Fuzzy set analysis as a means to understand users of 21st-century learning systems: The case of mobile learning and reflections on learning analytics research

Abstract

Mobile technologies and their applications have the potential to benefit various learning contexts. Users' perceptions of mobile learning (m-learning) technologies are of great importance and precede the successful integration of these technologies in education. M-learning adoption has been investigated in the literature with reference to various factors and learning analytics, but largely without considering the role of different configurations (i.e., specific combinations of variables), and how these configurations might affect the adoption of various user groups. For instance, users with different backgrounds, experiences, learning styles, and so on might not be represented by the one-model-fits-all produced from the common regression approaches. In this study, we briefly review factors that have been proven important in the context of mobile learning adoption, and build on complexity theory and configuration theory in order to explore the causal patterns of factors that stimulate the use of mobile learning. To test its propositions, the study employs fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on a data sample from 180 experienced m-learning users. Findings indicate eight configurations of cognitive and affective characteristics, and social and individual factors, that explain m-learning adoption. This research study contributes to the literature by (1) offering new insights on how predictors of m-learning adoption interrelate; (2) extending existing knowledge on how cognitive and affective characteristics, and social and individual factors, combine to lead to high m-learning adoption; and (3) presenting a step-by-step methodological approach for how to apply fsQCA in the area of learning systems and learning analytics.

Learning Analytics Contribution in Education and Child Development: A Review on Learning Analytics

“…In Figure 3:Taxonomy of research literature on learning analytics, the number of publications is grouped based on the objectives of learning analytics, results as in Tabel 2: Objective identification in learning analytics. Aguilar & Valdiviezo-Díaz, 2017;Dirk, Rienties, Mitterlmeier, & Nguyen, 2018;Laveti, Kuppili, Ch, Pal, & Babu, 2017;Pappas, Giannakos, & Sampson, 2017;Serrano-Laguna et al, 2012) Table 2 shows that learning analytics studies are grouped into objectives. Most of the objective research of learning analytics that is often done is (1) monitoring and analysis, (2) assessment and feedback, and (3) prediction and intervention.…”

How Quickly Can We Predict Users’ Ratings on Aesthetic Evaluations of Websites? Employing Machine Learning on Eye-Tracking Data

“…Furthermore, although the sample of the study is relatively small, the low-level data that we capture are able to offer useful insight, allowing us to quantify aesthetic qualities using eye-tracking measures [22]. Finally, to better understand the users and their online experience, complexity theory may be combined with the novel fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) as it can offer deeper understanding of the sample by identifying asymmetric relations inside a dataset [36,37].…”

Does Context Matter for Value Co-Creation in Smart Learning Services?

“…This gives the opportunity to optimize the learning process to the requirements of the teacher and the learner. Teachers (peers and supervisor) can plan their teaching in more detail and learners are enabled to better organize their learning process [41].…”

“…Moreover, this transparent organization of the learning process enables the opportunity to optimize the affordances of the learner in the learning process. The adaption simplifies the handling of the learning content and environment (III) and improves the knowledge acquisition of the employees [41]. Hence, it can provide the learner with possible solutions for problems, which in turn prevent the learner from experiencing frustration with seemingly unsolvable tasks [49].…”