Search

Feedback is essential in learning. The emerging concept of feedback literacy underscores the skills students require for effective use of feedback. This highlights students' responsibilities in the feedback process. Yet, there is currently a lack of mechanisms to understand how students make sense of feedback and whether they act on it. This gap makes it hard to effectively support students in feedback literacy development and improve the quality of feedback. As a specific application of learning analytics, feedback analytics (analytics on learner engagement with feedback) can offer insights into students' learning engagement and progression, which can in turn be used to scaffold student feedback literacy. This study proposes a feedback analytics tool, designed with students, aimed at aiding students to synthesize feedback received from multiple sources, scaffold the sense-making process, and prompt deeper reflections or actions on feedback based on data about students' interactions with feedback. We held focus group discussions with 38 students to learn about their feedback experiences and identified tool features. Based on identified user requirements, a prototype was developed and validated with 16 students via individual interviews. Based on the findings, we envision a feedback analytics tool with the aim of scaffolding student feedback literacy.

In a higher education context, students are expected to take charge of their learning by deciding "what" to learn and "how" to learn. While the learning analytics (LA) community has seen increasing research on the "how" to learn part (i.e., researching methods for supporting students in their learning journey), the "what" to learn part is still underinvestigated. We present a case study of curriculum analytics and its application to a dataset of 243 students of the bachelor's program in the broad discipline of health sciences to explore the effects of course choices on students' academic performance. Using curriculum metrics such as grading stringency, course temporal position, and duration, we investigated how course choices differed between high- and low-performing students using both temporal and sequential analysis methods. We found that high-performing students were likely to pick an elective course of low difficulty. It appeared that these students were more strategic in terms of their course choices than their low-performing peers. Generally, low-performing students seemed to have made suboptimal choices when selecting elective courses; e.g., when they picked an elective course of high difficulty, they were less likely to pick a following course of low difficulty. The findings of this study have design implications for researchers, program directors, and coordinators, because they can use the results to (i) update the course sequencing, (ii) guide students about course choices based on their current GPA (such as through course recommendation dashboards), (iii) identify bottleneck courses, and (iv) assist higher education institutions in planning a more balanced course roadmap to help students manage their workload effectively.