What if learning analytics were based on learning science?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning analytics are often formatted as visualisations developed from traced data collected as students study in online learning environments. Optimal analytics inform and motivate students’ decisions about adaptations that improve their learning. We observe that designs for learning often neglect theories and empirical findings in learning science that explain how students learn. We present six learning analytics that reflect what is known in six areas (we call them cases) of theory and research findings in the learning sciences: setting goals and monitoring progress, distributed practice, retrieval practice, prior knowledge for reading, comparative evaluation of writing, and collaborative learning. Our designs demonstrate learning analytics can be grounded in research on self-regulated learning and self-determination. We propose designs for learning analytics in general should guide students toward more effective self-regulated learning and promote motivation through perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it