Standing on the shoulders of giants: Online formative assessments as the foundation for predictive learning analytics models
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract As universities around the world have begun to use learning management systems (LMSs), more learning data have become available to gain deeper insights into students' learning processes and make data‐driven decisions to improve student learning. With the availability of rich data extracted from the LMS, researchers have turned much of their attention to learning analytics (LA) applications using educational data mining techniques. Numerous LA models have been proposed to predict student achievement in university courses. To design predictive LA models, researchers often follow a data‐driven approach that prioritizes prediction accuracy while sacrificing theoretical links to learning theory and its pedagogical implications. In this study, we argue that instead of complex variables (e.g., event logs, clickstream data, timestamps of learning activities), data extracted from online formative assessments should be the starting point for building predictive LA models. Using the LMS data from multiple offerings of an asynchronous undergraduate course, we analysed the utility of online formative assessments in predicting students' final course performance. Our findings showed that the features extracted from online formative assessments (e.g., completion, timestamps and scores) served as strong and significant predictors of students' final course performance. Scores from online formative assessments were consistently the strongest predictor of student performance across the three sections of the course. The number of clicks in the LMS and the time difference between first access and due dates of formative assessments were also significant predictors. Overall, our findings emphasize the need for online formative assessments to build predictive LA models informed by theory and learning design. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Higher education institutions often use learning analytics for the early identification of low‐performing students or students at risk of dropping out. Most predictive models in learning analytics rely on immutable student characteristics (e.g., gender, race and socioeconomic status) and complex variables extracted from log data within a learning management system. Prioritizing prediction accuracy without theory orientation often yields “black‐box” models that fail to inform educators on what remedies need to be taken to improve student learning. What this paper adds Predictive models in learning analytics should consider learning theory, pedagogy and learning design to identify key predictors of student learning. Online formative assessments can be a starting point for building predictive models that are not only accurate but also provide educators with actionable insights on how student learning can be improved. Time‐related and score‐related features extracted from online formative assessments are particularly useful for predicting students' course performance. Implications for practice and/or policy This study provides strong evidence for using online formative assessments as the foundation for predictive models in learning analytics. Student data from online formative assessments can help educators provide students with feedback while informing future formative assessment cycles. Higher education institutions should avoid the hype around complex data from learning management systems and instead rely on effective learning tools such as online formative assessments to revolutionize the use of learning analytics.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle