Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards fine-grained reading dashboards for online course revision

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Providing high-quality courses is of utmost importance to drive successful learning. This compels course authors to continuously review their contents to meet learners’ needs. However, it is challenging for them to detect the reading barriers that learners face with content, and to identify how their courses can be improved accordingly. In this paper, we propose a learning analytics approach for assisting course authors performing these tasks. Using logs of learners’ activity, a set of indicators related to course reading activity are computed and used to detect issues and to suggest content revisions. The results are presented to authors through CoReaDa, a learning dashboard empowered with assistive features. We instantiate our proposals using the logs of a major European e-learning platform, and validate them through a study. Study results show the effectiveness of our approach providing authors with more awareness and guidance in improving their courses, to better suit learners’ requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://openclassrooms.com.

  2. An aggregated version of the used material can be found here: https://bit.ly/coreada-eval.

References

  • Al Madi, N. S., & Khan, J. I. (2015). Is learning by reading a book better than watching a movie? A computational analysis of semantic concept network growth during text and multimedia comprehension. In 2015 international joint conference on neural networks (pp. 1–8). IEEE.

  • Blom, H., Segers, E., Knoors, H., Hermans, D., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Comprehension and navigation of networked hypertexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, J. H., & Hans, K. P. (2005). Young adult literature and the classics. In Using young adult literature in the English classroom (pp. 167–186). New York: Merrill

  • Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63(1), 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Skalicky, S., Dascalu, M., McNamara, D. S., & Kyle, K. (2017). Predicting text comprehension, processing, and familiarity in adult readers: New approaches to readability formulas. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, E. (2011). Attention please! Learning analytics for visualization and recommendation. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 9–17). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, W. S. (1935). What makes a book readable. With special reference to adults of limited reading ability. An initial study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A. (2007). Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 583–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal & L. Chanquoy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Norwell, NJ: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. M., & Liang, T. H. (2015). A technique for tracking the reading rate to identify the e-book reading behaviors and comprehension outcomes of elementary school students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 864–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, W., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A. (2012). Evaluation and revision. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 461–483). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, S. (2018). Reflective course review and revision: An overview of a process to improve course pedagogy and structure. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3).

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–384). New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama, T., Kato, H., & Yamane, Y. (2000). Discovering the gap between Web site designers’ expectations and users’ behavior. Computer Networks, 33(1), 811–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved October 25, 2018, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users.

  • Park, S., & Kim, C. (2014). Virtual Tutee System: A potential tool for enhancing academic reading engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanasri, N., Mukunoki, M., & Minoh, M. (2012). Learning to estimate slide comprehension in classrooms with support vector machines. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(1), 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peerani, N. (2013). Barriers to distance learning: The educators’ viewpoint. Distance Learning, 10(2), 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadallah, M., Encelle, B., Maredj, A. E., & Prié, Y. (2015). Towards reading session-based indicators in educational reading analytics. In G. Conole, T. Klobučar, C. Rensing, J. Konert, & E. Lavoué (Eds.), Design for teaching and learning in a networked world. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 297–310). Cham: Springer.9307

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwendimann, B. A., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Vozniuk, A., Prieto, L. P., Boroujeni, M. S., Holzer, A., et al. (2017). Perceiving learning at a glance: A systematic literature review of learning dashboard research. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(1), 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G., & Gaševic, D. (2012). Guest Editorial-Learning and knowledge analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D., Yang, J. L., Mukama, E., Warusavitarana, A., et al. (2016). Technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S. A., & Puntambekar, S. (2015). Learning with digital texts: Exploring the impact of prior domain knowledge and reading comprehension ability on navigation and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempelaar, D. T., Heck, A., Cuypers, H., van der Kooij, H., & van de Vrie, E. (2013). Formative assessment and learning analytics. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 205–209). ACM.

  • Walczyk, J. J. (2000). The interplay between automatic and control processes in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 554–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F., Perera, N., Hsiao, Y. T., Speer, J., & Marbouti, F. (2012). Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 108–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamanian, M., & Heydari, P. (2012). Readability of texts: State of the art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, University of Bejaia, 06000, Bejaia, Algeria

    Madjid Sadallah

  2. Research Center on Scientic and Technical Information CERIST, 05 Rue des 3 Frères Aissou - Ben Aknoun, Algiers, Algeria

    Madjid Sadallah & Azze-Eddine Maredj

  3. Université de Lyon 1, LIRIS, UMR 5205 CNRS, 69622, Villeurbanne, France

    Benoît Encelle

  4. Université de Nantes, LS2N - UMR 6004 CNRS, Nantes, France

    Yannick Prié

Authors
  1. Madjid Sadallah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benoît Encelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Azze-Eddine Maredj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yannick Prié
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madjid Sadallah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sadallah, M., Encelle, B., Maredj, AE. et al. Towards fine-grained reading dashboards for online course revision. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 3165–3186 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09814-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09814-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation