The benefits of teacher-facing dashboards are incontestable, yet their evidence is finite in terms of long-term use, meaningful usability, and maturity level. Thus, this paper uses design science research and critical theory to design and develop TEADASH to support teachers in making decisions on teaching and learning. Three cycles of design science research and multiple small loops were implemented to develop the dashboard. The tool was then deployed and evaluated in real time with the authentic courses. Five courses from two Swedish universities were included in this study. The co-design with teachers is crucial to the applicability of this dashboard, while letting teachers use the tool during their courses is more important to help them to recognize the features they actually use and the tool’s usefulness for their teaching practices. TEADASH can address the prior matters, align with the learning design, and meet teachers’ needs. The technical and co-design aspects, as well as the advantages and challenges of applying TEADASH in practice, are also discussed here.

When asked to predict how they will perform on an upcoming exam, students are often poorly calibrated, typically in the direction of overpredicting their performance. Research shows that low-performing students’ calibration tends to remain poor across multiple tests over the course of a semester. We tested whether these students remain confident in these erroneously high grade predictions across the semester or whether their confidence wanes, suggesting some degree of metacognitive awareness. In two studies, students made grade predictions prior to taking four in-class exams and then rated their level of confidence in their predictions. Results from both studies showed that miscalibration and confidence remained stable across tests, suggesting that low-performing students continued to believe that they would perform well on upcoming exams despite prior evidence to the contrary.

Students and educators sometimes hold beliefs about intelligence and learning that lack scientific support, often called neuromyths. Neuromyths can be problematic, so it is important to find methods to correct them. Previous findings demonstrate that textual refutations are effective for correcting neuromyths. However, even after correction, erroneous information may continue to influence reasoning. In three experiments, we investigated whether feedback could be used to update students’ and educators’ beliefs and influence their reasoning about neuromyths. Across all experiments, the results showed that both students and educators held erroneous beliefs about learning and memory that could be updated after receiving feedback. Feedback also increased students’, but not teachers’, reasoning accuracy. The results demonstrate that feedback can be used to update beliefs in neuromyths, but these beliefs may influence reasoning even after correction.