Adopting Learning Analytics in a First-Year Veterinarian Professional Program: What We Could Know in Advance about Student Learning Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, the field of education has seen stark changes in the way that data are collected and leveraged to support high-stakes decision-making. Utilizing big data as a meaningful lens to inform teaching and learning can increase academic success. Data-driven research has been conducted to understand student learning performance, such as predicting at-risk students at an early stage and recommending tailored interventions to support services. However, few studies in veterinary education have adopted Learning Analytics. This article examines the adoption of Learning Analytics by using the retrospective data from the first-year professional Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program. The article gives detailed examples of predicting six courses from week 0 (i.e., before the classes started) to week 14 in the semester of Spring 2018. The weekly models for each course showed the change of prediction results as well as the comparison between the prediction results and students' actual performance. From the prediction models, at-risk students were successfully identified at the early stage, which would help inform instructors to pay more attention to them at this point.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".