ONTASK

TOOL
A USER GUIDE FOR 2019

Created by

Kelly Nichols & Nicole Moxey

ETEC 565A

Leah Macfadyen

April 3, 2019
INTRODUCTION
& RATIONALE

For our CYOA, we chose to evaluate OnTask, a learning

analytics tool. Our driving question was

IS ONTASK AN ACCESSIBLE
AND USEFUL LEARNING
ANALYTICS TOOL FOR K-12
EDUCATORS?

We analyzed this tool in relation to the driving question

using the Moxey & Nichols framework (2019) which was

developed for K-12 educators and administrators to

support their search and evaluation for a learning

analytics (LA)  tool. The Moxey & Nichols Framework

(2019) is an amalgamation of previous LA evaluation

frameworks by Cooper (2012) and Scheffel et al. (2014).

Learning Analytics Evaluation Framework (Moxey & Nichols, 2019)

Having concluded our initial evaluation we now turned our

focus to the literature to further analyze the benefits and

challenges of the OnTask tool as identified through the

Moxey & Nichols (2019) framework.

BENEFITS
Most educators have very little experience using LA tools, and

therefore, the tool needs to be easy to use for basic and

advanced users. “It must be usable for both: the beginner,

who just looks at it for the first time, as well as for the expert,

who already has a specific question and wants to perform

deeper analysis” (Dyckhoff et al., 2012, p. 62). Unfortunately,

according to Romero et al., most of the data tools that are

currently available are too complex and do not address the

needs of the majority of educators (as cited in Dyckhoff et

al., 2012, p. 59). LA tools should support educators who want

to collect, integrate, and analyze data from different sources

and it should provide step-by-step guidance for each

process available (Dyckhoff et al., 2012, p. 61). There has

been a recent shift in focus to create systems that draw from

multiple data sources and operate on relatively simple rule-

based logic. These generally require less knowledge and

allow educators to provide personalized messages to

students, by using data that they already have access to

(Pardo et al., 2018, p. 236). “Learning analytics and predictive

analytics are helpful in determining how students are likely to

perform academically and whether they are at risk of failure

or dropping out” (Sclater, 2017, p. 88). However, according

to Sclater et al. (2016) and Shacklock (2016), LA are

beginning to move away from using data to only predict

students who are at risk of failing to data being used to

improve the teaching and learning of all students (as cited in

Pardo et al., 2018, p. 236).

Using learning analytics has benefits for both educators, as well

as learners. It allows the educator to combine the right data

sources with their own expertise to provide different suggestions

to students depending on their level of engagement (OnTask, p.

1). Research shows that students need to be provided with

ongoing and timely feedback, but currently, teachers have very

little access to tools that help provide this type of frequent

feedback (Vigentini et. al., 2018, p. 2). According to Jessop, El

Hakim, & Gibbs (2014), this is a critical issue since student

success has been identified as being directly correlated with the

quantity and quality of feedback that that they receive (as cited

in Lim et al, 2018, p.3). Studies by Black, Harrison, & Lee (2003)

found that the lowest ranked aspect of graduate satisfaction

surveys is the amount, frequency and type of feedback students

received in their higher education courses (as cited in Vigentini

et al., 2018, p. 1). Student self-regulated learning improves when

the learner is provided with process feedback, rather than just

outcome feedback. Some examples of process feedback

include reading recommendations or identifying specific

learning strategies (Lim et al, 2018, p. 2-3). When students

receive ongoing process feedback, they are able to change

their study and/or work habits to make positive changes

throughout the course (OnTask, p. 1).

25,000

18,750

12,500 FIGURE 1.

According to Wikipedia, an

annual report is a

6,250 comprehensive report on a

company's activities

throughout the preceding

year.
0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
The growing interest in learning analytics has provided

opportunities for data to be used to help improve the

relevance, timeliness and effectiveness of feedback that

educators give to their students (Vigentini et al., 2018, p. 1).

Hattie and Timperley (2007) propose four types of feedback

that could benefit students: the task level, the learning process

level (at which tasks are understood), the self-regulation level,

and the level of self (including affect and personal

evaluation). Learning process and self-regulation feedback

are most effective, but due to time constraints and large

numbers of students, these are extremely difficult to provide

(Pardo et al., 2018, p. 237). However, with LA tools, such as

OnTask, frequent, specific feedback could be sent out to

students to help support their learning journey. OnTask is a

platform that enables personalized feedback that is specific,

or actionable, prompts a dialogue, is encouraging for the

student, and is given in a timely manner (Lim et al, 2018, p. 3-

4). The feedback is created based on student data, as well as

from insights from the educator (Pardo et al., 2018, p. 240).

Educators know that student success is directly correlated with

the interactions, dialogues and feedback they receive from

their peers and educators. However, it becomes a difficult task

to give student specific and timely feedback in courses that

contain large numbers of students or in online courses.

To help overcome this issue, LA platforms such as OnTask

enables the educator to choose the conditions which creates

feedback that is encouraging and directly related to the

requirements of the specific course (Lim et al., 2018, p. 2).

Once the data is imported, the educator can create multiple

conditions that can be used to encourage or guide the

students. Some examples of conditions could be to notify the

students of marks, remind specific students to post in

discussion forums or complete required readings, enroll groups

of students in a required workshop or tutorial, as well as to

direct students to specific supports that are available. If a

student is struggling with a concept, they can be directed to

review readings that cover the concept (OnTask).

CHALLENGES
Before discussing challenges and limitations of OnTask, we

first must discuss the challenges and limitations of LA tools in

education. Educational systems like Moodle and Blackboard,

as well as communication tools like Elluminate help teachers

structure courses and collaborate with students, but

personalization of the student learning process has been

limited (Ali et al., 2013, p. 130). Pardo et al. (2019) shares

Hattie's (2008) assertion that “[s]tudent directed feedback

has been identified as one of the most important factors

influencing a student’s academic achievement” (p. 129). With

increasing course enrolments and class sizes, educators are

under pressure and struggling to achieve meaningful and

personalized feedback due to

diminishing time and resources.

Moreover, despite having

increased access and details

of student data and

behaviours, these data

exhausts and trails still need to

be transformed into digestible

information for educators.

However, Open Learning

Analytics (OLA) platforms

remain at the conceptual level

and both the technology tools

to deliver LA, as well as the

pedagogical understanding

behind it, are still in their

infancy (Dyckhoff et al., 2012;

Pardo et al., 2018).

By identifying the questions, one can begin to collect and

curate data to help answer them. Ultimately, it is having the

action driven by data rather than being informed from data

that separates LA from educational data mining (Cooper,

2012). Lai and Schildkamp (2013, p. 10) categorize

educational data into four components.

Focusing on educators with the intent to provide personalized

feedback, OnTask refines these data categories further.

Once educators understand what data is being sought, they

must then look to extract this data from a variety of resources.

Some examples include:

Performance Data Sources
Learning Management Systems (LMS)

Gradebooks (e.g. Freshgrade)

Online Tests (e.g. Socrative)

ePortfolios (e.g Seesaw)

Behaviour Management (Class Dojo)

Interaction Data
Blogs (e.g. Weebly)

Vlogs (e.g. Flipgrid)

Podcasts (e.g. Voicethread)

Engagement Data
Participation (e.g. Nearpod)

Video watching patterns (e.g. Vimeo)

Tracking & ClickStreams (e.g. Weebly)

SIS Data
School Systems (e.g. MySchool)

Through the collection of different data sets from different

sources and platforms, educators can begin to bridge the gap

between information and feedback. But even so, many current

LA tools and softwares have struggled to create an algorithmic

solution that can replicate human intelligence and support the

instructor-learning practice (Pardo et al., 2018, p. 235). But

educational technology trends persist and the need and

appetite for a tool that further explores data-informed

student-centred pedagogies to provide feedback which has

led to softwares like OnTask to emerge (Scherer, Siddiq, &

Tondeur, 2019, p. 30; Vigentini et. al., 2018, p. 2).

OnTask was selected for evaluation as it remains one of the

foremost open source LA tools available. As Pardo et al.

(2018) identified, many current LA softwares and algorithms

lacked the human centred model and focus largely on

identifying at-risk students, but fail to address or approach

the improvement of learning to all. Through the initial

exploration phase of OnTask and watching the promotional

videos of the software, OnTask highlighted its emphasis on a

hybrid approach that allowed for coupled decision support

systems with adaptive systems so that increased adoption of

LA softwares in educational settings could occur and with

clear and singular focus of personalized student feedback.

To guide our assessment of OnTask and its practical adoption

and implementation for educators in a K-12 setting,  we used

the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Framework, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and

Learning Analytics Acceptance Model (LAAM).

In a previous study, Graham & Smith (2012), the TPACK

framework was used to understand how teacher candidates

about Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in

their teaching, borrowing from this study are their definitions

and examples.
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)
Includes general knowledge of learner

characteristics (e.g. understanding what motivates

a group of children, what is age appropriate or

what their general learning preferences are).

Content Knowledge (CK)

Practice of using representations by practitioners.

Technological Knowledge (TK)

Ranging from older technologies such as a pencil to

more digital technologies like computers. Focuses

on the technology to be learned rather than as a

tool to be used.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Educators modify or transform representations used

in the content domain to make them more

comprehensible to learners this will entail a

content-specific understanding of the learners (e.g.

students’ common misconceptions of a particular

topic).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Educators understand how to use digital tools to

achieve the desired learning outcomes and

experiences from students.

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

Educators identify specific technology tools and/or

programs that will help students gain a solid

understanding of the desired content.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

(TPACK)
Educators understand how to use technology to

teach concepts in a way that enhances student

learning experiences.
The TAM model, first developed by Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw

(1989), posited that perceived usage beliefs would determine

individual behavioural intentions to use a specific technology or

service (Ali et al., 2013). However, the TAM alone cannot predict

a technologies success as outlined in one study that noted the

“TAM falls short of conceptualizing what it means to accept and

integrate technology in classrooms does not specify which types

of professional knowledge about teaching and learning with

technology teachers must have in order to integrate technology

meaningfully" (Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur, 2019, p. 31).

Acknowledging this shortcoming was the study by Ali et al.,

(2013) on a similar LA tool to OnTask called LOCO Analyst that

found “pedagogical knowledge and information design skills of

individuals can influence their perception of the usefulness of

learning systems prior experience as one of the context factors

that could potentially impact the perceived usefulness of a

system” (Ali et al., 2013, p. 130). Consequently, to further our

exploration of the OnTask tool, we also employed the Learning

Analytics Acceptance Model (LAAM).

 Both the TAM and LAM models help to understand what

successfully predicts user behaviour of new technologies for

both pre and in service teachers of varying educational levels

and ethnicities, as well as how the analytics provided in a

learning analytics tool affect educators’ adoption beliefs

(Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur, 2019 & Ali et al., 2013).

TAM, LAAM, TPACK & ONTASK

Usefulness
The degree to which an educator believes that using a specific

online learning system will increase his/her task performance (Ali

et al., 2013, p.137).

Positives
We found that the feedback gained from the dashboard and the

ability to write conditional statements would allow for actionable

insights in a transformative way compared to current and popular

methods of feedback. But more importantly, this particular

method allowed for the personalized feedback at scale and with

the ability to differentiate and meet the needs of potentially all

students, and not just the ones identified as “at risk.”

The requirement and application of Pedagogical and Content

knowledge versus just Technological Knowledge was evident.  For

example, after extracting the data on a student’s engagement

level or midterm assessment, crafting a personalized email would

require the educator to identify the needs of that particular

student and write a message that would encourage versus

discourage a student’s learning regardless and despite their

current behaviours and academic performance.  

Additionally, the educator would require Content Knowledge to

be able to provide the differentiated and supplementary

resources needed to further the students learning in specific

content areas.
Negatives
OnTask provides neither interactive data visualizations nor

predictive technologies which are features that educators

often seek with LA tools that helps to guide their ability to

interpret the data.  Additionally the dashboard that does

provide data visualizations does not have a sufficient tutorial or

breakdown of the information and is left to the interpretation of

the user resulting in the need for a strong Technological

Pedagogical Knowledge of how to use quantitative information

from data visualizations.

Presently OnTask does not have plugins available for third party

LMS or SIS systems, so once a users data is updated, the

changes are not automatic within OnTask and would require

the user to re-upload the entire dataset. Moreover the creation

of new columns is possible, however, to do so requires the user

to enter and exit multiple windows and it would be more time

efficient to use a third party system for data consolidation or

entry.

Ease of Use
The degree to which an educator expects the use of the learning

system to be free of effort (Ali et al., 2013, p.137).

Positives
OnTask can provide feedback about specific information such

as the difficulties students are facing or how to better support

high achieving students. The use of the dashboard which

creates data visualizations through the use of charts and

graphs supports this information relay to educators and helps

them to better interpret the data sets.

Negatives
Technological Knowledge was identified as a key barrier.

Programming and technical jargon was repeatedly used

throughout the tool and in the limited tutorials available.

 Some examples include: strings, booleans, conditions, and

workflows. Moreover, to begin using OnTask, it is expected that

educators are familiar on where and how to collect and extract

data, as well as the proper formats and file extensions (e.g.

.csv, .xlsxl) needed for uploading.

Once datasets are uploaded and imported into Workflows, the

user must then navigate identifying key columns and removing

rows, including scale and weight rows, so as not to disrupt the

data integration.  Moreover, once data sets are uploaded, it is

difficult and/or not possible to manipulate certain rows and

columns of data.

Finally, once the workflow is imported, it is not possible to

delete a column, if required. Instead, the educator must remove

the desired column and and then re-import the workflow.

CONCLUSION
It should be noted that regardless of the limitations and

shortcomings of OnTask, some research has found that educators

can construct their own internalized assumptions of a tool with

connection to their pedagogical roles. In other words, an online

teacher may be more optimistic about the affordances of OnTask

versus its limitations should they place a higher value on its

potential benefits in their course. Adversely, the perceptions

formulated when an individual engages with the features of an LA

tool are strong and consistent with their later evaluations.

Therefore, it is imperative that when educators use an LA tool for

the first time, they have a positive experience or else they risk

developing a negative bias. It is our hope that this guide will help

educators have a positive experience when they begin using

OnTask for the first time. We have attempted to problem-solve and

overcome some of the obstacles and frustrations that we faced

when we started using this program.

Facilitators
Guide
Step by Step Tutorials for Educators
INTRODUCTION
TO ONTASK
How to Login
Once you have created an OnTask account, sign in by entering

your password and e-mail.

Extracting your data

Decide what type of data you are looking at and visit the third

party provider (e.g. Nearpod, Socrative, Myschool)

Once logged into the third party platform, look for an area

labelled reports; here you will be prompted to download the

reports usually in either a portable document format (.pdf) or

comma separated value (.csv). When possible, choose the .csv

file format and download it to your desktop or specified folder.

Working with Data Tables
Each dataset must have a key column; a key column is

identifying data, for educators, this would likely be a student

number, as the data must be unique to each individual.

Next, you have the head row and head columns which holds the

description of the data. There should be no other data in the

rows that does not pertain to each individual student because

this will skew the data. For example, scale and weight rows

would need to be removed during the data upload process.

Once data is uploaded, columns can still be manipulated but

not rows. Consequently, it is recommended that data be

manipulated in third party systems or in excel before being

uploaded into OnTask.

key column

Creating Workflows
A workflow is like a course. To create a workflow, select the

new workflow button and provide a name and description for

the course you are creating.

Importing your data
Once you have created a workflow, you will then be prompted

to select the type of data you would like to upload.

CSV, Excel and Google Sheets are common

file extensions that most third party data will

come in.

It is unlikely for an educator to have Structured

Query Language (SQL) data as that comes

directly from the server itself. Therefore, it is

not likely you will use this option.

Next you will find the file you downloaded to your desktop and

upload it. During this process, you will need to be aware of the

data table you are uploading and if there are any rows at the

top or bottom you will need to skip. Asides from the column

descriptions, this should be all rows that do not have individual

student data.

Make sure to have at least one key column selected

Manipulating Columns
You can sort the columns by ascending or descending, or click

the top column box and move columns to different places on

the table. You cannot manipulate rows in the same way.

Adding a Column
Currently, OnTask does not connect with third party systems

directly. For example, you cannot upload a data table from a

grade book and have new data sets appear when the grade

book is updated in their third party system. Therefore, you have

two options: you can upload another data table and merge it

with the previous data table within the workflow, or you can

add a column and manually enter in the data in each row.

Data type
There are 4 different types of data that can be entered

Numbers- scores or percentiles (e.g. 5/10, 50%)

Strings- which are letters or characters (e.g. A, B, C, D)
Booleans- two options only (e.g. pass/fail, true/false, yes/no)
Date/Time- you can add a timestamp (e.g. 03/30/2019)
Add Derived Columns
This option allows you to merge columns together.

Additionally, you can select from a variety of operations when

merging columns together.

Add Random Columns

With this option, you can assign random values within a column. An

example of when you might use this option is when putting students

into random groups.

Merging Data Sets
When merging data sets, you will follow the same first two

steps when uploading data into a workflow. This time in step

three, you will be prompted with some different options.

Here you will need to ensure that you have the same key

columns for both the existing and new data tables.

You will then have four options to select how you would like

your data rows to merge.

Option 1- Selecting all rows both existing and new table

This option is likely to be the most commonly used. For example,

an educator may upload assignments after the first term. After

the second term, they may choose to upload another data set.

By selecting the first option, this will allow for the new data to

be added on to the existing data and further extending the

data collection. Additionally, this option would also

accommodate for students who have left the course.

Option 2- Selecting only rows with keys present in both
existing and new table
This option should be exercised carefully as it may result in data

loss. Should any row be missing data from either the existing or

the new table, then that entire row will be deleted out.

Option 3- Selecting only rows with key values in the

existing tables
This may be a good option to use for students who have

handed work in late. When uploading the new data, previous

data of students who have completed their assignments will

remain while the new data will be uploaded for latecomers.

This could also be an option for new students to a course.

Option 4- Selecting only rows with key values in the new
tables. This method will drop rows from the existing table if they
are not in the new table. Again, this may be an option for new

students to a course or for assignments that are no longer

needed.

Dashboard- The dashboard is a tool that provides data

visualization. By taking large data sets and putting them into

digestible images, educators can more easily identify the

answers to the questions they are seeking, or be provided new

insights. This information can then be used to create

personalized actions and emails to students which will be

explained in the next tutorial video.

Video Tutorial
For more details and a step by step walk through, please visit:

https://vimeo.com/327412506
 Creating an Action
Once you have uploaded a workflow (example - data that you

wish to use). You are now ready to create an action.

Creating an Action
Select “Actions” from your menu bar (top of page) and then

select “+ Action.”

Create a Name, Description and then select “Personalized text”

from the Action Type drop down menu.

Click “Create action” when you are done.

Once this is complete, a new window will open up that has

three tabs at the top: Personalized Text, Filter Learners and

Text Conditions.

The “Personalized Text” box is where you compose the message

that gets sent out to the students.

To help guide you, there is an example of a message below.

Dear {{ Unnamed: 0 }},

We are nearing the end of our basketball unit and your mark is

{{ Physical Literacy }}.

{% if Proficient/Extending %}Outstanding work! Your mark reflects

comprehension and engagement with all course materials.{% endif %}

{% if Developing %}Good work! You have demonstrated a solid

understanding and a target for you is to engage more with the online

course materials.{% endif %}

{% if Limited/Emerging %}Uh-oh! This unit did not reflect your best

effort. Please review the online course materials and come see me for

extra support.{% endif %}

Please let me know if you have any questions before the final test.

Regards,

{{Coordinator_name}}

{{Course Name}}

You are now ready to build a personalized email.

Step 1 - Address the email to individual students by selecting

the “Insert Column Value” drop down box and choosing the key

column that identifies the name of the student.

For this example, it is “Unnamed” because all student

identifying key columns have been removed due to

confidentiality.

*Note*
The choices available in the “Insert Column Value” drop down

menu are dependent on what is included in your workflow

(data). If you want the name of the student included in the

message, make sure to include a column with student names.

Step 2 - Create your Text Conditions (if-this-then-this
statements) by selecting the “Text Conditions” tab and then

clicking the “+ Condition.”

Fill in the "Name," "Description" and "The text will be shown if"

sections and click “Create condition.”

For our example, we created three rules: proficient/extending,

developing and limited/emerging.

See below for examples of each condition.

1. Proficient/Extending
 2. Developing

3. Limited/Emerging

Once you have completed the desired “Text Conditions,” you

will see how many students will be receiving each of the

messages, as well as the formula used.

.
Step 3 - Add your conditions to your “Personalized Text” box by
selecting the condition from the “Use condition in highlighted

text” drop down menu.

Step 4 - For each of the “Conditions” included in the

“Personalized Text” box, write the message you want the

students to receive where it says, “YOUR TEXT HERE.”

Add any other information that you want to include in the

message.

If you would like to include the students’ mark for a particular

assignment, type the comment you want to add.

.
Then from the “Insert Column Value” drop down box, choose

the assignment name.

For this example, we are including “Physical Literacy.”

The student mark will be added to the message that is sent

out.

Once you have completed your message, click the “Preview”

button to see the email that each student will receive.

 Video Tutorial
For more details and a step by step walk through, please visit:
For more details and a step by step walk through, please visit:

To view our tutorial video about how to add an Action, view our
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWldRJy9xFI&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watchv=hWldRJy9xFI&feature=youtu.be
YouTube video below.

.
 References
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the

TPACK framework doi:https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009

š ć ć
Ali, L., Asadi, M., Ga evi , D., Jovanovi , J., & Hatala, M. (2013). Factors influencing beliefs for adoption of a

learning analytics tool: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 62, 130-148.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.023

Cooper, A. (2012). A framework of characteristics for analytics. CETIS Analytics Series, 1(7). Bolton, JISC CETIS.

Dyckhoff, A., Zielke, D., Bültmann, M., Chatti, A.M. & Schroeder, U. (2012). Design and Implementation of a

Learning Analytics Toolkit for Teachers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 58-76. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/jeductechsoci.15.3.58

Lai M., Schildkamp K. (2013) Data-based Decision Making: An Overview. In: Schildkamp K., Lai M., Earl L. (eds)

Data-based Decision Making in Education. Studies in Educational Leadership, vol 17. Springer, Dordrecht

š ć
Lim, L., Gentili, S., Pardo, A., Dawson, S., & Ga evi , D. (2018).  Combining technology and human intelligence to

provide feedback and learning support using OnTask. In Companion Proceedings of the 8th International

Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK’18), March 5-9, 2018, Sydney, NSW, Australia.   

OnTask. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2019, from https://www.ontasklearning.org/

Pardo, A., Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Buckingham Shum, S., & Dawson, S. (12). OnTask: Delivering data-informed,

personalized learning support actions. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(3), 235-249. doi.10.18608/jla.2018.53.15.

š ć
Pardo, A., Jovanovic, J., Dawson, S., Ga evi , D., & Mirriahi, N. (2019). Using learning analytics to scale the

provision of personalised feedback: Learning analytics to scale personalised feedback. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 50(1), 128-138.

Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., Stoyanov, S. & Specht, M. (2014). Quality Indicators for Learning Analytics. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 117-132.

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural

equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers &

Education, 128, 13-35. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009

Sclater, N. (2017). Chapter 9. Metrics and Predictive Modelling, in Learning Analytics Explained (pp. 88-98). New

York, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Vigentini, L., Liu, D. Y. T., Lim, L., & Maldonado, R. (2018). Personalising feedback at scale: approaches and

practicalities. In Companion Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge

(LAK’18), March 5-9, 2018, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

 References
Images

3d Printer [Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.shareicon.net/search?kwd=students&&cat=education&p=2

[Data Analytics Illustration].  Retrieved from https://www.scnsoft.com/services/analytics

[How OnTask Works Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.ontasklearning.org/

[Male Teacher Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.ontasklearning.org/

[Platform Tool Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.lumapps.com/education/

[Students on Computer Image]. Retrieved from https://www.ontasklearning.org/

[Software Tool Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.flipsnack.com/edu.html

[VR Goggles Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.utahfilmcenter.org/education/in-your-classroom/

*All other images from Canva