Applying Kano’s two-factor theory to prioritize learning analytics dashboard features for learning technology designers

IF 2.4 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Contemporary Educational Technology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.30935/cedtech/14286
Tobias Alexander Bang Tretow-Fish, Md Saifuddin Khalid
{"title":"Applying Kano’s two-factor theory to prioritize learning analytics dashboard features for learning technology designers","authors":"Tobias Alexander Bang Tretow-Fish, Md Saifuddin Khalid","doi":"10.30935/cedtech/14286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Existing methods for software requirements elicitation, five-point Likert scales and voting methods for requirements prioritization, and usability and user experience evaluation methods do not enable prioritizing the learning analytics dashboard requirements. Inspired by management and product design field, this research applies Kano’s two-factor theory to prioritize the features of learning analytics dashboards (LADs) of adaptive learning platform (ALP) called RhapsodeTM learner, based on students’ perceived usefulness to support designers’ decision-making. Comparing usability and user experience methods for evaluating LAD features, this paper contributes with the protocol and a case applying Kano method for evaluating the perceived importance of the dashboards in ALP. The paper applies Kano’s two-factor questionnaire on the 13 LADs features of RhapsodeTM learner. Responses from 17 students are collected using a questionnaire, which is used to showcase the strength of the two-factor theory through five tabular and graphical techniques. Through these five tabular and graphical techniques, we demonstrate the application and usefulness of the method as designers and management are often carried away by the possibilities of insights instead of actual usefulness. The results revealed a variation in the categorization of LADs depending on the technique employed. As the complexity of the techniques increases, additional factors that indicate data uncertainty are gradually incorporated, clearly highlighting the growing requirement for data. In the case of RhapsodeTM learner platform, results based on the students responses show that 11 of 13 LADs being excluded due to low significance level in categorization (technique 1) and low response rate.","PeriodicalId":37088,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Educational Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Educational Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Existing methods for software requirements elicitation, five-point Likert scales and voting methods for requirements prioritization, and usability and user experience evaluation methods do not enable prioritizing the learning analytics dashboard requirements. Inspired by management and product design field, this research applies Kano’s two-factor theory to prioritize the features of learning analytics dashboards (LADs) of adaptive learning platform (ALP) called RhapsodeTM learner, based on students’ perceived usefulness to support designers’ decision-making. Comparing usability and user experience methods for evaluating LAD features, this paper contributes with the protocol and a case applying Kano method for evaluating the perceived importance of the dashboards in ALP. The paper applies Kano’s two-factor questionnaire on the 13 LADs features of RhapsodeTM learner. Responses from 17 students are collected using a questionnaire, which is used to showcase the strength of the two-factor theory through five tabular and graphical techniques. Through these five tabular and graphical techniques, we demonstrate the application and usefulness of the method as designers and management are often carried away by the possibilities of insights instead of actual usefulness. The results revealed a variation in the categorization of LADs depending on the technique employed. As the complexity of the techniques increases, additional factors that indicate data uncertainty are gradually incorporated, clearly highlighting the growing requirement for data. In the case of RhapsodeTM learner platform, results based on the students responses show that 11 of 13 LADs being excluded due to low significance level in categorization (technique 1) and low response rate.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用卡诺的双因素理论为学习技术设计者优先考虑学习分析仪表板功能
现有的软件需求征询方法、用于需求优先级排序的五点李克特量表和投票方法以及可用性和用户体验评估方法都无法对学习分析仪表盘的需求进行优先级排序。受管理学和产品设计领域的启发,本研究应用卡诺的双因素理论,根据学生的有用性感知,对自适应学习平台(ALP)RhapsodeTM learner的学习分析仪表板(LADs)功能进行优先排序,以支持设计者的决策。本文比较了可用性和用户体验评估LAD功能的方法,提出了应用Kano方法评估ALP中仪表板感知重要性的方案和案例。本文对 RhapsodeTM 学习者的 13 项 LAD 功能采用了 Kano 的双因素问卷调查法。通过问卷收集了 17 名学生的回答,并通过五种表格和图形技术展示了双因素理论的优势。通过这五种表格和图形技术,我们展示了该方法的应用和实用性,因为设计者和管理者往往被洞察的可能性而不是实际的实用性所迷惑。结果显示,LAD 的分类因所采用的技术而异。随着技术复杂性的增加,显示数据不确定性的其他因素也逐渐被纳入其中,这清楚地表明了对数据的要求在不断提高。就 RhapsodeTM 学习者平台而言,基于学生回复的结果显示,13 个 LAD 中有 11 个因分类(技术 1)的显著性水平低和回复率低而被排除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Educational Technology
Contemporary Educational Technology Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Design-based approach to technology innovation: Teacher educators’ experiences with tablets as instructional tools in South Africa Exploring the effectiveness of digital writing tools on Thai EFL students’ writing How will education look like in the future? School teachers’ perceived knowledge and affordances for using technology in teaching Enhancing mathematics education in the UAE: Elementary teachers’ views on distance education methods
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1