Skip to main content

Empowering Teachers to Personalize Learning Support

Case Studies of Teachers’ Experiences Adopting a Student- and Teacher-Centered Learning Analytics Platform at Three Australian Universities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

From its inception, learning analytics (LA) offered the potential to be a game changer for higher education. However, accounts of its widespread implementation, especially by teachers, within institutions are rare which raises questions about its ability to scale and limits its potential to impact student success. Additionally, amidst the backdrop of higher education’s contemporary challenges including massification and diversification, entire cohorts (not just those identified as “at risk” by traditional LA) feel disconnected and unsupported in their learning journey. Increasing pressures on teachers are also diminishing their ability to provide meaningful support and personal attention to students. For LA, related adoption barriers have been identified including workload pressures, lack of suitable or customizable tools, and unavailability of meaningful data. In this chapter, we present a teacher-friendly ’LA lifecycle’ that seeks to address these challenges and critically assess the adoption and impact of a unique solution in the form of an LA platform that is designed to be adaptable by teachers to diverse contexts. In this chapter, these contexts span three universities and over 72,000 students and 1,500 teachers. This platform, the Student Relationship Engagement System (SRES), allows teachers to collect, curate, analyze, and act on data of their choosing that aligns to their specific contexts. It also provides the ability to close the loop on support actions and guide reflective practice. In contrast to other platforms that focus on data visualization or algorithmic predictions, the SRES directly helps teachers to act on data to provide at-scale personalized support for study success. This way, the nuances of learning designs and teaching contexts can be directly applied to data-informed support actions. In our case studies, we highlight how this practical approach to LA directly addressed teachers’ and students’ needs of timely and personalized support and how the platform has impacted student and teacher outcomes. Through this, we develop implications for integrating teachers’ specific needs into LA, the forms of tools that may yield impact, and perspectives on authentic LA adoption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use “teachers” in this chapter to refer to educators who design and deliver learning experiences for students. This includes coordinators who have additional responsibilities such as broader curriculum design and ownership, as well as tutors (or teaching assistants) who work under coordinators.

  2. 2.

    “Course” is defined in this chapter as an individual component of an academic program that a student takes, usually lasting a semester. For example, it is referred to as a “unit of study” at the University of Sydney, a “subject” at the University of Melbourne, and a “course” at the University of New South Wales.

References

  • Ali, L., Asadi, M., Gašević, D., Jovanović, J., & Hatala, M. (2013). Factors influencing beliefs for adoption of a learning analytics tool: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 62, 130–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alli, N., Rajan, R., & Ratliff, G. (2016). How personalized learning unlocks student success. Educause Review Online, March/April, 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 470–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701602748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucic, T., Vigentini, L., & King, M. E. (2018). Disruptive innovation in the marketing classroom for a personalized learning journey. In Paper presented at the Marketing Management Association Fall Educators’ Conference, Kansas City, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, C., Rogers, T., Wade, A., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Buckingham Shum, S., … Fisher, J. (2016). Student retention and learning analytics: A snapshot of Australian practices and a framework for advancement. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 272–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, S., Jovanovic, J., Gašević, D., & Pardo, A. (2017). From prediction to impact: Evaluation of a learning analytics retention program. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr-Wharton, B., Charles, M. B., Keast, R., Woolcott, G., & Chamberlain, D. (2018). Why lecturers still matter: The impact of lecturer-student exchange on student engagement and intention to leave university prematurely. Higher Education, 75(1), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0190-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R., Clow, D., Macfadyen, L., Essa, A., Dawson, S., & Alexander, S. (2014). Setting learning analytics in context: Overcoming the barriers to large-scale adoption. In Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Indianapolis, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques, P. H., Garger, J., Thomas, M., & Vracheva, V. (2012). Effects of early Leader–Member Exchange perceptions on academic outcomes. Learning Environments Research, 15(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9100-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, C., Beer, C., Rossi, D., Moore, T., & Fleming, J. (2016). Identification of ‘at risk’students using learning analytics: The ethical dilemmas of intervention strategies in a higher education institution. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 957–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D. Y. T., Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Pardo, A., & Bridgeman, A. J. (2017). Data-driven personalization of student learning support in higher education. In Learning analytics: Fundaments, applications, and trends (pp. 143–169). Zürich, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D. Y. T., Rogers, T., & Pardo, A. (2015). Learning analytics - are we at risk of missing the point? In Paper presented at the 32nd ASCILITE Conference, Perth, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D. Y. T., Taylor, C. E., Bridgeman, A. J., Bartimote-Aufflick, K., & Pardo, A. (2016). Empowering instructors through customizable collection and analyses of actionable information. In Paper presented at the 1st Learning Analytics for Curriculum and Program Quality Improvement Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A. (2006). Five senses of success: Designing effective orientation and engagement processes. Griffith University First Year Experience Project. Griffith University. Retrieved from www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/51875/Alfs-5-Senors-Paper-FYE-Project-2006.pdf

  • Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers are not enough. Why e-learning analytics failed to inform an institutional strategic plan. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 149–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman-Ford, L., Fitzgibbon, K., Lloyd, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). A large-scale investigation into the relationship between attendance and attainment: A study using an innovative, electronic attendance monitoring system. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, A. (2017). A feedback model for data-rich learning experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, A., & Dawson, S. (2016). Learning analytics: How can data be used to improve learning practice? In P. Reimann, S. Bull, M. Kickmeier-Rust, R. Vatrapu, & B. Wasson (Eds.), Measuring and visualizing learning in the information-rich classroom (pp. 41–55). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J., & Down, B. (2011). Relational pedagogy for student engagement and success at university. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0037-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Domingo, R. J. (2006). First things first: Developing academic competence in the first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 149–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G., & Baker, R. S. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. In Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Vancouver, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanes, Z., Arnold, K. E., King, A. S., & Remnet, M. A. (2011). Using signals for appropriate feedback: Perceptions and practices. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2414–2422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, K. (2015). Informal conversations about teaching and their relationship to a formal development program: Learning opportunities for novice and mid-career academics. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1028066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos, J. L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1500–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigentini, L., Kondo, E., Samnick, K., Liu, D. Y. T., King, D., & Bridgeman, A. J. (2017). Recipes for institutional adoption of a teacher-driven learning analytics tool: Case studies from three Australian universities. In Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West, D., Huijser, H., Lizzio, A., Toohey, D., Miles, C., Searle, B., & Bronnimann, J. (2015). Learning analytics: Assisting universities with student retention, final report (part 1). Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, R. E., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C. R. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the designers, developers, and directors who help to build and assist academics with the SRES, including but certainly not limited to Kevin Samnick, Melissa Makin, Joshua Lilly, Melanie Keep, Adam Bridgeman, Ruth Weeks, and Uli Felzmann.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danny Y.-T. Liu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Arthars, N., Dollinger, M., Vigentini, L., Liu, D.YT., Kondo, E., King, D.M. (2019). Empowering Teachers to Personalize Learning Support. In: Ifenthaler, D., Mah, DK., Yau, J.YK. (eds) Utilizing Learning Analytics to Support Study Success. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64792-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64792-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64791-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64792-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics