Scholarly insight Autumn 2017:a Data wrangler perspective
Scholarly insight Autumn 2017:a Data wrangler perspective
复制标题
2017 年秋季学术见解：数据管理员的视角
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Ullmann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Rienties;D. Clow;Tim Coughlan;Simon Cross;C. Edwards;Mark Gaved;C. Herodotou;Martin Hlosta;Jan Jones;Jekaterina Rogaten;T. Ullmann
由于大学正在经历几个根本性的变化，重要的是，学院和高级管理层做出的战略决策是基于证据的研究和见解。Data Wranglers提供纵向开发和可扩展模块性能洞察的一种方式是2017年关键指标报告。一个特别的新元素是，数据现在也可以在国家一级解压缩和可视化。正如国家一级的报告所证明的那样，这四个国家的成功情况差异很大，我们希望我们的互动仪表板能让联合国难民事务高级专员办事处的工作人员解开基本数据。
数据管理员为学院和单位提供洞察力的第二种方式是通过学术洞察力报告系列。在前两份报告的基础上，我们报告了整个大学的学习设计和评估实践中存在的重大差异和不一致，在2017年秋季的学术洞察报告中，我们解决了与院系和LTI单位一起构建和共同构建的四大教学问题。许多院系和同事对我们的2017年春季学术洞察报告做出了积极的反应，我们首次能够凭经验证明，学生在12个大的学历资格内经历了巨大的成功差异。正如我们之前的报告所证明的那样，随着时间的推移，学生成功的55%的变化是由非制度性因素（即，学生如何在其各自的单元内进行评估;学生如何能够有效地从一个单元的一种学习设计过渡到下一个单元），而不是学生的特点、参与和行为。
我们收到了来自学院和单位的一些询问和问题，关于如何更好地了解这些学生的旅程，以及如何在各自的资格内更好地调整资格和模块设计。由于这些都是复杂的概念和大教育学问题，在第1章中，我们继续这些复杂的分析，通过观察前两个模块的过渡过程，学生采取，以及如何很好地对齐这些模块和资格路径。在第2章中，我们探讨了19名学生在一系列资格证书中的更细粒度，定性和生活经验，以了解评分实践和（不）评估和反馈如何影响他们的情感，行为和认知。除了在前面的主题基础上，我们在第3章和第4章介绍了两个新的学术见解。随着教育部越来越多地使用学习分析来支持我们的员工和学生，在第3章中，我们分析了为31个模块的500多名副讲师提供预测学习分析对学生保留率的影响。最后，在第4章中，我们探讨了新模块的首次展示对通过率和满意度的影响，从而打破了另一个可能对学生第一转型产生深远影响的神话。
通过在各个学院小组会议和LTI单元以及与学院各个关键利益相关者的谷歌文档中有机合作，我们希望我们的学术见解能够帮助我们的员工了解情况，同时也激发一些如何进一步改进我们的模块设计的想法和资格途径。当然，我们渴望听到其他主题需要学术洞察力。
As the OU is going through several fundamental changes, it is important that strategic decisions made by Faculties and senior management are informed by evidence-based research and insights. One way how Data Wranglers provide insights of longitudinal development and performance of OU modules is the Key Metric Report 2017. A particular new element is that data can now also be unpacked and visualised on a Nation-level. As evidenced by the Nation-level reporting, there are substantial variations of success across the four Nations, and we hope that our interactive dashboards allow OU staff to unpack the underlying data.
The second way Data Wranglers provide insight to Faculties and Units is through the Scholarly insight report series. Building on the previous two reports whereby we reported on substantial variation and inconsistencies in learning designs and assessment practices within qualifications across the OU, in this Scholarly insight Autumn 2017 report we address four big pedagogical questions that were framed and co-constructed together with the Faculties and LTI units. Many Faculties and colleagues have reacted positively on our Scholarly insight Spring 2017 report, whereby for the first time we were able to show empirically that students experienced substantial variations in success within 12 large OU qualifications. As evidenced in our previous report, 55% of variation in students’ success over time was explained by OU institutional factors (i.e., how students were assessed within their respective module; how students were able to effectively transition from one learning design of one module to the next one), rather than students’ characteristics, engagement and behaviour.
We have received several queries and questions from Faculties and Units about how to better understand these students’ journeys, and how qualifications and module designs could be better aligned within their respective qualification(s). As these are complex conceptual and Big Pedagogy questions, in Chapter 1 we continued these complex analyses by looking at the transitional processes of the first two modules that OU students take, and how well aligned these modules and qualification paths are. In Chapter 2, we explored the more fine-grained, qualitative, and lived experiences of 19 students across a range of qualifications to understand how OU grading practices and (in)consistencies of assessment and feedback influenced their affect, behaviour, and cognition. In addition to building on previous topics, we introduced two new Scholarly insights in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. As the OU is increasingly using learning analytics to support our staff and students, in Chapter 3 we analysed the impact of giving Predictive Learning Analytics to over 500 Associate Lecturers across 31 modules on student retention. Finally, in Chapter 4 we explored the impact of first presentations of new modules on pass rates and satisfaction, whereby we were able to bust another myth that may have profound implications for Student First Transformation.
Working organically in various Faculty sub-group meetings and LTI Units and in a google doc with various key stakeholders in the Faculties , we hope that our Scholarly insights can help to inform our staff, but also spark some ideas how to further improve our module designs and qualification pathways. Of course we are keen to hear what other topics require Scholarly insight.