The Applications of Learning Analytics to Enhance Learning and Engagement in Introductory Programming Instruction
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 chapter explores how learning analytics can enhance learning and teaching in large scale, introductory programming courses. More specifically, it examines analytical approaches to identify at-risk students, personalize learning experiences, and make informed decisions about instructional content and delivery. Case examples drawn from empirical research are outlined to warrant a conceptual framework for best practice in analyzing data for these purposes. In this chapter, the authors review the benefits of temporal data, such as late assignment submission times, in terms of early detection of at-risk students. They also highlight the use of clustering algorithms in differentiating amongst the specific needs of different students using multidimensional data, allowing for tailoring instruction in an optimal manner. Finally, they discuss challenges in aligning data to gain insights into skill acquisition as a result of study habits to inform instructional decision making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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