Looking for Usage Patterns in e-Learning Platforms
A Step Towards Adaptive Environments
Kay Berkling
1
and Christoph Thomas
2
1
Cooperative State University Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe, Germany
2
FILIADATA GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany
Keywords: Blended Learning, Problem based Learning, Software Engineering, Education, Ecosystem of Learning,
Self-directed Learning, Gamification, Scaffolding.
Abstract: This paper studies the student view of functionality offered by a research-based design of a blended learning
environment. The course in question is a Software Engineering course at the Cooperative State University
students alternate between study and work in a quarter-based system and complete their study in three years.
Based on findings over the last year, the course is currently using an e-learning platform (Coursesites by
Blackboard) to enhance the on-site classroom experience. For this paper, students were asked to rate the
usefulness of various functionalities offered by the platform. The results of the survey (77 students) are then
used to explore patterns of usage. We use Grasha’s theoretical definition of six learner-stereotypes to derive
an exaggerated usage pattern for each. While students do not match stereotypes, usage patterns become
evident in the degree to which they match a combination of these pure definitions. According to groupings
of common manifestations, the student body is highly fragmented in their preferred use of the platform.
Maintaining Grasha’s nomenclature according to the most pronounced stereotype in a pattern, these students
consisted of 38% “avoidant” user type, 27% “collaborative/participant”, and 10% “competitive” usage
pattern. A single platform will not cover any mixed group of students and configurable views need to be
considered in future.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper is the fourth in a series of publications
about the results of gamifying a course in Software
Engineering. The gamified version of the course
exposed issues with difficulties in self-regulated
learning in students and an important dissonance
between the seriousness of study and the perceived
inappropriateness of comparing it with a “game”
(Berkling et al., 2013b). Following this, a detailed
study of the mismatch in motivation between
students in a restricted ecosystem (namely grades
and passing) and assumed universal motivators like
autonomy, mastery and purpose (Pink, 2010) was
explored in detail (Berkling et al., 2013a). Results
show that scaffolding and a simple work
environment suitable to cover a large spread in
students’ needs was important. Based on these
experiences, a third publication (Thomas et al.,
2013) explored theoretical solutions in more detail
relating tool capabilities to learner types that seemed
to match most closely with the student profiles
encountered in past courses. This work was done
jointly with a Bachelor student at the University and
thus allowed for insights from student body blending
into the resulting work. In this publication, the
choice of Coursesites (an e-Learning platform
provided by Blackboard) is explained in detail. In
summary, the platform supports group work, grade
overview, content sharing, forum, group spaces, and
collaborative aspects. These functionalities were
important criteria for the choice of platform in order
to support the goal of creating autonomous students
who pursue mastery and purpose in their learning.
Having a tool that supports scaffolding for this path
towards self-regulation was a key outcome of our
previous work in this area. Coursesites is used with
this end in mind, providing a plethora of
functionality to be used, while not expecting all
students to use these equally. This publication
extends the previous work by looking at how
students have been using the functionality provided
by Coursesites in order to verify the existence of
subgroups of users that use the platform in different
144
Berkling K. and Thomas C..
Looking for Usage Patterns in e-Learning Platforms - A Step Towards Adaptive Environments.
DOI: 10.5220/0004909001440152
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 144-152
ISBN: 978-989-758-020-8
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
ways. A student survey was conducted for 77
students currently engaged in the class to study
which features of the platform are most used and
whether there exist any patterns in usage for any
definable subgroups.
The paper is structured as follows. After a review
of the theoretical foundations for this work in
Section 2, Section 3 will explain the design of the
survey. Section 4 will discuss results that show how
functionality usage can describe groups of student
learner types. Section 5 offers a brief discussion on
how various platforms might then fit to student
learner types, followed by a discussion and future
work section.
2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
The software engineering course was redesigned
around motivators with content and platforms
aligned as shown to be important (Derntl, 2005). For
example, if self-regulation and autonomy is an
important learning outcome then an e-platform can
support this goal by providing a team-based to-do
list or the possibility to advance through topics at
personal speed. If mastery is important then multiple
submissions could be allowed along with an up-to-
date view of current grade. If scaffolding is needed,
the progressive unlock of content can be enabled.
The content must match the level of the student and
the tasks designed to allow students independent
work that can be shared if collaboration is important
to the student. For competitive learners performance
is important and the platform can provide class
average grade for each assignment. All these
dimensions were explored in detail in previous
publications and led to the usage of an extensive e-
platform to support this kind of teaching
environment for different kinds of learners. Learner
types and the chosen platform are briefly reviewed
here for context of the current study.
2.1 Learner Types
According to Susan A. Santo (Santo, 2006), there is
no generally accepted definition for learning styles
despite the fact that many different learning style
models exist. For the purpose of this paper, Grasha’s
definition of a learning style as somebody’s
preferred way of learning (Grasha 1994; Fuhrman
1983) is sufficient because they are used as
stereotypes for a first approximation in an iterative
approach to understanding subgroups of students’
usage of platform functionality. According to the
Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales,
there are six styles that can be differentiated
amongst learners as given in Table 1. For the
purpose of this work, these profiles represent
theoretical stereotypes; based on their description,
we will define characteristic platform usage profiles.
The usefulness of such profiles will be validated if
they prove helpful as an intermediary step in
defining homogeneous subgroups of user profiles
with respect to how the e-platform is used by this
subgroup.
Table 1: Learner Types.
We use Grasha’s theoretical definition of six learner-
stereotypes to derive an exaggerated e-platform
usage pattern for each. Because students do not
match stereotypes, usage patterns become evident in
the degree to which a student matches a combination
of these pure definitions. If common manifestations
exist, then the student body can be described in such
terms as subgroups.
2.2 Learning Platform
To enable a blended classroom of more than 70
students with technology, various platforms were
considered. In (Thomas et al., 2013) three online
learning platforms were evaluated for our purpose
based on developed guidelines that supported
learning styles and adequate functionality. At the
time, CourseSites offered the best choices to
implement Software Engineering as a flipped
classroom, with the deciding factor towards its
ability to have a team space. For the Fall 2013 class,
a course was created on this platform using various
features. Key to choosing a tool is to reassure that it
supports the design criteria and necessary processes
in the classroom explained in more detail in previous
publications. In that sense, CourseSites is
replaceable by any other MOOC (Massive Open
Online Course) platform that supports the needed
functions. The hypothesis at the time was that
students will use the tool in different manner
according to their learning style. In this paper
The participant learner is very interested in the course
content and asks questions.
The avoidant learner works as little as possible or only shortly
before a dead-line.
The independent learner works on his/her own and rarely
asks for help.
The dependent learner needs lots of support and detailed
instruction.
The collaborative learner prefers working in a team.
The competitive learner wants to do better than other course
participants.
LookingforUsagePatternsine-LearningPlatforms-AStepTowardsAdaptiveEnvironments
145
students were asked to rate the functionality. If the
hypothesis holds true, then students should fall into
categories based on their use of the functionality.
For this purpose, a survey was conducted asking
students about their opinion on the importance of the
spectrum of functionalities. This survey is explained
next.
3 STUDENT SURVEY
After using coursesites for 6-7 weeks, students
where queried on the importance of certain
functionality groups of their learning platform.
While students have had limited experience with the
platform at hand, students have been using Moodle
for a long time, including high school. Some
students have taken MOOCs but all of them have
experience with any number of online social
communities. From this point of view, they were
asked to evaluate not the platform or its content but
the functionalities it offers, assuming that the
functionality was implemented well. Evaluation was
based on a four point Likert scale from “totally
irrelevant” to “very important”. In addition, the
possibility for “other” or “don’t know” was allowed.
77 computer science students currently enrolled in
the course answered the survey during class time.
3.1 Functionality Groups
In order to ask students about all functionalities, the
various aspects of any platform were listed
according to the possible dimensions as shown
below – the complete list is given in Appendix A:
Content dimension: self-made, peer-made,
professionally made, static, dynamic,
personalized, logical content, illogical content,
mixed content.
Time dimension: synchronous (classic course),
asynchronous (on demand/on progress), mixed
Grading dimension: grades based on: forum
entries, likes, homeworks, peer-grading,
autograding, self-grading, multiple attempts,
accumulating grades
Leaderboards: Grades, top likes, top activity,..
Social dimension: single player, multi-player
(community), choice, friends only, … cohorts
(grouping students e.g. by hand-in time)
“Living” spaces (scope): Global (Forum), Team
(Journal, blog, ..), Personal (Journal, Blog....) ,
Private
Communication features: Life chat, forum
(asynchronous), likes, ratings, comments,
Learning path: multiple, single, dynamic, static
Progressive platform view: onboarding,
scaffolding of platform functionality, elder role
3.2 Functionalities According to
Learner Type
Learner types listed in Section 2.1 are used as
stereotypes for the purpose of this work. In this
sense, we can define a simple prototypical but
different use of the platform for each of the
stereotypes along the dimensionalities described in
Section 3.1. Tables 2-7 define the functionalities
according to the learner type characteristics. The
highlighted parts are especially important to that
learner type. The functionality listed is taken from
Appendix A. For example “Simple Platform View”
relates to the dimension of Progressive Platform
View and is important to the “Avoidant” user who
likes to keep it simple. “Benefits from Forum”
relates to the Communication Dimension. In this
sense, these tables do not depict derived
characteristics but definitions to describe
stereotypical dimensionality of the hypothetical
learner type. The usefulness of these definitions will
be verified only if they serve as an intermediary
form of describing actual usage patterns by real
students.
Table 2 shows the functions that we define as
important for the avoidant learner. This stereotype is
different from others as the goal is to manage the
course with as little effort as possible. A passing
grade is the goal. All has to be kept as simple and
clear as possible. Team based effort is essential.
Table 2: Important Features for Avoidant Learner.
Function (important in bold)
Avoidant: “Keep it simple, passing is
everything!”
Simple Platform View
Lots of support for using platform
Benefits from Forum
Benefits from publicly posted Homework
Wants to keep an overview of current grade to make
sure it is a passing grade.
Likes to know how much work is left
Prefers multiple attempts in an online exam
Team projects are essential for survival
Team grading is essential
Teacher should provide clear learning path that does
not change dynamically
Benefits from peers’ work
All course content should be easy to find and clearly
marked as necessary.
Table 3 shows the functions that we define to be
important to a collaborative learner. That stereotype
is defined by the wish to work in a community.
Synchronous learning is more important than
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
146
independent learning. Grades are important. Work
load and a good chance at a good grade through
formative grading are relevant. Simple is good here
as well. The prototypical collaborative learner is not
interested in individual grades and projects.
Table 3: Important Features for Collaborative Learner.
Function (important in bold)
Collaborative: “I can do it in a
team!”
Synchronous learning
Lots of support for using platform
Forum and team blog and journal, team-based todo list
Share Homework
View current grade
Peer evaluation
Likes to know how much work is left
Prefers multiple attempts in an online exam
Formative grading
Team grading
Choose my own team
Classroom interaction and peer content
All course content and Dashboard with news
Table 4 shows the functions that we define as
important to the competitive learner. The stereotype
is defined by the wish to be the best. Leaderboards,
likes, badges, grades, view of class performance are
very important. Multiple attempts in exams serve the
purpose to gain full points on an exam. This person
wants to see all the information on the system –
progressive unlocks would hinder the performance.
Team work and projects can slow this person down.
Asynchronous learning is important so that this
learner can move on to the peer group at the next
level when ready (as in sports or games) and not be
stuck with the same cohort (like the traditional
classroom setting).
Table 4: Important Features for Competitive Learner.
Function (important in bold)
Competitive: “ Challenge me!”
Synchronous/asynchronous learning ok
Doesn’t need or even want progressive unlocks
Team & personal blog
Leaderboards
Grades and Class-performance
Achievements
Top Likes, Ratings, Activities
Homework with peer and self-evaluation
Multiple attempts in exams
Formative Grading
Likes, Ratings
Comments on homework
Self-made dynamic content
Course overview and static content
Table 5 shows the functions that we define as
important to the independent learner. The stereotype
is defined by the wish to work alone. Asynchronous
learning is important. Individual projects are
essential. This learner type prefers to create their
own learning path and not just rely on the teacher.
Table 6 shows the functions we define as
important to the dependent learner. This person
Table 5: Important Features for Independent Learner.
Function (important in bold)
Independent: “I am working by myself”
Choosing own speed of learning
Progressive unlocks or give me everything from the start
Grades
Improvement with respect to self
How much work is left
Homework
Multiple attempts and formative grading
Individual grade
Individual study
Self-chosen team
Individual projects
Comments on work
Multiple learning paths according to own needs
Self- and peer made content
Extra helpful information
needs strong guidance. Flexible learning path or
changes in content are not appreciated. Teamwork is
preferred over individual work. Synchronous
learning, defined, regular homework is important.
Grade overview is helpful. Course content has to be
easy to find and clearly structured.
Table 6: Important Features for Dependent Learner.
Function (important in bold)
Dependent: “I’ll never make it on
my own!”
Synchronous learning
Very simple view of platform
Team blog, Team-based todo list
Team-based
Grades to see if they are surviving
How much work is left
Homework based grading
Multiple attempts in exam, formative grading
Team work
Comments on work
Single, well defined path
Professional static content
Course material easy to locate
Table 7: Important Features for Participant Learner.
Function (important in bold)
Participant:
“I’m really interested!”
Mix of synchronous/asynchronous learning
Forum, blogs, journals
Sharing of homework
Grades
How much work is left
Homework based grading
Multiple attempts in exam, formative grading
Mix of individual/team work
Comments on work and ratings
Ratings, likes
Classroom interaction
Self-made, peer-made and professional content
Table 7 shows the functions that we define as
important for the stereotype of the participant
learner. This person will be open to try out various
functions. None are of particular importance, but all
can be tested. If the teacher recommends the
function then this person will try out how to
integrate it into their study.
Student responses were collected via
LookingforUsagePatternsine-LearningPlatforms-AStepTowardsAdaptiveEnvironments
147
Surveymonkey and the Likert scales were weighted
with the various user types to display student
profiles. Results from the survey are presented in the
next section.
4 SURVEY RESULTS
For each of the functions listed in Appendix A, 77
students’ responses on the 4-point Likert scale from
“totally irrelevant” to “very important” were
collected.
4.1 Learner Type Vector
For each of the learner types a weighting vector was
created for the functions and the dot product with the
responses collected. This resulted in a vector of
length 7 denoting a mix of learner types that can
then present the foundation for categorizing students
accordingly. The calculation is given in Equation 1:
∑
∗
∑
(1)
Here, t is the learner type, n is the number of
functions evaluated (i corresponds to the question #),
L is the Likert scale from 0..4 (“totally
irrelevant”…“very important”), W is the weighted
vector of how important a functionality is for a
particular stereotype, with values 0 (not relevant,-1
(not important), 1 (important), and 2 (very
important). Each student response is then
represented by the vector
of length 7, where the
average over all students for each element is
subtracted from Equation 1 as shown in Equation 2
to focus on the difference.
(2)
The results are then plotted for each student and
compared by inspection.
4.2 Student Vector-groups
It can be seen by inspection that certain vectors
look similar across students. Figure 1shows some of
these for 14 sample student vectors.
Similarities between different student vectors can
be noted. Comparing S1, S11 and S13, it can be seen
that the basic pattern, with different magnitudes
shows a learner type that is more avoidant than
average and classifies less than average as any of the
other types, especially concerning collaboration,
competitiveness and participation. In contrast, S2,
S4, S12, and S14 are less avoidant than average (to
different degrees) and stronger than average on
collaboration, competitiveness and participant
characteristics. S3, S6, S7, and S8 show average
profiles. Going through the data by inspection, the
following patterns can be found:
0: Average (12)
PC: Participant and Collaborative (4)
PCA: Participant, Collaborative, Avoidant (1)
PC-A: Participant, Collaborative and not
Avoidant (14)
PC-I: Participant, Collaborative and not
Independent (1)
CompP-A: Competitive, Participant and not
Avoidant. (8)
A: Avoidant (4)
Ax-P: Very Avoidant and not Participant (12)
I-D: Independent and not Dependent (1)
A-PC: Avoidant and not Participant and not
Collaborative (11)
A-CompP: Avoidant and not Competitive and
not Participant (2)
0-PC: Not Participant and not Collaborative (2)
P: Participant (1)
0-AI: Not avoidant and not independent (1)
D-P: Dependent and not Participant (1)
DP: Dependent and Participant (1)
Minus-all: All score low (1)
Maintaining Grasha’s nomenclature according to
the most pronounced stereotype in a pattern,
categories can be collapsed into Avoidant (A,Ax-P,
A-PC, A-CompP), Participant&Collaborative (PC,
PCA, PC-A, PC-I, P, DP), Competitive (CompP-A)
and Average (0), the pie chart in Figure 2 shows the
fragmented, yet categorized distribution of the
student body.
Figure 1: Vector S for student S1, S11, S13: more avoidant
than average, less than average on other characteristics.
4.3 Platform Requirements
Stereotyping the platform most coveted by each of
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
148
Figure 2: Vector S for students S2, S4, S12 and S14: less
avoidant than average, more than average on other
characteristics.
Figure 3: Vector S for student S3, S5, S7, and S8: average
students.
Figure 4: Fragmented Student Body.
the larger groups of students, it can be seen in Table
8 that the functionalities are quite different.
Clearly, with a fragmented student body as
shown above, a platform would have to be
configurable in at least three diagonally opposed
ways for Avoiders, Competitors and Participant
Collaborator groupings. However, compared to
frontal lecture without any flexibility, technology
that is configurable by the student may provide more
opportunity to render learner dependent views in the
same classroom.
Table 8: Important Features for Main Learner Groups as
shown in Figure 2.
Functionality Avoid. Part.Coll. Competitive
Time Dimension synchr. synchr. asynchr.
Progressive View simple all
Living Space team view
Progress
Overview
grades grades
Point,
Badges,
Levels
Grading
Dimension
team
team, peer-
grading
individual,
leaderboards
Social Dimension team
Self-chosen
team
individual
Communication forum likes, ratings
Learning Path simple adaptive open
Content
Dimension
given peer self, peer
5 PROFILES VS. PLATFORMS
Coursesites, which was chosen for this course, can
also be used as a MOOC platform. There are a
number of MOOC platforms in use currently and it
is interesting to look at their functionalities given the
current study. As MOOC platforms are all under
development, it would be difficult to define how
each provides functionality within the nine
dimensions given in Appendix A. In addition,
courses on these platforms have various ways in
which they can be configured and designed. Still,
there are some basic features that may or may not be
available on particular platforms. NovoEd, EDX and
Coursera are chosen examples of MOOC platforms
because they represent some of the most popular
platforms, in addition, Duolingo is an example of a
popular freely available language learning platform.
While NovoEd has the capability to provide team
and personal “living spaces”, EDX has the capability
to show an excellent progress bar but difficulty with
clear Forum spaces. While Coursera makes it easy,
according to student reports to find the learning path,
EDX may feel a bit more difficult for onboarding.
Table 9 indicates the current particularities of the
platforms based on courses visited by the author in
2012. Only distinguishing features are listed to
keep the table simple. Such particularities may
influence which type of student would prefer a
particular kind of platform. It is of interest to note,
that none of the platforms allow the students to
configure their own view.
Given the exemplary particularities as shown in
Table 9, the Avoidant learner group will be more
comfortable in a synchronous course with an easy
view of the platform functionalities and content,
team based effort and a clear view of the current
LookingforUsagePatternsine-LearningPlatforms-AStepTowardsAdaptiveEnvironments
149
grade. Such a student would need the simple view
from Coursera, the grade progress view from EdX
and the team based approach that NovoEd supports
very strongly.
The group Participant Collaborator is probably
best served with the NovoEd platform because it
provides good collaborative spaces and enough
information about the grades and progress to grant
the basic overview needed by this group.
The Competitive group will find some of these
platforms constraining in that they are mostly set up
to be synchronous with single given path. A tool like
Duolingo that allows choices of path and speed as
well as leaderboard, points and badges may be more
suitable. However, the team dimension is completely
missing to support the competition aspect with
others. This learner type will also not be served well
by any one of these platforms yet.
Table 9: Features provided by MOOCs highlighting
particularities.
MOOC
T
D
P
V
L
S
P
O
G
D
S
D
C
F
L
P
C
D
Edx s y
Coursera s s p
Novoed s
f
t
i
p
i,t
s
l,
p
Blackboar
d
s/a
t p
Moodle s/a
Duolingo a
cU
fU
i y
a,
p
m
m nl
Table 10: Key to Table 9.
TD: Time dimension: s=synchronous, a=asynchronous
PV: Progressive Platform View: s=simple, cA=content all,
cU=content unlock fA=features all, fU=features unlock
LS: Living Space: n=none, f=forum, t=team, p=personal
PO: Progress Overview: y=yes, n=no, p=partial
GD: Grading Dimension: n=none, a=automated, s=self,
p=peer; i=individual, t=team; m=multiple attempts, 1=single
attempt
SD: Social Dimension: i=individual, t=team, m=mixed, a=all
CF: Communication Features: f=forum, ch=chat,
m=messaging, cc=teacher comments on work, l=leaderboard
projects, p=personal interactions
LP: Learning Path: s=single, m=multiple, d=dynamic
CD: Content Dimension: s=self made, p=peer made,
t=teacher made, d=dashboard, x=extra info, nl=no lessons
While the match between student learner types
and platform offerings has not been done in a
quantitative manner, the discussion serves as input
to understanding student retention and how
platforms can cater to various needs.
6 DISCUSSION
In this paper, it was shown that student population
can be grouped by learner-type vectors that are
related to functionalities on learning platforms,
which have been grouped into a nine dimensional
feature space. We use Grasha’s theoretical definition
of six learner-stereotypes to define an exaggerated
usage pattern for each. While students do not match
these stereotypes, usage patterns become evident in
the degree to which they match a combination of
these pure definitions. As learners are not
stereotypical, such vectors are a better means of
grouping students. It was shown that such grouping
is possible and that opposing dimensions of
functionalities are required for different user groups.
This finding, hereby quantified, can have a direct
consequence on understanding how well students are
able to learn in different environments, virtual or
real. Will environments need to be specialized or
adaptive to enable optimal learning for each student?
Further work is required to refine understanding of
these groupings and define user-based views for a
single course offering. Open questions are whether
platforms should cater to particular learner types?
How does this affect teaching in the classroom at
University where classes are usually not split by
learner types? Splitting classroom by types would
make life for the Avoidant type quite difficult. Some
research will have to go into how to provide
different front ends to the same material.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank conversations with
students who participated in the survey and were
part of the new way of teaching.
REFERENCES
Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and Satisfaction in
Internet-Supported Learning Environments: A
Review. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (2),
116–127.
Berkling, K. and Zundel, A., Understanding the
Challenges of Introducing Self-driven Blended
Learning in a Restrictive Ecosystem – Step 1 for
Change Management: Understanding Student
Motivation, CSEDU 2013, 5
th
International
Conference on Computer Supported Education,
SciTePress, to appear 2013.
Berkling, K. and Thomas, Ch., Gamification of a Software
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
150
Engineering Course -- and a detailed analysis of the
factors that lead to it’s failure. Submitted to ICL 2013,
16th International Conference on Interactive
Collaborative Learning and 42 International
Conference on Engineering Pedagogy, 2013.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2012). Overview of self-
determination theory. The Oxford Handbook of
Human Motivation, 85.
Derntl, M. and Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of
structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The
Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111-130.
Fuhrmann, B. Schneider and A. F. Grasha. A practical
handbook for college teachers. Boston: Little, Brown,
1983.
Gagné, M. and Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination
theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning:
Uncovering its transformative potential in higher
education. The internet and higher education, 7(2),
95-105.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems.
Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives,
local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco,
http://www.publicationshare.com/graham_intro. pdf.
Grasha, Anthony F. "A matter of style: The teacher as
expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator,
and delegator." College teaching 42.4, 1994, pp. 142-149.
Hall, S. R., Waitz, I., Brodeur, D. R., Soderholm, D. H.,
and Nasr, R. (2002). Adoption of active learning in a
lecture-based engineering class. In Frontiers in
Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual (Vol. 1, pp.
T2A-9). IEEE.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: learning and
teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
Lynch, R. and Dembo, M. (2004). The Relationship
Between Self-Regulation and Online Learning in a
Blended Learning Context. The International Review
Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 5(2).
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/
irrodl/article/view/189/271.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation.
Psychological review, 50(4), 370.
Mohammad, S. and Job, M. A. (2012). Confidence-
Motivation–Satisfaction-Performance (CMSP)
Analysis of Blended Learning System in the Arab
Open University Bahrain.
Pink, D. H. (2010). Drive: The surprising truth about what
motivates us. Canongate.
Rebitzer, J. B. and Taylor, L. J. (2011). Extrinsic rewards
and intrinsic motives: Standard and behavioral
approaches to agency and labor markets. Handbook of
Labor Economics, 4, 701-772.
Santo, Susan A. "Relationships between learning styles
and online learning." Performance Improvement
Quarterly 19.3, 2006, pp. 73-88.
Schober, A. and Keller, L. (2012). Impact factors for
learner motivation in Blended Learning environments.
International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In
Learning (IJET), 7(S2). Retrieved December 7, 2012,
from http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/2326.
Scott Rigby, C., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C. and Ryan, R.
M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy:
Self-determination in motivation and learning.
Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 165-185.
Shea, P. and Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence:
Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and
the development of a communities of inquiry in online
and blended learning environments. Computers &
Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.
Thomas, Ch., and Berkling, K.. Redesign of a Gamified
Software Engineering Course. Step 2 Scaffolding:
Bridging the Motivation Gap. ICL 2013, 16
th
International Conference on Interactive Collaborative
Learning. IEEE, to appear 2013.
APPENDIX A
The following table lists all functionalities according
to the 9 questions from Section 2.2 on which the
student survey is based.
Table 11.
Time Dimension
TD: Synchronous learning
TD: Asynchronous learning
TD: Mixed style
TD: Choosing your own speed of learning
Progressive Platform View
PV: A very simple view in the beginning that opens up
progressively
PV: A lot of support with the platform in the beginning
PV: Gaining more rights as I work more with the platform
PV: Give me everything from the start – I can handle it
Living Spaces
LS: Forum for all (public)
LS: Team blog (public)
LS: Personal blog (public)
LS: Team journal (private to team)
LS: Personal journal (private to me)
LS: Sharing homework hand-ins for others to see
LS: Team-based Todo Lists
Progress Overview
PO: Leaderboard (Points)
PO: My Grades (overview)
PO: Average Grade in class
PO: improvement wrt. self
PO: Achievements (badges)
PO: Top Likes
PO: Top Activity
PO: how much work is left
LookingforUsagePatternsine-LearningPlatforms-AStepTowardsAdaptiveEnvironments
151
Table 11. (cont.)
Grading Dimension
GD: Forum entries
GD: “likes” of your contributions by others
GD: Homework
GD: Peer evaluation
GD: Self evaluation
GD: Multiple Attempts in evaluation
GD: Accumulated formative grading
GD: team based grade
GD: individual grade
GD: mix of team/individual grade
Social Dimension
SD: Study on your own
SD: Study in community
SD: study in self chosen team
SD: study in random team
SD: change choice of who you study with
SD :team projects
SD: individual projects
SD: mixed team/ind. Work
Communication Features
CF: Life Chat
CF: Forum (asynchronous)
CF: Likes (cool)
CF: Ratings (1-5)
CF: Comments on your work
CF: Leaderboards
CF: Classroom interaction – person2person
CF: Team meetings when you decide (rather than in class with
teacher present)
Learning Path
LP: Choice of multiple learning paths to choose from according
to my own needs and preferences
LP: A single, well defined path prescribed by the instructor
LP: A path that changes depending on my needs or progress
LP: A static path so that you have a defined amount to learn and
a defined end in time to the learning
LP: Personal Todo Lists
Content Dimension
CD : Self-made content
CD: Peer-made content
CD: Professional content
CD: Static content
CD: Dynamic content
CD: Syllabus/Course Introduction
CD: Info about teacher
CD: Home-page/Dashboard with News, Updates…
CD: Course content (slides, assignments, test)
CD: Extra Information (going beyond class material)
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
152
