-
Simplify, Consolidate, Intervene: Facilitating Institutional Support with Mental Models of Learning Management System Use
Authors:
Taha Hassan,
Bob Edmison,
Daron Williams,
Larry Cox II,
Matthew Louvet,
Bart Knijnenburg,
D. Scott McCrickard
Abstract:
Measuring instructors' adoption of learning management system (LMS) tools is a critical first step in evaluating the efficacy of online teaching and learning at scale. Existing models for LMS adoption are often qualitative, learner-centered, and difficult to leverage towards institutional support. We propose depth-of-use (DOU): an intuitive measurement model for faculty's utilization of a universi…
▽ More
Measuring instructors' adoption of learning management system (LMS) tools is a critical first step in evaluating the efficacy of online teaching and learning at scale. Existing models for LMS adoption are often qualitative, learner-centered, and difficult to leverage towards institutional support. We propose depth-of-use (DOU): an intuitive measurement model for faculty's utilization of a university-wide LMS and their needs for institutional support. We hypothesis-test the relationship between DOU and course attributes like modality, participation, logistics, and outcomes. In a large-scale analysis of metadata from 30000+ courses offered at Virginia Tech over two years, we find that a pervasive need for scale, interoperability and ubiquitous access drives LMS adoption by university instructors. We then demonstrate how DOU can help faculty members identify the opportunity-cost of transition from legacy apps to LMS tools. We also describe how DOU can help instructional designers and IT organizational leadership evaluate the impact of their support allocation, faculty development and LMS evangelism initiatives.
△ Less
Submitted 25 June, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Learning to Trust: Understanding Editorial Authority and Trust in Recommender Systems for Education
Authors:
Taha Hassan,
Bob Edmison,
Timothy Stelter,
D. Scott McCrickard
Abstract:
Trust in a recommendation system (RS) is often algorithmically incorporated using implicit or explicit feedback of user-perceived trustworthy social neighbors, and evaluated using user-reported trustworthiness of recommended items. However, real-life recommendation settings can feature group disparities in trust, power, and prerogatives. Our study examines a complementary view of trust which relie…
▽ More
Trust in a recommendation system (RS) is often algorithmically incorporated using implicit or explicit feedback of user-perceived trustworthy social neighbors, and evaluated using user-reported trustworthiness of recommended items. However, real-life recommendation settings can feature group disparities in trust, power, and prerogatives. Our study examines a complementary view of trust which relies on the editorial power relationships and attitudes of all stakeholders in the RS application domain. We devise a simple, first-principles metric of editorial authority, i.e., user preferences for recommendation sourcing, veto power, and incorporating user feedback, such that one RS user group confers trust upon another by ceding or assigning editorial authority. In a mixed-methods study at Virginia Tech, we surveyed faculty, teaching assistants, and students about their preferences of editorial authority, and hypothesis-tested its relationship with trust in algorithms for a hypothetical `Suggested Readings' RS. We discover that higher RS editorial authority assigned to students is linked to the relative trust the course staff allocates to RS algorithm and students. We also observe that course staff favors higher control for the RS algorithm in sourcing and updating the recommendations long-term. Using content analysis, we discuss frequent staff-recommended student editorial roles and highlight their frequent rationales, such as perceived expertise, scaling the learning environment, professional curriculum needs, and learner disengagement. We argue that our analyses highlight critical user preferences to help detect editorial power asymmetry and identify RS use-cases for supporting teaching and research
△ Less
Submitted 17 September, 2021; v1 submitted 10 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
-
Exploring the context of course rankings on online academic forums
Authors:
Taha Hassan,
Bob Edmison,
Larry Cox II,
Matthew Louvet,
Daron Williams
Abstract:
University students routinely use the tools provided by online course ranking forums to share and discuss their satisfaction with the quality of instruction and content in a wide variety of courses. Student perception of the efficacy of pedagogies employed in a course is a reflection of a multitude of decisions by professors, instructional designers and university administrators. This complexity h…
▽ More
University students routinely use the tools provided by online course ranking forums to share and discuss their satisfaction with the quality of instruction and content in a wide variety of courses. Student perception of the efficacy of pedagogies employed in a course is a reflection of a multitude of decisions by professors, instructional designers and university administrators. This complexity has motivated a large body of research on the utility, reliability, and behavioral correlates of course rankings. There is, however, little investigation of the (potential) implicit student bias on these forums towards desirable course outcomes at the institution level. To that end, we examine the connection between course outcomes (student-reported GPA) and the overall ranking of the primary course instructor, as well as rating disparity by nature of course outcomes, based on data from two popular academic rating forums. Our experiments with ranking data about over ten thousand courses taught at Virginia Tech and its 25 SCHEV-approved peer institutions indicate that there is a discernible albeit complex bias towards course outcomes in the professor ratings registered by students.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
