Assessing Student Engagement in Online Programmes: Using Learning Design and Learning Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the learning design framework used in the design of the Online MA in Photography at Falmouth University. It discusses the importance of evaluating the success of online learning programmes by analysing learning analytics and student feedback within the overall pedagogic context and design of the programme. Linear regression analysis was used to analyse the engagement of three cohorts of students that completed four modules of the Online MA Photography (n=33) with over 80,000 entries in the dataset. The research explored student engagement with online content that promoted low-order cognitive skills (i.e. watching videos, reading materials and listening to podcasts) as well as high-order cognitive skills (i.e. participating in online forums and webinars). The results suggest there is weak evidence of an association between average overall mark in all modules and the level of engagement with self-directed content (P = 0.0187). There is also weak evidence of an association between average overall mark in all modules and the level of engagement in collaborative activities (P < 0.0528). Three major themes emerged from the focus group 1) weekly forums and webinars, 2) self-directed learning materials and 3) learning design and support. Online learning was acceptable and convenient to postgraduate students. These findings are discussed further in the paper as potential predictors of student performance in online programmes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".