Diagnostic Assessment Using Google Forms and Looker Studio to Map Students’ Learning Preferences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47239/gdcjwg97Keywords:
diagnostic assessment, differentiated instruction, google Forms, learning analytics, Looker StudioAbstract
Diagnostic assessment can provide teachers with timely information about students’ initial characteristics and support responsive instructional planning. This descriptive-analytic study documents a digital workflow using Google Forms for data collection and Google Data Studio (now Looker Studio) for visualization. Participants were 100 Phase E students at SMAN Cahaya Madani Banten Boarding School, Pandeglang, Banten. A validated initial-assessment instrument was converted into Google Forms; responses were recorded automatically in a spreadsheet and visualized through an interactive dashboard. The descriptive results classified students’ self-reported modality preferences as auditory (44%), visual (31%), and kinesthetic (25%). The workflow reduced manual recapitulation and produced individualized, readable summaries for teachers and students. These categories should be interpreted as reported preferences rather than fixed learning styles, because current evidence does not support matching instruction to presumed learning-style categories. Accordingly, the principal contribution is the digital diagnostic workflow itself: efficient data collection, transparent visualization, and evidence-informed support for differentiated planning. Future studies should examine instrument reliability, validity, usability, and whether dashboard-informed differentiation improves measurable learning outcomes.
References
Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 87. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2740172
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Bondie, R. S., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How does changing “one-size-fits-all” to differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 336–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Jordan, K., & Wilson, S. W. G. (2021). Learning with technology during emergencies: A systematic review of K-12 education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1554–1575.
Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878515606621
Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002
Gheyssens, E., Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., & Griful-Freixenet, J. (2020). Differentiated instruction as a teacher career competency. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(14), 1421–1437.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Heritage, M. (2018). Assessment for learning as support for student self-regulation. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0261-3
Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777
Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y.-K. (2020). Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1961–1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z
Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2018). License to evaluate: Preparing learning analytics dashboards for educational practice. Proceedings of LAK ’18, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170421
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
Klerkx, J., Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2017). Learning analytics dashboards. In C. Lang et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Analytics, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.012
Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A review of feedback models and theories. Frontiers in Education, 6, 720195. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720195
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Yustiandi, Sutrisno risno (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
