Learning Analytics in the Era of Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning analytics (LA) has the potential to significantly improve teaching and learning, but there are still many areas for improvement in LA research and practice. The literature highlights limitations in every stage of the LA life cycle, including scarce pedagogical grounding and poor design choices in the development of LA, challenges in the implementation of LA with respect to the interpretability of insights, prediction, and actionability of feedback, and lack of generalizability and strong practices in LA evaluation. In this position paper, we advocate for empowering teachers in developing LA solutions. We argue that this would enhance the theoretical basis of LA tools and make them more understandable and practical. We present some instances where process data can be utilized to comprehend learning processes and generate more interpretable LA insights. Additionally, we investigate the potential implementation of large language models (LLMs) in LA to produce comprehensible insights, provide timely and actionable feedback, enhance personalization, and support teachers’ tasks more extensively.
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 | 0.023 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".