Learning pattern classification using moodle logs and the visualization of browsing processes by time-series cross-section
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, distance learning using learning management and e-book systems has been actively conducted in higher education institutions and various other organizations. It is possible to collect and analyze learning logs even in classes with many learners, including clickstreams and quiz scores in detail for each individual. This research proposes using Moodle's learning logs to classify learning patterns and outliers in order to identify struggling learners. The proposed method uses the descriptive statistics between the learner's teaching material clickstream and the final test score accumulated in Moodle, and students can be classified into four learning patterns. The frequency of each learning pattern was correlated with the appearance of outliers in the final test score and the teaching material clickstream. Most learners moved through four learning patterns during the weekly lessons, however, some learners scoring at the top and bottom of the weekly quiz scores repeated the same learning patterns. There was a tendency to correspond to an outlier due to the repetition of the same learning pattern. The time-series learning analytics of the teaching material clickstream revealed that learners with low final test scores and abnormal values tended to fall under a learning pattern with a smaller teaching material clickstream and a smaller access outside class hours.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies that integrated LMS data with surveys and interviews uncovered deeper patterns and underlying causes of student behaviours.
“For instance, studies that integrated LMS data with surveys and interviews uncovered deeper patterns and underlying causes of student behaviours (Dobashi et al., 2022;Ouyang et al., 2023).”
From Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Dobashi et al., 2022
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 94 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Dobashi, K., Ho, C. P., Fulford, C. P., Grace Lin, M.-F., & Higa, C.
- Affiliations
- Aichi University (JP)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dobashi, Konomu
- Venue
- Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- 100105
- ISSN
- 2666-920X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4307851609
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 94
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6
- FWCI
- 5.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Purdue University
- University of Michigan
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (18K11588, 21K12183)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
- Keywords
- clickstream data, outlier detection, learning analytics, distance education, quiz scores
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review