Search

Effective learning depends on effective feedback, which in turn requires a set of skills, dispositions and practices on the part of both students and teachers which have been termed "feedback literacy." A previously published teacher "feedback literacy competency framework" has identified what is needed by teachers to implement feedback well. While this framework refers in broad terms to the potential uses of educational technologies, it does not examine in detail the new possibilities of "automated feedback" (AF) tools, especially those that are open by offering varying degrees of transparency and control to teachers. Using analytics and artificial intelligence, open AF tools permit automated processing and feedback with a speed, precision and scale that exceeds that of humans. This raises important questions about how human and machine feedback can be combined optimally and what is now required of teachers to use such tools skillfully. The paper addresses two research questions: "Which teacher feedback competencies are necessary for the skilled use of open AF tools?" and "What does the skilled use of open AF tools add to our conceptions of teacher feedback competencies?" We conduct an analysis of published evidence concerning teachers' use of open AF tools through the lens of teacher feedback literacy, which produces summary matrices revealing relative strengths and weaknesses in the literature, and the relevance of the feedback literacy framework. We conclude firstly, that when used effectively, open AF tools exercise a range of teacher feedback competencies. The paper thus offers a detailed account of the nature of teachers' feedback literacy practices within this context. Secondly, this analysis reveals gaps in the literature, signalling opportunities for future work. Thirdly, we propose several examples of "automated feedback literacy," that is, distinctive teacher competencies linked to the skilled use of open AF tools.

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: (1) Personalised feedback based on learning analytics should be informed by an understanding of students' self-regulated learning; (2) Instructors implementing personalised feedback should align this closely with the course curriculum; (3) Instructors implementing personalised feedback in their courses should consider the relational element of feedback by using a positive tone; and (4) Personalised feedback can be further enhanced by increasing the dialogic element and by including more information about learning strategies.

Learning design (LD) has increasingly been recognized as a significant contextual element for the interpretation and adoption of learning analytics (LA). Yet, few studies have explored how instructors integrate LA feedback into their learning designs, especially within open automated feedback (AF) systems. This research presents a multiple-case study at one higher education institution to unveil instructors' pilot efforts in using an open AF system to align LA and LD within their unique contexts, with the goal of delivering personalized feedback and tailored support. A notable finding from these cases is that instructors successfully aligned LA with LD for personalized feedback through checkpoint analytics in highly structured courses. Moreover, they relied on checkpoint analytics as an evaluation mechanism for evaluating impact. Importantly, students perceived a stronger sense of instructors' support, reinforcing previous findings on the effectiveness of personalized feedback. This study contributes essential empirical insights to the intersection of learning analytics and learning design, shedding light on practical ways educators align LA and LD for personalized feedback and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a constructivist approach to learning which is believed to promote reflective thinking in students. This study investigated how students in one particular institution developed in their reflective thinking habits--Habitual Action, Understanding, Reflection, and Critical Reflection--as they went through the daily practice of PBL. A 16-item questionnaire measuring the four levels of reflective thinking habits was administered to four cohorts of students: an incoming cohort, first-years, second-years, and third-years. First-year students rated themselves higher on Reflection and Critical Reflection, while third-years reported the highest levels of Habitual Action. Discriminatory and scatterplot analysis on the third year cohort revealed that while a proportion of students (47%) reported higher levels of Habitual Action with lower levels of Reflection, there was a small subgroup who also reported higher levels of both Habitual Action and Reflection. Overall, the results showed that PBL does promote the development of reflective thinking, particularly for first-year students, but that this development is not sustained consistently after that. This pointed to other possible factors that could hinder students' development of reflective thinking in PBL.