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• [email protected]• [email protected]
Top Related