MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295846739 · doi:10.1111/bjet.13276

Standing on the shoulders of giants: Online formative assessments as the foundation for predictive learning analytics models

2022· article· en· W4295846739 on OpenAlexaff
Okan Bulut, Guher Gorgun, Seyma N. Yildirim‐Erbasli, Tarid Wongvorachan, Lia M. Daniels, Yizhu Gao, Ka Wing Lai, Jinnie Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Educational Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentLearning analyticsComputer scienceClickstreamMachine learningData scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics educationPsychologyThe InternetWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As universities around the world have begun to use learning management systems (LMSs), more learning data have become available to gain deeper insights into students' learning processes and make data‐driven decisions to improve student learning. With the availability of rich data extracted from the LMS, researchers have turned much of their attention to learning analytics (LA) applications using educational data mining techniques. Numerous LA models have been proposed to predict student achievement in university courses. To design predictive LA models, researchers often follow a data‐driven approach that prioritizes prediction accuracy while sacrificing theoretical links to learning theory and its pedagogical implications. In this study, we argue that instead of complex variables (e.g., event logs, clickstream data, timestamps of learning activities), data extracted from online formative assessments should be the starting point for building predictive LA models. Using the LMS data from multiple offerings of an asynchronous undergraduate course, we analysed the utility of online formative assessments in predicting students' final course performance. Our findings showed that the features extracted from online formative assessments (e.g., completion, timestamps and scores) served as strong and significant predictors of students' final course performance. Scores from online formative assessments were consistently the strongest predictor of student performance across the three sections of the course. The number of clicks in the LMS and the time difference between first access and due dates of formative assessments were also significant predictors. Overall, our findings emphasize the need for online formative assessments to build predictive LA models informed by theory and learning design. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Higher education institutions often use learning analytics for the early identification of low‐performing students or students at risk of dropping out. Most predictive models in learning analytics rely on immutable student characteristics (e.g., gender, race and socioeconomic status) and complex variables extracted from log data within a learning management system. Prioritizing prediction accuracy without theory orientation often yields “black‐box” models that fail to inform educators on what remedies need to be taken to improve student learning. What this paper adds Predictive models in learning analytics should consider learning theory, pedagogy and learning design to identify key predictors of student learning. Online formative assessments can be a starting point for building predictive models that are not only accurate but also provide educators with actionable insights on how student learning can be improved. Time‐related and score‐related features extracted from online formative assessments are particularly useful for predicting students' course performance. Implications for practice and/or policy This study provides strong evidence for using online formative assessments as the foundation for predictive models in learning analytics. Student data from online formative assessments can help educators provide students with feedback while informing future formative assessment cycles. Higher education institutions should avoid the hype around complex data from learning management systems and instead rely on effective learning tools such as online formative assessments to revolutionize the use of learning analytics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Educational TechnologySame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207