Learner Dashboards a Double-Edged Sword? Students’ Sense-Making of a Collaborative Critical Reading and Learning Analytics Environment for Fostering 21st Century Literacies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.41.7Keywords:
Learning analytics, computer-supported collaborative learning, critical literacy, 21st century competencesAbstract
The affordances of learning analytics (LA) tools and solutions are being increasingly harnessed for enhancing 21st century pedagogical and learning strategies and outcomes. However, use cases and empirical understandings of students’ experiences with LA tools and environments aimed at fostering 21st century literacies, especially in the K-12 schooling sector and in Asian education contexts remain relatively scarce in the field. Our paper addresses this knowledge gap in two ways. First, we present a first iteration design of a computer-supported collaborative critical reading and LA environment, WiREAD, and its 16-week implementation in a Singapore high school. Second, we foreground students’ evaluative accounts of the benefits and drawbacks associated with this techno-pedagogical innovation. Our analysis of students’ collective sense-making pointed to a number of potentialities and perils associated with the design and use of LA dashboards. Positives included (1) fostering greater self-awareness, reflective and self-regulatory learning dispositions, (2) enhancing learning motivation and engagement, and (3) nurturing connective literacy among students. The motivational value of peer-referenced LA visualisations for stimulating healthy competition and game-like learning was identified, alongside the perils of these serving to demoralise, pressurise and trigger complacency in learners. By focusing on students’ experiences and interpretations of how the LA dashboard visualizations impacted their learning motivation and outcomes, this paper aims to shed insights into the pedagogical complexities of designing LA that considers the voices of learners as a critical stakeholder group.
References
Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012, April). Course signals at Purdue: using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 267-270). ACM.
Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45-72.
Beheshitha, S. S., Hatala, M., Gašević, D., & Joksimović, S. (2016, April). The role of achievement goal orientations when studying effect of learning analytics visualizations. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 54-63). ACM.Chan, J. C., & Lam, S. F. (2010). Effects of different evaluative feedback on students’ self-efficacy in learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 37-58.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Little, Brown.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Learning by Design. Palgrave Macmillan
Corrin, L., & de Barba, P. (2014). Exploring students’ interpretation of feedback delivered through learning analytics dashboards. In Proceedings of the ascilite 2014 conference.
Davison, C. (2013). Innovation in assessment: Common misconceptions and problems. Innovation and change in English language education, 263-275.
Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Analytics to literacies: The development of a learning analytics framework for multiliteracies assessment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4).
Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential. Hachette UK.
Ferguson, R., & Shum, S. B. (2012, April). Social learning analytics: five approaches. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 23-33). ACM.
Garcia, A., Mirra, N., Morrell, E., Martinez, A., & Scorza, D. A. (2015). The council of youth research: Critical literacy and civic agency in the digital age. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(2), 151-167.
Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gasevic, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: The effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68-84.
Gee, J.P. (2008). Game-like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn, 200-221.
Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Duval, E., & Pardo, A. (2012, May). The student activity meter for awareness and self-reflection. In CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 869-884). ACM.Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Levin, H. M. (2012). More than just test scores. Prospects, 42(3), 269-284.
Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764213479367.
Martin, A. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2015). The role of personal best (PB) and dichotomous achievement goals in students’ academic motivation and engagement: a longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychology, 1-18.
McColskey, W., & Leary, M. R. (1985). Differential effects of norm-referenced and self-referenced feedback on performance expectancies, attribution, and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 275–284.
Oblinger, D.G., & Oblinger, J.L. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding the Net Generation. In D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. Educause.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rosé, C. P., & Ferschke, O. (2016). Technology Support for Discussion Based Learning: From Computer Supported Collaborative Learning to the Future of Massive Open Online Courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 660-678.
Rosé, C., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning, 3(3), 237-271.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
Tan, J. P-L. (2009). Digital kids, analogue students: a mixed methods study of students' engagement with a school-based Web 2.0 learning innovation. Doctoral thesis. ID Code: 30396, Queensland University of Technology.
Tan, J. P-L., Caleon, I. S., Jonathan, C. R., & Koh, E. (2014). A dialogic framework for assessing collective creativity in computer-supported collaborative problem-solving tasks. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(3), 411-437.
Tan, J. P-L., & McWilliam, E. (2009). From literacy to multiliteracies: Diverse learners and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 213-225.
Tan, J. P-L., & Nie, Y. Y. (2015). The role of authentic tasks in promoting 21st century learning dispositions in Mathematics. In Y. H. Cho, I. S. Caleon, & M. Kapur (Eds.), Authentic Problem Solving and Learning in the 21st Century (pp 19-39). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore Pte Ltd.
Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., & Giesbers, B. (2015). In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning Analytics in a data-rich context. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 157-167.
Turvey, K. (2006). Towards deeper learning through creativity within online communities in primary education. Computers and Education, 46(3), 309-321.
Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos, J. L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764213479363.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31-39.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.
Wise, A. F. (2014, March). Designing pedagogical interventions to support student use of learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 203-211). ACM.
Wise, A. F., Zhao, Y., & Hausknecht, S. N. (2014). Learning analytics for online discussions: Embedded and extracted approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 48-71.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Learning Analytics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
TEST
