Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Today's gold standard for identifying what works, the randomized controlled trial, poorly serves each and any individual learner. Elements of my argument provide grounds for proposed remedies in cases where software can log extensive data about operations each learner applies to learn and each bit of information to which a learner applies those operations.

Purpose of Study

Analyses of such big data can produce learning analytics that provide raw material for self-regulating learners, for instructors to productively adapt instructional designs, and for learning scientists to advance learning science. I describe an example of such a software system, nStudy.

Research Design

I describe and analyze features of nStudy, including bookmarks, quotes, notes, and note artifacts that can be used to generate trace data.

Results

By using software like nStudy as they study, learners can partner with instructors and learning scientists in a symbiotic and progressive ecology of authentic experimentation.

Conclusion

I argue that software technologies like nStudy offer significant value in supporting learners and advancing learning science. A rationale and recommendations for this approach arise from my critique of pseudo-random controlled trials.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Association for Psychological Science. (n.d.) Registered Replication Reports [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/replication

Bannert

, Reimann

, & Sonnenberg

(2013). Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students' self-regulated learning. Metacognition Learning, 9(2), 161—185. doi:10.1007/s11409-013-9107-6

Deschryver

(2014). Higher order thinking in an online world: Toward a theory of web-mediated knowledge synthesis. Teachers College Record, 116(12), 1—44.

Fahad

, Alshatri

, Tari

, Alamri

, Khalil

, Zomaya

A. Y.

, & Bouras

(2014). A survey of clustering algorithms for big data: Taxonomy and empirical analysis. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 2(3), 267—279. doi:10.1109/tetc.2014.2330519

Holcombe

(2013, March 3). Registered Replication Reports are open for submissions! [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/registered-replication-reports-are-open-for-submissions/

, Adesope

O. O.

, Nesbit

J. C.

, & Liu

(2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901—918.

Rao

(1971). Some notes on misspecification in multiple regressions. The American Statistician, 25(5), 37—39.

Roll

, & Winne

P. H.

(2015). Understanding, evaluating, and supporting self-regulated learning using learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(1), 7—12.

10.

Selwyn

(2008). An investigation of differences in undergraduates' academic use of the internet. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(11), 11—22.

11.

Shadish

W. R.

, Cook

T. D.

, & Campbell

D. T.

(2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

12.

Sottilare

, Graesser

, Hu

, & Holden

(Eds.). (2013). Design recommendations for intelligent tutoring systems. Orlando, FL: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.

13.

Stanley

D. J.

, & Spence

J. R.

(2014). Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 305—318.

14.

Steenbergen-Hu

, & Cooper

(2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students' mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 970—987.

15.

van der Aalst

W. M. P.

(2014). Process mining in the large: A tutorial. In Zimányi

, Ed., Business intelligence: Third European summer school, eBISS 2013, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, July 7–12, 2013, tutorial lectures (pp. 33—76). Basel, Switzerland: Springer.

16.

van Rijmenam

(2013, August 6). Why the 3V's are not sufficient to describe big data [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://datafoq.com/read/3vs-sufficient-describe-big-data/166

17.

What Works Clearinghouse (n.d.) Procedures and standards handbook, version 3.0. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf.

18.

Winne

P. H.

(1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11, 13—28.

19.

Winne

P. H.

(1987). Why process-product research cannot explain process-product findings and a proposed remedy: The cognitive mediational paradigm. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 333—356.

20.

Winne

P. H.

(1992). State-of-the-art instructional computing systems that afford instruction and bootstrap research. In Jones

, and Winne

P. H.

(Eds.), Adaptive learning environments: Foundations and frontiers (pp. 349—380). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

21.

Winne

P. H.

(2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5—17.

22.

Winne

P. H.

(2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267—276.

23.

Winne

P. H

, & Baker

R. S. J. d.

(2013). The potentials of educational data mining for researching metacognition, motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 5(1), 1—8.

24.

Winne

P. H.

, & Perry

N. E.

(2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts

, Pintrich

, & Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531—566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Leveraging Big Data to Help Each Learner and Accelerate Learning Science

Abstract

Background

Purpose of Study

Research Design

Results

Conclusion

Get full access to this article

References