Learning Analytics in Physics Education: Equity-Focused Decision-Making Lacks Guidance!

Adrian Grimm, Anneke Steegh, M. Kubsch, K. Neumann
{"title":"Learning Analytics in Physics Education: Equity-Focused Decision-Making Lacks Guidance!","authors":"Adrian Grimm, Anneke Steegh, M. Kubsch, K. Neumann","doi":"10.18608/jla.2023.7793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Learning Analytics are an academic field with promising usage scenarios for many educational domains. At the same time, learning analytics come with threats such as the amplification of historically grown inequalities. A range of general guidelines for more equity-focused learning analytics have been proposed but fail to provide sufficiently clear guidance for practitioners. With this paper, we attempt to address this theory–practice gap through domain-specific (physics education) refinement of the general guidelines We propose a process as a starting point for this domain-specific refinement that can be applied to other domains as well. Our point of departure is a domain-specific analysis of historically grown inequalities in order to identify the most relevant diversity categories and evaluation criteria. Through two focal points for normative decision-making, namely equity and bias, we analyze two edge cases and highlight where domain-specific refinement of general guidance is necessary. Our synthesis reveals a necessity to work towards domain-specific standards and regulations for bias analyses and to develop counter-measures against (intersectional) discrimination. Ultimately, this should lead to a stronger equity-focused practice in future.","PeriodicalId":145357,"journal":{"name":"J. Learn. Anal.","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Learn. Anal.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7793","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Learning Analytics are an academic field with promising usage scenarios for many educational domains. At the same time, learning analytics come with threats such as the amplification of historically grown inequalities. A range of general guidelines for more equity-focused learning analytics have been proposed but fail to provide sufficiently clear guidance for practitioners. With this paper, we attempt to address this theory–practice gap through domain-specific (physics education) refinement of the general guidelines We propose a process as a starting point for this domain-specific refinement that can be applied to other domains as well. Our point of departure is a domain-specific analysis of historically grown inequalities in order to identify the most relevant diversity categories and evaluation criteria. Through two focal points for normative decision-making, namely equity and bias, we analyze two edge cases and highlight where domain-specific refinement of general guidance is necessary. Our synthesis reveals a necessity to work towards domain-specific standards and regulations for bias analyses and to develop counter-measures against (intersectional) discrimination. Ultimately, this should lead to a stronger equity-focused practice in future.
物理教育中的学习分析:以公平为中心的决策缺乏指导!
学习分析是一个学术领域,在许多教育领域都有很好的应用场景。与此同时,学习分析也带来了一些威胁,比如历史上不断扩大的不平等。已经提出了一系列以股票为重点的学习分析的一般指导方针,但未能为从业者提供足够明确的指导。在本文中,我们试图通过特定领域(物理教育)对一般指导方针的改进来解决这一理论与实践之间的差距。我们提出了一个过程,作为这一特定领域改进的起点,也可以应用于其他领域。我们的出发点是对历史上增长的不平等进行特定领域的分析,以确定最相关的多样性类别和评估标准。通过规范决策的两个焦点,即公平和偏见,我们分析了两个边缘案例,并强调了需要对一般指导进行特定领域细化的地方。我们的综合表明,有必要为偏见分析制定特定领域的标准和法规,并制定针对(交叉)歧视的对策。最终,这应该会导致未来更注重股票的做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信