A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Learning Analytics in Educational Games.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning analytics (LA) in educational games is considered an emerging practice due to its potential of enhancing the learning process. Growing research on formative assessment has shed light on the ways in which students' meaningful and in-situ learning experiences can be supported through educational games. To understand learners' playful experiences during gameplay, researchers have applied LA, which focuses on understanding students' in-game behaviour trajectories and personal learning needs during play. However, there is a lack of studies exploring how further research on LA in educational games can be conducted. Only a few analyses have discussed how LA has been designed, integrated, and implemented in educational games. Accordingly, this systematic literature review examined how LA in educational games has evolved. The study findings suggest that: (1) there is an increasing need to consider factors such as student modelling, iterative game design and personalisation when designing and implementing LA through educational games; and (2) the use of LA createsseveral challenges from technical, data management and ethical perspectives. In addition to outlining these findings, this article offers important notes for practitioners, and discusses the implications of the study’s results.
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 | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".