Siemens and Long (2011) provide a wide breadth of value-adding activity. I have transformed the narrative description into a numerical list simply to discuss further detail about select activities.
- Improve administrative decision-making and resource allocation
- Flag at-risk students and provide intervention
- Create shared understanding of the institution's successes and challenges
- Transform college/university system
- Transform academic models and pedagogical approaches
- Make sense of complex topics
- Conduct what-if scenarios and experiments to explore elements in a complex discipline (i.e., retaining students, reducing costs)
- Provide up-to-date information to handle immediate challenges
- Determine value generated by faculty including hard (research,patents) and soft (reputation, profile, teaching quality)
- Inform learners about their own learning habits, give recommendations for improvement
Let me regroup this list into 3 buckets:
A) University Administrators (#1, #3, #4, #7, #9)
B) Faculty (#2, #5, #9)
C) Learners (#2, #6, #10)
The A bucket seems to line up well with what is called Academic Analytics. This is discussed more in Curtis' post here.
Bucket B deals with #2 (flagging at-risk students), #5 (transforming academic models and pedagogical approaches), and #9 (determining value generated by faculty). The example used in the article regarding flagging at-risk students uses data such as hours viewing content and the number of pages viewed as the kind of data used.
Bucket C identifies opportunities for LA & EDM that benefit the learner including #2 (identifying at-risk students and providing intervention), #6 (making sense of complex topics), and #10 (informing learners about their learning habits).
Thus, LA & EDM seek to support the full range of participating constituents in higher education.
No comments:
Post a Comment