skip to main content
10.1145/2883851.2883921acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A rule-based indicator definition tool for personalized learning analytics

Published:25 April 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the last few years, there has been a growing interest in learning analytics (LA) in technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Generally, LA deals with the development of methods that harness educational data sets to support the learning process. Recently, the concept of open learning analytics (OLA) has received a great deal of attention from LA community, due to the growing demand for self-organized, networked, and lifelong learning opportunities. A key challenge in OLA is to follow a personalized and goal-oriented LA model that tailors the LA task to the needs and goals of multiple stakeholders. Current implementations of LA rely on a predefined set of questions and indicators. There is, however, a need to adopt a personalized LA approach that engages end users in the indicator definition process by supporting them in setting goals, posing questions, and self-defining the indicators that help them achieve their goals. In this paper, we address the challenge of personalized LA and present the conceptual, design, and implementation details of a rule-based indicator definition tool to support flexible definition and dynamic generation of indicators to meet the needs of different stakeholders with diverse goals and questions in the LA exercise.

References

  1. S. Alexander et al. OLA press release (2014). Retrieved from http://solaresearch.org/initiatives/ola/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Astels. Test driven development: A practical guide. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. R. Berthold, N. Cebron, F. Dill, T. R. Gabriel, T. Kötter, T. Meinl, P. Ohl, K. Thiel, and B. Wiswedel. Knime-the konstanz information miner: version 2.0 and beyond. AcM SIGKDD explorations Newsletter, 11(1):26--31, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Brooke. Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194):4--7, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. M. Chatti, V. Lukarov, H. Thüs, A. Muslim, F. A. M. Yousef, U. Wahid, C. Greven, A. Chakrabarti, and U. Schroeder. Learning analytics: Challenges and future research directions. eleed, 10(1), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. A. Chatti, A. L. Dyckhoff, U. Schroeder, and H. Thüs. A reference model for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6):318--331, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Cooper. Open Learning Analytics Network - Summit Europe (2014). Retrieved from http://www.laceproject.eu/open-learning-analytics-network-summit-europe-2014/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Cooper. Standards and Specifications - Quick Reference Guide (2014). Retrieved from http://www.laceproject.eu/dpc/standards-specifications-quick-reference-guide/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. L. Dyckhoff, D. Zielke, M. Bültmann, M. A. Chatti, and U. Schroeder. Design and implementation of a learning analytics toolkit for teachers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3):58--76, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. T. Göhnert, A. Harrer, T. Hecking, and H. U. Hoppe. A workbench to construct and re-use network analysis workflows: concept, implementation, and example case. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, pages 1464--1466. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. Leff and J. T. Rayfield. Web-application development using the model/view/controller design pattern. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2001. EDOC'01. Proceedings. Fifth IEEE International, pages 118--127. IEEE, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. V. Lukarov, M. A. Chatti, H. Thüs, F. S. Kia, A. Muslim, C. Greven, and U. Schroeder. Data models in learning analytics. In DeLFI Workshops, pages 88--95. Citeseer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. G. Siemens, D. Gasevic, C. Haythornthwaite, S. Dawson, S. Buckingham Shum, R. Ferguson, E. Duval, K. Verbert, and R. S. d Baker. Open learning analytics: an integrated & modularized platform, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. H. Thüs, M. A. Chatti, C. Greven, and U. Schroeder. Kontexterfassung,-modellierung und-auswertung in lernumgebungen. In DeLFI 2014-Die 12. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik, pages 157--162. Gesellschaft für Informatik, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A rule-based indicator definition tool for personalized learning analytics

        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
          LAK '16: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
          April 2016
          567 pages
          ISBN:9781450341905
          DOI:10.1145/2883851

          Copyright © 2016 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: 25 April 2016

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          LAK '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of116submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader