Session: Invited Papers

09:00-09:30 CET
Best LAK21 paper: Quantum of Choice: How learners’ feedback monitoring decisions, goals and self-regulated learning skills are related

Ioana Jivet[1,2], Jacqueline Wong[3], Maren Scheffel[4], Manuel Valle Torre[1], Marcus Specht[1] & Hendrik Drachsler[2,5]
[1] TU Delft, The Netherlands
[2] Open Universiteit, The Netherlands
[3] Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
[4] Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany
[5] Goethe University Frankfurt DIPF Germany

Abstract: Learning analytics dashboards (LADs) are designed as feedback tools for learners, but until recently, learners rarely have had a say in how LADs are designed and what information they receive through LADs. To overcome this shortcoming, we have developed a customisable LAD for Coursera MOOCs on which learners can set goals and choose indicators to monitor. Following a mixed-methods approach, we analyse 401 learners’ indicator selection behaviour in order to understand the decisions they make on the LAD and whether learner goals and self-regulated learning skills influence these decisions. We found that learners overwhelmingly chose indicators about completed activities. Goals are not associated with indicator selection behaviour, while help-seeking skills predict learners’ choice of monitoring their engagement in discussions and time management skills predict learners’ interest in procrastination indicators. The findings have implications for our understanding of learners’ use of LADs and their design.

📄 Read More: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3448139.3448179

09:30-10:00 CET
Best ST&D21 paper: Reading in print vs. on computer screen: Paper fosters on-task attention

Pablo Delgado and Ladislao Salmerón
University of Valencia, Spain

We investigated the effects of reading medium and reading time-frame on readers’ on-task attention, metacognitive calibration, and text comprehension outcomes. We asked 140 undergraduates to read a lengthy expository text in print or on a computer screen under self-paced or time pressure. We probed students’ mindwandering (i.e, the generation of task-unrelated thoughts) while reading. After reading the text, they predicted their performance in a subsequent test about the text content and then completed the test. Under time pressure, on-screen readers mindwandered more than in-print readers and they scored lower on the comprehension test. There were no differences in the accuracy of the students’ predictions of performance. We conclude that reading on screen hindered readers’ attention and text comprehension under time pressure.