nStudy: Software for Learning Analytics about Processes for Self-Regulated Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data used in learning analytics rarely provide strong and clear signals about how learners process content. As a result, learning as a process is not clearly described for learners or for learning scientists. Gašević, Dawson, and Siemens (2015) urged data be sought that more straightforwardly describe processes in terms of events within learning episodes. They recommended building on Winne’s (1982) characterization of traces — ambient data gathered as learners study that more clearly represent which operations learners apply to which information — and his COPES model of a learning event — conditions, operations, products, evaluations, standards (Winne, 1997). We designed and describe an open source, open access, scalable software system called nStudy that responds to their challenge. nStudy gathers data that trace cognition, metacognition, and motivation as processes that are operationally captured as learners operate on information using nStudy’s tools. nStudy can be configured to support learners’ evolving self-regulated learning, a process akin to personally focused, self-directed learning science.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".