Student Facing Dashboards: One Size Fits All?

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  7. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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. http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Dawson.pdf

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

  16. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Young, J. R. (2016). What clicks from 70,000 courses reveal about student learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(3). http://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Clicks-From-70000/237704.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie D. Teasley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teasley, S.D. Student Facing Dashboards: One Size Fits All?. Tech Know Learn 22, 377–384 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9314-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Learning Analytics
  • Dashboards
  • Performance feedback
  • Higher education
  • Social comparison
  • Motivation