1 / 15

Analytics for tracking student engagement (TM355, Communications Technology)

Analytics for tracking student engagement (TM355, Communications Technology). Christine Gardner, Allan Jones, David Chapman, Helen Jefferis. Two aspects to the project. Analytics : use of teaching tools on the TM355 VLE (2016/17 and 2017/18 cohorts):

LeeJohn
Télécharger la présentation

Analytics for tracking student engagement (TM355, Communications Technology)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Analytics for tracking student engagement (TM355, Communications Technology) Christine Gardner, Allan Jones, David Chapman, Helen Jefferis

  2. Two aspects to the project Analytics : use of teaching tools on the TM355 VLE (2016/17 and 2017/18 cohorts): • When do the students engage with the technology enhanced learning and teaching (TELT)‘ tools and is this at predicted times during the module? • Do students revisit the TELT tools? • Has the level of student engagement with the tools changed over two presentations (16/17 and 17/18)? Interviews: student feedback on motivations and reasons for using TELT tools (2017/18 cohort): • What motivates OU students to engage with TELT tools? • Do students understand a topic more deeply as a result of using TELT tools? • Are students deterred if the packages are too complicated/time consuming?

  3. Analytics for Action, A4A A4A can provide detail of how students are engaging with specific online materials. A4A six phases: However, it does not automatically identify activity at an individual student level.

  4. Analytics for Action, A4A – detail DCT – Discrete Cosine Transform Hamming codes

  5. Key hypothesis A key hypothesis is that those who engage with the TELT tools tend to perform better at exam time. Much time and resource had been invested in producing the TELT tools to supplement the printed materials, so there is a question on why they are not being used more extensively.

  6. In particular… The prompt for this query was students’ relatively poor performance on a particular exam question on the 2016/17 presentation of TM355, based on error control codes. TM355 exam scores for 2016/17, Question 10, linked to a specific TELT tool on error control codes. Using A4A it could be seen that the associated TELT tool had not been extensively used, either during the module or for revision. Question 10 was not a popular choice with students.

  7. More detail is needed: Error control codes

  8. Phase 1: Analytics data, July 2017 to July 2018 • Collection of analytics data (A4A) on TELT tool use during the 2016/17 module presentation • Identification of a sub-set of students for further research from exam data • Consultation with TEL team to interrogate the analytics data more deeply • Design of interview questions for 2017/18 cohort and submission of SRPP application • Analysis of analytics data ( July 2017 to May 2018).

  9. Initial data from 2016/17 exam TM355 exam scores for 2016/17, Q10 – small sample of 48 students (all who attempted Q10): Average exam score overall for all students – 45% Not used error control codes TELT tool at all – 30% Used error control codes TELT during the module, at least once – 53% Used error control codes TELT specifically at revision May/June – 52% Used error control codes TELT on more than one specific date i.e. returned to  package – 58 %

  10. Predicted results 48 students were in the sample, answering Q10, prediction for passing module 0.87 271 students did not answer Q10, prediction for passing module 0.85

  11. Phase 2: Interview data, TM355 2017/18 presentation • 6 (2017/18) students volunteered for interview • Interviews took place July 2018 • Interview data analysed (June -Oct 2018)

  12. Interview comments: Seeing the coding in practice and having an interaction helped. Good for self-testing, noted by several students Why wouldn’t students use the resources? Just a video clip and didn’t add anything to existing knowledge

  13. Ideas to progress: Give some indication of time needed for the activities (although obviously this will vary for each student) Add descriptions about what kind of activity. Promoting them in a new module introductory/revision video or podcast. Use the module forums to promote them Have ‘talking heads’ of students saying how useful they were.

  14. Phase 3: Action/Dissemination Produce descriptions/timings for activities Add advice in a revision podcast Interview the 18J cohort of students Review use of TELT tools for the 18J presentation Consider additional guidance for the mid-life review of the module.

  15. Questions? Contact: Christine Gardner - c.f.gardner@open.ac.uk Allan Jones – allan.jones@open.ac.uk David Chapman - david.chapman@open.ac.uk Helen Jefferis – h.jefferis@open.ac.uk

More Related