MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390738608 · doi:10.3390/educsci14010082

A Current Overview of the Use of Learning Analytics Dashboards

2024· article· en· W4390738608 on OpenAlex

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

VenueEducation Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsLearning analyticsAnalyticsComputer scienceData scienceBig dataValue (mathematics)Cultural analyticsData analysisKnowledge managementSemantic analyticsWorld Wide WebMachine learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The promise of Learning Analytics Dashboards in education is to collect, analyze, and visualize data with the ultimate ambition of improving students’ learning. Our overview of the latest systematic reviews on the topic shows a number of research trends: learning analytics research is growing rapidly; it brings to the front inequality and inclusiveness measures; it reveals an unclear path to data ownership and privacy; it provides predictions which are not clearly translated into pedagogical actions; and the possibility of self-regulated learning and game-based learning are not capitalized upon. However, as learning analytics research progresses, greater opportunities lie ahead, and a better integration between information science and learning sciences can bring added value of learning analytics dashboards in education.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.247 · 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