The Positive Impact of Deliberate Writing Course Design on Student Learning Experience and Performance




learning analytics implementation, learning management system, student engagement


Learning management systems (LMSs) are ubiquitous components of the academic technology experience for learners across a wide variety of instructional contexts. Learners’ interactions within an LMS are often contingent upon how instructors architect a module, course, or program of study. Patterns related to these learner interactions, often referred to as learning analytics implementation (LAI), can be represented by combining system-level LMS data with course-level design decisions to inform more granular insights into learner behaviour. The purpose of this paper is to use the LAI framework, specifically the principles of coordination and comparison (Wise & Vytasek, 2017), to examine how learner interaction patterns associated with LMS-use variables correspond to deliberate learning design decisions and course outcomes for a group of courses in the same undergraduate writing program. Visualizations of learner activity exhibited similar patterns of learner engagement across courses, corroborating the observation that design decisions heavily influence learner behaviour. Predictive analyses demonstrated strong influence of LMS use on final grades while accounting for course instructor. That is, while page views were not related to final grade, the length of discussion entries was often predictive. These results suggest that students who practised writing more — the main learning objective of this course — had higher final grades, regardless of variations in instructor and semester.


Baayen, H., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 309–412.

Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2016). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version 1.1-12). Retrieved from

Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. The Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 182–185. Retrieved from

Forteza, D., Whitmer, J., Fritz, J., & Green, D. (2018). Improving student risk predictions: Assessing the impact of learning data sources. Retrieved from

Fritz, J. (2016). LMS course design as learning analytics variable. In J. Greer, M. Molinaro, X. Ochoa, & T. McKay (Eds.). Proceedings of the First Learning Analytics for Curriculum and Program Quality Improvement Workshop, 25 April 2016, Edinburgh, UK (pp. 15–19). Retrieved from

Lenth, R. (2018). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (Version 1.2.2). Retrieved from

Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65(S1), 185–207.

McKee, H. (2017). An instructor learning analytics implementation model. Online Learning, 21(3), 87–102.

McNeish, D. M., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 295–314.

Morgan, T. (2011). Online classroom or community-in-the-making? Instructor conceptualizations and teaching presence in international online contexts. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’éducation distance, 25(1). Retrieved from

National Census of Writing. (2017). 2017 Four-Year Institution Survey. Retrieved from

Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., Ferguson, R., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Examining the designs of computer-based assessment and its impact on student engagement, satisfaction, and pass rates. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 703–714.

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language environment for statistical computing (Version 3.3.0). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from

Ransdell, S., Borror, J., & Su, A. (2018). Users not watchers: Motivation and the use of discussion boards in online learning. Florida Distance Learning Association Journal, 3(1), 4. Retrieved from

Ranzolin, D. (2016). rCanvas: R client for Canvas API. (Version Retrieved from

Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2(6), 110–114.

Singmann, H. (2019). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. (Version 0.27-2). Retrieved from

Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, H., & Müller, K. (2018). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. (Version 0.7.8). Retrieved from

Wiley, D. (2011, February). Openness, learning analytics, and continuous quality improvement [Lecture slides]. Presented at the Educause Learning Initiative, 14–16 February 2011, Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved from

Wise, A. F., & Vytasek, J. M. (2017). Learning analytics implementation design. In C. Lang, G Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.), Handbook of learning analytics (pp. 151–160). SoLAR.

Wise, A. F., Vytasek, J. M., Hausknecht, S., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Developing learning analytics design knowledge in the “middle space”: The student tuning model and align design framework for learning analytics use. Online Learning, 20(2), 155–182.




How to Cite

Lancaster, A., Moses, P. S., Clark, M., & Masters, M. C. (2020). The Positive Impact of Deliberate Writing Course Design on Student Learning Experience and Performance. Journal of Learning Analytics, 7(3), 48-63.



Special Section: Learning Design and Learning Analytics