Challenges in recruiting and retaining participants for smart learning environment studies
Conducting studies to assess the efficiency of smart learning environments, including learning analytics tools, is essential to the success of this emerging field. Recruiting and retaining research participants is fundamental to obtaining meaningful results from such studies, and yet, this remains a major challenge. Understanding the research participant enrollment experience, their satisfaction with the study information received and with the research staff, and their intent to promote and participate in future similar studies are important factors to collect and report to tailor recruitment strategies and experimental designs that would attract more participants in studies with smart learning environments. This paper reports the results of participant satisfaction to a study on java programming involving a suite of learning analytics tools. Answers reveal a high satisfaction level among participants, though the participation rate of the study was very low.
Keywordsrecruitment retainment satisfaction motivation research participant computer science smart learning learning analytics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
-  Khatamian Far, P. (2018). Challenges of Recruitment and Retention of University Students as Research Participants: Lessons Learned from a Pilot Study. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 1–15.Google Scholar
-  Cyr, D., Childs, R., & Elgie, S. (2013). Recruiting Students for Research in Postsecondary Education: A Guide. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.Google Scholar
-  Elgie, S., Childs, R., Fenton, N., Levy, B. A., Lopes, V., Szala-Meneok, K., & Wiggers, R. D. (2012). Researching Teaching and Student Outcomes in Postsecondary Education: A Guide. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.Google Scholar
-  Patel, M. X., Doku, V., & Tennakoon, L. (2003). Challenges in recruitment of research participants. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9(3), 229–238.Google Scholar
-  Grady, C. (2001). Money for research participation: does it jeopardize informed consent?. American journal of bioethics, 1(2), 40–44.Google Scholar
-  Smailes, P., Reider, C., Hallarn, R. K., Hafer, L., Wallace, L., & Miser, W. F. (2016). Implementation of a Research Participant Satisfaction Survey at an Academic Medical Center. Clinical researcher (Alexandria, Va.), 30(3), 42.Google Scholar
-  Guillot, R., Seanosky, J., Guillot, I., Boulanger, D., Guillot, C., Kumar, K., Fraser, S.N., & Kinshuk. (2018). Assessing Learning Analytics Systems Impact by Summative Measures, ICALT 2018, July 9-13, Mumbai, India (pp. 188–190). https://doi.org/10.1109/icalt.2018.00051.
-  jamovi project (2018). jamovi (Version 0.9) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
-  Silverman, S. L. (2009). From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. The American journal of medicine, 122(2), 114–120.Google Scholar