Category: Education

Using analytics to nudge in higher education

It’s pretty rare that a single article can change how you think about an issue. For me, the Times’ take on business’ use of analytics to boost sales did just that (How Companies Learn Your Secrets). The article describes how Target (a “home town” company for yours truly) uses analytics to lead customers to new products and services. Most interesting was that their model was largely proactive — their goal was to look ahead to a particularly susceptible points in a customer’s life, and target specific promotions during that short period of time.

The approach reminded me a great deal of Thaler and Sunstein’s book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. The authors argue that benevolent social engineers can use cues to “nudge” people towards good decisions (for example, putting health foods in easy reach at a cafeteria). While some have criticized the work for perhaps a paternalistic approach, I think their ideas might stimulate useful design. Rather than put no thought into a design (or worse, to base the design purely on profit), a designer might look for points at which we make decisions — and use those opportunities to steer people in the right direction. This might be especially powerful when the design is backed by data.

Most of the models of analytics that I have heard of in the realm of Higher Education are reactive. A student gets a bad grade, or is not logging in to the learning management system, and then someone contacts the student to attempt to intervene (after the fact). I think Target’s use of “analytics to nudge” might be a better model. If you’re collecting analytic data on student interactions, why not use that data to help them make better decisions. Perhaps an incentive, like a badge, could inspire a lagging student to visit the library. Perhaps some students would find links to useful resources (like counseling or help with study skills) after they trigger some kind of early-early warning.

I think a more proactive and positive model of analytics would be much more productive than a reactive or fix-it-after-it-has-become-a-problem approach. If only schools could devote the same kinds of resources to these efforts as our colleagues in the private sector.

Edit

Here’s Stephen Colbert’s humourous take on the story (on Ash Wednesday):

Remix culture is the new Prohibition

“Waxy” makes some important connections between copyright and the habits of youth.  After pointing out the prevalence of (misguided?) “no copyright intended” messages on media sharing sites, the author poses the following “thought experiment:”

Here’s a thought experiment: Everyone over age 12 when YouTube launched in 2005 is now able to vote.

What happens when — and this is inevitable — a generation completely comfortable with remix culture becomes a majority of the electorate, instead of the fringe youth? What happens when they start getting elected to office? (Maybe “I downloaded but didn’t share” will be the new “I smoked, but didn’t inhale.”)

This is why understanding the intersection of copyright, culture, and technology is not just a worthwhile pursuit — it should be a prerequisite for future policymaking.

via No Copyright Intended – Waxy.org.

FERPA Nuts

A short while ago, Georgia Tech announced that a 14 year long site hosting course wikis was being closed over FERPA concerns (this post on the story has a good quick overview of the law). The site had been around longer than Wikipedia. That’s what I call educational innovation!

A GT professor notes all of the great learning activities the wikis enabled, and ties it squarely to the idea of constructionism. As a space where knowledge is collectively built and refined, wikis are a natural fit for this teaching style. It’s an approach that I’m personally invested in supporting (I’m helping to build a tool here at UW to do it).

The point that interests me most is the tie between law and constructionism. While some might say that the shutdown happened because “it’s the law,” I would argue that this is oversimplifying complicated legislation. In fact, I would argue that unclear cases like this are really one institution’s interpretation of the law.

What’s the connection to constructionism? While the legal system is designed to work out ambiguity, it can’t scale to answer every single question under its domain. Its cases like this were we collectively determine the boundaries of the law based on our decisions. GT has made its choice in how to construct FERPA, but its far from decided law. I would argue there is space for balancing the intent of the law with what it is designed to protect — learners (who need to do their learning in a variety of ways).

More reading:

Applying the Web 2.0 model to Education

O’Riley Radar has a thought provoking look at Education as a Platform. The basic idea builds on that described in a book called Disrupting Class, but I find some of the authors points more illuminating than the analogy between education and technology. First, the author calls out a false dichotomy:

I am of the opinion that the distinction between formal learning (school) and informal learning (museums, Internet, community classes, affinity groups, etc.) is one that is both artificial and obsolete. In Education 2.0 there should be multiple providers of educational experiences, and standard discovery mechanisms that allow great experiences to spread virally as well as standard ways to give students credit for what they know and can do rather than for what classes they’ve sat through.

If you ask a “typical” student, I think they would agree. That student, however, likely wouldn’t connect the dots to the author’s next point – that tests don’t quite do an adequate job of measuring learning. Their answer is, I believe, spot on:

In a world of assessment innovation, a student portfolio might contain a combination of completed projects in addition to state test results, richer third-party assessment results, and innovative assessments of non-traditional skills such as collaboration and creativity. Colleges and employers might value this multi-dimensional view of a student more than just grades and standardized test results when evaluating applicants. Parents and students might take ownership of enriching their portfolio of assessments according to their own values. Publishers of curriculum and educational experiences might be able to improve their offerings based on a broad set of assessments of student outcomes — driving innovation in educational content. Administrators and states might be able to reward teachers for many different kinds of critical achievements.

As we look at using portfolios on our own campus, I hope we’re able to keep this potential integration of formal and informal assessments in mind. My hope is (the smarter) students will demand it.