Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 377–384 | Cite as

Student Facing Dashboards: One Size Fits All?

  • Stephanie D. TeasleyEmail author
Original research


This emerging technology report reviews a new development in educational technology, student-facing dashboards, which provide comparative performance feedback to students calculated by Learning Analytics-based algorithms on data generated from university students’ use of educational technology. Instructor- and advisor-facing dashboards emerged as one of the first direct applications of Learning Analytics, but the results from early implementations of these displays for students provide mixed results about the effects of their use. In particular, the “one-size-fits-all” design of many existing systems is questioned based on findings in related research on performance feedback and student motivation which has shown that various internal and external student-level factors affect the impact of feedback interventions, especially those using social comparisons. Integrating data from student information systems into underlying algorithms to produce personalized dashboards may mediate the possible negative effects of feedback, especially comparative feedback, and support more consistent benefits from the use of such systems.


Learning Analytics Dashboards Performance feedback Higher education Social comparison Motivation 


  1. Aguilar, S. (2016). Perceived motivational affordances: Capturing and measuring students’ sense-making around visualizations of their academic achievement information. (Doctoral Dissertation) University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilar, S., Holman, C., & Fishman, B. (2015). Game-inspired design empirical evidence in support of gameful learning environments. Games and Culture. doi: 10.1177/1555412015600305.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, K. E. (2010). Signals: Applying academic analytics. ECUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(1), 1.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 267–270). ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Blohm, I., & Leimeister, J. M. (2013). Gamification: Design of IT-based enhancing services for motivational support and behavioral change. Business Information Systems Engineering, 5, 275–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Trends and issues in student-facing learning analytics reporting systems research. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. Vancouver, CA: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014). Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: A test of stereotype threat and social comparison explanations for women’s math performance. Computers & Education, 78, 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corrin, L., & de Barba, P. (2014). Exploring students’ interpretation of feedback delivered through learning analytics dashboards. In Proceedings of the ascilite 2014 conference (pp. 629–633). Dunedin, NZ.Google Scholar
  10. Corrin, L. & de Barba, P. (2015). How do students interpret feedback delivered via dashboards? In Proceedings of the international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 430–431). Poughkeepsie, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Dawson, S., Bakharia, A., & Heathcote, E. (2010). SNAPP: Realizing the affordances of real-time SNA within networked learning environments. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning.
  12. Dijkstra, P., Kuyper, H., van der Werf, G., Buunk, A. P., & van der Zee, Y. G. (2008). Social comparison in the classroom: A review. Review of Educational Research, 78, 828–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers in Education, 63, 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durall, E., & Gros, B. (2014). Learning analytics and a metacognitive tool. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computer supported education (CSEDU) (pp. 380–384).Google Scholar
  15. Duval, E. (2011). Attention please! Learning analytics for visual recommendation. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 9–17). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fritz, J. (2011). Classroom walls that talk: Using online course activity data of successful students to raise self-awareness of underperforming peers. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study of intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 8, 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huberth, M., Chen, P., Tritz, J., & McKay, T. A. (2015). Computer-tailored student support in introductory physics. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0137001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khan, I., & Pardo, A. (2016). Data2U: Scalable real time student feedback in active learning environments. In Proceedings of the international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 249–253). Edinburgh, Scotland: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Koester, B. P., Grom, G. & McKay, T. A. (2016). Patterns of gendered performance difference in introductory STEM courses. Physical Review Physics Education Research. arXiv:1608.07565 [physics.ed-ph].
  23. Krumm, A., Waddington, R. J., Teasley, S. D., & Lonn, S. (2014). A learning management system-based early warning system for academic advising in undergraduate engineering. In Learning analytics: From research to practice (pp. 103–119). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Lonn, S., Aguilar, S. & Teasley, S. D. (2014). Issues, challenges, and lessons learned when scaling up a learning analytics intervention. In Proceedings of the international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 234–239). Leuven, Belgium: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Major, B., Testa, M., & Bylsma, W. H. (1991). Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control in social comparison. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Contemporary theory and research (pp. 237–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Pardo, A., & Dawson, S. (2015). How can data be used to improve learning? In P. Reiman, S. Bull, M. Kickermeier-Rusy, R. Vatrapu, & B. Wasson (Eds.), Measuring and visualizing learning in the information-rich classroom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Reimers, G., & Neovesky, A. (2015). Student focused dashboards—An analysis of current student dashboards and what students really want. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on computer supported education (CSEDU) (pp. 399–404).Google Scholar
  28. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suls, J. E., & Wills, T. A. E. (1991). Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. MAHWAH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Teasley, S. D., Haley, S., Oster, M., Haynes, C., & Whitmer, J. (2017). How am I doing?: Evaluating student-facing performance dashboards in higher education (Manuscript in preparation).Google Scholar
  31. Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos, J. L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1500–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2016). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wise, A. F. (2014). Designing pedagogical interventions to support student use of learning analytics. In Proceedings of the international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 203–211). Leuven, Belgium: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Young, J. R. (2016). What clicks from 70,000 courses reveal about student learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(3).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations