Tears of Joy: Canvas Analytics is ON

For years, instructors all over the world have been coached to begin making more “data-driven decisions” and for years, we just haven’t gotten easy access to our data. I won’t even begin to rant about just how difficult it has been to get usable data out of Blackboard or Datatel.  But on Thursday, that all changed.

Order of data randomly changed to protect student identities. Click on image to enlarge.

On Thursday, Instructure turned ON Canvas Analytics.  And now any instructor who’s been teaching out of Canvas can see ALL the data about their students and courses – not just from this point forwards, but from this point forwards AND backwards.  That is a HUGE leap forward in education.  In one hour, I have now seen more data about my students, their behaviors, and their interactions with the course I teach than I have from using Blackboard for 6 years.

This data is only going to get better and better as Instructure actually does listen to their clients and is constantly pushing for better and better features to help us do what we do best: help students to learn and be successful.

Here are the full images of screenshots of analytics from my Calculus course. I’ll keep adding snapshots as the semester progresses. Enjoy! Oh, and you might want to pull out your hanky first, because there are going to be tears of joy (if you use or are about to use Canvas) or tears of frustration (if you don’t).

Analytics is all about student success.  With data at our fingertips, we can be the best possible learning coaches.  We can perform better research about the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. We can make better assessment decisions. We can make better pedagogical choices.  Welcome to the new era of learning.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

What is SOCRAIT?

SOCRAIT is my name for the SRSLS (spaced-repetition socratic learning system) that we need to push learning into the digital age.  The name SOCRAIT (pronounced so-crate) is a play on Socratic (because it’s based on Socratic questions), it contains SOC for social, AI for artificial intelligence, and IT for information technology.

Since July,  I have been preoccupied with this idea.   Many technology and learning experts who have read or talked with me about SOCRAIT have told me that they believe that our learning future has to at least look something like SOCRAIT.  They say (and I agree) that the simplicity of it just makes it feel “right.”  In fact, it’s such a simple idea, that I spent the last four months wondering if I was crazy – after all, if you’re the only one with the idea, then there must be something wrong with it, right?  As more people read the article and prodded at its weaknesses, the idea grew more robust.  The text of my article, The World is my School: Welcome to the Era of Personalized Learning, published today in The Futurist (read it as a PDF or read it online) has been finalized for some time, and at this point, I could probably write another article just about the game layer that SOCRAIT will need.

Now I need your help.  Someone or some company needs to step forward and build SOCRAIT.  I’ve pursued as many avenues as I could, but as a community college professor from an obscure city in recession-occupied Michigan, it’s hard to get taken seriously.  So, here’s your assignment:

  1. Read the article (the whole thing).  You can’t stop halfway, or you’ll get the wrong impression.  Every sentence matters.  Print it and read it.
  2. Agree or disagree, please share your thoughts and ideas (and if you have a public space, please use it) … tweet, blog, write, discuss.
  3. Send the article on to others through email, Facebook, and discussion forums.

If you believe in the power of a new way of learning (even if it doesn’t turn out exactly like SOCRAIT), please help me spread a new (positive) vision for what education could look like in the future.  Thanks!

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

Measuring Teaching and Learning in Mathematics

This weekend at AMATYC I presented this Prezi presentation on How can we measure teaching and learning in math? My husband was kind enough to act as the videographer for the presentation, and so I can also share the video presentation with you today.

I think the video should add quite a bit of context to the presentation, so I hope you’ll take the time to watch it.  What I propose (at the end) is a research solution that would help all of the math instructors in the country (who want to) participate in one massive data collection and data mining project to determine what actually works to improve learning outcomes.

If you have any suggestions for where to go from here, I’d be happy to hear them.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

Levers of Change in Higher Education

Here’s the latest Prezi on Levers of Change in Higher Education.

We’ve seen many major industries undergo dramatic change in the last decade (i.e. manufacturing, newspapers, and customer service).  While education seems “untouchable” to those within the system, there are many “levers of change” that have the potential for dramatic restructuring of higher education as well.  Online courses, adaptive computer assessment systems, open-source textbooks, edupunks, pay-by-the-month degrees, … these are just some of the levers that are prying at the corners of higher education.  In this presentation I will identify many of the levers of change that have the potential to shift higher education, resources to learn more about these, and a few scenarios that describe some of the possible futures of higher education. You can also watch the video of the live presentation here.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

Student Conceptions of Mathematics

sotl_blog_button1

Do you ever get the feeling that you’re not making any real progress with your students?  Sure, they pass tests and progress through the courses (well, most of them), but have you ever just had the uneasy feeling that they really don’t get what math is all about?  Suppose you were to ask your students the following question:

Think about the math that you’ve done so far.  What do you think mathematics is?

What do you think they would tell you?

Well, in 1994, a research group from Australia did ask 300 first-year university students this question (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, and Prosser).  They identified patterns in the responses, and classified all 300 responses into categories of conceptions in order to explore the relationships between (a) conceptions of mathematics, (b) approaches to learning mathematics, and (c) achievement.

If you want all the gory details about the study, you’ll have to track down the journal article, but let me attempt to summarize their findings.

Students’ conceptions of mathematics fell into one of five categories (Crawford et al., 1994, p. 335):

  1. Math is numbers, rules, and formulas.
  2. Math is numbers, rules, and formulas which can be applied to solve problems.
  3. Math is a complex logical system; a way of thinking.
  4. Math is a complex logical system which can be used to solve complex problems.
  5. Math is a complex logical system which can be used to solve complex problems and provides new insights used for understanding the world.

The first two categories represent a student view of mathematics that is termed “fragmented” while the last three categories present a more “cohesive” view of mathematics.  Note that the terms fragmented and cohesive are well-used throughout the international body research.  The categories above, as you may have noticed, form a hierarchical list, with each one building on the one above it.

Here’s where this study gets (even more) interesting.  The researchers also asked students about how they studied (changing the language slightly here to “americanize it” a bit):

Think about some math you understood really well. How did you go about studying that?  (It may help you to compare how you studied this with something you feel you didn’t fully understand.) How do you usually go about learning math?

Again, the researchers went through a meticulous process of categorization and came up with five categories (Crawford et al., 1994, p. 337):

  1. Learning by rote memorization, with an intention to reproduce knowledge and procedures.
  2. Learning by doing lots of examples, with an intention to reproduce knowledge and procedures.
  3. Learning by doing lots of examples with an intention of gaining a relational understanding of the theory and concepts.
  4. Learning by doing difficult problems, with an intention of gaining a relational understanding of the entire theory, and seeing its relationship with existing knowledge.
  5. Learning with the intention of gaining a relational understanding of the theory and looking for situations where the theory will apply.

Again, these five categories were grouped, this time according to intention, into two general categories: reproduction and understanding.  In the first two approaches to learning math, students simply try to reproduce the math using rote memorization and by doing lots of examples.  In the last three categories, students do try to understand the math, by doing examples, by doing difficult problems, and by applying theory.  Other researchers in this community have seen similar results on both general surveys of student learning and on subject-specific surveys and have termed this to be surface approach and deep approach to learning (see Marton, 1988).

Still reading?  Good.  Remember my first question? Do you ever get the feeling that you’re not making any real progress with your students? Let’s answer that now.

Here’s how the conceptions of math and the approaches to learning math correlated in this study (Crawford et al., p. 341):

conceptions_of_math

Did you catch that?  Look at how strongly conception and approach correlates.  It’s probably what you’ve always suspected, deep down inside, … but there’s the cold, hard, proof.

Of course, all this is not so meaningful unless there’s a correlation with achievement.  At the end of their first year, the students’ final exam scores were compared to the conceptions and approaches to mathematics (again, for technical details, get the article). The researchers made two statistically significant findings:

  1. Students with a cohesive conception of math tended to achieve at a higher level (p < .05).
  2. Students with a deep approach to learning math tended to achieve at a higher level (p < .01).

Okay, so where does this leave us?  Well, we don’t have causation, only correlation (at least, that’s all we have from the 1994 study).  However, Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, and Prosser were nice enough to use their research to develop a survey inventory that we can use to measure students’ conceptions of mathematics (1998).  The 19-item inventory (5-point Likert scales) has been thoroughly tested for validity and reliability, and can be found in their 1998 paper, University mathematics students’ conceptions of Mathematics (p. 91).

Suppose you want to try something innovative in your math class, but you don’t know how to tell if it works.  You could, at the very least, try to measure a positive change on your students’ conceptions of math (there are other ways to measure the approach to learning, but this is already a long blog post and you’ll have to either wait for another week, or view my presentation How can we measure teaching and learning in math?).

measure_tlm

To give the Conceptions of Mathematics Questionnaire (CMQ) would take approximately 10 minutes of class time (you should ask for permission from Michael Prosser before you launch into any potentially publishable research).  This would give a baseline of whether students’ conceptions are fragmented or cohesive.   If you were to give the survey again, at the end of the semester, you would be able to see if there is any significant gain in cohesive conceptions (or loss of fragmented conceptions).

So, I have permission (I met Michael Prosser this summer when he was at a conference in the U.S.), and I’m going to use this in all my classes starting next week.  I figure that when I start to see major differences on those pre and post-semester CMQ inventories, that I’m doing something right.  If I’m not seeing any gain in cohesive understanding of mathematics, then I’m going to keep changing my instructional practices until I do.

Papers that you will want to find (and read!):

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of Mathematics and how it is learned: The perspectives of students entering University. Learning and Instruction, 4, 331-345.

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998, March). University mathematics students’ conceptions of Mathematics. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 87-94.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share