Factors influencing beliefs for adoption of a learning analytics tool: An empirical study

Present research and development offer various learning analytics tools providing insights into different aspects of learning processes. Adoption of a specific tool for practice is based on how its learning analytics are perceived by educators to support their pedagogical and organizational goals. In this paper, we propose and empirically validate a Learning Analytics Acceptance Model (LAAM) of factors influencing the beliefs of educators concerning the adoption a learning analytics tool. In particular, our model explains how the usage beliefs (i.e., ease-of-use and usefulness perceptions) about the learning analytics of a tool are associated with the intention to adopt the tool. In our study, we considered several factors that could potentially affect the adoption beliefs: i) pedagogical knowledge and information design skills of educators; ii) educators' perceived utility of a learning analytics tool; and iii) educators' perceived ease-of-use of a learning analytics tool. By following the principles of Technology Acceptance Model, the study is done with a sample of educators who experimented with a LOCO-Analyst tool. Our study also determined specific analytics types that are primary antecedence of perceived usefulness (concept comprehension and social interaction) and ease-of-use (interactive visualization).

[1]  Sebastián Ventura,et al.  Mining and Visualizing Visited Trails in Web-Based Educational Systems , 2008, EDM.

[2]  Vic Lally,et al.  Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for Social Network Analysis , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[3]  R. M. Jansen,et al.  E-government adoption , 2003 .

[4]  Atanas Kiryakov,et al.  KIM - Semantic Annotation Platform , 2003, SEMWEB.

[5]  Rocco J. Perla,et al.  Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes , 2007 .

[6]  Vania Dimitrova,et al.  Adaptive feedback generation to support teachers in web-based distance education , 2007, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[7]  K. Lonka,et al.  Review and Process Effects of Spontaneous Note-Taking on Text Comprehension. , 1999, Contemporary educational psychology.

[8]  Marek Hatala,et al.  A qualitative evaluation of evolution of a learning analytics tool , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[9]  H. Kelman Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change , 1958 .

[10]  Pedro A. Willging,et al.  Using Social Network Analysis Techniques to Examine Online Interactions , 2005 .

[11]  Vladan Devedzic,et al.  Ontology-based annotation of learning object content , 2007, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[12]  Claus Zinn,et al.  Getting to Know Your Student in Distance Learning Contexts , 2006, EC-TEL.

[13]  Robert M. Gray,et al.  Technology Integration in Higher Education: Social and Organizational Aspects , 2010 .

[14]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Encouraging Citizen Adoption of eGovernment by Building Trust , 2002, Electron. Mark..

[15]  Alan C. Elliott,et al.  Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook , 2006 .

[16]  James Carifio,et al.  Resolving the 50‐year debate around using and misusing Likert scales , 2008, Medical education.

[17]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[18]  Darren George,et al.  SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference , 1998 .

[19]  Marta Indulska,et al.  How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

[20]  Alev M. Efendioglu,et al.  Valuing the investment in organizational training , 2007 .

[21]  Mohamed Jemni,et al.  A fully personalization strategy of E-learning scenarios , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Graham Attwell,et al.  Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? , 2007 .

[23]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[24]  Norman Blaikie,et al.  Analyzing Quantitative Data , 2012 .

[25]  F. J. Vesta,et al.  What Is Learned in Note Taking , 1981 .

[26]  Steven D. Rinehart,et al.  Summarization Ability and Text Recall by Novice Studiers. , 1993 .

[27]  James Carifio Measuring Vocational Preferences: Ranking versus Categorical Rating Procedures. , 1978 .

[28]  K. Klein,et al.  The Challenge of Innovation Implementation , 1996 .

[29]  Hiller A. Spires,et al.  Effects of Explicit Instruction in Notetaking on Sixth Graders' Lecture Comprehension and Attitudes toward Notetaking. , 1992 .

[30]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[31]  Nada Dabbagh,et al.  Impact of Web 2.0 on Higher Education , 2011 .

[32]  Mark Kane,et al.  Chapter 17 – Analysing quantitative data , 2004 .

[33]  Vania Dimitrova,et al.  Informing The Design of a Course Data Visualisator: an Empirical Study , 2003 .

[34]  Alan C. Elliott,et al.  Statistical Analysis Quick Reference Guidebook: With SPSS Examples , 2006 .

[35]  Leah Macfadyen,et al.  Using LiMS (the Learner Interaction Monitoring System) to Track Online Learner Engagement and Evaluate Course Design , 2010, EDM.

[36]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? , 2011, MIS Q..

[37]  John P. Rickards,et al.  Signaling, notetaking, and field independence–dependence in text comprehension and recall. , 1997 .

[38]  David N. Chin Empirical Evaluation of User Models and User-Adapted Systems , 2001, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[39]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[40]  Shane Dawson,et al.  Mining LMS data to develop an "early warning system" for educators: A proof of concept , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[41]  O. Keene,et al.  The log transformation is special. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[42]  Sharon Bratt A Framework for Assessing the Pedagogical Utility of Learning Management Systems , 2007 .

[43]  J. L. Rasmussen,et al.  Dealing with Nonnormal Data: Parametric Analysis of Transformed Data vs Nonparametric Analysis , 1991 .

[44]  Vania Dimitrova,et al.  CourseVis: A graphical student monitoring tool for supporting instructors in web-based distance courses , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[45]  Jan Recker,et al.  Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[46]  Shane Dawson,et al.  Teaching smarter: how mining ICT data can inform and improve learning and teaching practice , 2008 .

[47]  Vladan Devedzic,et al.  LOCO-Analyst : semantic web technologies in learning content usage analysis , 2008 .

[48]  R. W. Kulhavy,et al.  Note-Taking and Passage Style. , 1981 .

[49]  Diane Hamilton,et al.  Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[50]  S. Bratt Development of an instrument to assess pedagogical utility in e-Learning systems , 2009 .

[51]  Vladan Devedzic,et al.  Using Semantic Web Technologies to Analyze Learning Content , 2007, IEEE Internet Computing.

[52]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Social Information Processing in News Aggregation , 2007, IEEE Internet Computing.

[53]  Vania Dimitrova,et al.  Using Student and Group Models to Support Teachers in Web-Based Distance Education , 2005, User Modeling.