Browse > Article

Exploratory study on the information design of online dashboard for learner-centered learning  

Lim, KyuYon (이화여자대학교 교육공학과)
Eun, JuHui (이화여자대학교 교육공학과)
Jung, YoonJoo (이화여자대학교 교육공학과)
Park, HaNa (이화여자대학교 교육공학과)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education / v.21, no.3, 2018 , pp. 35-50 More about this Journal
Abstract
Online dashboard is designed to support learners' self-regulation of their learning process and activities to promote learner-centered learning. Given the dashboard usually provides information within a limited space, it is important to define which information should be presented in order to meet the various needs of online learners. We analyzed relevant literature, existing dashboards, and learners' dashboard experiences, and identified a list of information that should be provided by the dashboard. As a result, four categories including learning preparation, learning participation, interaction, and learning outcomes, and eleven sub-categories of dashboard information were extracted. The results suggest implications for the design of online dashboard for learner-centered learning.
Keywords
Learner-centered learning; Dashboard design; Learning information; Personalization; Interaction; Social Comparison;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, J. Mangus, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education: New perspectives (pp. 19-24). New York: Routledge.
2 Soo, K. S., & Bonk, C. J. (1998). Interaction: What Does It Mean in Online Distance Education?. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428724.pdf
3 Howison, J., Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011). Validity issues in the use of social network analysis with digital trace data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 767-797.   DOI
4 Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Jamieson -Noel, D., Code, J., & Winne, P. H. (2007). Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2-3), 107-124.   DOI
5 Bodily, R. & Graham, C. R., & Bush, M. D. (2017). Online Learner Engagement: Opportunities and Challenges with Using Data Analytics. Educational Technology, 57(1), 10-17.
6 Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.   DOI
7 Link, S., & Li, Z. (2015). Understanding online interaction through learning analytics: Defining a theory-based research agenda. Researching language learner interactions online: From social media to MOOCs, 369-385.
8 Gasevic, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let's not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64-71.
9 Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Duval, E., & Pardo, A. (2012). The student activity meter for awareness and self-reflection. In CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 869-884). ACM.
10 Schwendimann, B. A., Rodriguez-Triana, M. J., Vozniuk, A., Prieto, L. P., Boroujeni, M. S., Holzer, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2017). Perceiving learning at a glance: A systematic literature review of learning dashboard research. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(1), 30-41.   DOI
11 Khan Academy(2018). https://www.khanacademy.org/에서 2018년 3월 23일 인출.
12 Backstage(2018). http://backstage.pms.ifi.lmu.de/에서 2018년 3월 23일 인출.
13 유기웅, 정종원, 김영석, 김한별 (2012). 질적 연구방법의 이해. 서울: 박영사.
14 Reimers, G., Neovesky, A., & der Wissenschaften, A. (2015). Student focused dashboards. 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (Lisbon).
15 Silius, K., Miilumaki, T., Huhtamaki, J., Tebest, T., Merilainen, J., & Pohjolainen, S. (2010). Students' motivations for social media enhanced studying and learning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 2(1), 51-67.
16 Ezzy, D. (2013). Qualitative analysis. London: Routledge.
17 Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3-9.
18 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed). CA: Jossey-Bass.
19 Few, S. (2012). Information dashboard design: Displaying data for at a glance monitoring (2nd ed). CA: Analytics Press.
20 Siemens, G., Gasevic, D., Haythornthwaite, C., Dawson, S., Shum, S. B., Ferguson, R., Duval, E., Verbert, K. & Baker, R. (2011). Open learning analytics: an integrated & modularized platform. Society for Learning Analytics Research.
21 임규연, 임지영, 김영주, 진명화, 박민정 (2017). HCI 이론에 기반한 학습자 대시보드의 평가 준거 개발 연구. 교육정보미디어연구, 23(4), 891-916.
22 김은희, 변호승 (2017). 학습분석학 기반의 교수자 피드백 분류체계 개발. 교육공학연구, 33(3), 737-768.
23 진성희, 유미나, 김태현 (2015). 이러닝 학습참여활동 및 상호작용에 대한 대시보드 설계 연구. 교육공학연구, 31(2), 191-220.
24 박연정, 조일현 (2014). 학습분석학 기반 대시보드의 설계와 적용. 교육정보미디어연구, 20(2), 191-216.
25 Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. A&C Black.
26 임성태, 김은희 (2017). 학습분석 기반 교수자 피드백 제공을 위한 대시보드 설계. 한국컴퓨터교육학회 논문지, 20(6), 1-15.
27 성은모, 진성희, 유미나 (2016). 학습분석학 관점에서 학습자의 자기주도학습 지원을 위한 학습 데이터 탐색 연구. 교육공학연구, 32(3), 487-533.
28 Klerkx, J., Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2017). Learning analytics dashboards. Retrieved from https://solaresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/chapter12.pdf
29 Dietz-Uhler, B., & Hurn, J. E. (2013). Using learning analytics to predict (and improve) student success: A faculty perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 17-26.
30 Jonassen, D. H. (2006). A constructivist's perspective on functional contextualism. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 54(1), 43-47.   DOI
31 Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivist learning on the web. Educational Technology, 40(6), 5-18.
32 Derntl, M., Erdtmann, S., & Klamma, R. (2012). An embeddable dashboard for widget-based visual analytics on scientific communities. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies 23. NY: ACM.
33 Preece, J., & Rombach, H. D. (1994). A taxonomy for combining software engineering and human-computer interaction measurement approaches: towards a common framework. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41(4), 553-583.   DOI
34 문지현, 임성택, 박차라, 이인성, 김진우 (2008). 사용자 경험에 대한 HCI적 관점에서의 개념적 고찰: 사용자 경험의 개념 정의와 공동 경험감 개념의 제안. 한국HCI학회 논문지, 3(1), 9-17.
35 Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd Edition). NY: Routlege.
36 Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144). London: Routledge.
37 Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner interface interaction in distance education. An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.   DOI
38 Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202.   DOI
39 Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J. L., Van Assche, F., Parra, G., & Klerkx, J. (2014). Learning dashboards: an overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1499-1514.   DOI
40 산업통산자원부(2017). 제3차 이러닝산업 발전 및 이러닝활용 촉진 기본계획.
41 안미리, 최윤영, 고윤미, 배윤희 (2015). 해외학습분석학(Learning Analytics) 연구에 대한 동향 분석: 실증 연구 중심으로. 교육정보미디어연구, 21(4), 601-643.
42 조용상, Abel, J., 유재택, 신성욱 (2013). 표준화 이슈리포트: 학습분석 기술 활용 가능성 및 전망(RM 2013-15). 서울: 한국교육학술정보원.
43 정은미, 조용상 (2017). 학습 분석 표준화 동향 및 학습 분석 참조모델. 한국컴퓨터교육학회 학술발표대회논문집, 21(1), 61-64.
44 Cleary, J., & Skaines, I. (2005). Student engagement as a quality indicator at the University of Newcastle. Paper presented at the 2005 Australian Universities Quality Forum, Sydney, Australia.
45 김재환, 김정민, 고범석 (2017). 빅데이터와 머신러닝 기반의 학생 맞춤형 인공지능 STEM 교육 플랫폼. 한국정보과학회 학술발표논문집, 805-807.
46 Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
47 이수상 (2013). 네트워크분석 방법론. 부산대학교 사회과학연구원 연구총서 2.
48 임효창 (2009). E-learning의 정서적 반응 및 학습성과가 전이성과에 미치는 영향. 대한경영학회지, 22(3), 1469-1487.
49 조용상 (2014).학습 분석 기술 활용 가능성 및 전망. 정보와통신, 31(12), 73-80.
50 Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. 1988. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.   DOI
51 Harlen. W. and M. James. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365-379.   DOI
52 Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Drago, W. (2007). The interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A causal model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(2), 140-153.   DOI
53 Serrat, O. (2017). Social network analysis. In Knowledge solutions (pp. 39-43). Springer, Singapore.
54 문성민, 이경원 (2016). 통계와 시각화를 결합한 데이터 분석: 예측모형에 대한 시각화 검증. 디자인융복합연구, 15(6), 195-214.
55 임규연, 박하나, 김희준 (2014). 온라인 토론 학습에서 사회연결망분석 기반 피드백이 상호작용 및 성취도에 미치는 영향. 교육공학연구, 30(3), 443-466.
56 최은진, 최명숙 (2016). 이러닝 환경에서의 상호작용이 학습효과에 미치는 영향에 관한 메타분석. 교육공학연구, 32(1), 139-164.
57 한국정책학회 (2010). 대학교육의 실용성 및 융합성 제고를 위한 연구. 서울:한국정책학회.
58 Repman, J., & Logan, S. (1996). Interactions at a distance. Tech Trends, 41(6), 35.
59 Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2009). Principles for personalized instruction. in Instructional-Design Theories and Models Volume III. London: Routledge.
60 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.   DOI