Learning Analytics and Computerized Formative Assessments: An Application of Dijkstra’s Shortest Path Algorithm for Personalized Test Scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of computerized formative assessments in K–12 classrooms has yielded valuable data that can be utilized by learning analytics (LA) systems to produce actionable insights for teachers and other school-based professionals. For example, LA systems utilizing computerized formative assessments can be used for monitoring students’ progress in reading and identifying struggling readers. Using such LA systems, teachers can also determine whether progress is adequate as the student works towards their instructional goal. However, due to the lack of guidelines on the timing, number, and frequency of computerized formative assessments, teachers often follow a one-size-fits-all approach by testing all students together on pre-determined dates. This approach leads to a rigid test scheduling that ignores the pace at which students improve their reading skills. In some cases, the consequence is testing that yields little to no useful data, while increasing the amount of instructional time that students miss. In this study, we propose an intelligent recommender system (IRS) based on Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm that can produce an optimal assessment schedule for each student based on their reading progress throughout the school year. We demonstrated the feasibility of the IRS using real data from a large sample of students in grade two (n = 668,324) and grade four (n = 727,147) who participated in a series of computerized reading assessments. Also, we conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to evaluate the performance of the IRS in the presence of unusual growth trajectories in reading (e.g., negative growth, no growth, and plateau). Our results showed that the IRS could reduce the number of test administrations required at both grade levels by eliminating test administrations in which students’ reading growth did not change substantially. In addition, the simulation results indicated that the IRS could yield robust results with meaningful recommendations under relatively extreme growth trajectories. Implications for the use of recommender systems in K–12 education and recommendations for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".