Main Article Content


This contribution follows the trend in educational research to collect data and create an information-based system to improve learning effectiveness.
However, the value of quantitative data collected through online platforms is a subject of debate: when starting from data (inductively) meaningful interpretations are hard to discover; on the other hand, when starting from a priori schema (deductively), there is a risk of lack of flexibility and responsiveness to the changes. Hence, the need to hypothesize a different approach.
For this purpose, a monitoring system whose architecture we defined as agnostics has been built and tested. That system was connected to an online learning environment with free educational resources, whose operating learning fulcrum is the Digital Learning Unit (DLU), an original theoretical-practical device which allows interpretative assumptions to be made on the data obtainable from the system.
Although minimal, the results achieved through the piloting are sufficient to enable the monitoring system as an information provider about learning experiences, resources, and the environment itself.
The interpretative hypotheses made possible by the DLU legitimize the assumption of an abductive approach which, without incurring in the aporias mentioned above, allows us to transform mere quantitative data into useful information in order to support the learning process.


Agnostic Monitoring System Italian SLA Digital Learning Unit Experience API Learning Record Store

Article Details

How to Cite
Fallani, G., Penge, S., & Tettamanti, P. C. P. (2019). An agnostic monitoring system for Italian as second language online learning. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(3), 197-210.


  1. Balboni P.E. (2002), Le sfide di Babele. Insegnare le lingue nelle società complesse, Torino, Utet.
  2. Bonfantini M.A. (1987), La semiosi e l’abduzione, Milano, Bompiani.
  3. Brown M., Dehoney J. & Millichap N. (updated April 2015), The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment: A report on Research, URL: (accessed on July 22th 2019).
  4. Chatti, M., Dyckhoff, A., Schroeder, U. & Thüs, H. (2012), Learning analytics: a review of the state of the art and future challenges, International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4 (5/6), 1-22.
  5. Collins M. & Ollendyke B. (updated 2015/05/08), ELMS Learning Network: An EdTech Platform for Sustaining Innovation, URL: (accessed on July 24th 2019).
  6. Council of Europe (2001), Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge (UK), Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
  7. Cormier D. & Siemens G. (2010), Through the Open Door: Open Courses as Research, Learning, and Engagement, EDUCAUSE Review, 45 (4), 30-39.
  8. Ferguson R. (2012), Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges, International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4 (5/6), 304-317.
  9. Fini A &, Vanni L. (2004), Learning objects e metadati. Quando, come e perché avvalersene, Trento, Erickson.
  10. Fiumana F., Cacciamani S. & Bertazzo M. (updated 2016/09/07), xAPI per integrare piattaforme e-learning e rilasciare Open Badge, URL: (accessed on July 25th 2019).
  11. Freddi G. (1994), Glottodidattica. Fondamenti, metodi e tecniche, Torino, UTET Libreria.
  12. Giacomantonio M. (2007), Learning objects. Progettazione dei contenuti didattici per l’e-learning, Roma, Carocci.
  13. Giglio A. (2014), WordPress: uno strumento online per la gestione della didattica?, Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 22 (2), 114-118.
  14. Krashen S.D. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, New York, Longman.
  15. Magnani L. (2000), Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
  16. Peirce C.S. (1932–1963), Collected papers, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press [§7.202; §5.171].
  17. Peirce C.S. (1984), Le leggi dell’ipotesi, Milano, Bompiani.
  18. Siemens G. (2013), Learning Analytics: The Emergence of a Discipline, American Behavioural Scientist, 57 (10), 1380-1400.
  19. Siemens G. & Long P. (2011), Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education, EDUCAUSE Review, 46, (5), 31-40.
  20. Vedovelli M. (2002), Guida all’italiano per stranieri. Dal «Quadro comune europeo per le lingue» alla «Sfida salutare», Roma, Carocci.
  21. Wiley D.A. (2000), Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy, in: Wiley D.A. (eds., updated February 2002), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, URL: (accessed on 24th July 2019).