skip to main content
10.1145/3630970.3631044acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesclihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dashboard design for Key Performance Indicators visualization of STEAM government initiatives: A case study

Published:06 January 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

The teaching of mathematics at basic educational levels is essential for the development of student’s cognitive abilities. Therefore various programs worldwide have emerged to promote the learning/teaching of mathematics and other complementary disciplines to improve students’ skills. This has motivated educational and local government institutions to design strategies that help raise the level of knowledge in mathematics from an early age based on STEAM methodology. Considering a case study of a Mexican government institution initiative, the program "Math for Everyone", and following a mixed methodology, a dashboard that uses spatial data and performance data is designed to help visualize key performance indicators related to the "Math for Everyone" program activities for authorities in charge of state education policy. Through a series of eight iterative design sessions, an evolved version, 1.5, was synthesized and subsequently validated. This version serves as a valuable tool for program coordinators and academic stakeholders, facilitating their decision-making and oversight responsibilities.

References

  1. Frank Bannister and Regina Connolly. 2014. ICT, Public Values and Transformative Government: A Framework and Programme for Research. Government Information Quarterly 31 (01 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Daniel Bennett and Adam Harvey. 2009. Publishing open government data. World wide web consortium (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Soo Boon Ng 2019. Exploring STEM competences for the 21st century. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Keshika Bugwandeen and Marius Ungerer. 2019. Exploring the design of performance dashboards in relation to achieving organisational strategic goals. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 30, 2 (2019), 161–175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Stuart K Card, Jock Mackinlay, and Ben Shneiderman. 1999. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Abiola Paterne Chokki, Anthony Simonofski, Benoît Frénay, and Benoit Vanderose. 2022. Engaging Citizens with Open Government Data: The Value of Dashboards Compared to Individual Visualizations. Digital Government: Research and Practice 3, 3 (2022), 1–20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Michael Diamond and Angela Mattia. 2017. Data visualization: An exploratory study into the software tools used by businesses.Journal of Instructional Pedagogies 18 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. André Eberhardt and Milene Selbach Silveira. 2018. Show me the data! A systematic mapping on open government data visualization. In Proceedings of the 19th annual international conference on digital government research: Governance in the data age. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Tomás Zamorano Escalona, Yonnhatan García Cartagena, and David Reyes González. 2018. Educación para el sujeto del siglo XXI: principales características del enfoque STEAM desde la mirada educacional. Contextos: estudios de humanidades y ciencias sociales41 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Alvaro Graves and James Hendler. 2013. Visualization tools for open government data. In Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on digital government research. 136–145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. José-Guillermo Hernández-Calderón, Valeria Soto-Mendoza, Luis-Gerardo Montané-Jiménez, Marion Alain Meunier Colula, and Janeth Tello Carrillo. 2023. Information Visualization Dashboard to Proctor Test-Takers During an Online Language Proficiency Test. Interacting with Computers (01 2023). https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwac043 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/iwc/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/iwc/iwac043/49222203/iwac043.pdfiwac043.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Arga Imawan and Rifqi Fathurrahman. 2022. Open Government Data in Pandemic Disease: Encouraging Spatial Policy-Making in East Java and Jakarta. GEMA PUBLICA 7, 2 (2022), 237–260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Marijn Janssen, Yannis Charalabidis, and Anneke Zuiderwijk. 2012. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information systems management 29, 4 (2012), 258–268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Maxat Kassen. 2013. A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project. Government information quarterly 30, 4 (2013), 508–513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Florian Lemke, Marijn Janssen, and Dirk Draheim. 2021. Unraveling the Social-Technical Complexity of Dashboards for Transformation. In International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia. Springer, 21–34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandra M Linder, Beth Powers-Costello, and Dolores A Stegelin. 2011. Mathematics in early childhood: Research-based rationale and practical strategies. Early Childhood Education Journal 39 (2011), 29–37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Enrique Sánchez Ludeña. 2019. La educación STEAM y la cultura «maker». Padres y Maestros/Journal of Parents and Teachers379 (2019), 45–51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ricardo Matheus, Marijn Janssen, and Devender Maheshwari. 2020. Data science empowering the public: Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly 37, 3 (2020), 101284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Sora Park and J Ramon Gil-Garcia. 2022. Open data innovation: Visualizations and process redesign as a way to bridge the transparency-accountability gap. Government information quarterly 39, 1 (2022), 101456.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaye Stacey. 2006. What is mathematical thinking and why is it important.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Katrien Verbert, Xavier Ochoa, Robin De Croon, Raphael A Dourado, and Tinne De Laet. 2020. Learning analytics dashboards: the past, the present and the future. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge. 35–40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Zhenbin Yang and Atreyi Kankanhalli. 2013. Innovation in government services: The case of open data. In Grand Successes and Failures in IT. Public and Private Sectors: IFIP WG 8.6 International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, TDIT 2013, Bangalore, India, June 27-29, 2013. Proceedings. Springer, 644–651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Dashboard design for Key Performance Indicators visualization of STEAM government initiatives: A case study

      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 Other conferences
        CLIHC '23: Proceedings of the XI Latin American Conference on Human Computer Interaction
        October 2023
        247 pages
        ISBN:9798400716577
        DOI:10.1145/3630970

        Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 6 January 2024

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate14of42submissions,33%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format