Click to edit Master title style

UNRAVELLING THE DYNAMICS OF INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON LEARNING DESIGN AND VLE ACTIVITIES

LAK17 QUAN NGUYEN, BART RIENTIES, LISETTE TOETENEL

@QuanNguyen3010

Click to edit Master title style

@QuanNguyen3010

LEARNING DESIGN

04LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

Figure 2: A Learning Design Conceptual Map. Retrieved from Dalziel et al. (2016)

Figure 1: Music notationRetrieved from Wikipedia Jan 18th, 2016

LEARNING ANALYTICS

04 (Gasevic, 2015, 2016; Wise, 2015; Kirschner, 2016)

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

A MARRIAGE OF LEARNING DESIGN & LEARNING ANALYTICS

TYPOLOGY OF SMART CITY TECHNOLOGYBASED ON THE OBJECTIVES OF THEIR USE

04

Learning

analytics

Learning

design

Explicit feedback

Pedagogical context

(Lockyer et al., 2013; Lockyer & Dawson, 2011; Persico & Pozzi, 2015; Mor et al., 2015)

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

ALIGNING LEARNING DESIGN AND LEARNING ANALYTICS

TYPOLOGY OF SMART CITY TECHNOLOGYBASED ON THE OBJECTIVES OF THEIR USE

04 (Persico & Pozzi, 2015; Lockyer et al., 2013; Bakharia et al., 2016)

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

04

Sample Findings9 undergrad blended modules, 4139 students

Instructional conditions across disciplines and course to avoid over-estimation or underestimation of the effect of LMS behavior on academic success (Gasevic et al., 2016)

151 modules, 111,256 students

LD activities had significant impacts on VLE behavior, student satisfaction, and retention (Rienties & Toetenel, 2016)

30 teachers The learning design process is influenced by factors related to student, teachers, and context (Bennett et al., 2015)

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

RQ1: How are learning designs configured across modules over time?

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

RQ2: How do different learning activities interact with each other across modules over time?

RQ3: How do learning designs affect VLE behaviour over time?

METHODOLOGY - INSTRUMENTS

04

OULDI VLEAssimilative Time spent per weekFinding information Time spent per visitProductiveInteractiveExperientialCommunicationAssessment

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY - INSTRUMENTS

04

OULDIAssimilativeFinding informationProductiveInteractiveExperientialCommunicationAssessment

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY - ANALYSIS

04

Fixed effect modelVisualization Social network analysis

RQ1: How are learning designs configured across modules over

time?

RQ2: How do different learning activities interact

with each other across modules?

RQ3: How do learning designs affect VLE behaviour over time?

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

@QuanNguyen3010

RQ1: How are learning designs configured across modules over time?

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

Tableau 10.1

@QuanNguyen3010

RQ1: How are learning designs configured across modules over time?

04LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

@QuanNguyen3010

RQ2: How do different learning activities interact across modules?

04LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

@QuanNguyen3010

RQ3: How do learning designs affect VLE behaviour over time?

04

(1) (2) (3) (4)VLE_per_visit OLS FE_

weekFE_

moduleFE_module_

week Assessment .51*** .51*** .03 .04 (.08) (.08) (.06) (.06)Information .25 .32 -.05 .007 (.35) (.35) (.24) (.24)Communication 2.16*** 2.16*** .69*** .68*** (.35) (.35) (.26) (.26)Productive .49*** .52*** -.34*** -.32** (.16) (.16) (.13) (.13)Experiential -.13 -.13 -.55 -.53 (.53) (.53) (.37) (.36)Interactive .50 .48 .17 .14 (.34) (.34) (.24) (.24)Constant 20.19*** 20.11*** 22.74*** 19.29*** (.40) (0.40) (0.31) (1.28) Observations 1,114 1,114 1,114 1,114Adj R-squared 0.07 0.08 0.60 0.63

(1) (2) (3) (4)VLE_per_week OLS FE_

weekFE_

moduleFE_module_

week Assessment 2.96*** 2.35*** -.49 -.98 (.79) (.83) (.74) (.75)Information 4.442 5.192 .30 .72 (3.60) (3.60) (3.10) (3.04)Communication 16.53*** 16.40*** 4.32 3.79 (3.60) (3.57) (3.39) (3.31)Productive .74 1.73 -5.63*** -4.42*** (1.61) (1.60) (1.66) (1.64)Experiential -4.14 -3.92 -8.81* -8.43* (5.44) (5.40) (4.77) (4.67)Interactive 12.02*** 12.44*** 6.03* 6.17** (3.50) (3.47) (3.13) (3.06)Constant 102.2*** 101.8*** 122.7*** 99.40*** (4.12) (4.06) (3.98) (16.40) Observations 1,114 1,114 1,114 1,114Adj R-squared 0.04 0.08 0.36 0.40

Baseline: Assimilative; Unstandardized betas; Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

@QuanNguyen3010

RQ3: How do learning designs affect VLE behaviour over time?

04

AssessmentFinding info

Communication

Productive

Experiential

Interactive

VLE per

week

VLE per visit

.68 ***

-.32**

-4.42**

-8.43*

6.17**

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

Adj-R2 = 0.63

Adj-R2 = 0.40

@QuanNguyen3010

04LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

Figure 2: A Learning Design Conceptual Map. Retrieved from Dalziel et al. (2016)

Behavior

Performance

Process

OutputInput

Learning design

ALIGNING LEARNING DESIGN AND LEARNING ANALYTICS

IMPLICATIONS

04LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

Learning

analytics

Learning

design

Research

Educators Learners

Click to edit Master title style

@QuanNguyen3010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Prof. Bart Rienties Prof. Denise Whitelock Prof. Zdenek Zdrahal Lisette Toetenel

& OULDI team

GET IN TOUCH

Quan.Nguyen@open.ac.uk

@QuanNguyen3010

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Quan_Nguyen48

LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH

TYPOLOGY OF SMART CITY TECHNOLOGYBASED ON THE OBJECTIVES OF THEIR USE

04

• Include SNA metrics• Enlarge sample size (400+ modules) multi-level

modelling• Breakdowns in each type of activities• Breakdowns VLE log-data according to each type of

activities Analysis at students’ level• Alternative to OULDI taxonomy• Other outcomes (grades, dropouts, satisfaction)

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY RESULTS FUTURE RESEARCH

ANY QUESTIONS?

BONUSES

01

02

03

TYPOLOGY OF SMART CITY TECHNOLOGYBASED ON THE OBJECTIVES OF THEIR USEBUILDING A SMART CITYSTAGES OF SMART CITY DEVELOPMENT, SUCCESS EVALUATION

04CRITICISM OF SMART CITIESOBSTACLES TO THE TREND TOWARDS THE INTERCONNECTED CITY

Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., Ferguson, F., & Whitelock, D. (Accepted). Examining the designs of computer-based assessment and its impact on student engagement, satisfaction, and pass rates. Computers in Human Behavior.

@QuanNguyen3010