skip to main content
10.1145/2460296.2460321acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An eye-tracking study of notational, informational, and emotional aspects of learning analytics representations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an eye-tracking study of notational, informational, and emotional aspects of nine different notational systems (Skill Meters, Smilies, Traffic Lights, Topic Boxes, Collective Histograms, Word Clouds, Textual Descriptors, Table, and Matrix) and three different information states (Weak, Average, & Strong) used to represent student's learning. Findings from the eye-tracking study show that higher emotional activation was observed for the metaphorical notations of traffic lights and smilies and collective representations. Mean view time was higher for representations of the "average" informational learning state. Qualitative data analysis of the think-aloud comments and post-study interview show that student participants reflected on the meaning-making opportunities and action-taking possibilities afforded by the representations. Implications for the design and evaluation of learning analytics representations and discourse environments are discussed.

References

  1. Blackwell, A. and Green, T. Notational systems--the cognitive dimensions of notations framework. HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward an Interdisciplinary Science. Morgan Kaufmann (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley, M. M., Miccoli, L., Escrig, M. A. and Lang, P. J. The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology, 45, 4 (2008), 602--607.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bull, S., Gakhal, I., Grundy, D., Johnson, M., Mabbott, A. and Xu, J. Preferences in Multiple View Open Learner Models. In M. Wolpers, P. A. Kirschner, M. Scheffel, S. Lindstaedt and V. Dimitrova (eds.) EC-TEL 2010, (2010), 476--481. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bull, S. and Kay, J. Student Models that Invite the Learner In: The SMILI Open Learner Modelling Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 17, 2 (2007), 89--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cohen, A. The Gamification of Education. Futurist, 45, 5 (2011), 16--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cordova, D. and Lepper, M. Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 4 (1996), 715--730.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Eales, R. T. J., Hall, T. and Bannon, L. J. The motivation is the message: comparing CSCL in different settings. In Proc. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, International Society of the Learning Sciences (2002), 310--317. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Edmonds, S. Gamification of learning. Training and Development in Australia, 38, 6 (2011), 20--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, J. J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Green, T. Cognitive dimensions of notations. People and Computers V (1989), 443--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Green, T. and Blackwell, A. Cognitive Dimensions of Information Artefacts: a tutorial. BCS HCI Conference (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, J. J. and Hammer, J. Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15, 2 (2011), 146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Partala, T. and Surakka, V. Pupil size variation as an indication of affective processing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 1 (2003), 185--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Renaud, C. and Wagoner, B. The Gamification of Learning. Principal Leadership, 12, 1 (2011), 56--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith-Robbins, S. This game sucks": How to improve the gamification of education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46, 1 (2011), 58--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Suthers, D. Representational Bias as Guidance for Learning Interactions: A Research Agenda. In Proc. 9th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED'97), July 19--23, 1999 (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Suthers, D. The Representational Guidance Project. Laboratory for Interactive Learning Technologies (LILT). City, n.d.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Suthers, D. Towards a Systematic Study of Representational Guidance for Collaborative Learning Discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 3 (2001), http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/papers/2001/Suthers-JUCS-2001.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Suthers, D. and Hundhausen, C. An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 2 (2003), 183--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S. and Dwyer, N. Beyond Threaded Discussion: Representational Guidance in Asynchronous Collaborative Learning Environments. Computers and Education, 50, 4 (2008), 1103--1127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Vatrapu, R. Explaining Culture: An Outline of a Theory of Socio-Technical Interactions. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration (ICIC 2010) (2010), 111--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Vatrapu, R. Toward a Theory of Socio-Technical Interactions in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. In U. Cress, V. Dimitrova and M. Specht (eds.) EC-TEL 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) 5794, (2009), 694--699. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Vatrapu, R., Reimann, P. and Hussain, A. Towards Teaching Analytics: Repertory Grids for Formative Assessment. In Proc. International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2012 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Vatrapu, R., Tanveer, U. and Hussain, A. Towards teaching analytics: communication and negotiation tool (CoNeTo). In Proc. Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design, ACM (2012), 775--776. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Vatrapu, R., Teplovs, C., Fujita, N. and Bull, S. Towards Visual Analytics for Teachers' Dynamic Diagnostic Pedagogical Decision-Making. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK 2011), Banff, Canada. (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Winn, W. Cognitive Perspectives in Psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (ed.) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, (2004), 79--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An eye-tracking study of notational, informational, and emotional aspects of learning analytics representations

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              LAK '13: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge
              April 2013
              300 pages
              ISBN:9781450317856
              DOI:10.1145/2460296

              Copyright © 2013 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 8 April 2013

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              LAK '13 Paper Acceptance Rate16of58submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader