iSAT: a visual learning analytics tool for instructors

Interactive Stratified Attribute Tracking (iSAT) is a visual analytics tool for cohort analysis. In this paper, we show how instructors can use iSAT to visualize transitions of groups of students during teaching-learning activities. Interactive visual analytics gives the instructor the affordance of understanding the dynamics of the class of students and their activities from the data collected in their own teaching-learning context. We take an example of a peer instruction (PI) activity and describe how iSAT can be used to analyze its clicker responses. During PI, typically instructors only use histograms to visualize the distribution of clicker responses in the pre- and post-discussion phases. We show that the use of iSAT to analyze clicker data in real time to trace transitions of participants’ responses during various voting phases can support them in planning for their post-PI activities. Seven patterns of transitions that emerge are aligned, returns, starburst, slide, attractor, switching, and void. We interpret them in the context of the example. Such transition patterns are neither available in multiple histograms of individual voting phase nor generated in real time to be visualized as a flow diagram. We had conducted two workshops to introduce iSAT to the instructors and demonstrated the workflow of using iSAT with their dataset. Here, we report usefulness and usability data collected from those workshops. In conclusion, we highlight the power of iSAT for instructors to do cohort analysis in their teaching-learning practice.

[1]  Sridhar Iyer,et al.  Interactive Stratified Attribute Tracking Diagram for Learning Analytics , 2014, 2014 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Technology for Education.

[2]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[3]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual , 1999 .

[4]  Kevin C. Almeroth,et al.  Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes , 2009 .

[5]  Matthew Pilarz,et al.  Research-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review , 2015, CBE life sciences education.

[6]  Dipali D. Awasekar,et al.  APIT: Evidences of Aligning Project Based Learning with Various Instructional Strategies for Enhancing Knowledge in Automobile Engineering , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE).

[7]  Sahana Murthy,et al.  Training In-Service Teachers to Do Action Research in Educational Technology , 2013, 2013 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Technology for Education (t4e 2013).

[8]  Sridhar Iyer,et al.  Problem Posing Exercises (PPE): An Instructional Strategy for Learning of Complex Material in Introductory Programming Courses , 2013, 2013 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Technology for Education (t4e 2013).

[9]  Sahana Murthy,et al.  Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement , 2013, ICER.

[10]  Sridhar Iyer,et al.  Using Stratified Attribute Tracking (SAT) Diagrams for Learning Analytics , 2014, 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[11]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms , 2002 .

[12]  Erik Duval,et al.  Learning dashboards: an overview and future research opportunities , 2013, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[13]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[14]  Sahana Murthy,et al.  Think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: does learning really happen? , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[15]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[16]  Beth Simon,et al.  Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? , 2011, ICER.

[17]  James T. Miller,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[18]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[19]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions , 2009, Science.

[20]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[21]  E. Duval Attention please!: learning analytics for visualization and recommendation , 2011, LAK.