课程浏览-利用交互式可视化课程选择

Christian Spletter, Martin J. Eppler
{"title":"课程浏览-利用交互式可视化课程选择","authors":"Christian Spletter, Martin J. Eppler","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1002950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lifelong learning requires the consistent and continued development of one’s\n knowledge, skills, and competencies. However, due to the extensive choice of courses\n offered at today’s institutions of higher learning, students face a risk of choice\n overload in their selection of (elective) courses. As current findings in choice\n overload literature do not refer to student samples in educational settings nor do they\n consider the use of interactive visualization formats, the use of interactive\n visualization in higher education organizations seems a promising way to support course\n selection that fits educational needs. All the more as previous visualization approaches\n to overcome table-based visualizations or online course catalogues primarily aim at\n communicating curricular content and structure to different university stakeholders,\n while disregarding students. We thus introduce our work-in-progress on an interactive\n visualization tool called the Course Glancer. The Course Glancer supports students’\n decision-making ability when confronted with a variety of learning offers while taking\n electives of a bachelor’s degree program in business administration. The tool provides\n support for gaining an overview on all available courses and their categories, and for\n rapidly comparing course alternatives. In doing so, it can help to clarify course\n preferences and finally to foster students’ confidence of not having overlooked an\n important course option. This is in line with Shneiderman’s information-seeking mantra\n as a must-have for effective cognitive processing: Overview first, zoom and filter, then\n details-on-demand. We use this mantra in connection with Norman’s usability principles\n of discoverability, affordances, feedback, constraints, mapping, and consistency. An\n example of how we use constraints is that course comparison is limited to juxtaposing\n two courses only. This functionality considers latest evidence from using eye-tracking\n studies that revealed that human beings tend to distribute their attention in an\n unbalanced manner and focus mainly on the two options that seem the most promising\n alternatives. To enrich the empirical research on choice overload, we plan to focus on\n psychological effects in the use of the Course Glancer. These include subjective,\n moderating factors (e.g., decision style) and behavior-related measures. The latter\n refer to subjective states (choice satisfaction, decision regret, decision confidence)\n or behavioral outcomes (e.g., choice deferral, option selection). Beyond these,\n group-related effects should also be analyzed in future research, for example, if\n interacting with our tool can stimulate information exchange processes within expert\n groups of higher education organizations (e.g., in the context of accreditation\n procedures or curriculum planning).","PeriodicalId":383834,"journal":{"name":"Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET-AI 2023): Artificial\n Intelligence and Future Applications","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Course Glancer - Leveraging Interactive Visualization for Course Selection\",\"authors\":\"Christian Spletter, Martin J. Eppler\",\"doi\":\"10.54941/ahfe1002950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Lifelong learning requires the consistent and continued development of one’s\\n knowledge, skills, and competencies. However, due to the extensive choice of courses\\n offered at today’s institutions of higher learning, students face a risk of choice\\n overload in their selection of (elective) courses. As current findings in choice\\n overload literature do not refer to student samples in educational settings nor do they\\n consider the use of interactive visualization formats, the use of interactive\\n visualization in higher education organizations seems a promising way to support course\\n selection that fits educational needs. All the more as previous visualization approaches\\n to overcome table-based visualizations or online course catalogues primarily aim at\\n communicating curricular content and structure to different university stakeholders,\\n while disregarding students. We thus introduce our work-in-progress on an interactive\\n visualization tool called the Course Glancer. The Course Glancer supports students’\\n decision-making ability when confronted with a variety of learning offers while taking\\n electives of a bachelor’s degree program in business administration. The tool provides\\n support for gaining an overview on all available courses and their categories, and for\\n rapidly comparing course alternatives. In doing so, it can help to clarify course\\n preferences and finally to foster students’ confidence of not having overlooked an\\n important course option. This is in line with Shneiderman’s information-seeking mantra\\n as a must-have for effective cognitive processing: Overview first, zoom and filter, then\\n details-on-demand. We use this mantra in connection with Norman’s usability principles\\n of discoverability, affordances, feedback, constraints, mapping, and consistency. An\\n example of how we use constraints is that course comparison is limited to juxtaposing\\n two courses only. This functionality considers latest evidence from using eye-tracking\\n studies that revealed that human beings tend to distribute their attention in an\\n unbalanced manner and focus mainly on the two options that seem the most promising\\n alternatives. To enrich the empirical research on choice overload, we plan to focus on\\n psychological effects in the use of the Course Glancer. These include subjective,\\n moderating factors (e.g., decision style) and behavior-related measures. The latter\\n refer to subjective states (choice satisfaction, decision regret, decision confidence)\\n or behavioral outcomes (e.g., choice deferral, option selection). Beyond these,\\n group-related effects should also be analyzed in future research, for example, if\\n interacting with our tool can stimulate information exchange processes within expert\\n groups of higher education organizations (e.g., in the context of accreditation\\n procedures or curriculum planning).\",\"PeriodicalId\":383834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET-AI 2023): Artificial\\n Intelligence and Future Applications\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET-AI 2023): Artificial\\n Intelligence and Future Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002950\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET-AI 2023): Artificial\n Intelligence and Future Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

终身学习需要一个人的知识、技能和能力的持续发展。然而,由于当今高等院校提供的课程选择范围广泛,学生在选择(选修)课程时面临着选择过载的风险。由于目前关于选择超载的研究结果并没有涉及教育环境中的学生样本,也没有考虑使用交互式可视化格式,因此在高等教育机构中使用交互式可视化似乎是一种很有前途的方式,可以支持适合教育需求的课程选择。更重要的是,之前的可视化方法克服了基于表格的可视化或在线课程目录,主要目的是将课程内容和结构传达给不同的大学利益相关者,而忽视了学生。因此,我们介绍了我们正在开发的交互式可视化工具,称为Course Glancer。课程浏览器支持学生在选修工商管理学士学位课程时,面对各种学习机会时的决策能力。该工具提供了对所有可用课程及其类别的概述,以及快速比较课程选择的支持。这样做,它可以帮助澄清课程偏好,并最终培养学生的信心,没有忽视一个重要的课程选择。这与施耐德曼的信息寻求咒语是一致的,它是有效认知处理的必备条件:首先概述,放大和过滤,然后按需查看细节。我们将这个咒语与Norman的可用性原则(可发现性、可视性、反馈、约束、映射和一致性)联系在一起。我们如何使用约束的一个例子是,课程比较仅限于并列两个课程。这项功能考虑了眼球追踪研究的最新证据,这些研究表明,人类倾向于以一种不平衡的方式分配注意力,主要集中在两个看起来最有希望的选择上。为了丰富关于选择过载的实证研究,我们计划关注课程浏览者在使用过程中的心理效应。这些包括主观的、调节因素(例如,决策风格)和与行为相关的措施。后者是指主观状态(选择满意、决策后悔、决策自信)或行为结果(如选择延迟、选择)。除此之外,在未来的研究中还应该分析群体相关的影响,例如,如果与我们的工具交互可以刺激高等教育组织专家组内部的信息交换过程(例如,在认证程序或课程规划的背景下)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Course Glancer - Leveraging Interactive Visualization for Course Selection
Lifelong learning requires the consistent and continued development of one’s knowledge, skills, and competencies. However, due to the extensive choice of courses offered at today’s institutions of higher learning, students face a risk of choice overload in their selection of (elective) courses. As current findings in choice overload literature do not refer to student samples in educational settings nor do they consider the use of interactive visualization formats, the use of interactive visualization in higher education organizations seems a promising way to support course selection that fits educational needs. All the more as previous visualization approaches to overcome table-based visualizations or online course catalogues primarily aim at communicating curricular content and structure to different university stakeholders, while disregarding students. We thus introduce our work-in-progress on an interactive visualization tool called the Course Glancer. The Course Glancer supports students’ decision-making ability when confronted with a variety of learning offers while taking electives of a bachelor’s degree program in business administration. The tool provides support for gaining an overview on all available courses and their categories, and for rapidly comparing course alternatives. In doing so, it can help to clarify course preferences and finally to foster students’ confidence of not having overlooked an important course option. This is in line with Shneiderman’s information-seeking mantra as a must-have for effective cognitive processing: Overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand. We use this mantra in connection with Norman’s usability principles of discoverability, affordances, feedback, constraints, mapping, and consistency. An example of how we use constraints is that course comparison is limited to juxtaposing two courses only. This functionality considers latest evidence from using eye-tracking studies that revealed that human beings tend to distribute their attention in an unbalanced manner and focus mainly on the two options that seem the most promising alternatives. To enrich the empirical research on choice overload, we plan to focus on psychological effects in the use of the Course Glancer. These include subjective, moderating factors (e.g., decision style) and behavior-related measures. The latter refer to subjective states (choice satisfaction, decision regret, decision confidence) or behavioral outcomes (e.g., choice deferral, option selection). Beyond these, group-related effects should also be analyzed in future research, for example, if interacting with our tool can stimulate information exchange processes within expert groups of higher education organizations (e.g., in the context of accreditation procedures or curriculum planning).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信