遠端學習的普及強調了在現代教育環境中學生自主的重要性。儘管近期研究已探索了學習平台中的個性化和遊戲化,但這些方法可能會無意中忽視或損害某些學生,降低學習過程中的自主性。相比之下,我們的研究著重於視覺化圖表的選擇,檢視學生在目標導向和自我效能方面的多樣性,並給予他們完整的自主權。
在我們的探索性研究中,透過分析八種視覺化數據的點擊頻率,我們調查了學生對學習視覺化圖表的偏好。透過收集學生基本資料、目標導向和自我效能的量化數據,我們分析了目標導向和學習分析平台之間的使用關係。特別的是,研究結果顯示目標導向和自我效能並未顯著影響學生對視覺化圖表的偏好。然而,此研究突顯了課堂參與在學術環境中的關鍵作用,並指出課堂參與相對於學生特質是預測學生對視覺化圖表偏好更有用的因素。
儘管樣本數有限,我們的研究仍為學習平台的使用及學生特質之間的關係中提供了發現,透過闡述課堂參與和學生自主的重要性以及持續的探索,我們希望創建更具有效性的學習環境並促進學習成果。

The increased adoption of remote online learning has underscored the significance of learner agency in modern educational settings, empowering individuals to take charge of their learning journey. While recent studies have explored personalization and gamification in Learning Analytics Dashboards, these approaches may inadvertently overlook students by diminishing the agency. In contrast, our study focuses on the choice of learning analytics, acknowledging the
diversity of goal orientations and self-efficacy among students while granting them full agency.
In our exploratory study, we investigated students' preferences on the eight visualizations by analyzing the frequency of clicks. We collected quantitative data through surveys that captured student demographics, achievement goal orientation, and self-efficacy. Through this investigation, we aimed to understand how these factors related to dashboard usage. Surprisingly, our findings revealed that psychological constructs, goal orientation, and self-efficacy, did not significantly
influence students' visualization preferences. However, the study shed light on the critical role of engagement in the academic setting, indicating that class engagement emerged as a crucial factor in determining students' preferences for visualizations.
Despite the constraints of a limited sample size, our study provides valuable insights into the relationship between dashboard usage and students' learning traits. It emphasizes the importance of engagement and students' agency, allowing them to exercise autonomy and enhance
learning outcomes. Future research may delve into factors that influence choices, ultimately enhancing learning environments and promoting inclusivity, and academic success.

摘要 4
Abstract 5
Table of Contents 7
Chapter 1. Introduction 9
Chapter 2. Students and Classroom Dashboard Interactions 12
2.1 Achievement Goal Orientation 12
2.2 Self-efficacy 14
2.3 Learner Agency 15
2.4 Learning Analytics Dashboard 18
2.5 Class Engagement 20
2.6 Research Questions Development 21
Chapter 3. Research Method 25
3.1 Study Procedure 25
3.2 System Design 26
3.2.1 Designing a Learning Analytics Dashboard and User Interface 27
3.2.2 Score Report 29
3.2.3 Visualization Report - My Learning Report (self related visualization) 30
3.2.4 Visualization Report - Participation (comparative related visualization) 33
3.3 Survey Questionnaire 36
3.4 Data Collection 38
Chapter 4. Data Exploration 39
4.1 Data Processing 39
4.2 Data Analysis 45
4.2.1 What factors are associated with different visualization preferences? (RQ1) 45
4.2.2 What drives students’ engagement with the class? (RQ2) 47
4.2.3 Are visualization preferences associated with different learning outcomes? (RQ3) 48
Chapter 5. Discussion 49
5.1 Achievement Goal Orientations (AGO) and visualization preferences (RQ1) 51
5.2 What drives students’ engagement with the class? (RQ2) 52
5.3 Visualization preferences and the learning outcomes (RQ3) 53
Chapter 6. Future Work and Conclusion 54
6.1 Future Work 54
6.2 Conclusion 56
References 58
Appendix 62
A. Data dictionary of all the variables 62
B. AGO-Revised Questionnaire for AGO 63
C. MSLQ Questionnaire for Self-Efficacy 64
D. Dashboard Usage Questionnaire - Preference 65
D. Dashboard Usage Questionnaire - Usability 66

Aguilar, S. J., Karabenick, S. A., Teasley, S. D., & Baek, C. (2021). Associations between learning analytics dashboard exposure and motivation and self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 162, 104085.
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual review of anthropology, 30(1), 109-137.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of educational psychology, 80(3), 260.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and adaptive motivational patterns: The role of the environment. Motivation in sport and exercise, 161-176.
Ames, C. (2012). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Routledge.
Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1994). Self-efficacy (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). Na.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of applied sport psychology, 2(2), 128-163.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science, 1(2), 164-180.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of educational psychology, 93(1), 43.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 237-257). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Coutinho, S. A., & Neuman, G. (2008). A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation, learning style and self-efficacy. Learning environments research, 11, 131-151.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), 218.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(3), 461.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(3), 501.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. Journal of educational psychology, 100(3), 613.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(1), 5.
Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 304-317.
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Garett, R., Chiu, J., Zhang, L., & Young, S. D. (2016). A literature review: website design and user engagement. Online journal of communication and media technologies, 6(3), 1.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192.
Hung, A. C. Y. (2017). A critique and defense of gamification. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 15(1).
Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Schmitz, M., Robbers, S., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2020). From students with love: An empirical study on learner goals, self-regulated learning and sense-making of learning analytics in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 47, 100758.
Joseph-Richard, P., & Uhomoibhi, J. (2023). Which Data Sets Are Preferred by University Students in Learning Analytics Dashboards? A Situated Learning Theory Perspective. INFORMS Transactions on Education.
Jovanovic, J., Gasevic, D., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., & Mirriahi, N. (2017). Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 33, 74-85.
Kim, J., Jo, I. H., & Park, Y. (2016). Effects of learning analytics dashboard: analyzing the relations among dashboard utilization, satisfaction, and learning achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 13-24.
Landay, J. A., & Hong, J. I. (2003). The design of sites: patterns, principles, and processes for crafting a customer-centered Web experience. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Lane, J., Lane, A. M., & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 32(3), 247-256.
Lee, L. K., Cheung, S. K., & Kwok, L. F. (2020). Learning analytics: current trends and innovative practices. Journal of Computers in Education, 7, 1-6.
Leung, A. C. M., Santhanam, R., Kwok, R. C. W., & Yue, W. T. (2023). Could gamification designs enhance online learning through personalization? Lessons from a field experiment. Information Systems Research, 34(1), 27-49.
Little, D., & Erickson, G. (2015). Learner identity, learner agency, and the assessment of language proficiency: Some reflections prompted by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 120-139.
Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Webster, J. (2017). Toward Meaningful Engagement. MIS quarterly, 41(4), 1011-1034.
Lonn, S., Aguilar, S. J., & Teasley, S. D. (2015). Investigating student motivation in the context of a learning analytics intervention during a summer bridge program. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 90-97.
Mädamürk, K., Tuominen, H., Hietajärvi, L., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2021). Adolescent students’ digital engagement and achievement goal orientation profiles. Computers & Education, 161, 104058.
Manyukhina, Y., & Wyse, D. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: A critical realist perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 223-243.
Marsh, H., Craven, R. G., & McInerney, D. M. (Eds.). (2008). Self-processes, learning and enabling human potential: Dynamic new approaches. IAP.
Matcha, W., Gašević, D., & Pardo, A. (2019). A systematic review of empirical studies on learning analytics dashboards: A self-regulated learning perspective. IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 13(2), 226-245.
Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), 427-436.
Mercer, S. (2012). The complexity of learner agency. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
Pintrich, P. R. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).
Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 106(2), 527.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary educational psychology, 36(4), 257-267.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of educational psychology, 105(3), 579.
Roberts-Mahoney, H., Means, A. J., & Garrison, M. J. (2016). Netflixing human capital development: Personalized learning technology and the corporatization of K-12 education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(4), 405-420.
Santhanam, R., Liu, D., & Shen, W. C. M. (2016). Research Note—Gamification of technology-mediated training: Not all competitions are the same. Information systems research, 27(2), 453-465.
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning sciences. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 726-746.
Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). The importance of students’ motivational dispositions for designing learning analytics. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30, 599-619.
Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self‐efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22(2), 208-223.
Schweder, S., Raufelder, D., Kulakow, S., & Wulff, T. (2019). How the learning context affects adolescents’ goal orientation, effort, and learning strategies. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(5), 604-614
Sedrakyan, G., Malmberg, J., Verbert, K., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Linking learning behavior analytics and learning science concepts: Designing a learning analytics dashboard for feedback to support learning regulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 105512.
Sedrakyan, G., Mannens, E., & Verbert, K. (2019). Guiding the choice of learning dashboard visualizations: Linking dashboard design and data visualization concepts. Journal of Computer Languages, 50, 19-38.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and psychological measurement, 69(3), 493-525.
Snow, E. L., Allen, L. K., Jacovina, M. E., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Does agency matter?: Exploring the impact of controlled behaviors within a game-based environment. Computers & Education, 82, 378-392
Taub, M., Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., & Lester, J. (2020). The agency effect: The impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 147, 103781.
Valle, N., Antonenko, P., Dawson, K., & Huggins‐Manley, A. C. (2021). Staying on target: A systematic literature review on learner‐facing learning analytics dashboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1724-1748.
Vázquez-Ingelmo, A., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Therón, R. (2019, June). Tailored information dashboards: A systematic mapping of the literature. In Proceedings of the XX international conference on human computer interaction (pp. 1-8).
Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos, J. L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1500-1509.
Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in human behavior, 89, 98-110.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 96(2), 236.