Technology-Enhanced Feedback System Usability in the Context of Self-Regulation Promotion
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Technology-Enhanced Feedback and Its Impact on Students’ Self-Regulation
2.2. Overview of Technology-Enhanced Feedback Tools in Education
2.3. Comparative Insights from Finnish and Slovenian Technology-Enhanced Feedback Tools in Education
2.4. Feedback System Usability and User-Centred Design
2.5. Research Questions
- Efficiency, as reflected in the user’s ability to perform the task and the quality of the task itself or its outcome;
- Ease of use, reflected in the amount of resources used to perform the task;
- Ease of learning and satisfaction, reflected in the speed and ease of learning to work with the tool and the user’s perceived satisfaction in using the tool.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Participants and Procedure
3.3. Measures
“Compliments and Comments Tool” Description
3.4. Data Analyses
4. Results
4.1. Teachers’ Opinions on the Importance and Frequency of Feedback
- Importance of sharing feedback with parents
- Frequency of feedback
- Preferred timing for recording feedback
- Frequency of recording feedback
4.2. Differences between Genders and Age Groups in Teachers’ Opinions about the Importance and Frequency of Providing Feedback
4.3. Usability of the Technology-Enhanced Feedback Provision Tool
4.3.1. Teachers’ Opinions of the Effectiveness of the Compliments and Comments Tool
4.3.2. Teachers’ Opinion on the Ease of Use of the Compliments and Comments Tool
4.3.3. Teachers’ Opinion on Ease of Learning to Use and Satisfaction with the Compliments and Comments Tool
4.4. Statistically Significant Differences in Opinions on Usefulness of the Tool According to the Age Group of Participants and Type of School Participants Teach in (Primary/Secondary)
4.4.1. Statistically Significant Differences between the Age Groups
- Differences between the age groups and opinions on the effectiveness of the tool
- Effectiveness in enhancing efficiency: The test showed a statistically significant difference, with a Kruskal–Wallis H value of 8.373 and a p-value of 0.039 (Table 8). This suggests that different age groups perceive the tool’s efficiency benefits differently, with some age groups finding it more effective than others in enhancing their efficiency. Specifically, teachers aged 31–40 and 41–50 years reported higher mean ranks (1445.25 and 1506.57, respectively) than those aged 20–30 (mean rank 1404.02) and 51 years and older (mean rank 1536.82).
- Providing classroom overview: There was a statistically significant difference in perceptions of the tool providing better classroom oversight, with a Kruskal–Wallis H value of 8.045 and a p-value of 0.045 (Table 8). This indicates that the tool’s ability to offer insights into classroom activities differs across age groups. Teachers aged 31–40 years (mean rank 1461.60) and 41–50 years (mean rank 1516.85) rated this aspect higher than those aged 20–30 years (mean rank 1377.37) and those aged 51 years and older (mean rank 1520.18).
- Time saving: The tool’s ability to save teachers’ time showed a significant difference among age groups, with a Kruskal–Wallis H value of 13.817 and a p-value of 0.003 (Table 8). This implies that some age groups perceive the tool as more effective in saving time than others do. Teachers aged 31–40 years (mean rank 1439.28), 41–50 years (mean rank 1523.73), and 51 years and older (mean rank 1540.52) reported higher mean ranks than those aged 20–30 years (mean rank 1365.31).
- Meeting expectations: The perception of the tool enabling teachers to accomplish their expected tasks also showed a statistically significant difference, with a Kruskal–Wallis H value of 13.520 and a p-value of 0.004 (Table 8). This finding suggests variability in how different age groups perceive the tool’s ability to meet their expectations. Teachers aged 31–40 years (1473.14), 41–50 years (mean rank 1502.99), and 51 years and older (mean rank 1540.30) reported higher mean ranks than those aged 20–30 years (mean rank 1330.02).
- Differences between the age groups and opinions on the ease of use of the tool
- Differences between the age groups and opinions on the ease of learning and satisfaction with the tool
4.4.2. Statistically Significant Differences between Educational Levels
5. Discussions
5.1. Importance and Frequency of the Feedback Provided to Students
5.2. Usability of the Feedback Provision Compliments and Comments Tool
5.3. Interpretation of the Statistically Significant Differences
6. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jeno, L.M.; Grytnes, J.-A.; Vandvik, V. The Effect of a Mobile-Application Tool on Biology Students’ Motivation and Achievement in Species Identification: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Comput. Educ. 2017, 107, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambari, I.A.; Gbodi, B.E.; Olakanmi, E.U.; Abalaka, E.N. Promoting Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation among Chemistry Students Using Computer-Assisted Instruction. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2016, 7, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Butler, D.L.; Winne, P.H. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 1995, 65, 245–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattie, J.; Timperley, H. The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2007, 77, 81–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicol, D.; Macfarlane-Dick, D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ. 2006, 31, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, A.C.; Woodward, N.R. Toward Consilience in the Use of Task-Level Feedback to Promote Learning. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 2018, 69, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Truax, M.L. The Impact of Teacher Language and Growth Mindset Feedback on Writing Motivation. Lit. Res. Instr. 2017, 57, 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wisniewski, B.; Zierer, K.; Hattie, J. The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 487662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, J.C.; Taylor, J.D. Comparing Student Self-Assessment to Individualized Instructor Feedback. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willis, J.; Gibson, A.; Kelly, N.; Spina, N.; Azordegan, J.; Crosswell, L. Towards Faster Feedback in Higher Education through Digitally Mediated Dialogic Loops. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, L.; Musti-Rao, S. Using Technology to Enhance Feedback to Student Teachers. Interv. Sch. Clin. 2015, 51, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, M.G.; Navarro, S.M.B.; de-la-Fuente-Valentín, L.; Burgos, D. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Automatic Scoring and Automatic Feedback in Educational Settings. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 108190–108198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Meng, J.; Raja, S.K.S.; Priya, M.P.; Devi, M.K. Artificial Intelligence in Constructing Personalized and Accurate Feedback Systems for Students. Int. J. Model. Simul. Sci. Comput. 2021, 14, 2341001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ateş, A. The relationship between parental involvement in education and academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Pegem J. Educ. Instr. 2021, 11, 50–66. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1305014.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2024).
- Won-Tack, L. Impacts of Parental Involvement and Parents’ Level of Education on Student’s Academic Accomplishment. Educ. J. 2021, 10, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garbacz, S.A.; Zerr, A.A.; Dishion, T.J.; Seeley, J.R.; Stormshak, E.A. Parent educational involvement in middle school: Longitudinal influences on student outcomes. Early Adolesc. 2018, 38, 629–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, L.-A.; Gentili, S.; Pardo, A.; Kovanović, V.; Whitelock-Wainwright, A.; Gašević, D.; Dawson, S. What Changes, and for Whom? A Study of the Impact of Learning Analytics-Based Process Feedback in a Large Course. Learn. Instr. 2019, 72, 101202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardo, A.; Jovanovic, J.; Dawson, S.; Gašević, D.; Mirriahi, N. Using Learning Analytics to Scale the Provision of Personalised Feedback. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 50, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandí-Delgado, J.C.; Mesén-Hidalgo, R. Analyzing Experiences of Using Effective Feedback in the ESL Classroom through the Use of Digital Technologies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and New Developments 2020-END 2020, Zagreb, Croatia, 26 June 2020; pp. 319–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hepplestone, S.; Chikwa, G. Understanding how students process and use feedback to support their learning. Pract. Res. High. Educ. 2014, 8, 41–53. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1130316.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2024).
- Shurygin, V.; Berestova, A.; Litvinova, T.; Kolpak, E.; Nureyeva, A. Universal Models and Platforms in E-Learning. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2021, 16, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozdemir, D.; Ozturk, F. The Investigation of Mobile Virtual Reality Application Instructional Content in Geography Education: Academic Achievement, Presence, and Student Interaction. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2022, 38, 1487–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winstone, N. Facilitating Students’ Use of Feedback: Capturing and Tracking Impact Using Digital Tools. In The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education; Henderson, M., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Molloy, E., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boud, D.; Dawson, P. What Feedback Literate Teachers Do: An Empirically-Derived Competency Framework. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2021, 48, 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carless, D.; Winstone, N. Teacher Feedback Literacy and Its Interplay with Student Feedback Literacy. Teach. High. Educ. 2020, 28, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carless, D.; Boud, D. The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2018, 43, 1315–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molloy, E.; Boud, D.; Henderson, M. Developing a Learning-Centred Framework for Feedback Literacy. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2020, 45, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anis, M. Promoting Equity and Inclusion in Online Learning Environments: Strategies for Ensuring Access and Success for All Students. In Proceedings of the 6th International Academic Conference on Teaching, Learning and Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23–25 June 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Datnow, A.; Park, V. Opening or Closing Doors for Students? Equity and Data Use in Schools. J. Educ. Chang. 2018, 19, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauck, M.; Kurek, M. Digital Literacies in Teacher Preparation. In Language, Education and Technology. Encyclopedia of Language and Education; Thorne, S., May, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 272–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esenalieva, G.; Isaev, R.; Erdolatov, S.; Abdillaeva, N.; Dozzhanov, E. Development of Digital Literacy of Teachers. Alatoo Acad. Stud. 2023, 23, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkali, Y.E.; Amichai-Hamburger, Y. Experiments in Digital Literacy. CyberPsychology Behav. 2004, 7, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steen-Utheim, A.; Hopfenbeck, T.N. To do or not to do with feedback. A study of undergraduate students’ engagement and use of feedback within a portfolio assessment design. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2019, 44, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, P. Student Perceptions of Quality Feedback in Teacher Education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2011, 36, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weaver, M.R. Do Students Value Feedback? Student Perceptions of Tutors’ Written Responses. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2006, 31, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, M.E.; Handley, K.; Millar, J.; O’Donovan, B. Feedback: All that Effort, but What is the Effect? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2010, 35, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carless, D. Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Stud. High. Educ. 2006, 31, 219–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicol, D. Good designs for written feedback for students. In McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, 14th ed.; Svinicki, M., McKeachie, W.J., Eds.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Race, P. Using Feedback to Help Students to Learn. Available online: https://phil-race.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Using_feedback.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2024).
- Race, P. Feedback within 24 hours. Assess. Teach. Learn. J. 2007, 1. Available online: https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/1036/ (accessed on 8 May 2024).
- Shute, V.J. Focus on Formative Feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2008, 78, 153–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattie, J. Visible Learning for Teachers—Maximizing Impact on Learning, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Nicol, D. Principles of good assessment and feedback: Theory and practice. In Proceedings of the REAP International Online Conference on Assessment Design for Learner Responsibility, Glasgow, UK, 29 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ion, G.; Cano-García, E.; Fernández-Ferrer, M. Enhancing self-regulated learning through using written feedback in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2017, 85, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamora, Á.; Suárez, J.M.; Ardura, D. Error detection and self-assessment as mechanisms to promote self-regulation of learning among secondary education students. J. Educ. Res. 2018, 111, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Bashir, M.; Kabir, M.; Rahman, I. The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students’ learning and professionalizing teaching in Higher Education. J. Educ. Pract. 2016, 7, 38–41. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105282.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2024).
- Dai, W.; Lin, J.; Jin, H.; Li, T.; Tsai, Y.S.; Gašević, D.; Chen, G. Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 10–13 July 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 323–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xavier, M.; Meneses, J. The tensions between student dropout and flexibility in learning design: The voices of professors in open online higher education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2021, 22, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, W.; Brown, G.T.L.; Stephens, J.M. Technology Assists the Feedback Process in a Learning Environment: A Review. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Orem, UT, USA, 10–13 July 2023; IEEE: New York, NY, USA; pp. 326–328. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, J.; Kim, C. Effective Feedback Design Using Free Technologies. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2015, 52, 408–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beatty, I.D.; Gerace, W.J. Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research-Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2009, 18, 146–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, J.; Turner, W. Enhancing the Assessment Experience: Improving Student Perceptions, Engagement and Understanding Using Online Video Feedback. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2015, 53, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baran, E.; AlZoubi, D.; Bahng, E.J. Using Video Enhanced Mobile Observation for Peer-Feedback in Teacher Education. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 2023, 39, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korkmaz, M.; Akçay, A.O. Determining Digital Literacy Levels of Primary School Teachers. J. Learn. Teach. Digit. Age 2024, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J. Bridging Digital Divide amidst Educational Change for Socially Inclusive Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 215824402110608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tate, T.; Warschauer, M. Equity in Online Learning. Educ. Psychol. 2022, 57, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froehlich, D.; Guias, D. Multimodal Video-Feedback: A Promising way of Giving Feedback on Student Research. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 763203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muste, D. The role of feedback in the teaching-learning process. Educ. 21 J. 2020, 19, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houri, A.; Thayer, A.; Cook, C. Targeting parent trust to enhance engagement in a school-home communication system: A double-blind experiment of a parental wise feedback intervention. Sch. Psychol. 2019, 34, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, K.S.; Christenson, S.L. Trust and the family-school relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. J. Sch. Psychol. 2000, 38, 477–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, J.L. Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Educ. Urban Soc. 1987, 19, 119–136. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ351802 (accessed on 8 June 2024). [CrossRef]
- Demszky, D.; Liu, J.; Hill, H.C.; Jurafsky, D.; Piech, C. Can Automated Feedback Improve Teachers’ Uptake of Student Ideas? Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial in a Large-Scale Online Course. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2023, 46, 483–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diliberti, M.K.; Schwartz, H.L.; Doan, S.; Shapiro, A.; Rainey, L.R.; Lake, R.J. Using Artificial Intelligence Tools in K–12 Classrooms (RR-A956-21). RAND Corporation. Available online: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-21.html (accessed on 8 June 2024).
- Falcão, T.; Arêdes, V.; Souza, S.; Fiorentino, G.; Neto, J.; Alves, G.; Mello, R. Tutoria: A software platform to improve feedback in education. J. Interact. Syst. 2023, 14, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baidoo-Anu, D.; Owusu Ansah, L. Education in the era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. J. AI 2023, 7, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, S.; Zhong, L. Exploring the effectiveness of ChatGPT-based feedback compared with teacher feedback and self-feedback: Evidence from Chinese to English translation. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2309.01645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oinas, S.; Vainikainen, M.-P.; Hotulainen, R. Is technology-enhanced feedback encouraging for all in Finnish basic education? A person-centered approach. Learn. Instr. 2018, 58, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, J. Research-informed teacher education, teacher autonomy and teacher agency: The example of Finland. Lond. Rev. Educ. 2023, 21, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikkilä-Erdmann, M.; Warinowski, A.; Iiskala, T. Teacher Education in Finland and Future Directions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Available online: https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-286 (accessed on 8 May 2024).
- Palts, K.; Kalmus, V. Digital channels in teacher-parent communication: The case of Estonia. Educ. Dev. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2015, 11, 65–81. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1086652.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2024).
- Tekavc, J.; Vončina, T. Parental Involvement in the Educational Process as a Potential Factor in Tachers’ Experience of Work Stress. Rev. Za Elem. Izobr. 2023, 16, 339–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binkley, M. Defining Twenty-First Century Skills. In Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills; Griffin, P., McGaw, B., Care, E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 17–66. [Google Scholar]
- Zakrajšek, S.; Rajkovič, V.; Bernik, M.; Jereb, E.; Rajkovič, U. Evaluation of Education Scenarios for Acquiring Digital Competences of Secondary School Students in Slovenia. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 29, 841–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 9241-11; Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 10 June 2024).
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.; Warshaw, P. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cajander, A.; Lárusdóttir, M.K.; Lind, T.; Nauwerck, G. Walking in the jungle with a machete: ICT leaders’ perspectives on user-Centred systems design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2022, 41, 1230–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilok, C.; Hyewon, C. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to Social Networking Sites (SNS): Impact of Subjective Norm and Social Capital on the Acceptance of SNS. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2013, 29, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooke, J. SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry, 2nd ed.; Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 1996; pp. 189–191. [Google Scholar]
- Kirakowski, J.; Corbett, M. SUMI: The Software Usability Measurement Inventory. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 1993, 24, 210–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laugwitz, B.; Schrepp, M.; Held, T. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Workgroup Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering (USAB 2008), Graz, Austria, 20 November 2008; Holzinger, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blažica, B.; Lewis, J.R. A Slovene Translation of the System Usability Scale: The SUS-SI. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2015, 31, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tullis, T.; Albert, B. Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics, 2nd ed.; Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, J.R. The system usability scale: Past, present, and future. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2018, 34, 577–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bangor, A.; Kortum, P.T.; Miller, J.T. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2008, 24, 574–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sauro, J. 10 Things to Know about System Usability Scale (SUS). Available online: https://measuringu.com/10-things-sus/ (accessed on 8 May 2024).
- Revythi, A.; Tselios, N. Extension of technology acceptance model by using system usability scale to assess behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 2341–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V. Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2000, 11, 342–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FakhrHosseini, S.; Chan, K.; Lee, C.; Jeon, M.; Son, H.; Rudnik, J.; Coughlin, J. User Adoption of Intelligent Environments: A Review of Technology Adoption Models, Challenges, and Prospects. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2022, 40, 986–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T. The Impact of Subjective Norm and Facilitating Conditions on Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitude toward Computer Use: A Structural Equation Modeling of an Extended Technology Acceptance Model. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2009, 40, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, P.-H.; Yeh, S.-C. How motion-control influences a VR-supported technology for mental rotation learning: From the perspectives of playfulness, gender difference and technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2019, 35, 1736–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulliksen, J.; Göransson, B.; Boivie, I.; Blomkvist, S.; Persson, J.; Cajander, A. Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2003, 22, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vredenburg, K.; Mao, J.-Y.; Smith, P.W.; Carey, T. A survey of user-centered design in practice. In Proceedings of the CHI’2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 20–25 April 2002; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensson, P. User-Friendly Definition. Available online: https://techterms.com/definition/user-friendly (accessed on 8 June 2024).
- Evans, C. Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013, 83, 70–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winstone, N.E.; Nash, R.A.; Parker, M.; Rowntree, J. Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yorganci, S. The interactive e-book and video feedback in a multimedia learning environment: Influence on performance, cognitive, and motivational outcomes. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2022, 38, 1005–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Gu, Y. Analysis of Online Classroom Education on the Learning Patterns for College Students Using Human-Computer Interaction. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juul, J. Družine Z Najstniki—Ko Vzgoja Odpove; Didakta: Radovljica, Slovenia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, M.E. Face-to-face conversation: Why embodiment matters for conversational user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, Dublin, Ireland, 22–23 August 2019; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leibold, N.; Schwarz, L.M. The Art of Giving Online Feedback. J. Eff. Teach. 2015, 15, 34–46. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060438 (accessed on 8 May 2024).
- Martin, J.; Sugarman, J.; McNamara, J. Models of Classroom Management, 3rd ed.; Detselig Enterprices Ltd.: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Kounin, J.S. Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms; Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Marentič Požarnik, B. Psihologija Učenja in Pouka: Od Poučevanja k Učenju, 2nd ed.; DZS: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Pečjak, S. Medvrstniško Nasilje V Šoli; Znanstvena založba Folozosfke fakultete: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Peklaj, C.; Pečjak, S. Psihosocialni Odnosi V Šoli; Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Pietrzak, D.; Petersen, G.; Speaker, K. Perceptions of School Violence by Elementary and Middle School Personnel. Prof. Sch. Couns. 1998, 1, 23–29. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731819 (accessed on 8 June 2024).
- Reed, D.F.; Kirkpatrick, C. Disruptive Students in the Classroom: A Review of the Literature. Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED443911 (accessed on 8 May 2024).
- Hill, F. Feedback to enhance student learning: Facilitating interactive feedback on clinical skills. Int. J. Clin. Ski. 2007, 1, 21–24. Available online: https://www.ijocs.org/clinical-journal/feedback-to-enhance-student-learning-facilitating-interactive-feedback-on-clinical-skills.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2024).
- Lichtenberger-Majzikné, K.; Fischer, A. The role of feedback in developing reflective competence. Pract. Theory Syst. Educ. 2017, 12, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clariana, R.B.; Wagner, D.; Roher Murphy, L.C. Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2000, 48, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Kleij, F.M.; Feskens, R.C.; Eggen, T.J. Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2015, 85, 475–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pal, D.; Patra, S. University students’ perception of video-based learning in times of COVID-19: A TAM/TTF perspective. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2021, 37, 903–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, D.S.; Schaeffer, D.D.; Thomas, R.; Olson, D.P. Strategies to provide helpful feedback to your students: Panel discussion. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 2017, 32, 157. Available online: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3015220.3015258 (accessed on 8 June 2024).
- Getzlaf, B.; Perry, B.; Toffner, G.; Lamarche, K.; Edwards, M. Effective instructor feedback: Perceptions of online graduate students. J. Educ. Online 2009, 6, 1–22. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ904070.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2024). [CrossRef]
- Pishchukhina, O.; Allen, A. Supporting learning in large classes: Online formative assessment and automated feedback. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the European Association for Education in Electrical and Information Engineering (EAEEIE), Online, 1–2 July 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staddon, R.V. Bringing technology to the mature classroom: Age differences in use and attitudes. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexandrakis, D.; Chorianopoulos, K.; Tselios, N. Older Adults and Web 2.0 Storytelling Technologies: Probing the Technology Acceptance Model through an Age-related Perspective. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2020, 36, 1623–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Righi, V.; Sayago, S.; Blat, J. When we talk about older people in HCI, who are we talking about? Towards a ‘turn to community’ in the design of technologies for a growing ageing population. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2017, 108, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauk, N.; Hüffmeier, J.; Krumm, S. Ready to be a silver surfer? A meta-analysis on the relationship between chronological age and technology acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 84, 304–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monteiro, A.; Mouraz, A.; Thomas Dotta, L. Veteran teachers and digital technologies: Myths, beliefs and professional development. Teach. Teach. 2021, 26, 577–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleary, T.J.; Zimmerman, B.J. Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychol. Sch. 2004, 41, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kryshko, O.; Fleischer, J.; Waldeyer, J.; Wirth, J.; Leutner, D. Do motivational regulation strategies contribute to university students’ academic success? Learn. Individ. Differ. 2020, 82, 101912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neeraja, B.; Vignesh, S.; Lakshmi, D. Examination of Self-Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning on Academic Performance. Solid State Technol. 2020, 6, 2649–2654. [Google Scholar]
- Van Ewijk, C.D. Assessing Student’s Acquisition of Self-Regulated Learning Skills Using Meta-Analysis. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance; Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y.; Lo, W.; Lincoln, F. Effects of Intervention on Self-Regulated Learning for Second Language Learners. Chin. J. Appl. Linguist. 2017, 40, 233–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cengiz-Istanbullu, B.; Sakiz, G. Self-regulated learning strategies impact fourth-grade students’ positive outcomes in science class. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2022, 21, 1648–3898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albirini, A. Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Comput. Educ. 2006, 47, 373–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baturay, M.; Gökçearslan, Ş.; Ke, F. The relationship among pre-service teachers’ computer competence, attitude towards computer-assisted education, and intention of technology acceptance. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2017, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Geertshuis, S.; Grainger, R. Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2020, 151, 103857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrato, J.B.; Prudente, M.S.; Aguja, S.E. Technology integration, proficiency and attitude: Perspectives from grade school teachers. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management, and E-Learning (IC4E 2020), Osaka, Japan, 10–12 January 2020; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshammari, S.H.; Ali, M.B.; Rosli, M.S. The influences of technical support, self efficacy and instructional design on the usage and acceptance of LMS: A comprehensive review. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2016, 15, 116–125. Available online: http://www.tojet.net/articles/v15i2/15213.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2024).
- Štemberger, T.; Čotar Konrad, S. Attitudes towards using digital technologies in education as an important factor in developing digital competence: The case of Slovenian student teachers. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2021, 16, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, P.; Coombs, A.; Pazio, M. Are we having fun yet? Institutional resistance and the introduction of play and experimentation into learning innovation through social media. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2014, 2014, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mercader, C. Explanatory model of barriers to integration of digital technologies in higher education institutions. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 5133–5147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Content Response Categories | f | f% | |
---|---|---|---|
Parents are regularly informed about their child’s work and behavior. Facilitates cooperation between teachers, parents, and the student. | + | 23 | 59.0 |
Parents can intervene in a timely and appropriate manner. Enables timely resolution of problems and conflicts. | + | 8 | 20.5 |
Personal contact is better; the child communicates information personally; it is the child’s responsibility. | − | 8 | 20.5 |
Total | 39 | 100.0 |
Content Response Categories | f | f% |
---|---|---|
Weekly feedback is frequent enough and not burdensome for parents. | 26 | 39.4 |
Daily feedback is more effective, up to date, and may lose relevance after a few days. | 15 | 22.7 |
The child should trust parents and child responsibility should be encouraged. | 14 | 21.2 |
Too frequent provision reduces its value. | 5 | 7.6 |
All problems should be solved verbally. | 3 | 4.5 |
Even less frequent than weekly (monthly, quarterly) would be sufficient. | 2 | 3.0 |
Not enough time (on the teacher’s side) for daily intervention. | 1 | 1.5 |
Total | 66 | 100.0 |
I Would Find It Easiest to Write Down Feedback for Students as Follows: | f | f% |
---|---|---|
(1) During or immediately after the lesson. | 28 | 30.4 |
(2) At the end of the last lesson of the day. | 26 | 28.3 |
(3) In the evening of the same day. | 13 | 14.1 |
(4) Once at the end of the work week. | 15 | 16.3 |
(5) I would not take the time to write down feedback. | 10 | 10.9 |
Total | 92 | 100.0 |
Feedback to Students Should be Recorded as Follows: | f | f% |
---|---|---|
(1) Daily or ongoing. | 59 | 64.8 |
(2) Once a month. | 22 | 24.2 |
(3) Once per assessment period. | 5 | 5.5 |
(4) Once a year. | 1 | 1.1 |
(5) No feedback needs to be recorded. | 4 | 4.4 |
Total | 91 | 100.0 |
Effectiveness of the Compliments and Comments Tool | Sum | Me | Mo | X̅ | σ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||
Is useful. | f | 129 | 196 | 808 | 1126 | 1153 | 3412 | 4.0 | 5 | 3.9 | 1.1 |
f% | 3.8 | 5.7 | 23.7 | 33.0 | 33.8 | 100.0 | |||||
It helps me to be more efficient. | f | 318 | 477 | 1031 | 983 | 600 | 3409 | 3.0 | 3 | 3.3 | 1.2 |
f% | 9.3 | 14.0 | 30.2 | 28.8 | 17.6 | 100.0 | |||||
It gives me a better overview of what is happening in the classroom. | f | 298 | 412 | 888 | 1006 | 808 | 3412 | 4.0 | 4 | 3.5 | 1.2 |
f% | 8.7 | 12.1 | 26.0 | 29.5 | 23.7 | 100.0 | |||||
It allows me to give feedback to students and parents. | f | 229 | 318 | 880 | 1100 | 885 | 3412 | 4.0 | 4 | 3.6 | 1.2 |
f% | 6.7 | 9.3 | 25.8 | 32.2 | 25.9 | 100.0 | |||||
It allows me to save time. | f | 397 | 463 | 884 | 885 | 813 | 3412 | 3.0 | 3 | 3.4 | 1.3 |
f% | 11.6 | 13.6 | 25.9 | 25.1 | 23.8 | 100.0 | |||||
It enables me to do what I expect to do. | f | 310 | 448 | 1133 | 922 | 599 | 3412 | 3.0 | 3 | 3.3 | 1.2 |
f% | 9.1 | 13.1 | 33.2 | 27.0 | 17.6 | 100.0 |
Ease of Use of Compliments and Comments Tool | Sum | Me | Mo | X̅ | σ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||
It is easy to use. | f | 117 | 153 | 635 | 1144 | 1362 | 3411 | 4.0 | 5 | 4.0 | 1.0 |
f% | 3.4 | 4.5 | 18.6 | 33.5 | 39.9 | 100.0 | |||||
It is user-friendly. | f | 132 | 181 | 706 | 1184 | 1209 | 3412 | 4.0 | 5 | 3.9 | 1.1 |
f% | 3.9 | 5.3 | 20.7 | 34.7 | 35.4 | 100.0 | |||||
It requires few steps to make an entry. | f | 146 | 256 | 717 | 1169 | 1124 | 3412 | 4.0 | 4 | 3.8 | 1.1 |
f% | 4.3 | 7.5 | 21.0 | 34.3 | 32.9 | 100.0 | |||||
It allows user flexibility. | f | 155 | 257 | 908 | 1137 | 954 | 3411 | 4.0 | 4 | 3.7 | 1.1 |
f% | 4.5 | 7.5 | 26.6 | 33.3 | 28.0 | 100.0 | |||||
I do not need written instructions to use it. | f | 112 | 159 | 587 | 1073 | 1481 | 3412 | 4.0 | 5 | 4.1 | 1.0 |
f% | 3.3 | 4.7 | 17.2 | 31.4 | 43.4 | 100.0 | |||||
I do not detect inconsistencies during use. | f | 143 | 207 | 958 | 1148 | 956 | 3412 | 4.0 | 4 | 3.8 | 1.1 |
f% | 4.2 | 6.1 | 28.1 | 33.6 | 28.0 | 100.0 | |||||
It makes it easy to correct errors. | f | 143 | 192 | 718 | 1130 | 1228 | 3411 | 4.0 | 5 | 3.9 | 1.1 |
f% | 4.2 | 5.6 | 21.0 | 33.1 | 36.0 | 100.0 |
Ease of Learning to Use and Satisfaction with the Compliments and Comments Tool | Sum | Me | Mo | X̅ | σ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||
I quickly learned to use the tool. | f | 116 | 93 | 509 | 1021 | 1676 | 3412 | 4.0 | 5 | 4.2 | 1.0 |
f% | 3.4 | 2.7 | 14.8 | 29.9 | 49.1 | 100.0 | |||||
I can remember how to use the tool. | f | 99 | 93 | 477 | 1039 | 1704 | 3412 | 4.0 | 5 | 4.2 | 1.0 |
f% | 2.9 | 2.7 | 14.0 | 30.5 | 49.9 | 100.0 | |||||
I am satisfied with the tool. | f | 178 | 201 | 758 | 1137 | 1128 | 3411 | 4.0 | 4 | 3.8 | 1.1 |
f% | 5.5 | 5.9 | 22.2 | 33.3 | 33.1 | 100.0 | |||||
I would recommend the tool to a colleague teacher. | f | 219 | 224 | 768 | 1061 | 1140 | 3412 | 4.0 | 5 | 3.8 | 1.2 |
f% | 6.4 | 6.6 | 22.5 | 31.1 | 33.4 | 100.0 |
Variable | Kruskal–Wallis H | p |
---|---|---|
Is useful. | 6.262 | 0.100 |
It helps me to be more efficient. | 8.373 | 0.039 |
It gives me a better overview of what is happening in the classroom. | 8.045 | 0.045 |
It allows me to give feedback to students and parents. | 1.421 | 0.701 |
It allows me to save time. | 13.817 | 0.003 |
It enables me to do what I expect to do. | 13.520 | 0.004 |
Variable | Kruskal–Wallis H | p |
---|---|---|
It is easy to use. | 4.737 | 0.192 |
It is user-friendly. | 1.937 | 0.586 |
It requires few steps to make an entry. | 4.052 | 0.256 |
It allows user flexibility. | 1.690 | 0.639 |
I do not need written instructions to use it. | 21.413 | <0.001 |
I do not detect inconsistencies during use. | 4.252 | 0.236 |
It makes it easy to correct errors. | 0.939 | 0.816 |
Variable | Kruskal–Wallis H | p |
---|---|---|
I quickly learned to use the tool. | 35.702 | <0.001 |
I can remember how to use the tool. | 27.529 | <0.001 |
I am satisfied with the tool. | 0.504 | 0.918 |
I would recommend the tool to a colleague teacher. | 2.458 | 0.483 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Žerovnik, A. Technology-Enhanced Feedback System Usability in the Context of Self-Regulation Promotion. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090948
Žerovnik A. Technology-Enhanced Feedback System Usability in the Context of Self-Regulation Promotion. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(9):948. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090948
Chicago/Turabian StyleŽerovnik, Alenka. 2024. "Technology-Enhanced Feedback System Usability in the Context of Self-Regulation Promotion" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090948
APA StyleŽerovnik, A. (2024). Technology-Enhanced Feedback System Usability in the Context of Self-Regulation Promotion. Education Sciences, 14(9), 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090948