MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307257834 · doi:10.1111/bjet.13282

Which log variables significantly predict academic achievement? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4307257834 on OpenAlex
Qin Wang, Amin Mousavi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Educational Technology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationLearning analyticsAcademic achievementPsychologyTest (biology)Meta-analysisEmpirical researchPerspective (graphical)VariablesMathematics educationComputer scienceData scienceStatisticsSocial psychologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Technologies and teaching practices can provide a rich log data, which enables learning analytics (LA) to bring new insights into the learning process for ultimately enhancing student success. This type of data has been used to discover student online learning patterns, relationships between online learning behaviors and assessment performance. Previous studies have provided empirical evidence that not all log variables were significantly associated with student academic achievement and the relationships varied across courses. Therefore, this study employs a systematic review with meta‐analysis method to provide a comprehensive review of the log variables that have an impact on student academic achievement. We searched six databases and reviewed 88 relevant empirical studies published from 2010 to 2021 for an in‐depth analysis. The results show different types of log variables and the learning contexts investigated in the reviewed studies. We also included four moderating factors to do moderator analyses. A further significance test was performed to test the difference of effect size among different types of log variables. Limitations and future research expectations are provided subsequently. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Significant relationship between active engagement in online courses and academic achievement was identified in a number of previous studies. Researchers have reviewed the literature to examine different aspects of applying LA to gain insights for monitoring student learning in digital environments (eg, data sources, data analysis techniques). What this paper adds Presents a new perspective of the log variables, which provides a reliable quantitative conclusion of log variables in predicting student academic achievement. Conducted subgroup analysis, examined four potential moderating variables and identified their moderating effect on several log variables such as regularity of study interval, number of online sessions, time‐on‐task, starting late and late submission. Compared the effect of generic and course‐specific, basic and elaborated log variables, and found significant difference between the basic and elaborated. Implications for practice and/or policy A depth of understanding of these log variables may enable researchers to build robust prediction models. It can guide the instructors to timely adjust teaching strategies according to their online learning behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.301 · 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