An instrumental case study was conducted at a large, public research university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States to understand undergraduate use of learning analytics dashboard (LAD) interventions. Eighty-one undergraduate students participated in focus groups. Scenario-based questions, modeled on current and future LAD interventions, were asked to understand student uses, perceptions, and reactions to these interfaces. Results indicate that student sensemaking is tied to data relevance, accuracy, and context. Further, trust in both data, especially predictive data, and in relationships, especially with faculty, are foundational to the sensemaking of LAD data and interventions. A model of student sensemaking of LAD interventions is provided.
AmeyM. J. (1999).
Faculty culture and college life: Reshaping incentives toward student outcomes. New Directions for Higher Education,
1999(105), 59–69.
2.
ArnoldK. E.PistilliM. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 267–270). New York, NY: Association of Computing Machinery (ACM).
3.
AustinA. E.SorcinelliM. D. (2013).
The future of faculty development: Where are we going?New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
2013(133), 85–97.
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York, NY:
Freeman.
5.
BichselJ. (2012). Analytics in higher education: Benefits, barriers, progress, and recommendations (Research Report).
Louisville, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1207/ers1207.pdf
6.
CharleerS.KlerkxJ.DuvalE.De LaetT.VerbertK. (2016). Creating effective learning analytics dashboards: Lessons learnt. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 42–56). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
7.
ChemersM. M.HuL. T.GarciaB. F. (2001).
Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(1), 55–64.
8.
CreswellJ. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
10.
DahlstromE.BrooksD. C.BichselJ. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning management systems in higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives (Research Report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
11.
DurallE.GrosB. (2014).
Learning analytics as a metacognitive tool. CSEDU: Sixth Annual Conference on Computer Supported Education,
1, 380–384.
12.
Epp, C. D., & Bull, S. (2015). Uncertainty representation in visualizations of learning analytics for learners: current approaches and opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(3), 242–260.
13.
HeimlichJ.YoccoV.PalmiquistS. (2013). Sense-making of big data: Spring break 2013 – Visualization, recognition, and meaning making.
Columbus, OH:
Center for Research and Evaluation, Lifelong Learning Group.
14.
IrvinM.LongmireJ. (2016).
Motivating and supporting faculty in new technology‐based student success initiatives: An exploration of case studies on technology acceptance. Journal of Student Success and Retention,
3(1), 1–25.
15.
JayaprakashS. M.MoodyE. W.LauríaE. J.ReganJ. R.BaronJ. D. (2014).
Early alert of academically at-risk students: An open source analytics initiative. Journal of Learning Analytics,
1(1), 6–47.
16.
KleinG.PhillipsJ. K.RallE. L.PelusoD. A. (2007). A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In Expertise out of context: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on naturalistic decision making (pp. 113–155). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
KosbaE.DimitrovaV.BoyleR. (2005). Using student and group models to support teachers in web-based distance education. In International Conference on User Modeling (pp. 124–133). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
18.
LincolnY.GubaE. (2000). The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In GommR.HammersleyM.FosterP. (Eds.), Case study method (pp. 27–44).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
19.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA;
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
20.
MacfadyenL. P.DawsonS. (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.
21.
MertensD. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
22.
MeyerK. A. (2014).
Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report,
40(6), 1–114.
23.
Morse, J. M. (1995). Editorial: The Significance of Saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149.
ParkY.JoI. H. (2015).
Development of the learning analytics dashboard to support students’ learning performance. Journal of Universal Computer Science,
21(1), 110–133.
26.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
27.
Peña-AyalaA. (2014).
Educational data mining: A survey and a data mining-based analysis of recent works. Expert Systems with Applications,
41(4), 1432–1462.
28.
SantosJ. L.VerbertK.GovaertsS.DuvalE. (2013). Addressing learner issues with StepUp!: An evaluation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 14–22). New York, NY: ACM.
29.
SiemensG. (2011, August 5). Learning and academic analytics [website blog post]. Learning and Knowledge Analytics. Retrieved from: http://www.learninganalytics.net/?p=131
30.
StakeR. (2003). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry(2nd ed., pp. 134–164).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
31.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
32.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
33.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface.
Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
van HarmelenM.WorkmanD. (2012).
Analytics for learning and teaching. CETIS Analytics Series,
1(3), 1–40.
35.
VerbertK.DuvalE.KlerkxJ.GovaertsS.SantosJ. L. (2013).
Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist,
57, 1500–1509.
36.
VerbertK.GovaertsS.DuvalE.SantosJ. L.Van AsscheF.ParraG.KlerkxJ. (2014).
Learning dashboards: An overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing,
18(6), 1499–1514.
37.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005).
Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science,
16(4), 409–421.
38.
WiseA. F. (2014). Designing pedagogical interventions to support student use of learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 203–211). New York, NY: Association of Computer Machinery.
