1 / 32

c ohere.open.ac.uk

LAK2011: 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge February 27 -March 1, 2011 Banff , Alberta. Discourse-Centric Learning Analytics. Anna De Liddo , Simon Buckingham Shum , Ivana Quinto, Michelle Bachler , Lorella Cannavacciuolo

livana
Download Presentation

c ohere.open.ac.uk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LAK2011: 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge February 27-March 1, 2011 Banff, Alberta Discourse-Centric Learning Analytics Anna De Liddo, Simon Buckingham Shum, Ivana Quinto, Michelle Bachler, Lorella Cannavacciuolo Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University Business & Management Engineering, Universita’degli Studi Napoli Federico II, Italy cohere.open.ac.uk

  2. Discourse as Indicator of Learning • A key indicator of meaningful learning is the quality of contribution to discourse • Sociocultural perspective on learning • “highlights the possibility that educational success and failure may be explained by the quality of educational dialogue, rather than simply in terms of the capability of individual students or the skill of their teachers.” • We look at discourse as a key indicator for learning and explore discourse analysis as a method to identify where and how learning happens. • (Mercer 2004)

  3. Discourse as the Tool to Think Collectively • Discourse analysis focuses explicitly on language as social action • Discourse and Argumentation • are the tools through which people can • compare their thinking, explore ideas, shape agreement, and identify or solve disagreements. • If discourse is the tool through which learners think collectively, then discourse outcomes and discourse analysis can provide indicators to better understand the learning processes (Mercer 2000)

  4. What Discourse Environment?Chronologically VS LogicallyRendered Dialogue Environments Discourse Analysis to Better understand the Learning Process • The most established online dialogue environments render discourse chronologically, rather than logically, reflecting most strongly the sequence of contributions rather than their conceptual structure: • for instance a Facebook dialogue….

  5. Beyond threaded forums: tools for structuring and mapping issues, dialogue and argumentation Online Deliberation: Emerging Tools Workshop Online Deliberation 2010, Leeds UK (30 June – 2 July) www.olnet.org/odet2010 ESSENCE: E-Science, Sensemaking & Climate Change ESSENCE workshop, KMI, Open University http://events.kmi.open.ac.uk/essence

  6. disagrees with agrees with agrees with

  7. disagrees with agrees with agrees with

  8. Discourse Analysis to Better understand the Learning Process in Cohere • we discuss what it mean to use Cohere’s online dialogue environment to monitor online learning activities and develop useful learning analytics, by starting on the analysis of the online discourse which learners are involved in. • We demonstrate how discourse analytics can enable a deeper understanding of the online discourse, of the participants to the discourse and the social and learning dynamics.

  9. Analytics Per Learner Analytics Per Learner

  10. Table on Posts’ Type -> Learner Attention and Performance By looking at the post type table it is possible to evaluate learner’s performance connecting the discourse outcomes with the specific learning goal.

  11. Table on Links’ Type -> Learners’ Attitudes Legend: Neutral link type Positive link type Negative link type

  12. Comparing Users’ Usage of link types

  13. Compare Thinking

  14. Compare Thinking

  15. Information Broker

  16. Information Broker

  17. Analytics Per Group: Discourse network statistics A Social-Semantic Network of Discourse Elements

  18. Discourse network structure = Concept Network + Social Network

  19. Concept Network

  20. Concept Network Analysis and Visualization - links distributions enable to infer learning topics distribution

  21. Concept Network Analysis and Visualization

  22. Concept Network Analysis and Visualization

  23. Social Network

  24. Social Network Analysis and Visualization Outdegree= measure of users’ activity Indegree = indirect measure of relevance of a user’s posts.

  25. Social Network Analysis and Visualization L1 L6

  26. Conclusions • We have motivated a focus on learners’ discourse as a promising site for identifying patterns of activity which correspond to meaningful learning and knowledge construction. • We are interested in the rhetorical role that a user’s contribution is making to a document or conversation and the nature of the connection to other contributions using semantic relationships. • Using the Cohere system as an experimental vehicle, we have presented examples of learning analytics to better understand: • learners’ attention • learners’ rhetorical moves within the online discussion • learning topics distribution • learners’ social interactions

  27. Future Work • Embed learning analytics into different areas within the Cohere’s UI • Investigating computational linguistics tools for automatically detecting rhetorical gestures within text documents • (in collaboration with XEROX Research Europe, Agnes Sandor • http://olnet.org/node/512) • Ability to set software agents to monitor the discourse network -- Moving toward user-defined semantic network analysis.

  28. Many Thanks Anna De Liddo olnet.org

  29. References for Cohere Buckingham Shum, Simon (2008). Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation. In: Proc. COMMA'08: 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 28-30 May 2008, Toulouse, France. Available at:http://oro.open.ac.uk/10421/ De Liddo, Anna and Buckingham Shum, Simon (2010). Cohere: A prototype for contested collective intelligence. In: ACM Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2010) - Workshop: Collective Intelligence In Organizations - Toward a Research Agenda, February 6-10, 2010, Savannah, Georgia, USA. Available at:http://oro.open.ac.uk/19554/ Buckingham Shum, Simon and De Liddo, Anna (2010). Collective intelligence for OER sustainability. In: OpenED2010: Seventh Annual Open Education Conference, 2-4 Nov 2010, Barcelona, Spain. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/23352/ De Liddo, Anna (2010). From open content to open thinking. In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Ed-Media 2010), 29 Jun, Toronto, Canada. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/22283/ De Liddo, Anna and Alevizou, Panagiota (2010). A method and tool to support the analysis and enhance the understanding of peer-­to-­peer learning experiences. In: OpenED2010: Seventh Annual Open Education Conference, 2-4 Nov 2010, Barcelona, Spain. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/23392/ Buckingham Shum, Simon (2007). Hypermedia Discourse: Contesting networks of ideas and arguments. In: Priss, U.; Polovina, S. and Hill, R. eds. Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Architectures for Smart Applications. Berlin: Springer, pp. 29–44.

More Related