One point in the Wilson, Watson, Thompson, Drew and Doyle (2017) article that stood out for me was: “We do not observe learning online; we do not even observe students online. We observe indications of electronic or optical interactions that create ephemeral assemblages of student/device/network/LMS-server/digital-resource (p. 999)”. It is possible for a student to have his or her camera turned on during a synchronous online lesson, but looking at another window. I’ve done it (see image 1). In contrast, Gasevic,  Tsai, Dawson,  and Pardo (2019) note that teachers can visibly observe on “social cues about a student’s engagement” in a traditional face-to-face setting (p. 10). It is definitely easier to track learning signs such as a student’s eye movements and verbal contributions in a physical class to determine if he or she is actually involved. However, it is still difficult to actually determine how much learning is actually being done. With some students, it’s a never-ending game of cat and mouse. Some have mastered the art of looking intrigued as their minds meander through thoughts of their lunch plans lunch, Kate Beckinsale slaying werewolves and their next holiday to Tokyo. Again, I’ve done it. Only this time it’s impossible to show you a mental screenshot of it.

A similar questions was raised with regards to feedback in language learning. Truscott (1996) caused outraged and sparked a longstanding debate when he controversially and harshly criticised the common practice of corrective feedback and called for it to be abandoned in second-language writing pedagogy. Corrective feedback is defined as the provision of written or oral correction. Truscott’s challenge led to research into the efficacies of the various forms of corrective feedback (e.g. direct, indirect, focused, unfocused, short-term, long-term). In summary, studies (e.g. Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, H, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Shintani, Ellis & Suzuki, 2014) have shown that different types of corrective feedback have different effects.

If learning analytics were to be used (successfully) in providing feedback, more questions need to be asked as more layers are being added. Returning to my example of corrective feedback in writing, the simplest form of feedback would be a teacher marking a student’s script, correcting the errors and returning the script to the student. Now with the use of word processors, teachers would more commonly annotated a student’s script using Microsoft Word. This adds one layer to the feedback. Does the use of a word processor influence the uptake of feedback by the student? Has the ease of the copy and paste function led to more generic feedback by the teacher, and in turn, does this affect the provision of feedback in terms of quality and the uptake by the student? If teachers, were to use a learning management system to provide feedback, this might add another layer to the situation.

More generally, it is imperative to research and develop methods to examine the effects of LMS-es, as well as new technologies, on study strategies. Professor Ernesto Macaro, in the video below, suggests that there is a difference between study skills and study strategies. According to Macaro (2015):

“Study skills are the general skills that one can develop over a period of time gradually that enhance and help the language learning process. Strategies, on the other hand, I tend to think of as more things that go on in your head, more cognitive behaviour, mental actions if you like, which help the learner to think through the processes in language learning.”

As mentioned by Wilson et al. (2017), it may be possible for an LMS to help a user with his or her study skills, for example it could send him or her notifications. However, it may be a lot more difficult (in terms of methodology. time and resources) for researchers to look at how an LMS affects the student’s cognitive behaviour.

Video was taken from Oxford University Press ELT. (2015). Milestones in English: Study Skills (Ernesto Macaro). Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9brGHvLqmxg

LMS-es may also lead students to come with strategies to circumvent its annoying functions. Think about the work training videos and accompanying quizzes. How many of us have simply allowed the video to play in the background while we go about with our daily routine, only to guess the answers for the quiz because we are allowed to retake it as many times as we wish? I know I have. Therefore, we need to devise better ways to observe learning online instead of merely looking at the data.

References:

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System (Linköping), 36(3), 353-371.

Gasevic, D., Tsai, Y-S., Dawson, S. & Pardo, A. 2019. How do we start? An Approach to Learning Analytics Adoption in Higher Education, International Journal of Information and Learning Technology.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6

Wilson, A., Watson, C., Thompson, T. L., Drew, V., & Doyle, S. 2017. Learning analytics: challenges and limitations. Teaching in Higher Education. 22(8). pp. 991-1007

Shintani, Natsuko, Ellis, Rod, & Suzuki, Wataru. (2014). Effects of Written Feedback and Revision on Learners’ Accuracy in Using Two English Grammatical Structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131.

Week 11: Learning Analytics and Feedback / Illyas Lim Effandi / An introduction to digital environments for learning (2020/2021)[SEM1] by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0