How Teachers integrate Dashboards into their Feedback Practices

Main Article Content

Carolien Knoop-van Campen
Inge Molenaar


In technology empowered classrooms teachers receive real-time data about students’ performance and progress on teacher dashboards. Dashboards have the potential to enhance teachers’ feedback practices and complement human-prompted feedback that is initiated by teachers themselves or students asking questions. However, such enhancement requires teachers to integrate dashboards into their professional routines. How teachers shift between dashboard- and human-prompted feedback could be indicative of this integration. We therefore examined in 65 K-12 lessons: i) differences between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback; ii) how teachers alternated between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback (distribution patterns); and iii) how these distribution patterns were associated with the given feedback type: task, process, personal, metacognitive, and social feedback. The three sources of feedback resulted in different types of feedback: Teacher-prompted feedback was predominantly personal and student-prompted feedback mostly resulted in task feedback, whereas dashboard-prompted feedback was equally likely to be task, process, or personal feedback. We found two distribution patterns of dashboard-prompted feedback within a lesson: either given in one sequence together (blocked pattern) or alternated with student- and teacher-prompted feedback (mixed pattern). The distribution pattern affected the type of dashboard-prompted feedback given. In blocked patterns, dashboard-prompted feedback was mostly personal, whereas in mixed patterns task feedback was most prevalent. Hence, both sources of feedback instigation as well as the distribution of dashboard-prompted feedback affected the type of feedback given by teachers. Moreover, when teachers advanced the integration of dashboard-prompted feedback in their professional routines as indicated by mixed patterns, more effective types of feedback were given.

Article Details

How to Cite
Knoop-van Campen, C., & Molenaar, I. (2020). How Teachers integrate Dashboards into their Feedback Practices. Frontline Learning Research, 8(4), 37–51.


Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Struggling with workload: Primary teachers’ experience of intensification. Teaching and teacher education, 25(8), 1150-1157. doi.10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.012

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. doi.10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of educational research, 65(3), 245-281. doi.10.3102/00346543065003245

de Jager, B., Jansen, M., & Reezigt, G. (2005). The development of metacognition in primary school learning environments. School effectiveness and school improvement, 16(2), 179-196. doi. 10.1080/09243450500114181

Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31(2), 59-70. doi.10.1080/0031383870310201

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. doi.10.3102/003465430298487

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. doi.10.4324/9780203181522

Holstein, K., Hong, G., Tegene, M., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2018, March). The classroom as a dashboard: co-designing wearable cognitive augmentation for K-12 teachers. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on learning Analytics and knowledge (pp. 79-88). doi.10.1145/3170358.3170377

Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2017, March). Intelligent tutors as teachers' aides: exploring teacher needs for real-time analytics in blended classrooms. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 257-266). ACM. doi.10.1145/3027385.3027451

Keuvelaar-van den Bergh, L. (2013). Teacher Feedback during Active Learning: The development and Evaluation of a Professional Development Programme.

Klinkenberg, S., Straatemeier, M., & van der Maas, H. L. (2011). Computer adaptive practice of maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1813-1824. doi.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.003

Knoop-van Campen, C.A.N., Wise, A.F., & Molenaar, I. (subm.). The equalizing effect of teacher dashboards on feedback in a K-12 classroom.

Lacourse, F. (2011). An Element of Practical Knowledge in Education: Professional routines. McGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, 46 (1), 73–90. doi.10.7202/1005670ar

Leeuwen, A. van, Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). Supporting teachers in guiding collaborating students: Effects of learning analytics in CSCL. Computers & Education, 79, 28-39. doi.10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.007

Martinez-Maldonado, R., Clayphan, A., Yacef, K., & Kay, J. (2014). MTFeedback: providing notifications to enhance teacher awareness of small group work in the classroom. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(2), 187-200. doi.10.1109/TLT.2014.2365027.

Molenaar, I., & Knoop-van Campen, C. A. N. (2016, April). Learning analytics in practice: the effects of adaptive educational technology Snappet on students' arithmetic skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 538-539). doi.10.1145/2883851.2883892

Molenaar, I., & Knoop-van Campen, C.A.N. (2017a, September). Teacher dashboards in practice: Usage and impact. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 125-138). Springer, Cham. doi.10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_10

Molenaar, I., & Knoop-van Campen, C.A.N. (2017b, September). How Teachers Differ in Using Dashboards: the Classroom Observation App. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, Cham.

Molenaar, I., & Knoop-van Campen, C.A.N. (2019). How teachers make dashboard information actionable. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 347-355. doi.10.1109/TLT.2018.2851585.

Molenaar, I., & Schaik, A. van (2016) A methodology to investigate classroom usage of educational technologies on tablets. In: Aufenanger, S., Bastian, J. (eds.) Tablets in Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsergebnisse zum Einsatz digitaler Medien, pp. 87–116. Springer, Wiesbaden. doi.10.1007/978-3-658-13809-7_5

Roelofs, E., & Sanders, P. (2007). Towards a Framework for Assessing Teacher Competence. European journal of vocational training, 40(1), 123-139.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189. doi.10.3102/0034654307313795

Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Decisions, decisions: Responding to primary students during guided reading. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 436-443. doi.10.1598/RT.58.5.3

Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J. L., Assche, F., Parra, G., & Klerkx, J. (2014). Learning dashboards: an overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1499-1514. doi. 10.1007/s00779-013-0751-2

Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International journal of educational research, 35(5), 441-461. doi.10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00003-4

Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A., & Simons, R. J. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1107-1115. doi.10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.006

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. doi.10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x