Categorizing learning analytics models according to their goals and identifying their relevant components: A review of the learning analytics literature from 2011 to 2019
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
This study aimed to categorize learning analytics (LA) models and identify their relevant components by analyzing LA-related articles published between 2011 and 2019 in international journals. A total of 101 articles discussing various LA models were selected. These models were characterized according to their goals and components. A qualitative content analysis approach was used to develop a coding scheme for analyzing the aforementioned models. The results reveal that the studied LA models belong to five categories, namely performance, meta-cognitive, interactivity, communication, and data models. The majority of the selected LA-related articles were data models, followed by performance models. This review also identified 16 components that were commonly used in the studied models. The results indicate that analytics was the most common component in the studied models (used in 10 LA models). Furthermore, visualization was the most relevant component in the studied communication models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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