Learning analytics dashboard design: Workplace learner preferences for reference frames in immersive training in practice
Background Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly being used to communicate feedback to learners. However, little is known about learner preferences for dashboard designs and how they differ depending on the self‐regulated learning (SRL) phases the dashboards are presented (i.e., forethought...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of computer assisted learning 2024-12, Vol.40 (6), p.2840-2855 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2855 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 2840 |
container_title | Journal of computer assisted learning |
container_volume | 40 |
creator | Gallagher, Timothy Slof, Bert Schaaf, Marieke Arztmann, Michaela Fracaro, Sofia Garcia Kester, Liesbeth |
description | Background
Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly being used to communicate feedback to learners. However, little is known about learner preferences for dashboard designs and how they differ depending on the self‐regulated learning (SRL) phases the dashboards are presented (i.e., forethought, performance, and self‐reflection phases) and SRL skills. Insight into design preferences for dashboards with different reference frames (i.e., progress, social, internal achievement and external achievement) is important because the effectiveness of feedback can depend upon how a learner perceives it.
Objective
This study examines workplace learner preferences for four dashboard designs for each SRL phase and how SRL skills relate to these preferences.
Methods
Seventy participants enrolled in a chemical process apprenticeship program took part in the study. Preferences were determined using a method of adaptive comparative judgement and SRL skills were measured using a questionnaire. Preferences were tested on four dashboard designs informed by social and temporal comparison theory and goal setting theory. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between dashboard preferences and SRL.
Results and Conclusions
Results show that the progress reference frame is more preferred before and after task performance, and the social reference frame is less preferred before and after task performance. It was found that the higher the SRL skill score the higher the probability a learner preferred the progress reference frame compared to having no preference before task performance. The results are consistent with other findings, which suggest caution when using social comparison in designing dashboards which provide feedback.
Lay Description
What is already known about this topic?
Learning analytics dashboards use visualisations to provide feedback on learning tasks to optimise learning.
Learners can better understand the meaning of their feedback if it is presented alongside a point of comparison, such as a prior level of performance, the performance level of their peers or how their performance level compares to an achievement goal.
Learning analytics dashboards can support learning behaviours before, during, and after learners perform a task.
Learners can acquire information to improve their learning via learning analytics dashboards, such as feedback on performance, which illustrates areas of a task learners are stronger and weaker at, whic |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jcal.13042 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3128089563</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3128089563</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1902-ad91c6d8c0010fb8b6feb471bdd6b80ce184996ac52a77fed6340a5f2d0872583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsXf0HAm7A1ye5mE29S_KTgRfEYssmkpu6XSavsvzdtxaNzGWZ4Zl7eF6FzSmY01dXK6GZGc1KwAzShOS8zVjF5iCaEcZ4VkshjdBLjihBSSS4maFyADp3vllh3uhnX3kRsdXyvex0sthD9srvGb334GBptADdbHAIeAjgI0BmI2PUB_43YBd2mpe-wb1sI0X8BXgftdyJpOwRtkgycoiOnmwhnv32KXu9uX-YP2eL5_nF-s8gMlYRl2kpquBWGEEpcLWruoC4qWlvLa0EMUFFIybUpma4qB5bnBdGlY5aIipUin6KL_d8h9J8biGu16jchmY0qp0wQIUueJ-pyT5nQx5jcqCH4VodRUaK20apttGoXbYLpHv72DYz_kOopGdnf_ABsO33t</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3128089563</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Learning analytics dashboard design: Workplace learner preferences for reference frames in immersive training in practice</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Gallagher, Timothy ; Slof, Bert ; Schaaf, Marieke ; Arztmann, Michaela ; Fracaro, Sofia Garcia ; Kester, Liesbeth</creator><creatorcontrib>Gallagher, Timothy ; Slof, Bert ; Schaaf, Marieke ; Arztmann, Michaela ; Fracaro, Sofia Garcia ; Kester, Liesbeth</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly being used to communicate feedback to learners. However, little is known about learner preferences for dashboard designs and how they differ depending on the self‐regulated learning (SRL) phases the dashboards are presented (i.e., forethought, performance, and self‐reflection phases) and SRL skills. Insight into design preferences for dashboards with different reference frames (i.e., progress, social, internal achievement and external achievement) is important because the effectiveness of feedback can depend upon how a learner perceives it.
Objective
This study examines workplace learner preferences for four dashboard designs for each SRL phase and how SRL skills relate to these preferences.
Methods
Seventy participants enrolled in a chemical process apprenticeship program took part in the study. Preferences were determined using a method of adaptive comparative judgement and SRL skills were measured using a questionnaire. Preferences were tested on four dashboard designs informed by social and temporal comparison theory and goal setting theory. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between dashboard preferences and SRL.
Results and Conclusions
Results show that the progress reference frame is more preferred before and after task performance, and the social reference frame is less preferred before and after task performance. It was found that the higher the SRL skill score the higher the probability a learner preferred the progress reference frame compared to having no preference before task performance. The results are consistent with other findings, which suggest caution when using social comparison in designing dashboards which provide feedback.
Lay Description
What is already known about this topic?
Learning analytics dashboards use visualisations to provide feedback on learning tasks to optimise learning.
Learners can better understand the meaning of their feedback if it is presented alongside a point of comparison, such as a prior level of performance, the performance level of their peers or how their performance level compares to an achievement goal.
Learning analytics dashboards can support learning behaviours before, during, and after learners perform a task.
Learners can acquire information to improve their learning via learning analytics dashboards, such as feedback on performance, which illustrates areas of a task learners are stronger and weaker at, which in turn can help inform future training efforts.
What this paper adds?
Workplace learners typically prefer dashboards which offer visualisations comparing their current performance level with past levels of performance.
Comparison with peers is typically the least preferred point of comparison when offered in learning analytics dashboards.
No clear preference emerged between reference frames containing assigned or self‐set goals in dashboards presented before and after task performance.
Implications for practice
Designers should take into account learner preferences when designing learning analytics dashboard visualisations.
Designers should consider presenting learning analytics dashboards before, during, and after task performance.
Designers should gain more insight into how learners process learning analytic dashboards and act upon it.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4909</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2729</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jcal.13042</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Achievement Need ; Cognitive tasks ; Dashboards ; Design ; Design Preferences ; Designers ; Feedback ; Frame design ; Goal Orientation ; immersive learning environments ; Learning ; Learning analytics ; learning analytics dashboards ; Preferences ; reference frames ; Reference Materials ; Skills ; social comparison theory ; temporal comparison theory ; Training ; workplace learning</subject><ispartof>Journal of computer assisted learning, 2024-12, Vol.40 (6), p.2840-2855</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s). published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1902-ad91c6d8c0010fb8b6feb471bdd6b80ce184996ac52a77fed6340a5f2d0872583</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4091-8898 ; 0000-0001-6555-5320 ; 0000-0002-0795-0653 ; 0000-0002-4453-7892 ; 0000-0003-0482-0391 ; 0000-0002-8377-4233</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjcal.13042$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjcal.13042$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gallagher, Timothy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slof, Bert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schaaf, Marieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arztmann, Michaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fracaro, Sofia Garcia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kester, Liesbeth</creatorcontrib><title>Learning analytics dashboard design: Workplace learner preferences for reference frames in immersive training in practice</title><title>Journal of computer assisted learning</title><description>Background
Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly being used to communicate feedback to learners. However, little is known about learner preferences for dashboard designs and how they differ depending on the self‐regulated learning (SRL) phases the dashboards are presented (i.e., forethought, performance, and self‐reflection phases) and SRL skills. Insight into design preferences for dashboards with different reference frames (i.e., progress, social, internal achievement and external achievement) is important because the effectiveness of feedback can depend upon how a learner perceives it.
Objective
This study examines workplace learner preferences for four dashboard designs for each SRL phase and how SRL skills relate to these preferences.
Methods
Seventy participants enrolled in a chemical process apprenticeship program took part in the study. Preferences were determined using a method of adaptive comparative judgement and SRL skills were measured using a questionnaire. Preferences were tested on four dashboard designs informed by social and temporal comparison theory and goal setting theory. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between dashboard preferences and SRL.
Results and Conclusions
Results show that the progress reference frame is more preferred before and after task performance, and the social reference frame is less preferred before and after task performance. It was found that the higher the SRL skill score the higher the probability a learner preferred the progress reference frame compared to having no preference before task performance. The results are consistent with other findings, which suggest caution when using social comparison in designing dashboards which provide feedback.
Lay Description
What is already known about this topic?
Learning analytics dashboards use visualisations to provide feedback on learning tasks to optimise learning.
Learners can better understand the meaning of their feedback if it is presented alongside a point of comparison, such as a prior level of performance, the performance level of their peers or how their performance level compares to an achievement goal.
Learning analytics dashboards can support learning behaviours before, during, and after learners perform a task.
Learners can acquire information to improve their learning via learning analytics dashboards, such as feedback on performance, which illustrates areas of a task learners are stronger and weaker at, which in turn can help inform future training efforts.
What this paper adds?
Workplace learners typically prefer dashboards which offer visualisations comparing their current performance level with past levels of performance.
Comparison with peers is typically the least preferred point of comparison when offered in learning analytics dashboards.
No clear preference emerged between reference frames containing assigned or self‐set goals in dashboards presented before and after task performance.
Implications for practice
Designers should take into account learner preferences when designing learning analytics dashboard visualisations.
Designers should consider presenting learning analytics dashboards before, during, and after task performance.
Designers should gain more insight into how learners process learning analytic dashboards and act upon it.</description><subject>Achievement Need</subject><subject>Cognitive tasks</subject><subject>Dashboards</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Design Preferences</subject><subject>Designers</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Frame design</subject><subject>Goal Orientation</subject><subject>immersive learning environments</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning analytics</subject><subject>learning analytics dashboards</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>reference frames</subject><subject>Reference Materials</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>social comparison theory</subject><subject>temporal comparison theory</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>workplace learning</subject><issn>0266-4909</issn><issn>1365-2729</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsXf0HAm7A1ye5mE29S_KTgRfEYssmkpu6XSavsvzdtxaNzGWZ4Zl7eF6FzSmY01dXK6GZGc1KwAzShOS8zVjF5iCaEcZ4VkshjdBLjihBSSS4maFyADp3vllh3uhnX3kRsdXyvex0sthD9srvGb334GBptADdbHAIeAjgI0BmI2PUB_43YBd2mpe-wb1sI0X8BXgftdyJpOwRtkgycoiOnmwhnv32KXu9uX-YP2eL5_nF-s8gMlYRl2kpquBWGEEpcLWruoC4qWlvLa0EMUFFIybUpma4qB5bnBdGlY5aIipUin6KL_d8h9J8biGu16jchmY0qp0wQIUueJ-pyT5nQx5jcqCH4VodRUaK20apttGoXbYLpHv72DYz_kOopGdnf_ABsO33t</recordid><startdate>202412</startdate><enddate>202412</enddate><creator>Gallagher, Timothy</creator><creator>Slof, Bert</creator><creator>Schaaf, Marieke</creator><creator>Arztmann, Michaela</creator><creator>Fracaro, Sofia Garcia</creator><creator>Kester, Liesbeth</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4091-8898</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6555-5320</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0795-0653</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4453-7892</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0482-0391</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8377-4233</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202412</creationdate><title>Learning analytics dashboard design: Workplace learner preferences for reference frames in immersive training in practice</title><author>Gallagher, Timothy ; Slof, Bert ; Schaaf, Marieke ; Arztmann, Michaela ; Fracaro, Sofia Garcia ; Kester, Liesbeth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1902-ad91c6d8c0010fb8b6feb471bdd6b80ce184996ac52a77fed6340a5f2d0872583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Achievement Need</topic><topic>Cognitive tasks</topic><topic>Dashboards</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Design Preferences</topic><topic>Designers</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Frame design</topic><topic>Goal Orientation</topic><topic>immersive learning environments</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning analytics</topic><topic>learning analytics dashboards</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>reference frames</topic><topic>Reference Materials</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>social comparison theory</topic><topic>temporal comparison theory</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>workplace learning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gallagher, Timothy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slof, Bert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schaaf, Marieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arztmann, Michaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fracaro, Sofia Garcia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kester, Liesbeth</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Journal of computer assisted learning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gallagher, Timothy</au><au>Slof, Bert</au><au>Schaaf, Marieke</au><au>Arztmann, Michaela</au><au>Fracaro, Sofia Garcia</au><au>Kester, Liesbeth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Learning analytics dashboard design: Workplace learner preferences for reference frames in immersive training in practice</atitle><jtitle>Journal of computer assisted learning</jtitle><date>2024-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2840</spage><epage>2855</epage><pages>2840-2855</pages><issn>0266-4909</issn><eissn>1365-2729</eissn><abstract>Background
Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly being used to communicate feedback to learners. However, little is known about learner preferences for dashboard designs and how they differ depending on the self‐regulated learning (SRL) phases the dashboards are presented (i.e., forethought, performance, and self‐reflection phases) and SRL skills. Insight into design preferences for dashboards with different reference frames (i.e., progress, social, internal achievement and external achievement) is important because the effectiveness of feedback can depend upon how a learner perceives it.
Objective
This study examines workplace learner preferences for four dashboard designs for each SRL phase and how SRL skills relate to these preferences.
Methods
Seventy participants enrolled in a chemical process apprenticeship program took part in the study. Preferences were determined using a method of adaptive comparative judgement and SRL skills were measured using a questionnaire. Preferences were tested on four dashboard designs informed by social and temporal comparison theory and goal setting theory. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between dashboard preferences and SRL.
Results and Conclusions
Results show that the progress reference frame is more preferred before and after task performance, and the social reference frame is less preferred before and after task performance. It was found that the higher the SRL skill score the higher the probability a learner preferred the progress reference frame compared to having no preference before task performance. The results are consistent with other findings, which suggest caution when using social comparison in designing dashboards which provide feedback.
Lay Description
What is already known about this topic?
Learning analytics dashboards use visualisations to provide feedback on learning tasks to optimise learning.
Learners can better understand the meaning of their feedback if it is presented alongside a point of comparison, such as a prior level of performance, the performance level of their peers or how their performance level compares to an achievement goal.
Learning analytics dashboards can support learning behaviours before, during, and after learners perform a task.
Learners can acquire information to improve their learning via learning analytics dashboards, such as feedback on performance, which illustrates areas of a task learners are stronger and weaker at, which in turn can help inform future training efforts.
What this paper adds?
Workplace learners typically prefer dashboards which offer visualisations comparing their current performance level with past levels of performance.
Comparison with peers is typically the least preferred point of comparison when offered in learning analytics dashboards.
No clear preference emerged between reference frames containing assigned or self‐set goals in dashboards presented before and after task performance.
Implications for practice
Designers should take into account learner preferences when designing learning analytics dashboard visualisations.
Designers should consider presenting learning analytics dashboards before, during, and after task performance.
Designers should gain more insight into how learners process learning analytic dashboards and act upon it.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/jcal.13042</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4091-8898</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6555-5320</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0795-0653</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4453-7892</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0482-0391</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8377-4233</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4909 |
ispartof | Journal of computer assisted learning, 2024-12, Vol.40 (6), p.2840-2855 |
issn | 0266-4909 1365-2729 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3128089563 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Achievement Need Cognitive tasks Dashboards Design Design Preferences Designers Feedback Frame design Goal Orientation immersive learning environments Learning Learning analytics learning analytics dashboards Preferences reference frames Reference Materials Skills social comparison theory temporal comparison theory Training workplace learning |
title | Learning analytics dashboard design: Workplace learner preferences for reference frames in immersive training in practice |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T16%3A38%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Learning%20analytics%20dashboard%20design:%20Workplace%20learner%20preferences%20for%20reference%20frames%20in%20immersive%20training%20in%20practice&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20computer%20assisted%20learning&rft.au=Gallagher,%20Timothy&rft.date=2024-12&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2840&rft.epage=2855&rft.pages=2840-2855&rft.issn=0266-4909&rft.eissn=1365-2729&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jcal.13042&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3128089563%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3128089563&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |