Search

Feedback has a powerful influence on learning. However, feedback practices in higher education often fail to produce the expected impact on learning. This is mainly because of its implementation as a one-way transmission of diagnostic information where students play a passive role as the information receivers. Dialogue around feedback can enhance students' sense making from feedback and capacities to act on it. Yet, dialogic feedback has been mostly implemented as an instructor-led activity, which is hardly affordable in large classrooms. Dialogic peer feedback can offer a scalable solution; however, current practices lack a systematic design, resulting in low learning gains. Attending to this gap, this paper presents a theoretical framework that structures dialogic feedback as a three-phase collaborative activity, involving different levels of regulation: first, planning and coordination of feedback activities (involving socially shared regulation), second, feedback discussion to support its uptake (involving co-regulation), and last, translation of feedback into task engagement and progress (involving self-regulation). Based on the framework, design guidelines are provided to help practitioners shape their feedback practices. The application of the principles is illustrated through an example scenario. The framework holds great potential to promote student-centred approaches to feedback practices in higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research and development in learning analytics has established viable solutions for scaling personalised feedback to all students. However, questions remain regarding how such feedback is perceived, interpreted and acted upon by stakeholders. The present study reports on the analysis of focus group data from four courses to understand students' sensemaking of personalised, learning analytics-based feedback. Deductive analysis and epistemic network analysis were carried out to identify students' perceptions and associated emotional responses to the feedback. The results demonstrate that students mostly held positive perceptions of their feedback – especially in regard to quality, task-focus and instructor care. While emotions to feedback were often negative, students also noted this increased their motivation to invest more effort in the learning tasks. The results of the study provide further evidence of the interpersonal communication variables influencing students' proactive recipience of feedback. Importantly, the findings show that students were mostly actively engaged with their personalised feedback, and that the instructor-mediated approach to feedback based on learning analytics is aligned to the principles of effective feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although dialogue can augment the impact of feedback on student learning, dialogic feedback is unaffordable by instructors teaching large classes. In this regard, peer feedback can offer a scalable and effective solution. However, the existing practices optimistically rely on students' discussion about feedback and lack a systematic design approach. In this paper, we propose a theoretical framework of collaborative peer feedback which structures feedback dialogue into three distinct phases and outlines the learning processes involved in each of them. Then, we present a web-based platform, called Synergy, which is designed to facilitate collaborative peer feedback as conceptualised in the theoretical framework. To enable instructor support and facilitation during the feedback practice, we propose a learning analytics support integrated into Synergy. The consolidated model of learning analytics, which concerns three critical pieces for creating impactful learning analytics practices, theory, design and data science, was employed to build the analytics support. The learning analytics support aims to guide instructors' class-wide actions toward improving students' learning experiences during the three phases of peer feedback. The actionable insights that the learning analytics support offers are discussed with examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]