Emotional and motivational effects of automated and personalized formative feedback: The role of reference frames.
Background: Developments in educational technology and learning analytics make it possible to automatically formulate and deploy personalized formative feedback to learners at scale. However, to be effective, the motivational and emotional impacts of such automated and personalized feedback need to...
| Published in: | Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Vol. 40; no. 6; pp. 2735 - 2753 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | research tables/charts randomized controlled trial Journal Article |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Dec2024
|
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=180899665&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 180899665 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 02664909 6M1 jtl: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning issn: 02664909 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Dec2024 vid: 40 iid: 6 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 180899665 177646234 180899665 180899665 10.1111/jcal.13024 180899665 ppf: 2735 ppct: 18 formats: tig: atl: Emotional and motivational effects of automated and personalized formative feedback: The role of reference frames. aug: au: Weidlich, Joshua Fink, Aron Jivet, Ioana Yau, Jane Giorgashvili, Tornike Drachsler, Hendrik Frey, Andreas affil: Educational Technologies, DIPF — LeibnizInstitute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt am Main, Germany sug: subj: Teaching Education Computer-Assisted Instruction Emotions Evaluation Motivation Evaluation Feedback Methods Automation Student Attitudes Evaluation Human Funding Source Randomized Controlled Trials Random Assignment Field Studies Learning Environment Online Education Germany Experimental Studies Descriptive Statistics Collaboration Questionnaires ab: Background: Developments in educational technology and learning analytics make it possible to automatically formulate and deploy personalized formative feedback to learners at scale. However, to be effective, the motivational and emotional impacts of such automated and personalized feedback need to be considered. The literature on feedback suggests that effective feedback, among other features, provides learners with a standard to compare their performance with, often called a reference frame. Past research has highlighted the emotional and motivational benefits of criterion‐referenced feedback (i.e., performance relative to a learning objective or mastery goal) compared to norm‐referenced feedback (performance relative to peers). Objectives: Despite a substantial body of evidence regarding reference frame effects, important open questions remain. The questions encompass, for example, whether the benefits and drawbacks of norm‐referenced feedback apply in the same way to automated and personalize feedback messages and whether these effects apply to students uniformly. Further, the potential impacts of combining reference frames are largely unknown, even though combinations may be quite frequent in feedback practice. Finally, little research has been done on the effects of reference frames in computer‐supported collaborative learning, which differs from individual learning in meaningful ways. This study aims to contribute to addressing these open questions, thus providing insights into effective feedback design. Specifically, we aim to investigate usefulness perceptions as well as emotional and motivational effects of different reference frames—and their combination—in automated and personalized formative feedback on a computer‐supported collaborative learning task. Methods: A randomized field experiment with four feedback conditions (simple feedback, norm‐referenced, criterion‐referenced, and combined feedback) was conducted in a course within a teacher training program (N = 282). Collaborative groups worked on a learning task in the online learning environment, after which they received one of four possible automated and personalized formative feedback. We collected student data about feedback usefulness perceptions, motivational regulation, and achievement emotions to assess the differential effects of these feedback conditions. Results: All feedback types were perceived as useful relative to the simple feedback condition. Norm‐referenced feedback showed detrimental effects for motivational regulation, whereas combined feedback led to more desirable motivational states. Further, criterion‐referenced feedback led to more positive emotions for overperformers and to more negative emotions for underperformers. The findings are discussed in light of the broader feedback literature, and recommendations for designing automated and personalized formative feedback messages for computer‐supported collaborative learning are presented. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Automated and personalized feedback based on Learning Analytics can provide students with feedback at scale.Reference frames, a key design feature of any feedback, are essential to consider regarding their emotional and motivational impacts. What this paper adds: Students deemed all automated and personalized feedback more useful than the minimal feedback condition.The choice of reference frames matters for personalized and formative feedback in a computer‐supported collaborative learning task.The social comparison reference frame was largely detrimental, whereas a combination of reference frames can induce desirable motivational regulation.Criterion‐referenced feedback led to more positive emotions for overperformers and more negative emotions for underperformers. Implications for practice and/or policy: Practitioners should carefully consider the reference frames that underlie their feedback designs.Social comparison should largely be avoided, unless in combination with other, more informative feedback information. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts randomized controlled trial Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|