Open Learner Models Working in Symbiosis With Self-Regulating Learners: A Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learner modeling systems so far formulated model learning in three main ways: a learner’s “position” within a lattice of declarative and procedural knowledge about highly structured disciplines such as geometry or physics, a learner’s path through curricular tasks compared to milestones, or profiles of a learner’s achievements on a set of tasks relative to mastery criteria or a peer group. Opening these models to learners identifies for them factors and relations among factors. Open learner models tacitly invite learners to regulate learning. However, contemporary learner models omit data about how learners have and should process information to learn, understand, consolidate and transfer new knowledge and skills. What to do with information opened to learners is opaque. I propose incorporating trace data about learning processes in learner models. Trace data allow generating learning analytics that inform self-regulating learners about potentially productive adaptations to processes they have used to learn. In a context of big data, such elaborated learner models are positioned to collaborate with self-regulating learners. Together, they can coordinate symbiotically, creating a platform for the system to improve its models of learners and for learners to more productively self-regulate learning.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".