Cited by 283Online Learning and AnalyticsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningData Visualization and Analytics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 58 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Linking learning behavior analytics and learning science concepts: Designing a learning analytics dashboard for feedback to support learning regulation

Open access

Abstract

Abstract Technological advancements have generated a strong interest in exploring learner behavior data through learning analytics to provide both learner and instructor with process-oriented feedback in the form of dashboards. However, little is known about the typology of dashboard feedback relevant for different learning goals, learners and teachers. While most dashboards and the feedback that they give are based only on learner performance indicators, research shows that effective feedback needs also to be grounded in the regulatory mechanisms underlying learning processes and an awareness of the learner's learning goals. The design artefact presented in this article uses a conceptual model that visualizes the relationships between dashboard design and the learning sciences to provide cognitive and behavioral process-oriented feedback to learners and teachers to support regulation of learning. A practical case example is given that demonstrates how the ideas presented in the paper can be deployed in the context of a learning dashboard. The case example uses several analytics/visualization techniques based on empirical evidence from earlier research that successfully tested these techniques in various learning contexts.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes a conceptual model that links learning analytics dashboard (LAD) feedback to learning-science concepts—regulation of learning, feedback typology, goal orientation, and effectiveness/efficiency—to provide process-oriented cognitive and behavioral feedback to learners and teachers. It illustrates the model with dashboard case examples using visualization and process analytics, but does not empirically evaluate the model.

Key findings

  • Most existing LADs rely on performance/outcome indicators and lack theoretical grounding in the learning sciences; the paper argues effective feedback must account for regulatory mechanisms, learning goals, and goal orientations (mastery, performance, approach/avoidance).
  • The proposed model distinguishes cognitive feedback (corrective, epistemic, suggestive) from behavioral feedback, and links them to self-regulated and co-regulated learning phases: planning, monitoring, and adaptation.
  • It recommends using task-specific subgoals (TSSGs), backward instructional design, resource/time utility, and effectiveness/efficiency indicators to determine feedback type and timing, and to complement statistical/data-mining approaches with process analytics.
  • Case examples illustrate the model: a planning example requires 60% performance for topic C, four web lectures, two homework assignments, and expected time ≤5 hours; a monitoring example shows trial 5 result 80% vs required 90% (failed) with hints; an adaptation example reports result = 100%, 5 trials, 8 corrections, score = 10, ineffective time utility (3.5 h, 5.2 h, 0.5 h); a group example notes communication score 5/20 and initiative/attendance rated on average 10/20. These are illustrative, not empirical findings.

Methods

  • Design Science in Information Systems research, using conceptual modeling; the paper focuses on the first two design-science principles: designing a purposeful artifact and establishing relevance.
  • No new empirical sample or outcome study is reported; the conceptual model is derived from a review of LAD studies, feedback research, self-regulated/co-regulated learning, goal orientation, and effectiveness/efficiency concepts.
  • Case examples use analytics/visualization techniques based on earlier empirical research; one group-interactivity example was piloted by analysis of data from the authors’ experiment at LeaForum using WeSpot activity logs.

Limitations

  • Stated: implementation mechanisms (e.g., prototype design), evaluation, and expansion of the design are left as further research; the case examples are not exhaustive, do not provide technical implementation detail, and do not test which visualization techniques work better.
  • Stated: detailed mechanisms for user intervention in feedback remain challenging.
  • Evident: the conceptual model is not empirically validated in this paper; there is no participant sample, outcome measure, or formal evaluation of the proposed dashboard feedback.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.004

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 58 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 37 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 46
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 16
53 of 53
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The conceptual model presented is a valid guide for designing LAD feedback to support regulation of learning.

    “The design artefact presented in this article uses a conceptual model that visualizes the relationships between dashboard design and the learning sciences to provide cognitive and behavioral process-oriented feedback to learners and teachers to support regulation of learning.”
    “The model aims to address the gap between LADs and learning theories serving as both a basis for building information systems and thus also helping to understand future data needs, and an initial platform to guide future research in this domain.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The learning science concepts reviewed (regulation of learning, feedback typology, goal orientation, efficiency and effectiveness) are the relevant and sufficient concepts for designing LAD feedback.

    “This section provides a preliminary discussion on what concepts we need to support in the design of dashboard feedback to make it possible to observe learning processes with respect to potential feedback (i.e., regulation in learning) needs of different learners for different learning goals.”
    “In this work, we complement the engineering approach with theories in the learning sciences to design a novel artefact, namely, a process-oriented feedback model in the context of LADs.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    TSSGs are initially carefully defined by an instructor in the context of instruction design and in accordance with goal-setting theory.

    “To enable dashboard feedback based on TSSGs, we create the premise that they are initially carefully defined by an instructor in the context of instruction design and in accordance with goal-setting theory.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    A teacher is responsible for ensuring the quality of a goal in terms of being SMART.

    “In this paper, we assume that a teacher is responsible for ensuring the quality of a goal in terms of being SMART.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Goals provide learners with standards against which they can monitor the learning process and progress.

    “From a self-regulated learning perspective, goals provide learners with standards against which they can monitor the learning process and progress.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Metacognitive monitoring enables learners to adjust or change their goals, plans, or strategies for learning.

    “From a regulated learning point of view, metacognitive monitoring enables learners to adjust or change their goals, plans, or strategies for learning.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    User acceptance can be an important factor affecting the successful use of dashboard feedback.

    “Despite the intended benefits of dashboards, user acceptance can be yet another important factor affecting the successful use of dashboard feedback.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Monitoring can prove distracting and thereby alter the nature of learning in a negative way.

    “During the learning process, monitoring can prove distracting and thereby alter the nature of learning in a negative way.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Too much feedback can be as harmful as delayed feedback.

    “Too much feedback can be as harmful as delayed feedback.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Group dynamics and interactivity are to a large extent predictive for the collaborative nature of learning processes.

    “The motivation for this choice is that group dynamics and interactivity are to a large extent predictive for the collaborative nature of learning processes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Existing LAD solutions mainly focus on performance orientation.

    “which is the main focus of existing solutions.”
11 of 11

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 93 references

4 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wiggins, 1998, What is backward design, Understanding by Design, 1, 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 283

Metadata

Authors
Sedrakyan, G., Malmberg, J., Verbert, K., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • University of Oulu (FI)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
Corresponding author
Sedrakyan, Gayane
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
107
Pages
105512
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800204907
Cited by
283
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 26
FWCI
27.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Belgian Scientific Organization (V4.533.15N)
  • Internal Funds of KU Leuven - PROFEELEARN (PDM/16/044)
  • JUMO
  • Academy of Finland
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
learning analytics dashboards, learning regulation, process-oriented feedback, learning objectives, student self-regulation, dashboard design, conceptual model, visualization techniques, instructor feedback

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review