A Big Data and Learning Analytics Approach to Process-Level Feedback in Cognitive Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collecting and analyzing large amounts of process data for the purposes of education can be considered a big data/learning analytics (BD/LA) approach to improving learning. However, in the education of health care professionals, the application of BD/LA is limited to date. The authors discuss the potential advantages of the BD/LA approach for the process of learning via cognitive simulations. Using the lens of a cognitive model of radiograph interpretation with four phases (orientation, searching/scanning, feature detection, and decision making), they reanalyzed process data from a cognitive simulation of pediatric ankle radiography where 46 practitioners from three expertise levels classified 234 cases online. To illustrate the big data component, they highlight the data available in a digital environment (time-stamped, click-level process data). Learning analytics were illustrated using algorithmic computer-enabled approaches to process-level feedback.For each phase, the authors were able to identify examples of potentially useful BD/LA measures. For orientation, the trackable behavior of re-reviewing the clinical history was associated with increased diagnostic accuracy. For searching/scanning, evidence of skipping views was associated with an increased false-negative rate. For feature detection, heat maps overlaid on the radiograph can provide a metacognitive visualization of common novice errors. For decision making, the measured influence of sequence effects can reflect susceptibility to bias, whereas computer-generated path maps can provide insights into learners' diagnostic strategies.In conclusion, the augmented collection and dynamic analysis of learning process data within a cognitive simulation can improve feedback and prompt more precise reflection on a novice clinician's skill development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".