Applying Kano’s two-factor theory to prioritize learning analytics dashboard features for learning technology designers
Bibliographic record
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 Rhapsode<sup>TM</sup> 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 Rhapsode<sup>TM</sup> 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".