Using learning analytics to support students’ engineering design: the angle of prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineering design plays an important role in education. However, due to its open nature and complexity, providing timely support to students has been challenging using the traditional assessment methods. This study takes an initial step to employ learning analytics to build performance prediction models to help struggling students. It allows instructors to offer in-time intervention and support for these at-risk students. Specifically, we develop a task model to characterize the engineering design process so that the data features can be associated with the abstract engineering design phases. A two-stage feature selection method is proposed to address the data sparsity and high dimensionality problems. Then, instead of relying on probability-based algorithms such as Bayesian Networks to represent the task model, this study used the Radial Basis Function based Support Vector Machines for prediction to identify the struggling students. Next, we employ an extra-tree classification method to rank the importance of these features. Teachers can integrate the feature importance ranking with the abstract task model to diagnose students’ problems for scaffolding design. The results show that the proposed approach can outperform the baseline models as well as providing actionable insights for teachers to provide personalized and timely feedback to students. Implications of this study for research and practice are then discussed.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".