Analysing the potential use of analytics in Block 2 H817. Activity 12 Block 2
Monday, 13 Jun 2016, 14:47
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Steve Bamlett, Monday, 4 Jul 2016, 18:31
Analysing the
potential use of analytics in Block 2 H817. Activity 12 Block 2
To do this, I have used the model offered in Lockyer et. al.
(2012, Table 4:1450). Although I have said I would find this limiting in my own
practice (Activity
11 response), it is ideal for me as a novice in use of this process of
analysis. I learned a lot from this exercise.
Code for symbols and
LO
LO refer to Module
Guide (initial letters of LO followed by sequential place (in number form)
of specific LOs. A = Activity in Block,
followed by its number.
Number of stage in sequence of Block is within analytics
symbol (dark blue)
Figure for start of
Block 2 (to A11, omitting A10 (space considerations only)
The following figure represents H817 Block up up to A11
(omitting A10). It represents how Los are distributed between activities. Note
that learner activities do not include reading activities per se.
Brief Evaluation
Potential for checkpoint analytics must occur whenever a
reading task leaves a trace - whehenever a piece of reading is obtained through
a hyper-link or from a repertoire of hyper-links. It may be possible in the
latter case to see whether people choose in an informed way (how many links in
the repertoire did they access. Hence, in this section lots of checkpoints
exist – although as a learner, I cannot know easily (not being very much of a
techno) if the information is collected, measured and analysed. Likewise
choices of output (blog or forum or both can be checked.
Process measures can occur whenever a group activity is initiated,
such as group co-comparison of blog responses and discussion thereof in Social
Network Analyses (SNA). The latter represent role and relationships in groups
quantitatively (a number expresses the ‘strength’ (relatively of ‘links’
between actor roles. In Lockyer et. al (2013), these are used to diagnose group
discussion style, making comparison between more shared participation and
discussion centred on one or two ‘dominant’ figures – as in teacher-centric
discussion.
Interpretation of such SNA, without qualitative data, would
need to be very careful for reasons relating to the concept validity of the
measures (what do ‘strength’ measures actually measure) and ethics.
Knowing which information is collected, used and analysed
(and for what purpose) is a central ethical issue. Issues of confidentiality
and data security arise here. Moreover, post-Snowden, we need to know the
reliability of this information about intrusion. Can stealth measures be taken,
for instance, outside the LMS’s awareness to register that.
Moreover, we need not only to know how insight into our
behaviour is (a) interpreted, (b) transformed into action and to (c) action of
what type. Notice my earlier
blog on this. If a process is to visualised, interpreted and analysed
within my own behaviour then fundamental ethical issues about who owns such processes
and has a ‘right; to act on them need to be confronted very openly.
Moreover, if as a teacher I plan for participatory ‘exploratory’
discussion, do I have a right to intervene if I believe that this purpose has
been overturned or compromised by any one or two group members behaviour on a
forum. I raise this because, to my certain knowledge, such liberties are taken
in the OU by ALs currently. They are very seriously under-theorised in ethics
and in pedagogy and yet are inevitable without any necessary recourse to interpretations
that invoke common values or authority on such matters: netiquette or ‘manners’.
Does a plan give a teacher a ‘right’ to prescribe the limits
of learner discursive behaviour that is not illegal? Learner autonomy is at
risk here, This is, of course not a function of the technology itself which but
creates affordances for this to happen but technology’s ability to intrude is
and has been used to validate intrusion.
Analysing the potential use of analytics in Block 2 H817. Activity 12 Block 2
Analysing the potential use of analytics in Block 2 H817. Activity 12 Block 2
To do this, I have used the model offered in Lockyer et. al. (2012, Table 4:1450). Although I have said I would find this limiting in my own practice (Activity 11 response), it is ideal for me as a novice in use of this process of analysis. I learned a lot from this exercise.
Code for symbols and LO
LO refer to Module Guide (initial letters of LO followed by sequential place (in number form) of specific LOs. A = Activity in Block, followed by its number.
Number of stage in sequence of Block is within analytics symbol (dark blue)
Figure for start of Block 2 (to A11, omitting A10 (space considerations only)
The following figure represents H817 Block up up to A11 (omitting A10). It represents how Los are distributed between activities. Note that learner activities do not include reading activities per se.
Brief Evaluation
Potential for checkpoint analytics must occur whenever a reading task leaves a trace - whehenever a piece of reading is obtained through a hyper-link or from a repertoire of hyper-links. It may be possible in the latter case to see whether people choose in an informed way (how many links in the repertoire did they access. Hence, in this section lots of checkpoints exist – although as a learner, I cannot know easily (not being very much of a techno) if the information is collected, measured and analysed. Likewise choices of output (blog or forum or both can be checked.
Process measures can occur whenever a group activity is initiated, such as group co-comparison of blog responses and discussion thereof in Social Network Analyses (SNA). The latter represent role and relationships in groups quantitatively (a number expresses the ‘strength’ (relatively of ‘links’ between actor roles. In Lockyer et. al (2013), these are used to diagnose group discussion style, making comparison between more shared participation and discussion centred on one or two ‘dominant’ figures – as in teacher-centric discussion.
Interpretation of such SNA, without qualitative data, would need to be very careful for reasons relating to the concept validity of the measures (what do ‘strength’ measures actually measure) and ethics.
Knowing which information is collected, used and analysed (and for what purpose) is a central ethical issue. Issues of confidentiality and data security arise here. Moreover, post-Snowden, we need to know the reliability of this information about intrusion. Can stealth measures be taken, for instance, outside the LMS’s awareness to register that.
Moreover, we need not only to know how insight into our behaviour is (a) interpreted, (b) transformed into action and to (c) action of what type. Notice my earlier blog on this. If a process is to visualised, interpreted and analysed within my own behaviour then fundamental ethical issues about who owns such processes and has a ‘right; to act on them need to be confronted very openly.
Moreover, if as a teacher I plan for participatory ‘exploratory’ discussion, do I have a right to intervene if I believe that this purpose has been overturned or compromised by any one or two group members behaviour on a forum. I raise this because, to my certain knowledge, such liberties are taken in the OU by ALs currently. They are very seriously under-theorised in ethics and in pedagogy and yet are inevitable without any necessary recourse to interpretations that invoke common values or authority on such matters: netiquette or ‘manners’.
Does a plan give a teacher a ‘right’ to prescribe the limits of learner discursive behaviour that is not illegal? Learner autonomy is at risk here, This is, of course not a function of the technology itself which but creates affordances for this to happen but technology’s ability to intrude is and has been used to validate intrusion.