Khadija El Aadmi-Laamech, Patricia Santos, Davinia Hernández-Leo
pp. 8 – 41, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-066-001)
Abstract
Designing for well-being in digital environments is key for fostering positive user experiences and mitigating potential harms, encompassing a broad spectrum of considerations from promoting mindful engagement and reducing addiction to ensuring fundamental accessibility. The growing recognition of technology’s impact on well-being in education has led to increased emphasis on designing learning technologies with a focus on well-being. However, a gap remains in tools that support integrating well-being into the design process. This paper examines the use of an adapted evaluation based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) within a Human-Centered Design (HCD) framework, aiming to assess its effectiveness in understanding and incorporating well-being impacts throughout the design cycle, particularly in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environments. A case study is presented, involving the redesign of a CSCL tool across three phases with students: Observation (n=6), Ideation and Prototyping (n=11), and Evaluation (n=21). The paper also discusses how integrating SDT measures into the HCD process enhances CSCL design from a well-being perspective and demonstrates its broader applicability to other learning technologies.
Keywords: student well-being, digital well-being, Self-Determination Theory, learning technologies, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
References
1. Chatila, R., Firth-Butterflied, K., Havens, J. C., & Karachalios, K. (2017). The IEEE global initiative for ethical considerations in artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 24(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2017.2670225
2. IEEE Standards Committee. (2020). IEEE Recommended Practice for Assessing the Impact of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems on Human Well-Being: IEEE Standard 7010-2020. IEEE.
3. Peters, D. (2022). Wellbeing supportive design–Research-based guidelines for supporting psychological wellbeing in user experience. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2089812
4. Sheriff, R. E. (2012). An evaluation of students’ and lecturers’ use of technologies: An engineering case study. engineering education, 7(1), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2012.07010033
5. Pikhart, M. (2018). Technology enhanced learning experience in intercultural business communication course: A case study. In Emerging Technologies for Education: Third International Symposium, SETE 2018, Held in Conjunction with ICWL 2018, Chiang Mai, Thailand, August 22–24, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 3 (pp. 41-45). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03580-8_5
6. Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in human behavior, 63, 604-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084
7. Gömleksiz, M. N. (2004). Use of Education Technology in English Classes. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 3(2), 71-77.
8. Wang, X., Tan, S. C., & Li, L. (2020). Measuring university students’ technostress in technology-enhanced learning: Scale development and validation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5329
9. Liu, Q., Geertshuis, S., & Grainger, R. (2020). Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103857
10. Hilliger, I., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., De Laet, T., Ortega-Arranz, A., & Farrell, T. (Eds.). (2022). Educating for a New Future: Making Sense of Technology-Enhanced Learning Adoption: 17th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2022, Toulouse, France, September 12–16, 2022, Proceedings (Vol. 13450). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16290-9
11. Synard, J., & Gazzola, N. (2017). Happiness, eudaimonia, and other holy grails: What can job loss teach us about ‘One-size-fits-all’ theories of well-being? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 246 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1225116
12. Osman, U. A. N., & Ismail, R. (2019). The effect of determinants of subjective wellbeing on the level of wellbeing among elderly in Selangor. Journal of Contemporary Issues and Thought, 9, 18-23. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i2/5668
13. Liu, C., McCabe, M., Dawson, A., Cyrzon, C., Shankar, S., Gerges, N., Kellett-Renzella, S., Chye, Y., & Cornish, K. (2021). Identifying Predictors of University Students’ Wellbeing during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Data-Driven Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (13), 6730. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136730
14. Lister, K., Riva, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Fox, C. (2022, August). Participatory digital approaches to embedding student wellbeing in higher education. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 924868). Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.924868
15. Lindert, J., Bain, P.A., Kubzansky, L.D., & Stein, C. (2015). Well-being measurement and the WHO health policy Health 2010: systematic review of measurement scales. European journal of public health, 25 (4), 731-740. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku193
16. Passmore, H., Howell, A.J., & Holder, M.D. (2018). Positioning Implicit Theories of Well-Being Within a Positivity Framework. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 2445-2463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9934-2
17. Weziak-Bialowolska, D., Bialowolski, P., Lee, M. T., Chen, Y., VanderWeele, T. J., & McNeely, E. (2021). Psychometric properties of flourishing scales from a comprehensive well-being assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 652209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652209
18. Seligman, M.E.P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press.
19. Huppert, F.A. (2009), Psychological Well-being: Evidence Regarding its Causes and Consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1: 137-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x
20. Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21. Nami, F., & Vaezi, S. (2018). How ready are our students for technology-enhanced learning? Students at a university of technology respond. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 510-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9181-5
22. Lee, C. B., Hanham, J., Kannangara, K., & Qi, J. (2021). Exploring user experience of digital pen and tablet technology for learning chemistry: applying an activity theory lens. Heliyon, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06020
23. Çelik, F., & Baturay, M. (2024). Technology and innovation in shaping the future of education. Smart Learn. Environ., 11, 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00339-0.
24. Fikriyah, A., Kassymova, G. K., Nurbaiti, N., & Retnawati, H. (2022). Use of technology in high school: A systematic review. Challenges of Science Issue V, 109-114. https://doi.org/10.31643/2022.14
25. Su, Y. S., Cheng, H. W., & Lai, C. F. (2022). Study of virtual reality immersive technology enhanced mathematics geometry learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 760418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.760418
26. Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 797. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797
27. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
28. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
29. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior.
30. Koponen, A. M., Simonsen, N., & Suominen, S. (2019). How to promote fruits, vegetables, and berries intake among patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care? A self-determination theory perspective. Health psychology open, 6(1), 2055102919854977. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102919854977
31. Hope, N. H., Holding, A. C., Verner-Filion, J., Sheldon, K. M., & Koestner, R. (2019). The path from intrinsic aspirations to subjective well-being is mediated by changes in basic psychological need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: A large prospective test. Motivation and Emotion, 43, 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9733-z
32. Torres, R., & Sidorova, A. (2015). The effect of business process configurations on user motivation. Business Process Management Journal, 21(3), 541-563. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2013-0131
33. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2012). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203831076
34. Goldman, Z. W., & Brann, M. (2016). Motivating college students: An exploration of psychological needs from a communication perspective. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 17(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2015.1088890
35. Stolk, J. D., Jacobs, J., Girard, C., & Pudvan, L. (2018, October). Learners’ needs satisfaction, classroom climate, and situational motivations: Evaluating self-determination theory in an engineering context. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658880
36. Ellis, R. A., & Bliuc, A. M. (2019). Exploring new elements of the student approaches to learning framework: The role of online learning technologies in student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417721384
37. Kahu, E. R., Picton, C., & Nelson, K. (2020). Pathways to engagement: A longitudinal study of the first-year student experience in the educational interface. Higher Education, 79, 657-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00429-w
38. Limniou, M., Duret, D., & Hands, C. (2020). Comparisons between three disciplines regarding device usage in a lecture theatre, academic performance and learning. Higher Education Pedagogies, 5, 132 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.1797522
39. Trust, T. (2017). Preparing Future Teachers to Redefine Learning With Technology. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33, 44 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1281654
40. Fardell, M. (2022). Well-Being as Need Satisfaction. J. Ethics & Soc. Phil., 21, 354. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v21i3.1283
41. Jacobi, L. (2018). What motivates students in the online communication classroom? An exploration of self-determination theory. Journal of Educators Online, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2018.15.2.1
42. Smit, E., Dima, A., Immerzeel, S., van den Putte, B., & Williams, G. (2016). The virtual care climate questionnaire: development and validation. European Health Psychologist, 731-731. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6714
43. Bhavsar, N., Bartholomew, K. J., Quested, E., Gucciardi, D. F., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Reeve, J., … & Ntoumanis, N. (2020). Measuring psychological need states in sport: Theoretical considerations and a new measure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 47, 101617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101617
44. Burr, C., Taddeo, M. and Floridi, L. (2020) The ethics of digital wellbeing: A thematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2313–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00175-8
45. Moller, A. C., Kornfield, R., & Lu, A. S. (2024). Competition and Digital Game Design: a Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Interacting with Computers, iwae023. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae023
46. Wessels, E., & Wood, L. (2019). Fostering teachers’ experiences of well-being: A participatory action learning and action research approach. South African Journal of Education, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n1a1619
47. Allan, J., & Lawless, N. (2003). Stress caused by on-line collaboration in e-learning: A developing model. Education+ Training, 45(8/9), 564-572. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910310508955
48. Lawless, N., & Allan, J. (2004). Understanding and reducing stress in collaborative e-learning. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 2(1), 121-127.
49. Molinari, G., Raes, A., Zeng, L., Bridges, S., Mentzer, N., Farrington, S. W., Koehler, A., Mohandas, L., Aamir, A., Claypool, M., Petit, M., Babin, J., Desrochers, M-È. Järvenoja, H., Törmänen, T., Pramila-Savukoski, S., Kuivila, H., Järvelä, S., Mikkonen, K., Ollesch, L., Bodemer, D. & Weinberger, A. (2022). How to promote optimal individual and collaborative learning in remote and hybrid environments? A focus on motivational and emotional factors. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning-CSCL 2022, pp. 501-508. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
50. Singh, J. A., Siddiqi, M., Parameshwar, P., & Chandra-Mouli, V. (2019). World Health Organization guidance on ethical considerations in planning and reviewing research studies on sexual and reproductive health in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(4), 427-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.008
51. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American psychologist, 55(5), 469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
52. Kroshus, E., Hawrilenko, M., & Browning, A. (2021). Stress, self-compassion, and well-being during the transition to college. Social Science & Medicine, 269, 113514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113514
53. Manathunga, K., & Hernández‐Leo, D. (2018). Authoring and enactment of mobile pyramid‐based collaborative learning activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 262-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12588
54. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 23(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x
55. Hakami, E., & Hernandez-Leo, D. (2021, April). Investigating the Well-being Impacts of Educational Technologies Supported by Learning Analytics: An application of the initial phase of IEEE P7010 recommended practice to a set of cases. In LAK21: 11th international learning analytics and knowledge conference (pp. 269-279). https://doi.org/10.1145/3448139.3448165
56. Teigen, K. H. (1994). Yerkes-Dodson: A law for all seasons. Theory & Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354394044004
57. Rudland, J. R., Golding, C., & Wilkinson, T. J. (2020). The stress paradox: how stress can be good for learning. Medical education, 54(1), 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13830
58. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.
59. Plummer, P. (2017). Focus group methodology. Part 1: Design considerations. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 24(7), 297-301. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2017.24.7.297
60. Caillaud, S., & Flick, U. (2017). Focus groups in triangulation contexts. A new era in focus group research: Challenges, innovation and practice, 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_8
61. Michalko, M. (2001). Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Genius. New York: Ten Speed Press.
62. Morthland, L. M., & McPeek, K. T. (2010). Propositions and theories: Utilizing creative brainstorming techniques to stimulate student conceptual development. Cross examination of the core: An interdisciplinary focus on authentic learning, 84-95.
63. Martini, A., Stray, V., Moe, N.B. (2019). Technical-, Social- and Process Debt in Large-Scale Agile: An Exploratory Case-Study. In: Hoda, R. (eds) Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming – Workshops. XP 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 364. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30126-2_14
64. Thomson, A., Rabsch, K., Barnard, S. H., Hassan, T. M., & Dainty, A. (2023). Co-creation methods for Communities of Practice: Towards institutional change. In A Community of Practice Approach to Improving Gender Equality in Research (pp. 64-81). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003225546-4
65. Ng, J., Hu, X., Luo, M., & Chu, S. K. (2019). Relations among participation, fairness and performance in collaborative learning with Wiki-based analytics. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 463-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.48
66. Fernandez Nieto, G. M., Kitto, K., Buckingham Shum, S., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2022, March). Beyond the learning analytics dashboard: Alternative ways to communicate student data insights combining visualisation, narrative and storytelling. In LAK22: 12th international learning analytics and knowledge conference (pp. 219-229). https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506895
67. Hagger, M. S., Koch, S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2015). The effect of causality orientations and positive competence-enhancing feedback on intrinsic motivation: A test of additive and interactive effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.012
68. Chan, C. K. (2012). Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A discussion. Metacognition and learning, 7, 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9086-z
69. Saab, N. (2012). Team regulation, regulation of social activities or co-regulation: Different labels for effective regulation of learning in CSCL. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9085-5
70. Velamazán, M., Santos, P., Hernández-Leo, D., & Vicent, L. (2023). User anonymity versus identification in computer-supported collaborative learning: Comparing learners’ preferences and behaviors. Computers & Education, 104848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104848
71. Johnson, L. J., Cronin, L., Huntley, E., & Marchant, D. (2022). The impact of the “RunSmart” running programme on participant motivation, attendance and well-being using self-determination theory as a theoretical framework. International journal of sport and exercise psychology, 20(1), 102-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.1819368
72. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the nutrition society, 63(4), 655-660. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2004399
73. Robinson, K. (2010). Students’ appraisal of emotional and relational experience whilst collaborating online using text based communication. Computers & Education, 54(3), 799-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.004
74. Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (2004). What we know about CSCL. What we know about CSCL, 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7921-4_10
75. Tsai, Y-S., Gasevic, D., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Muñoz-Merino, PJ., Moreno-Marcos, PM., Rubio Fernández, A., Delgado Kloos, C., Scheffel, M., Jivet, I., Drachsler, H., Tammets, K., Calleja, AR., Kollom, K., Haywood, J., Cantero, N., Gourdin, A., Kelo, M. & Benke-Åberg, R. 2018, SHEILA: Supporting Higher Education to Intergrate Learning Analytics Research Report.