Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Educational Data Mining in Program Evaluation: Lessons Learned

467 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

AET 2016 Researchers present findings from a series of data mining studies, primarily examining data mining as part of an innovative triangulated approach in program evaluation. Findings suggest that is it possible to apply EDM techniques in online and blended learning classrooms to identify key variables important to the success of learners. Lessons learned will be shared as well as areas for improving data collection in learning management systems for meaningful analysis and visualization.

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

Educational Data Mining in Program Evaluation: Lessons Learned

  1. 1. © 2016 Boise State University 1 Kerry Rice, Jui-Long Hung, Yu-Chang Hsu, Brett E. Shelton Department of Educational Technology Boise State University Educational Data Mining in Program Evaluation: Lessons Learned AECT 2016, Las Vegas
  2. 2. © 2016 Boise State University 2 MET Ed. D. Ed. S. Graduate Certificates: Online Teaching Technology Integration Specialist School Technology Coordinator K-12 Online Teaching Endorsement College of Education
  3. 3. © 2016 Boise State University 3 Go Broncos!
  4. 4. © 2016 Boise State University 4 Decision Tree Analysis (performance prediction) Cluster Analysis (engagement) Sequential Association Analysis (path analysis) Educational Data Mining Applications Time Series Analysis (future performance prediction)
  5. 5. © 2016 Boise State University 5 Study #1: Teacher Training Workshops 2010 • Survey Data + Data Mining + Student Outcomes • Research Goal: – Program improvement – Satisfaction – Impact on practice • Blackboard • 103 participants • 31,417 learning logs • Cluster Analysis; Sequential Association Analysis; Decision Tree Analysis;
  6. 6. © 2016 Boise State University 6 Study #2: Online Graduate Teacher Education 2010 • Data Mining + Student Outcomes (no demographic data) • Research Goal: – Identify struggling students – Adjust teaching strategies – Improve course design – Data Visualization • Study Design – Comparative (between and within courses) – Random course selection • Moodle • Two graduate courses (X and Y) • Each with two sections – X1 (18 students) – X2 (19 students) – Y1 (18 students) – Y2 (22 students) • 2,744,433 server logs • Cluster Analysis; Sequential Association Analysis; Decision Tree Analysis; Data Visualization
  7. 7. © 2016 Boise State University 7 • Data mining + Demographics + Survey Data + Student Outcomes • Research Goal: Large scale program evaluation – Support decision making at the course and institutional level – Identify key variables and relationships between teacher and course satisfaction, student behaviors, and performance outcomes Study #3: End of Year K-12 Online Program Evaluation 2012 • Blackboard LMS • 7500 students • 883 courses • 23,854,527 learning logs (over 1 billion records) • Cluster Analysis; Decision Tree Analysis
  8. 8. © 2016 Boise State University 8 Study #4: End of Year K-12 Blended Program Evaluation 2012 • Blackboard LMS • 255 Enrollments • 33 course sections • 17 unique courses • Satisfaction Survey • Data from 2011 pilot study • Cluster Analysis; Decision Tree Analysis • Demographics + Survey Data + Data Mining + Student Outcomes • Research Goal: Test Framework in Blended Learning – Support decision making at the course and institutional level? – Identify key variables and relationships between teacher and course satisfaction, student behaviors, and performance outcomes
  9. 9. © 2016 Boise State University 9 Study #5: Online Graduate Teacher Education, 2014 • Moodle LMS • 509 Enrollments • 25 course sections • 12 unique courses • 431,708 records • Time Series Analysis • 34 original and derived variables –static (demographic) –dynamic (engagement) • Demographics + Data Mining + Student Outcomes • Research Goal: – Could we identify at-risk students in real time? – When?
  10. 10. © 2016 Boise State University 10 Study #6: Online Graduate Teacher Education, 2015 • Moodle LMS • 661 Enrollments • 31 course sections • 18 unique courses • 546,965 records • Time Series Analysis • 34 original and derived variables –static (demographic) –dynamic (engagement) • Demographics + Data Mining + Student Outcomes • Research Goal: – Did the model developed in Study #5 work with new semester data? – Were the predictive (timing) results the same? – Were frequency data more predictive?
  11. 11. © 2016 Boise State University 11 Variables - actual and derived Engagement
  12. 12. © 2016 Boise State University 12 Cluster Analysis Student clustering which describes shared characteristics of students who passed or failed their courses
  13. 13. © 2016 Boise State University 13 Cluster Analysis: Relative Participation Levels and Final Grades • Average Time Spent • Average Days Participated • Average Frequency of Mouse Clicks • Average Time Spent per Session • Average Frequency of Mouse Clicks per Session Participation Variables (Engagement)
  14. 14. © 2016 Boise State University 14 Cluster Analysis: Student Characteristics Cluster 1 – Low-High, 119 students: Low average participation and higher performance levels. Cluster 2 – High-High, 60 students: High average participation and high performance levels. Cluster 3 – Low-Low, 76 students (46% remedial): Low average participation and low performance levels.
  15. 15. © 2016 Boise State University 15 Cluster Distributions in Courses High percentage of Low-Low students in Chemistry CP, CP Pre-Calculus, English II, English III, and Pre-Calculus (H)
  16. 16. © 2016 Boise State University 16 Decision Tree Analysis Perception and performance predictions which identify key predictors of course satisfaction, instruction satisfaction, and final grade
  17. 17. © 2016 Boise State University 17 Decision Tree Analysis: Predictors of Student Performance Decision Tree Analysis • Identified at risk • Number of Courses Taken • Average Clicks per Week • Average Time Spent per Week, and • Average Time Spent per Session Other factors • Gender • Ethnicity • Reason for taking a course
  18. 18. © 2016 Boise State University 18 Sequential Association Analysis Course X Course Y Does the design of the course (path to learning) predict learner outcomes?
  19. 19. © 2016 Boise State University 19 Sequential Association Analysis
  20. 20. © 2016 Boise State University 20 Time Series Analysis
  21. 21. © 2016 Boise State University 21 Time Series Analysis – course access A B F Week 10 Spring Break
  22. 22. © 2016 Boise State University 22 Time Series Analysis – DB Replies A B F Week 10 Spring Break
  23. 23. © 2016 Boise State University 23 Overall Analysis • Students who took fewer courses performed significantly better than those who took more courses. • Engagement is a significant factor. High-engaged students performed better than low-engaged students. • Students identified as at risk performed differently than all other students. • Type of engagement matters. Students who accessed their courses more often performed better than those who had more interactions within the course. Consistent interaction over time is a better predictor of performance. (higher ed only) • Advanced courses - High-engagement and high performance (K-12) • Entry level courses - Low performance regardless of engagement (K-12) • Gender and ethnicity (higher ed) were identified as significant factors • Satisfaction did not always equate to higher performance
  24. 24. © 2016 Boise State University 24 Characteristics of successful students • Female (k-12) • Younger (k-12) • Were enrolled in advanced courses (k-12) • Took fewer courses • Were more engaged overall • Were consistently engaged
  25. 25. © 2016 Boise State University 25 Characteristics of at-risk students • Male (K-12) • Older (K-12) • Took entry-level courses (K-12) • Took a greater number of courses • Were low engaged overall • Were inconsistent in their engagement
  26. 26. © 2016 Boise State University 26 Data Collection Challenges • Bb activity accumulator grouped wide ranging behaviors into only five useful categories • Missing data (empty fields – ex. internal handler) • Mismatched data fields/data stored in the wrong fields • Inconsistent data collection (i.e. failure to track every forum reply) • Partial or missing timestamp (needed for sequential analysis) • Course or student ID not linked to survey • Demographic data not linked to course or program • Inconsistent course models (blended)
  27. 27. © 2016 Boise State University 27 Educational Data Mining Special Challenges • Learning behaviors are complex • Target variables (learning outcomes/performance) require wide range of assessments and indicators • Goal of improving teaching and learning is hard to quantify • Limited number of DM techniques suitable to meet educational goals • Only interactions that occur in the LMS can be tracked through data mining • Still a very intensive process to identify rules and patterns
  28. 28. © 2016 Boise State University 28 References •Hung, J. L., Rice, K., & Saba, A. (2012). An educational data mining model for online teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 5(2), 77-94. •Hung, J. L., Hsu, Y.-C., & Rice, K. (2012). Integrating data mining in program evaluation of K-12 online education. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 27-41. •Rice, K., & Hung. J. (2015). Data mining in online professional development program: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 1-20. •Shelton, B., Hung, J. L., & Baughman, S. (2015). Online graduate teacher education: Establishing and EKG for student success intervention. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. •Rice, K., & Hung, J. L. (2015). Identifying variables important to the success of K-12 students in blended learning. Paper presented at the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association Conference, Boise, Idaho. •Shelton, B. E., Hung, J. L.., & Lowenthal, P. (under review). Predicting student success by modeling student interaction in online courses.

×