Virtual learning environment engagement and learning outcomes at a 'bricks-and-mortar' university

Abstract In this study, we analyse the relationship between engagement in a virtual learning environment (VLE) and module grades at a ‘bricks-and-mortar’ university in the United Kingdom. We measure VLE activity for students enrolled in 38 different credit-bearing modules, each of which are compulsory components of six degree programmes. Overall we find that high VLE activity is associated with high grades, but low activity does not necessarily imply low grades. Analysis of individual modules shows a wide range of relationships between the two quantities. Grouping module-level relationships by programme suggests that science-based subjects have a higher dependency on VLE activity. Considering learning design (LD), we find that VLE usage is more important in modules that adopt an instruction-based learning style. We also test the predictive power of VLE usage in determining grades, again finding variation between degree programmes and potential for predicting a student's final grade weeks in advance of assessment. Our findings suggest that student engagement with learning at a bricks-and-mortar university is in general hard to determine by VLE usage alone, due to the predominance of other “offline” learning activities, but that VLE usage can nonetheless help to predict performance for some disciplines.

[1]  Robin Millar,et al.  Improving Science Education: Why Assessment Matters , 2013 .

[2]  H. Coates,et al.  A Critical Examination Of The Effects Of Learning Management Systems On University Teaching And Learning , 2005 .

[3]  María del Puerto Paule Ruíz,et al.  Students' LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Keithia Wilson *,et al.  Assessing the impact of learning environments on students' approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs , 2005 .

[5]  David McConnell,et al.  Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning , 1994 .

[6]  Martin A. Andresen.  Asynchronous Discussion Forums: Success Factors, Outcomes, Assessments, and Limitations , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[7]  Bart Rienties,et al.  The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  Linda Corrin,et al.  Predicting success: how learners' prior knowledge, skills and activities predict MOOC performance , 2015, LAK.

[9]  Erping Zhu,et al.  Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions , 2006 .

[10]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Zipf's law and the Internet , 2002, Glottometrics.

[11]  Rebecca Ferguson,et al.  Examining the designs of computer-based assessment and its impact on student engagement, satisfaction, and pass rates , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  Ronald A Harris,et al.  Comparing online with brick and mortar course learning outcomes , 2014 .

[13]  Bart Rienties,et al.  Unravelling the dynamics of instructional practice: a longitudinal study on learning design and VLE activities , 2017, LAK.

[14]  Andrew D. Ho,et al.  Changing “Course” , 2014 .

[15]  George D. Kuh,et al.  Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages* , 2006 .

[16]  Zdenek Zdráhal,et al.  Developing predictive models for early detection of at-risk students on distance learning modules , 2014, LAK Workshops.

[17]  D. Keirsey,et al.  Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types , 1978 .

[18]  R. Axelson,et al.  Defining Student Engagement , 2010 .

[19]  Hywel T. P. Williams,et al.  Towards Measurement of the Relationship between Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes at a Bricks-and-Mortar University , 2017, MMLA-CrossLAK@LAK.

[20]  Sudhir Mehta,et al.  Higher Education Research & Development , 2022 .

[21]  Dirk T. Tempelaar,et al.  In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning analytics in a data-rich context , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Dennis Beck,et al.  The other side of the LMS: Considering implementation and use in the adoption of an LMS in online and blended learning environments , 2007 .

[23]  M. Casuso-Holgado,et al.  The association between academic engagement and achievement in health sciences students , 2013, BMC medical education.

[24]  Rakheli Hever,et al.  Learning from reading argumentive group discussions in Facebook: Rhetoric style matters (again) , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  Rebecca Ferguson,et al.  Moving Through MOOCS: Pedagogy, Learning Design and Patterns of Engagement , 2015, EC-TEL.

[26]  Rob Koper,et al.  Current Research in Learning Design , 2006 .

[27]  Miguel Ángel Conde González,et al.  Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[28]  Martin Hlosta,et al.  OU Analyse: analysing at-risk students at The Open University , 2015 .

[29]  Mounia Lalmas,et al.  Models of user engagement , 2012, UMAP.

[30]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Responding Responsibly to the Frenzy To Assess Learning in Higher Education. , 2003 .

[31]  Zehra Akyol,et al.  Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning , 2011, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[32]  Anthony G. Picciano.  BEYOND STUDENT PERCEPTIONS: ISSUES OF INTERACTION, PRESENCE, AND PERFORMANCE IN AN ONLINE COURSE , 2019, Online Learning.