Page 19 - Campus Technology, January/February 2019

VIRTUAL ROUNDTABLE
1) Learning Analytics and
Student Success
Andy Jett: How students learn, and how technology interfaces with student learning, are so important to assuring learning is happening and assuring the quality of academic programs. Until recently, we were relying on lagging indicators of that learning, such as end-of-course assessments. With real-time
OUR PANELISTS
learning analytics, faculty can pivot their instructional methods as a class progresses and transform a struggling student into a thriving student.
Theresa Rowe: I am most intrigued with heat maps that show active interaction with online content and immediate low-stakes assessments. The potential is for immediate inter- vention when student interaction with content is low or quick assessments indicate that the learning materials failed to yield evidence of learning. We have a recent tradition that analytics is something that is trended over time, but that approach does not offer much for a student in the course right now. Changing our thinking to real-time learning analytics (as described by Andy) is essential to making a difference for a currently en- rolled student. We need to accelerate analysis and response. Imagine ongoing or customized course design evolving over a semester, based on evidence of interaction and success.
Orlando Leon: Fresno State has moved away from the concept of using “big data,” toward using “unstructured” data (i.e. card swipe data, printing data and other behavioral data) in addition to “structured” data (i.e. attendance, grades) as in- dicators to help with earlier prediction of student success. We define “student success” in many different ways, but in the context of CSU’s Graduation Initiative 2025, student success means graduating on time, measured primarily by four- and six-year graduation rates for first-time freshmen and two- and four-year graduation rates for first-time transfer students. To
move toward this type of data-informed decision-making, we are using tools from a variety of vendors, such as card swipe and printing data inside of Blackboard, learning management system data inside of Canvas, (potentially) wireless location and network data in various systems, student information data inside of PeopleSoft, degree planning data inside uAchieve and advising data inside of EAB. There are a number of analyt- ics success stories around the nation, and while Fresno State is only starting to put these various sources of information to- gether, we have hope that this will be a helpful approach as we make progress toward 2025. On the other hand, relating to many headlines around the nation (and world), I wonder how this makes all of our students, parents and alumni feel as it pertains to information security and privacy.
Kathleen Lueckeman: With so many definitions of the word “success,” it’s a term that is now used as an umbrella and at times isn’t well understood as it relates to the “business” of the university. As referenced by Orlando, student success means compliance with mandates to maintain federal financial aid, government-published metrics and, in some cases, state- specific performance funding. That’s different and can be seen, perhaps, as crass compared to the public perception of student success. However, the definitions are not mutually exclusive. It will take a combination of helping students when the need for help is detected and smoothing administrative processes to facilitate persistence and comply with mandates. Technology
Andy Jett
Vice President for Strategic Planning & Academic Resources and Chief Information Officer
Baker University (KS)
Orlando Leon
Chief Information Officer
California State University, Fresno
Kathleen Lueckeman
Chief Innovation Officer
Maryville University (MO)
Theresa Rowe
Chief Information Officer
Oakland University (MI)
19
CAMPUS TECHNOLOGY | January/February 2019