banff, 27 Mar-1 Apr, 2011). ACM: NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. de Wever, B., Schellens, T., Vallcke, M. and van Keer, H., Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers & Education, 46, 1, (2006), 6--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jovanovic, J., Gaševic, D., Brooks, C., Devedžic, V., Hatala, M., Eap, T. and Richards, G., LOCO-Analyst: semantic web technologies in learning content usage analysis. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning 18, 1, (2008), 54--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Deakin Crick, R., Learning how to learn: the dynamic assessment of learning power. The Curriculum Journal, 18, 2, (2007), 135--153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Deakin Crick, R., Broadfoot, P. and Claxton, G., Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: the ELLI project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11, 3, (2004), 247--272.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. and Ecclestone, K., Should We Be Using Learning Styles? What Research Has To Say to Practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Buckingham Shum, S. and Deakin Crick, R., Learning Dispositions and Transferable Competencies: Pedagogy, Modelling and Learning Analytics. Proc. 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (Vancouver, 29 Apr-2 May, 2012). ACM Press: NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Anderson, E. M. and Shannon, A. L., Towards a conceptualisation of mentoring. In: T. Kerry and A. S. Mayes (Eds.), Issues in mentoring. Routledge, London, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ferguson, R., The Integration of Interaction on Distance-Learning Courses. MSc (RMet) Dissertation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Vavoula, G., KLeOS: A Knowledge and Learning Organisation System in Support of Lifelong Learning. PhD, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Sharples, M., Taylor, J. and Vavoula, G., Towards a Theory of Mobile Learning. In: mLearn 2005 conference (Cape Town, South Africa, 2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones, A. and Preece, J., Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners: a framework for comparing similarities and identifying differences in communities of practice and communities of interest. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2, 2--3, (2006), 112--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Lipman, M., Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Wenger, E., Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Ferguson, R. and Buckingham Shum, S., Towards a social learning space for open educational resources. In: A. Okada, T. Connolly and P. Scott (Eds.), Collaborative Learning 2.0 - Open Educational Resources. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 2012, in press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Bakharia, A., Heathcote, E. and Dawson, S., Social networks adapting pedagogical practice: SNAPP. In: Same Places, Different Spaces. ascilite 2009 (Auckland, 2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Haythornthwaite, C., Learning relations and networks in web-based communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 4, 2, (2008), 140--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. De Liddo, A., Sándor, A. and Buckingham Shum, S., Contested Collective Intelligence: Rationale, Technologies, and a Human-Machine Annotation Study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, (2012, in press). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Novak, J. D., Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah: NJ, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N. and McLaren, B. M., Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation, 5, 1, (2010), 43--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Edwards, C., Embedding reflective thinking on approaches to learning - moving from pilot study to developing institutional good practice. In: 16th Annual Conference of the Education, Learning Styles, Individual Differences Network (29 June-1 July) (Antwerp, 2011)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Ferguson, R., Buckingham Shum, S. and Deakin Crick, R., EnquiryBlogger -- Using Widgets To Support Awareness and Reflection in a PLE Setting. In: 1st Workshop on Awareness and Reflection in Personal Learning Environments in conjunction with the PLE Conference 2011. July 11 (Southampton, United Kingdom, 2011)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Social learning analytics: five approaches

        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

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader