Applying learning analytics dashboards based on process‐oriented feedback to improve students' learning effectiveness
Abstract
With the development of a technology‐supported environment, it is plausible to provide rich process‐oriented feedback in a timely manner. In this paper, we developed a learning analytics dashboard (LAD) based on process‐oriented feedback in iTutor to offer learners their final scores, sub‐scale reports, and corresponding suggestions on further learning content. We adopted a quasi‐experimental design to investigate the effectiveness of the report on students' learning. Ninety‐four freshman from two classes participated in this research. The two classes were divided into the LAD group and the original analytics report (OAR) based on a product‐oriented feedback group. Before the experiment, all the students took the prior knowledge assessment. After a semester's instruction, all the students took the post‐test of the summative assessment. Results indicated that students in the LAD group experienced better learning effectiveness than students in the OAR group. LAD based on process‐oriented feedback was also effective in improving the skill learning effectiveness of the students with low‐level prior knowledge.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631 · see citing works
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285 · see citing works
Developing the theory of formative assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009) · Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 · Cited by 3,301 · see citing works
What is assessment for learning
Wiliam, D. (2011) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001 · Cited by 1,282 · see citing works
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884 · see citing works
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
Sedrakyan, G., Malmberg, J., Verbert, K., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.004 · Cited by 283 · see citing works
Lonn, S., Aguilar, S. J., & Teasley, S. D. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.013 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Leighton, J. P. (2019) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/jedm.12237 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., van Ginkel, S., Macfadyen, L. P., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100489 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Liao, C.-H., & Wu, J.-Y. (2022) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104599 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Opportunities and challenges of using generative AI to personalize educational assessment
Arslan, B., Lehman, B., Tenison, C., Sparks, J. R., López, A. A., Gu, L., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1460651 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Sembey, R., Hoda, R., & Grundy, J. (2024) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.111988 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, D., & Han, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-10-26
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 487-499
- ISSN
- 0266-4909
- 1365-2729
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 11
- Language
- en
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.
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
