Block 4 Activity 12: Checkpoint and Process Analytics

This activity was a scenario and put me within an advisory group on learning analytics who were looking at providing analytics on the H817 module.  One or two analytics could be added to each week within the module which consists of four blocks.

For this activity I have chosen to reflect upon Block 2, first by looking at the learning outcomes and then the learning activities.  I have created a table which identifies each and indicates where checkpoint (C) or process (P) analytics could be used.  Following this I chose which two analytics would provide the best data to inform the learning design team and the learners of the H817 module.

Block 2 objectives and activities

Objectives Activities
·         understand the areas of debate and priorities in the changing area of open education

·         be able to make an initial consideration of evidence to support priorities in open learning research

·         be able to make initial readings in open education literature

·         be able to create a representation of openness in education

·         understand the areas of debate and priorities in the changing area of open education

·         be able to make an initial consideration of evidence to support priorities in open learning research

·         be able to make initial readings in open education literature

·         be able to create a representation of openness in education

·         understand the areas of debate and priorities in the changing area of open education

·         be able to make an initial consideration of evidence to support priorities in open learning research

·         be able to make initial readings in open education literature

·         be able to create a representation of openness in education

·         the different types of MOOC and the issues surrounding them

·         the evidence of learner behaviour and the effectiveness of MOOCs

·         the learner experience in MOOCs

·         the strengths and weaknesses of MOOCs as an approach

·         personal learning networks.

·         the different types of MOOC and the issues surrounding them

·         the evidence of learner behaviour and the effectiveness of MOOCs

·         the learner experience in MOOCs

·         the strengths and weaknesses of MOOCs as an approach

·         personal learning networks.

·         the different types of MOOC and the issues surrounding them

·         the evidence of learner behaviour and the effectiveness of MOOCs

·         the learner experience in MOOCs

·         the strengths and weaknesses of MOOCs as an approach

·         personal learning networks.

Week 8

5. The case for learning objects.

Read article. C (checking accessing course

materials).

6.  Criticisms of learning objects.

Read or watch two out of 3 criticisms. C

7. Explore OER issues.

Read JISC report on OER or OER Research

Hub evidence. C

Write a blog post. C and P

Follow link and read about Mozilla,

Peer2Peer University. C

Look at blogs of others – comment on one. P

Badge- join Credly and email. C and P

8. An OER course.  Scenario.

Construct a course in digital skills. P

Devise outline of topics. P

Follow links to 6 repositories. C and P

Evaluate your course. P

Create a table. P

Write a blog post and reflect. C and P

Compare with other students and comment.

C and P

Week 9

9. Blog post or forum post about choosing a

licence. C and P

Link to William & Flora Hewlett Foundation. P

10. Applying sustainability models.

Read paper. C

Look at 4 links and link to the paper. P

Consider models and share reflection in blog or forum. C and P

11. The advantages and disadvantages of big  and little OER.

Read chapter or view slidecast. C

Write blog post. P

Week 10

12. Background to MOOCs.

Watch video interview. C

Read paper. C

Choose article and read. C

Consider MOOCs in own setting & post thoughts in blog and read comments on peers’ postings. C and P

Additional Resources – guide + report C

Link to reading. P

13. Reading.  Read one paper. C

14. Comparing MOOCs.

Compare DS106 or Rhizomatic learning with Udacity, FutureLearn or Coursera. P

Write blog. P

Read and comment on fellow student

posts. C and P

Badge link to Credly and email. C

15. Defining PLN.

Three links to follow. C

Use search tools and forum to formulate your own, one sentence definition of PLN. P

16.  Examining a definition.

Create a visual representation of tools,

resources and people in your PLN. P

Post on your blog. C and P

Link to PLE diagram. P

Week 11

17. The role of abundance.

Read article. C

Post a comment in forum to contribute an answer to a question that has been posed.C and P

18. Theory of Connectivism and its critics.

Read 2 papers. C

19. Implementing Connectivism.

Devise a course that uses a Connectivist approach. P

Return to description of short course in wk8 and recast it. P

Blog your course outline along with how principles are realised. P

Read and comment on some of courses suggested by others. P

20. Exploring Rhizomatic Learning.

Watch video. C

Consider reaction to video. P

Reflect and post response in blog or forum. P

Week 12

21. Chicken & Egg Conundrum.

Use forum to discuss relationship between technology. P

22. An open education technology.

Write short blog. P

23. Review of Web Literacies.

Link to follow ‘web literacy map’. C

Look at ‘web literacy map’. P

Reflect on own skills/competencies. P

24. Considering open learning literacies.

Draw up set of open learning literacies. P

Blog list and look at those suggested by

others. C and P

Reflect. P

Week 8:

Checkpoint analytics – to ensure that course resources had been accessed.

Process analytics – within activity 8 forum discussion/comments around sharing of digital skills course created by each student.

Week 9:

Checkpoint analytics – to ensure that each student posted to their blog or to the forum about choosing a suitable licence – activity 9.

Process analytics – within activity 10 forum/blog postings.  Would provide information about learning from reading, linking reading with external links and considering sustainability models and perhaps highlight areas where support is needed (individually and/or group).

Week 10:

Checkpoint analytics could be used to find out which students accessed the additional resources suggested at the end of activity 12.  It may be useful to ascertain if these were accessed during the course of their progression through the week’s activities or whether they were returned to at a later date – such as when TMA was due.

Checkpoint analytics could be used to find out how many students take up the offer of Credly Badge. Inform learning design team.

Week 11:

Process analytics to check understanding of Connectivism during activity 19 with a view to providing tutor and/or peer support through forum. This would also help student’s understanding of activity 20.

Week 12:

Process analytics during activity 23 where students are asked to reflect on their own skills and competencies after working through information about ‘Web Literacy Map’. How students perceive their skills and competencies is beneficial to individual learning processes and provides insight for tutor which they could use to focus support in areas needed.

Checkpoint analytics could be used to find out how many students completed activity 25 which was sort of optional due to TMA being due. Finding out how many students completed this could indicate how many students were behind.  The analytics could also highlight whether the activity was essential/needed within the learning design for the block.

Reflection 

In the main, Checkpoint analytics could be used to assess if students have accessed the required resources held within each activity of this block’s learning design. They could also show how often a student accesses, reads, posts and comments within course/team forums (Dashboard) and other collaborative areas chosen by the students such as OULive, Google+ or Facebook.  The number of times a student accesses the OU Library during the block may also be an important indicator for the learning design team.

As Lockyer et al.(2013) argue, this may be valuable for providing lead indicators of student engagement, however they do not, without other data, provide information into the learning process or understanding of how and what students are learning.

Process analytics may be beneficial within tutor group forums as it may provide insight into learner information processing and knowledge application (Elias, 2011) within the tasks that are completed as part of the learning design – such as answering questions raised by tutor and peers; asking thought provoking questions as a stimulus for discussion within the group; sharing learning experiences and knowledge which help demonstrate understanding of each activity. Tutor could use this information to support (which would be inbuilt into the learning design) individual students, groups or cohort where and when it was needed.  This may highlight an area which needs further development within the learning design if the course/module was to be used again in subsequent years.

Many of the activities, such as the Chicken and Egg Conundrum, within block 2 would be suited to process analysis as it involves a whole tutor group discussion and would provide tutor and learning design team with an insight into how this activity works within the block, and what learning is gleaned from it.  I would also see process analysis being used to support and inform the learning design and highlight what roles tutor and learners have taken/could take, throughout each activity within the block.

As a learner I would like to have access to how many students had accessed and read my forum posts or comments such as is available on my WordPress site.

 

References:

Elias, T. (2011). Learning analytics: Definitions, processes and potential, in Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E. and Dawson, S. (2013) ‘Informing pedagogical action: aligning learning analytics with learning design’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 10 [online] available at http:// learninganalytics.net/LearningAnalyticsDefinitionsProcessesPotential.pdf

 

Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E. and Dawson, S. (2013) ‘Informing pedagogical action: aligning learning analytics with learning design’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 10; also available online at http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/ 0002764213479367 (accessed 12 July 2016).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s