Learning Design and Learning Analytics: Snapshot 2020
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 design” belongs to that interesting class of concepts that appear on the surface to be simple and self-explanatory, but which are actually definitionally vague and contested in practice. Like “learning analytics,” the field of learning design aspires to improve teaching practice, the learning experience, and learning outcomes. And like learning analytics, this interdisciplinary field also lacks a shared language, common vocabulary, or agreement over its definition and purpose, resulting in uncertainty even about who its practitioners are — Educators? Designers? Researchers? All of these? (Law, Li, Farias Herrera, Chan & Pong, 2017). Almost a decade ago, however, learning analytics researchers pointed to the rich potential for synergies between learning analytics and learning design (Lockyer & Dawson, 2011). These authors (and others since, as cited below) argued that effective alignment of learning analytics and learning design would benefit both fields, and would offer educators and investigators the evidence they need that their efforts and innovations in learning design are “worth it” in terms of improving teaching practice and learning: "The integration of research related to both learning design and learning analytics provides the necessary contextual overlay to better understand observed student behavior and provide the necessary pedagogical recommendations where learning behavior deviates from pedagogical intention" (Lockyer & Dawson, 2011, p. 155).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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