Including Learning Analytics in the Loop of Self-Paced Online Course Learning Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online education is growing because of its benefits and advantages that students enjoy. Educational technologies (e.g., learning analytics, student modelling, and intelligent tutoring systems) bring great potential to online education. Many online courses, particularly in self-paced online learning (SPOL), face some inherent barriers such as learning awareness and academic intervention. These barriers can affect the academic performance of online learners. Recently, learning analytics has been shown to have great potential in removing these barriers. However, it is challenging to achieve the full potential of learning analytics with the traditional online course learning design model. Thus, focusing on SPOL, this study proposes that learning analytics should be included in the course learning design loop to ensure data collection and pedagogical connection. We propose a novel learning design-analytics model in which course learning design and learning analytics can support each other to increase learning success. Based on the proposed model, a set of online course design strategies are recommended for online educators who wish to use learning analytics to mitigate the learning barriers in SPOL. These strategies and technologies are inspired by Jim Greer’s work on student modelling. By following these recommended design strategies, a computer science course is used as an example to show our initial practices of including learning analytics in the course learning design loop. Finally, future work on how to develop and evaluate learning analytics enabled learning systems is outlined.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".