↓ Skip to main content

How Do B-Learning and Learning Patterns Influence Learning Outcomes?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Do B-Learning and Learning Patterns Influence Learning Outcomes?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00745
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Consuelo Sáiz Manzanares, Raúl Marticorena Sánchez, César Ignacio García Osorio, José F. Díez-Pastor

Abstract

Learning Management System (LMS) platforms provide a wealth of information on the learning patterns of students. Learning Analytics (LA) techniques permit the analysis of the logs or records of the activities of both students and teachers on the on-line platform. The learning patterns differ depending on the type of Blended Learning (B-Learning). In this study, we analyse: (1) whether significant differences exist between the learning outcomes of students and their learning patterns on the platform, depending on the type of B-Learning [Replacement blend (RB) vs. Supplemental blend (SB)]; (2) whether a relation exists between the metacognitive and the motivational strategies (MS) of students, their learning outcomes and their learning patterns on the platform. The 87,065 log records of 129 students (69 in RB and 60 in SB) in the Moodle 3.1 platform were analyzed. The results revealed different learning patterns between students depending on the type of B-Learning (RB vs. SB). We have found that the degree of blend, RB vs. SB, seems to condition student behavior on the platform. Learning patterns in RB environments can predict student learning outcomes. Additionally, in RB environments there is a relationship between the learning patterns and the metacognitive and (MS) of the students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Student > Master 9 7%
Professor 9 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Lecturer 8 7%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 42 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 19 16%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 52 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,477,666
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,072
of 30,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,431
of 310,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#359
of 622 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 622 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.