Cited by 66Student Assessment and FeedbackOnline Learning and AnalyticsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Students’ sense-making of personalised feedback based on learning analytics

Open access
Lim, Lisa-Angelique, Dawson, Shane, Gašević, Dragan, Joksimović, Srećko, Fudge, Anthea, Pardo, Abelardo, Gentili, Sheridan·2020·Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

Although technological advances have brought about new opportunities for scaling feedback to students, there remain challenges in how such feedback is presented and interpreted. There is a need to better understand how students make sense of such feedback to adapt self-regulated learning processes. This study examined students’ sense-making of learning analytics–based personalised feedback across four courses. Results from a combination of thematic analysis and epistemic network analysis show an association between student perceptions of their personalised feedback and how these map to subsequent self-described self-regulated learning processes. Most notably, the results indicate that personalised feedback, elaborated by personal messages from course instructors, helps students refine or strengthen important forethought processes of goal-setting, as well as to reduce procrastination. The results highlight the need for instructors to increase the dialogic element in personalised feedback in order to reduce defensive reactions from students who hold to their own learning strategies. This approach may prompt reflection on the suitability of students’ current learning strategies and achievement of associated learning goals. Implications for practice or policy: Personalised feedback based on learning analytics should be informed by an understanding of students’ self-regulated learning. Instructors implementing personalised feedback should align this closely with the course curriculum. Instructors implementing personalised feedback in their courses should consider the relational element of feedback by using a positive tone. Personalised feedback can be further enhanced by increasing the dialogic element and by including more information about learning strategies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14742/ajet.6370

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 311-328). Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lim, L.-A., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Fudge, A., Pardo, A., & Gentili, S.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Venue
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
Published
2020-12-23
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
15-33
ISSN
  • 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
  • 1449-5554
OpenAlex
W3118139433
Cited by
66
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Office for Learning and Teaching
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
personalized feedback, learning analytics, sensemaking, student self-regulation, goal setting, procrastination, dialogic feedback, instructor feedback, learning strategies, epistemic networks, student perceptions

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