The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 7 are not checked yet; 2 of the 115 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in enhancing feedback practices in higher education
Open accessAbstract
Learning analytics (LA) offers new opportunities to enrich feedback practices in higher education, but little is understood about the ways different LA can enhance feedback practices for educators and students. This systematic literature review maps the current state of implementation of LA to improve feedback practices in technology-mediated learning environments in higher education. We used strict inclusion criteria to select relevant studies that have investigated the role of LA on feedback practices. To identify common features of LA for feedback studies, we coded relevant publications using an analytical framework that identifies four key dimensions of LA systems: what (types of data), how (analytic methods), why (objectives), and how educators and students are served by LA (stakeholders). Based on findings, we propose a conceptual framework that can guide the implementation of LA for feedback systems and also suggest future empirical research in this area.
Verified 2026-10-10 · 7 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review maps 46 empirical studies on learning analytics (LA) for feedback in higher education using Chatti et al.’s what/how/why/who framework. It proposes an evidence-based conceptual framework in which stakeholder and objective should guide data collection and analytic method choices for LA-based feedback.
Key findings
- LA feedback objectives most often targeted reflection (20 studies, 43%), personalization (13, 28%), prediction (11, 24%), assessment (11, 24%), adaptation (10, 22%), recommendation (10, 22%), and monitoring (6, 13%).
- LA-supported feedback was linked to pedagogical outcomes including academic performance (17, 37%), engagement/community of inquiry (11, 24%), self-regulation (8, 17%), motivation/emotion (8, 17%), time management (3, 6%), perception of feedback (2, 4%), cognitive load (2, 4%), reduced procrastination (1, 2%), satisfaction (1, 2%), reflective thinking (1, 2%), and transactional distance (1, 2%).
- Trace data was the dominant data type (23 codes, 36%), followed by assessment data (12, 18%), academic history data (11, 17%), and survey data (8, 12%); information visualization was the most common method (22 codes, 50%), then data mining (11, 25%), text analysis (8, 18%), and social network analysis (3, 7%).
- Students were stakeholders in all included publications, while educators were mentioned in 15 of 46; the proposed framework orders decisions as stakeholder → objective → data → method, with analytics levels (descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, prescriptive) tied to different feedback services.
Methods
- PRISMA systematic review; searched Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, IEEE, and LAK proceedings with terms (“learning analytics” OR analytic* OR “data mining”) AND (feedback OR feedforward OR “formative assessment”); inclusion required English, 2011–2022, peer-reviewed journal articles, empirical studies, and higher education settings.
- From 1,318 initial records, after removing duplicates/non-peer-reviewed and screening, 46 studies met criteria and passed quality appraisal using Theelen et al. (2019) criteria; all 46 met the minimum methodology score.
- Publications were coded in ATLAS.ti 9 using a four-category scheme (what/how/why/who); inter-rater reliability on two randomly selected papers was 91% agreement (κ = 0.84, p < .001).
Limitations
- Stated: limited to empirical studies, so relevant reviews/conceptual papers may be missed; selected databases may miss unindexed studies; publication bias likely; findings are not generalizable to K-12; the review did not identify gaps in feedback features/purposes or investigate effect sizes of different data types.
- Stated: no distinction was made between educator feedback and peer feedback, and no analysis of how LA may affect affective, cognitive, and constructive features of feedback quality.
- Evident from the text: the coding scheme in Table 3 assigns the same code “C5” to both Personalization and Recommendation, and some table reference lists appear truncated or misaligned; these presentation issues may affect transparency of coding/reporting.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
85 Not checked yet · 43 Own result · 24 Own interpretation · 15 No basis given · 11 Own method · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For educators, LAbased feedback provides assistance with monitoring students learning activities and progress (e.g. Cornide-Reyes et al., 2020)”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Cornide-Reyes et al., 2020 source
The Introduction says real-time feedback helps teachers monitor working groups and decide when to intervene. The Case Study Execution describes the teacher using platform feedback to check whether students were following the activity and whether groups were close to completing it. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prediction | 11 | 24% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-regulation | 8 | 17% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessment | 11 | 24% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trace data : According to the reviewed studies, this is the dominant data type used by LA to support feedback in higher education.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“12 | 18%”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Monitoring | 6 | 13% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“leaving a final pool of only 46 studies for quality appraisal.”
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Included publications · p. 5 · plain
“Our final pool of 46 selected publications for final analysis is detailed in Table 2.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.5. Included publications · p. 5 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cognitive load | 2 | 4% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 65 codes from the included publications based on our coding scheme that describing types of data used by LA to support feedback in higher education.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 39
- Probably not a substantial claim. 57
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Assessment data is often used by LA in feedback studies to provide recommendations (Lewis et al., 2021; Tempelaar et al., 2018), assessment (Chaudy & Connolly, 2019; Tempelaar et al., 2018), predictive feedback (Arnold & Pistilli, 2012; Baneres et al., 2019), and personalized feedback (Iraj et al., 2020; Lim, Gentili, et al., 2021).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lewis et al., 2021 source
The citation to Lewis et al. is attached to recommendations, not to the other feedback types in the sentence. In “Using OnTask for Personalised, LA-Based Feedback,” the paper says students received feedback on assessment grades and, depending on their performance, advice on how to achieve a higher grade. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked yetcites Tempelaar et al., 2018 source
- Not checked yetcites Chaudy & Connolly, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we divided these groups of data into two main category including (a) data used for LA feedback intervention and (b) data used for researching LA feedback intervention”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study context varied - from medicine to statistics -but studies of courses in the field of computer science were found most common (N = 11, 24%).”
plainn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies from The Netherlands (N = 5, 11%), Turkey (N = 5, 11%), and The UK (N = 3, 8%) were the next most common.”
plainn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Satisfaction | 1 | 2% |”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recommendation | 10 | 22% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, most of the included papers have been published since 2019 (N = 37, 80%).”
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the studies reported were quantitative (N = 28, 61%), alongside 11 qualitative studies (24%), and 7 mixed methods studies (15%).”
plainn = 28- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A considerable number of papers reported on studies conducted in Australia of the OnTask platform (N = 10, 22%).”
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reduce procrastination | 1 | 2% |”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reflective thinking skills | 1 | 2% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Academic performance | 17 | 37% |”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transactional distance | 1 | 2% |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the first phase of screening in selected databases, we identified a total of 1318 papers (Web of Science (n = 807), Scopus (n = 200), ERIC (n = 101), IEEE (n = 166), and LAK Conference contributions (n = 53)).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All 46 studies in fact met the minimum score for the quality of methodology and were therefore included in the final analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reviewed publications revealed that LA-based feedback underpinned by survey data can affect student cognitive load (Sun et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2021), the community of inquiry, reflective thinking skills (Yilmaz, 2020), motivation, and transactional distance (Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2020), and engagement (Sun et al., 2019; Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2021, pp. 1 -12).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sun et al., 2019 source
- Not checked yetcites Zheng et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Yilmaz, 2020
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In a few of the studies we reviewed, LA is used as a recommender system to guide learners and the learning process (Sedrakyan et al., 2016), and suggest useful course material (Azcona et al., 2019).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, LA-based feedback can influence students ' reflective thinking skills and transactional distance (Yilmaz, 2020; Yilmaz et al., 2020).”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Selected studies suggest that survey data-based LA can foster predictive feedback (Broos et al., 2020), recommendation (Perikos et al., 2017), reflective feedback (Smith, 2020; Tsai et al., 2021), and assessment (Dalla Valle et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This data type is one of the most commonly employed in LA studies (Azcona et al., 2019; Tempelaar et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Students with higher self-efficacy more appreciated LA-based feedback and had positive experiences with it (Tsai et al., 2021).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reviewed studies indicate that such data can be used to generate different types of feedback such as reflective feedback”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, using LA-based feedback has made it easier for educators to monitor their students ' learning progress and to provide personalized and real-time feedback (Shibani et al., 2020).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that LA-based feedback can also impact students ' motivation (e.g., Smith, 2020) and engagement (e.g., Iraj et al., 2020).”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“If LA-based feedback relies only on warning systems, then it can increase the mental load, while putting warning systems with the encouragement of what to do can lead to higher emotional and cognitive engagement (Sun et al., 2019).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“LA-supported feedback entails real-time reflections on students ' performance during their learning processes and that personalized and reflective feedback can help students to be more aware of their own learning processes in order to regulate their learning (Lim, Gasevic, et al., 2021).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is often supplementary data for other types of data that can be mined from LMS or other online platforms and can offer more in-depth information.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in LA feedback studies, it is often combined with other types of data to provide reflective (Lim, Gentili, et al., 2021) and predictive feedback (Azcona et al., 2019), and formative assessment (Tempelaar et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As our review revealed, unsurprisingly, in all included publications, students were mentioned as the LA-supported feedback stakeholder, followed by educators mentioned in 15 out 46 included studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information visualization methods seem to be commonly used alongside other LA methods to identify students at risk of failure and to understand student perceptions and interactions.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while at the descriptive level, LA-based feedback provides reflections on students learning activities and learning progress”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“at the predictive level, is to predict students ' retention or dropout by using data mining methods.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“but also assist them with improving their reflective thinking skills (e.g. Yilmaz, 2020)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yilmaz, 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“and also has a reminder system that helps students to be more focused and less procrastinated (e.g. Lim et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lim et al., 2020 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Methods used to support feedback include predictive modelling (Azcona et al., 2019; Tempelaar et al., 2015), classifi cation (Baneres et al., 2019), clustering (Lim, Gasevic, et al., 2021; Tempelaar et al., 2018; Tsai et al., 2021), Bayesian network analysis (Choi & Cho, 2020), natural language processing (Perikos et al., 2017), process mining (Sedrakyan et al., 2016), relationship mining (T”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“while LA feedback for students is mostly focused on their own learning performance to provide personalized feedback and to help them with regulating their learning (e.g., Pardo et al., 2019; Sedrakyan et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LA mostly supported students to be informed about how they are doing, reflect on their own learning process to adapt their learning based on the learning needs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While for educators, LA mainly provided insights into tracking students learning activities for timely intervention, assessing students learning progress, and early identifying students ' who are at risk”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is worth noting that many projects employed multiple methods.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional data types employed - demographic, assessment, and academic history data -are also 'about students ' , confirming that most LA for feedback work is student-focused and seeks to serve students as the primary stakeholders.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Studies have shown that high-quality feedback contributes to authentic learning by promoting student metacognitive skills, and by providing clear indicators of performance and areas for further improvement (e.g. Callender et al., 2016; Molin et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Effective feedback represents one of the key features of quality teaching (Ramsden, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ramsden, 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consequently, feedback as a core pedagogical practice has therefore gained more attention (e.g. Er et al., 2021; Misiejuk et al., 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Er et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Misiejuk et al., 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Van der Schaaf et al. (2017) reported that LA enhanced the quality and efficiency of feedback in professional education.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van der Schaaf et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, the recent study by Cavalcanti et al. (2021) provide insights into the role of automated feedback in students ' performance and instructors ' workload.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cavalcanti et al., 2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Various analytics methods (techniques) can be applied at different levels, depending on data type and LA goals (Chatti et al., 2012);”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chatti et al., 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Then, Theelen et al. ' s (2019) critical appraisal strategy was applied to review the quality of publications.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Theelen et al., 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to this model, LA consists of four dimensions including (1) what (what types of data does the system capture and analyze), (2) how (how does the system perform analytics), (3) why (for what reasons does the system gather and analyze data), and (4) who (who is served by the analytics) (Chatti et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chatti et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Kappa results showed 91 percent agreement between the two coders ( κ = 0.84, p < .001), which confirms the high consistency and reliability of the coding.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The interdisciplinary field of LA has borrowed concepts and ideas from diverse disciplines, including computer science, learning science, statistics, data mining, psychology, and pedagogy (Chatti et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chatti et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and it has been suggested that LA should therefore be an essential component of feedback design in data-rich environments (Er et al., 2021; Pardo, 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Er et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Pardo, 2018 source
hedged- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Sedrakyan et al. (2020) and Lim et al. ' s (2021) found that the use of LA-based feedback supported self-regulated learning”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sedrakyan et al., 2020 source
- Not checked yetcites Lim et al., 2021
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, LA can serve different stakeholders - students, educators, tutors, mentors, institutions, re searchers, and/or system designers (Chatti et al., 2012), and no LA system can serve all stakeholders.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chatti et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This study adopted the PRISMA methodology for the systematic review (Moher et al., 2009) to undertake a transparent process of search strategy development, definition of inclusion criteria, and identification of relevant publications.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moher et al., 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next, a coding scheme was developed based on the suggested theoretical framework and used to analyze these publications.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We included only studies published in the English language (because most of the publications in this area of research are written in English). We only included publications from 2011 to 2022, since LA as a new field of study emerged in 2011. Finally, to ensure the originality, validity, and quality of selected publications, we included only peer-reviewed articles published in scholarly journals.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and no LA system can serve all stakeholders.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chatti et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“LA seeks to translate learning data into knowledge (Wong et al., 2019) that can give students insight into their own learning, and enable educators to make appropriate and evidence-based interventions for the improvement of teaching and learning (Wise, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wong et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Wise, 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A further interesting area of work involves the use of feedback analytics to support student academic writing (Gibson et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it has been criticized that initial LA tools were too reliant on this type of data for generating early-warning systems (Ga ˇ sevi ´ c et al., 2016; Lim, Gentili, et al., 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ga ˇ sevi ´ c et al., 2016
- Not checked yetcites Lim, Gentili, et al., 2021
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this reason, data mining methods are applied mainly on survey data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These insights help teachers to have an overview of students ' interactions with each other and to identify which student is less engaged to support him/her.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This could be due to the reason that students with high self-efficacy are more able to execute behaviors that are necessary to produce a specific performance (Bandura et al., 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bandura et al., 1999 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Generally, such methods mainly seek to discover patterns, correlations, and anomalies in large volumes of data (Lee & Siau, 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee & Siau, 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, LA-based recommendations and personalized feedback typically refer to LA at the prescriptive level.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“this figure illustrates that LA services are provided at different levels of analytics according to Gartner Analytics Ascendancy Model (GAAM) (Eriksson et al., 2020; Maoz, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eriksson et al., 2020 source
- Not checked yetcites Maoz, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“LA in predictive analytics level tells us ' what will happen ' , while in the prescriptive analytics level, LA recommends actions and interventions for the future (Turkington et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Turkington et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on this explanation, it is expected that SNA methods are intended to be used at descriptive and diagnostic levels.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Network analysis methods appear to be helpful in understanding how students perceive feedback and how they reflect on their learning process alongside exploring how students interact with each other.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This implies that predictive feedback is expected to be provided at the predictive level.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the effective and appropriate use of LA to empower feedback practices in higher education requires a clear understanding of the educators ' and students ' pedagogical needs for LA support, required data to meet these needs, and the proper choice of analytics.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our findings, we did not make a distinction between educator feedback and peer feedback and how differences between these two types of feedback may lead to different use of LA in higher education contexts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also did not investigate the effect size of different types of data to see which certain type of data can more support feedback activities in higher education settings.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Third, it is also important to acknowledge that there is a publication bias which means that research with null findings is often not published (Larrabee S ø nderlund et al., 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Larrabee S ø nderlund et al., 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“According to the literature, there is a difference between teacher feedback and peer feedback as teachers are more subject-matter experts with lots of feedback experiences and knowledge, and compared to students they need less support in providing feedback (Gielen et al., 2010; Paulus, 1999).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This hierarchy of steps incorporated into our conceptual framework is in line with the findings of prior studies (e.g. Banihashem et al., 2022; Chatti et al., 2012; Elias, 2011, pp. 1 -22; Clow, 2012).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Defining the recipient of the LA and the goal of the use of LA would make it clear what kind of data should be captured and analyzed (Chatti et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chatti et al., 2012 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that for educators, LA was mainly used at diagnostic and predictive levels, while for students, LA was employed at descriptive and prescriptive levels.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we did not provide insights into how different categories of data are connected to different LA objectives and methods for feedback purposes in higher education.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the effective and appropriate use of LA to empower feedback practices in higher education requires a clear understanding of the educators ' and students ' pedagogical needs for LA support, required data to meet these needs, and the proper choice of analytics.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the effective and appropriate use of LA to empower feedback practices in higher education requires a clear understanding of the educators ' and students ' pedagogical needs for LA support, required data to meet these needs, and the proper choice of analytics.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings imply that LA role in the improvement of feedback practices in higher education have not been tightened to feedback itself, but also has evolved beyond our first anticipation based on our proposed model.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, our review was limited to empirical studies for sake of reporting only authentic findings, and we recognize that some noteworthy reviews and conceptual papers may have been missed.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we acknowledge that we may have missed studies not indexed in our selected databases.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, we did not provide information on identifying the gaps regarding the feedback features and purposes that have not been addressed by LA in higher education.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, while this study expands our understanding of how feedback in higher education is influenced by LA, it does not investigate LA-based feedback studies in any K-12 educational contexts. Our findings may therefore not be generalizable to all modes of educational contexts.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, our findings do not provide insights into the role of LA in features of feedback, for example how LA can influence affective, cognitive, and constructive features of feedback quality.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Providing feedback for students causes a more cognitive workload compared to teachers (Noroozi et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Noroozi et al., 2022
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By following these steps, we can expect to see LA is delivered properly to support feedback.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Only few review studies have focused on providing an overview of the role of LA in feedback.
“However, only few review studies have focused on providing an overview of the role of LA in feedback.”
The paper relies on this without support.
According to the literature, there is no clear understanding of how LA tools can support feedback practices and how LA's use for feedback purposes in higher education can be guided.
“According to the literature, there is no clear understanding of how LA tools can support feedback practices and how LA ' s use for feedback purposes in higher education can be guided.”
The paper relies on this without support.
To date, no conceptual frameworks have been offered to guide such role of LA for the design of feedback practices.
“To date, however, no conceptual frameworks have been offered to guide such role of LA for the design of feedback practices.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no overview at which levels social network analysis methods can be used.
“For example, there is no overview at which levels social network analysis methods can be used.”
The paper relies on this without support.
For feedback practices in higher education, educators and students tend to be the key stakeholders.
“It might be clear that for feedback practices in higher education, educators and students tend to be the key stakeholders”
The paper relies on this without support.
Little is known about how educators and students have benefitted from LA applications in higher education.
“however, little is known about how educators and students have benefitted from LA applications in higher education?”
The paper relies on this without support.
Survey data usually contain high validity because they have already been validated by other scholars.
“What is important to note about the survey data is that this type of data usually contain a high validity, since they have already been validated by other scholars.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The selected set of literature databases covers the most relevant publications.
“while we feel that our selected set of literature databases covers the most relevant publications”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, the quality of peer feedback content can be further enriched when combined with feedback from other sources, such as tutors and automated systems employing AI and learning analytics (Banihashem et al., 2022; Farrokhnia et al., 2023; Van den Boom et al., 2007).”
From A systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education (2024) · cites this paper as Banihashem et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“The UK (N = 3, 8%)”
Reported 8 · recomputed 6.521739
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3.2. Criteria for inclusion · p. 4
“we included only peer-reviewed articles published in scholarly journals.”
§ 3.5. Included publications · p. 5
“6 papers (13%) were drawn from LAK Conference Proceedings”
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1989) · Biochemical Education · doi:10.1016/0307-4412(89)90094-0 · Cited by 4,818
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285
The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis
Flick, U. (2014) · doi:10.4135/9781446282243 · Cited by 2,469
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428
Learning to Teach in Higher Education
Ramsden, P. (2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203413937 · Cited by 2,259
Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education.
Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011) · Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · Cited by 1,752
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 · Cited by 1,384
Self-citationBond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., & Siemens, G. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z · Cited by 852
Feedback sources in essay writing: peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?
Banihashem, S. K., Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Moon, J., & Drachsler, H. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4 · Cited by 282
Self-citationMustafa, M. Y., Tlili, A., Lampropoulos, G., Huang, R., Jandrić, P., Zhao, J., Salha, S., Xu, L., Panda, S., Kinshuk, et al. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00350-5 · Cited by 235
Harnessing Generative AI (GenAI) for Automated Feedback in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
Lee, S. S., & Moore, R. L. (2024) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v28i3.4593 · Cited by 181
Metadata
- Authors
- Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., van Ginkel, S., Macfadyen, L. P., & Biemans, H. J. A.
- Affiliations
- Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
- Wageningen University & Research (NL)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Banihashem, Seyyed Kazem
- Venue
- Educational Research Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-11
- Volume
- 37
- Pages
- 100489
- ISSN
- 1747-938X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4308066047
- Semantic Scholar
- 62b5ab72defcd780a9ee7ab258eab36d8b8fa265
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 138
- Citations by year
- 2026: 74 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Educational Research Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- learning analytics, feedback practices, higher education, technology-mediated learning environments, conceptual framework, student feedback, analytical methods, stakeholders
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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
