Abstract
Data is at the heart of learning analytics; collecting and utilizing the appropriate data is key to having useful and actionable outcomes from learning analytics models. In this chapter, we focus on using quality data as an essential aspect of developing models that use learning analytics. We first introduce data types and then discuss the sources of data that are useful for use in learning analytics models. Finally, we provide detailed examples of these different data types in use in learning analytics models. These examples fall broadly under the categories of prediction, clustering, and rule mining. Since most learning analytics models make use of multiple types of data in developing a robust and accurate model, we do not separate out examples based on data type alone. Instead, our examples bring together both data types and the intended model use. For example, in our discussion of prediction using learning analytics, we discuss learning analytics for improving student retention as well as using novel forms of data, like affect data, in predictive learning analytics models. Learning analytics is used not only in traditional reporting, evaluation, and decision-making processes but also for the new paradigm of data driven learning such as adaptive education and intelligent tutoring. We also provide real world case studies, like Squirrel AI Learning and ASSISTments. Quality data forms the foundation for any good learning analytics model; this chapter seeks to underscore considerations the importance of data in model development.
All authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agnihotri, L., & Ott, A. (2014). Building a student at-risk model: An end-to-end perspective from user to data scientist. In Proceedings of Educational Data Mining 2014.
Amershi, S., & Conati, C. (2009). Combining unsupervised and supervised classification to build user models for exploratory learning environments. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 18–71.
Anaya, A. R., & Boticario, J. G. (2009). A data mining approach to reveal representative collaboration indicators in open collaboration frameworks. In T. Barnes, M. Desmarais, C. Romero, & S. Ventura (Eds.), Educational Data Mining 2009: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 210–219).
Baker, R. S. J. D., Gowda, S. M., & Corbett, A. T. (2011). Automatically detecting a student’s preparation for future learning: Help use is key. In M. Pechenizkiy, T. Calders, C. Conati, S. Ventura, C. Romero, & J. Stamper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 179–188).
Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 600–614.
Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An issue brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100.
Conati, C., & Maclaren, H. (2009). Empirically building and evaluating a probabilistic model of user affect. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 19(3), 267–303.
Connolly, P., & Vilardi, T. (1989). Writing to learn mathematics and science. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Corbett, A. T., & Bhatnagar, A. (1997). Student modeling in the ACT Programming Tutor: Adjusting a procedural learning model with declarative knowledge. In A. Jameson, C. Paris, & C. Tasso C. (Eds.), User modeling (Vol. 383). International Centre for Mechanical Sciences (Courses and Lectures).Vienna: Springer.
Craig, S., Graesser, A., Sullins, J., & Gholson, B. (2004). Affect and learning: an exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 241–250.
D’mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A., Mcdaniel, B., & Graesser, A. (2008). Automatic detection of learner’s affect from conversational cues. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(1–2), 45–80.
Feng, M., Heffernan, N. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Addressing the assessment challenge in an Online System that tutors as it assesses. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research (UMUAI journal)., 19(3), 243–266.
Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6), 304–317.
Gerard, L., Matuk, C., McElhaney, K., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Automated, adaptive guidance for K-12 education. Educational Research Review, 15, 41–58.
Gerard, L. F., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, K. W., Liu, O. L., Rafferty, A. N., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Automated guidance for student inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 60.
Heffernan, N., & Heffernan, C. (2014). The ASSISTments Ecosystem: Building a platform that brings scientists and teachers together for minimally invasive research on human learning and teaching. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 470–497.
House, A., Means, B., Peters Hinton, V., Boyce, J., Wetzel, T., & Wang, S. (2018). Next generation courseware challenge evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Kapoor, A., & Picard, R. W. (2005, November). Multimodal affect recognition in learning environments. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 677–682). ACM.
Krumm, A., Means, B., & Bienkowski, M. (2018). Learning analytics goes to school: A collaborative approach to improving education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Validating measurement of knowledge integration in science using multiple-choice and explanation items. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(2), 115–136.
Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty’s brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(3), 181–208.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. E., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Maxwell, A. E. (1961). Analysing qualitative data (pp. 46–50). London: Methuen.
McBride, E., Vitale, J., & Linn, M. (2018). Learning design through science versus science through design. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. [ISLS].
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 499–515.
McNamara, D. S., Allen, L., Crossley, S., Dascalu, M., & Perret, C. A. (2017). Natural language processing and learning analytics. Handbook of learning analytics (pp. 93–104). https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.
Merceron, A., & Yacef, K. (2010). Measuring correlation of strong symmetric association rules in educational data. In C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, & R. S. J. D. Baker (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Data Mining (pp. 245–256). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Pardos, Z. A., Baker, R. S., San Pedro, M. O., Gowda, S. M., & Gowda, S. M. (2013, April). Affective states and state tests: Investigating how affect throughout the school year predicts end of year learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 117–124). ACM.
Pardos, Z. A., Fan, Z., & Jiang, W. (2019). Connectionist recommendation in the wild: on the utility and scrutability of neural networks for personalized course guidance. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 29(2), 487–525.
Pavlik, P. I., Cen, H., & Koedinger, J. R. (2009). Performance factors analysis–A new alternative to knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 531–540).
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002.
Romero, C., Ventura, S., & GarcÃa, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers & Education, 51, 368–384.
Self, J. (1990). Theoretical foundations for intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1(4), 3–14.
Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2).
Tansomboon, C., Gerard, L. F., Vitale, J. M., & Linn, M. C. (2017). Designing automated guidance to promote productive revision of science explanations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27(4), 729–757.
Tong, R. J., Rowe, J., & Goldberg, B. (2019). Chapter 3—Architecture implications for building macro and micro level self-improving AISs. In A. G. Sinatra (Ed.), Design recommendations for intelligent tutoring systems: Volume 7—Self-improving systems (pp. 17–27).
U.S. Department of Education (2017). What works clearinghouse standards handbook: Version 4.0. Washington, DC: Author. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577036.pdf.
Vellido, A., Castro, F. & Nebot, À. (2010). Clustering educational data. In C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, & R. S. J. D. Baker (Eds.), Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 75–92). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Wang, S., Bienkowski, M., Cui, W., Feng, M., Pei, Y., & Yin, T. (2019, April). Putting technology to the test: Efficacy studies of an adaptive system in China. Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Toronto, Canada.
Wang, S., Feng, M., Bienkowski, M., Christensen, C. & Cui, W. (2019). Learning from an adaptive learning system: student profiling among middle school students. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU).
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tong, R., Wang, S., McBride, E., Kelly, H., Cui, W. (2020). Data, Mark of a New Era. In: Burgos, D. (eds) Radical Solutions and Learning Analytics. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4526-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4526-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-4525-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-4526-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)