Using Learning Analytics to Illuminate Student Learning Pathways in an Online Fraction Game

Preview:

DESCRIPTION

Presentation given at Learning Analytics Summer Institute, Stanford July 2014.

Citation preview

Using Learning Analytics to Illuminate Student Learning Pathways in an Online Fraction Game

Taylor Martin, Nicole Forsgren VelasquezActive Learning Lab, Huntsman School of Business

Utah State University

The Opportunity

• The new microscope• Rich and growing streams of digital

learning data• Better measures of learning and teaching

Teaching Fractions

http://games.cs.washington.edu/Refraction/

Visualizing Game States

Learning Gains

• Results: Students improve (pre to post) after playing game

• But… – Visualizations suggest different strategies– What about personalized learning?

• To investigate different strategies, we use cluster analysis

Cluster Analysis

• Variables– Number of unique board states– Total number of board states– Average time per board state– Number of moves until initial 1/3 board state– Success on game level

• Results: 5 clusters (fussing strategies)– Duncan’s Multiple Range Test used to

interpret

Cluster 1: Minimal

• Clustering variables– Number of unique board states: Low– Total number of board states: Low– Average time per board state: Very High– # moves until initial 1/3 board state: Very High– Success on game level: Low

Minimal

Cluster 2: Haphazard

• Clustering variables– Number of unique board states: Medium– Total number of board states: Very High– Average time per board state: Low– # moves until initial 1/3 board state: Very High– Success on game level: Low

Haphazard

Cluster 3: Explorer

• Clustering variables– Number of unique board states: High– Total number of board states: Medium– Average time per board state: High– # moves until initial 1/3 board state: High– Success on game level: Medium

Explorer

Cluster 4: Strategic Explorer

• Contrast to Haphazard• Clustering variables

– Number of unique board states: Very High– Total number of board states: High– Average time per board state: Very Low– # moves until initial 1/3 board state: Medium– Success on game level: High

Strategic Explorer

Cluster 5: Careful

• Contrast to Minimal• Clustering variables

– Number of unique board states: Low– Total number of board states: Very Low– Average time per board state: Medium– # moves until initial 1/3 board state: Low– Success on game level: Very High

Careful

Learning Gains: Transfer

• Posttest transfer score not associated with strategy

• Strategy used is related to learning• If prior knowledge is medium or better:

– Explorer strategy learned the most – All high-fussing strategies (strategic explorers,

explorers, haphazard) were good

• If prior knowledge is low:– Minimal strategy was better than Haphazard– High fussing is counterproductive

Initial Conclusions

• Fussing at a medium level productive• Careful (non fussing) strategies can be

productive, particularly with low prior knowledge

• Students with low prior knowledge may benefit from directed activities or hints

Next Steps• Towards Adaptivity

– What degree of fussing? – When?– For whom?

• Process Analytics– Identify exploration sequences

Thank You!

• activelearninglab.org• taylor.martin@usu.edu• nicolefv@usu.edu

Recommended