Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Framework of Learning Analytics for Prevention, Intervention, and Postvention in E-Learning Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Adoption of Data Analytics in Higher Education Learning and Teaching

Part of the book series: Advances in Analytics for Learning and Teaching ((AALT))

Abstract

The purposes of learning analytics are to intervene with the learners to facilitate learning, improve performance, and increase engagement. For these purposes, adaptive and intervention engines have been designed. However, the initial studies on learning analytics were limited to the presentation of learner performance with the use of dashboards. There is still confusion about what kind of information should be included in dashboard design. One of the reasons for this situation is that dashboard may often be designed without considering their theoretical underpinnings. If a theoretical basis for the outputs of learning analytics can be created, it is thought that confusion about the learning analytics design can be eliminated and studies will be more consistent. Intervention is essentially a psychological concept in behavioral psychology. However, it is seen that the concept of intervention is not inclusive of all learning analytics studies. Therefore, in this study, the framework of learning analytics for prevention, intervention, and postvention was designed and developed. In addition to this, the differences between these three concepts will be introduced and transferred from psychology to e-learning environments. Prevention is the preventive steps made before the event occurs. Intervention is defined as intervening to help individuals’ ongoing system. Postvention refers to processes to reduce the effects of the undesirable behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murph, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon report 2019 higher education edition, 3–41. Retrieved from

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, K. (2009). Can postvention be prevention? Crisis, 30(1), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012, April). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 267–270). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakharia, A., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., Kennedy, G., Gašević, D., Mulder, R., et al. (2016). A conceptual framework linking learning design with learning analytics. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 329–338).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, H. P., & Davidson, W. D. (2001). Establishing an early warning system: Predicting low grades in college students from survey of academic orientations scores. Research in Higher Education, 42(6), 709–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, F. R., Cataldie, L., McIntosh, J., & Millet, K. (2004). An active postvention program. Crisis, 25(1), 30–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P., DeBlois, P. B., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Academic analytics: A new tool for a new era. Educause Review, 42(4), 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. Oxford, UK: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatti, M. A., Dyckhoff, A. L., Schroeder, U., & Thüs, H. (2013). A reference model for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 318–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L. H. (2011). Enhancement of student learning performance using personalized diagnosis and remedial learning system. Computers & Education, 56(1), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2012). Designing for learning in an open world (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media. Springer-Verlag New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, G. W., Pechenizkiy, M., & Vleeshouwers, J. M. (2009). Predicting students drop out: A case study. International Working Group on Educational Data Mining.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demir, Ö., Yaşar, S., Sert, G., & Yurdugül, H. (2014). Examination of the relationship between students’ attitudes towards computer and self-directed learning with technology. Education & Science, 39(176), 257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyckhoff, A. L., Zielke, D., Bültmann, M., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2012). Design and implementation of a learning analytics toolkit for teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 58–76p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, T. (2011). Learning analytics: definitions, process and potential. Retrieved from http://learninganalytics.net/LearningAnalyticsDefinitionsProcessesPotential.pdf

  • Elvers, G. C., Polzella, D. J., & Graetz, K. (2003). Procrastination in online courses: Performance and attitudinal differences. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 159–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, E. S. (2005). Behavior-based safety and occupational risk management. Behavior Modification, 29(3), 539–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon Jr., R. S. (1983). An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Reports, 98(2), 107–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(4), 328–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heppen, J. B., & Therriault, S. B. (2008). Developing early warning systems to identify potential high school dropouts. Issue Brief. National High School Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • https://www.learntechlib.org/p/208644/.

  • Hu, Y., Lo, C., & Shih, S. (2014). Developing early warning systems to predict students’ online learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Learning analytics design. In The Sciences of Learning and Instructional Design (pp. 202–211). Routledge. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2013). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Routledge. New York and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jun, J. (2005). Understanding dropout of adult learners in e-learning (Doctoral dissertation, uga). Seoul National University of Education. Seoul, Korea.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, K. A. (1999). High school suicide postvention: Recommendations for an effective program. American Journal of Health Studies, 15(4), 217–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, C., Lester, J., Nguyen, T., Justen, A., Rangwala, H., & Johri, A. (2019). Student sensemaking of learning analytics dashboard interventions in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(1), 138–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Pyschological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knaus, W. J. (1998). Do it now! Break the procrastination habit (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lara, J. A., Lizcano, D., Martínez, M. A., Pazos, J., & Riera, T. (2014). A system for knowledge discovery in e-learning environments within the European Higher Education Area–application to student data from Open University of Madrid, UDIMA. Computers & Education, 72, 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leenaars, A. A., & Wenckstern, S. (1998). Principles of postvention: Applications to suicide and trauma in schools. Death Studies, 22(4), 357–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. Academic Press. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Flanagan, B., Konomi, S. I., & Ogata, H. (2018). Measuring behaviors and identifying indicators of self-regulation in computer-assisted language learning courses. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonn, S., Aguilar, S. J., & Teasley, S. D. (2015). Investigating student motivation in the context of a learning analytics intervention during a summer bridge program. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 90–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loosemore, M., & Lam, A. S. Y. (2004). The locus of control: A determinant of opportunistic behaviour in construction health and safety. Construction Management and Economics, 22(4), 385–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacNeil, W., & Topping, K. (2007). Crisis management in schools: Evidence based. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 7(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mah, D. K., Yau, J. Y. K., & Ifenthaler, D. (2019). Epilogue: Future directions on learning analytics to enhance study success. In Utilizing learning analytics to support study success (pp. 313–321). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mangaroska, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2018). Learning analytics for learning design: A systematic literature review of analytics-driven design to enhance learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12, 596.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, T., Miller, K., & Tritz, J. (2012). What to do with actionable intelligence: E 2 Coach as an intervention engine. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 88–91). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, K. W. (2010). Linking prevention science and social and emotional learning: The Oregon Resiliency Project. Psychology in the Schools, 47(1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., & Juhel, J. (2011). Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers in Education, 56(1), 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelmark, M. B. (2003). Five strategies for workforce development for mental health promotion. Promotion & Education, 10(1), 20–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2002). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning. Waxmann. Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., Körndle, H., Reimann, G., & Müller, C. (2004). Feedback-seeking and feedback efficiency in web-based learning–how do they relate to task and learner characteristics. In Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Proceedings of the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGs instructional design and learning and instruction with computers (pp. 377–388).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkhoma, C., Dang-Pham, D., Hoang, A. P., Nkhoma, M., Le-Hoai, T., & Thomas, S. (2019). Learning analytics techniques and visualisation with textual data for determining causes of academic failure. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, A., & Dawson, S. (2016). Learning analytics. In P. Reimann (Ed.), Measuring and visualizing learning in the information-rich classroom (pp. 41–55). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. Guilford Press. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano, J. L., & Hage, S. M. (2000). Prevention and counseling psychology: Revitalizing commitments for the 21st century. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(6), 733–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 600–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(1), 56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, M. (2018). Design and development of the intervention engine based on learning analytics for E-learning environments. (Doctoral dissertation), Hacettepe University, Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, M., Keskin, S., Özgür, A., & Yurdugül, H. (2017). Determination of interaction profiles based on learner characteristics in e-learning environment. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 7(2), 172–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2019). An intervention engine design and development based on learning analytics: The intelligent intervention system (In2S). Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şahın, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2020). Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: Past, Present and Future. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(1), 121–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shneidman, E. (1972). Foreward. In A.C. Cain (Ed.), Survivors of suicide (pp. ix–xi). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G., & Gasevic, D. (2012). Guest editorial - learning and knowledge analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabaa, Y., & Medouri, A. (2013). LASyM: A learning analytics system for MOOCs. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 4(5), 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly III, W. D., & Flugum, K. R. (1995). Best practices in ensuring quality interventions. In Best Practices in school psychology–III, 485–500. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Chang, M., & Kinshuk. (2018). iMoodle: An intelligent Moodle based on learning analytics. In Intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 2018, pp. 476–479).

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbert, K., Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., & Duval, E. (2012). Dataset-driven research to support learning and knowledge analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieve integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools. Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E. (1994). Strategic learning/strategic teaching: Flip sides of a coin. Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie, pp. 257–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2005). Assessing academic self-regulated learning. In What do children need to flourish? (pp. 251–270). Boston: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. T. M., & Li, K. C. (2019). A review of learning analytics intervention in higher education (2011–2018). Journal of Computers in Education, 7(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xing, W., & Du, D. (2019). Dropout prediction in MOOCs: Using deep learning for personalized intervention. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(3), 547–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, J. W. (2016). Identifying significant indicators using LMS data to predict course achievement in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ege University, Bornova, Turkey

    Muhittin Şahin

  2. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Halil Yurdugül

Authors
  1. Muhittin Şahin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Halil Yurdugül
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhittin Şahin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University, Perth, Australia

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  2. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  3. Curtin Learning and Teaching, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

    David Gibson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Şahin, M., Yurdugül, H. (2020). The Framework of Learning Analytics for Prevention, Intervention, and Postvention in E-Learning Environments. In: Ifenthaler, D., Gibson, D. (eds) Adoption of Data Analytics in Higher Education Learning and Teaching. Advances in Analytics for Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47392-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47392-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47391-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47392-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation