Open learner models and learning analytics dashboards: a systematic review

Robert G. Bodily, J. Kay, V. Aleven, I. Jivet, Dan Davis, Françeska Xhakaj, K. Verbert
{"title":"Open learner models and learning analytics dashboards: a systematic review","authors":"Robert G. Bodily, J. Kay, V. Aleven, I. Jivet, Dan Davis, Françeska Xhakaj, K. Verbert","doi":"10.1145/3170358.3170409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to link student facing Learning Analytics Dashboards (LADs) to the corpus of research on Open Learner Models (OLMs), as both have similar goals. We conducted a systematic review of literature on OLMs and compared the results with a previously conducted review of LADs for learners in terms of (i) data use and modelling, (ii) key publication venues, (iii) authors and articles, (iv) key themes, and (v) system evaluation. We highlight the similarities and differences between the research on LADs and OLMs. Our key contribution is a bridge between these two areas as a foundation for building upon the strengths of each. We report the following key results from the review: in reports of new OLMs, almost 60% are based on a single type of data; 33% use behavioral metrics; 39% support input from the user; 37% have complex models; and just 6% involve multiple applications. Key associated themes include intelligent tutoring systems, learning analytics, and self-regulated learning. Notably, compared with LADs, OLM research is more likely to be interactive (81% of papers compared with 31% for LADs), report evaluations (76% versus 59%), use assessment data (100% versus 37%), provide a comparison standard for students (52% versus 38%), but less likely to use behavioral metrics, or resource use data (33% against 75% for LADs). In OLM work, there was a heightened focus on learner control and access to their own data.","PeriodicalId":437369,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"125","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 125

Abstract

This paper aims to link student facing Learning Analytics Dashboards (LADs) to the corpus of research on Open Learner Models (OLMs), as both have similar goals. We conducted a systematic review of literature on OLMs and compared the results with a previously conducted review of LADs for learners in terms of (i) data use and modelling, (ii) key publication venues, (iii) authors and articles, (iv) key themes, and (v) system evaluation. We highlight the similarities and differences between the research on LADs and OLMs. Our key contribution is a bridge between these two areas as a foundation for building upon the strengths of each. We report the following key results from the review: in reports of new OLMs, almost 60% are based on a single type of data; 33% use behavioral metrics; 39% support input from the user; 37% have complex models; and just 6% involve multiple applications. Key associated themes include intelligent tutoring systems, learning analytics, and self-regulated learning. Notably, compared with LADs, OLM research is more likely to be interactive (81% of papers compared with 31% for LADs), report evaluations (76% versus 59%), use assessment data (100% versus 37%), provide a comparison standard for students (52% versus 38%), but less likely to use behavioral metrics, or resource use data (33% against 75% for LADs). In OLM work, there was a heightened focus on learner control and access to their own data.
开放式学习者模型和学习分析仪表板:系统回顾
本文旨在将面向学生的学习分析仪表板(LADs)与开放学习者模型(olm)的研究语料库联系起来,因为两者都有相似的目标。我们对olm的文献进行了系统的回顾,并将结果与之前对学习者的lms进行的回顾进行了比较,包括(i)数据使用和建模,(ii)主要出版场所,(iii)作者和文章,(iv)关键主题,以及(v)系统评估。本文重点分析了两类研究的异同。我们的主要贡献是在这两个领域之间架起一座桥梁,作为发挥各自优势的基础。我们报告了以下审查的主要结果:在新的olm报告中,几乎60%是基于单一类型的数据;33%使用行为指标;39%支持用户输入;37%的人有复杂的模型;只有6%涉及多种应用。关键的相关主题包括智能辅导系统、学习分析和自我调节学习。值得注意的是,与lad相比,OLM研究更有可能是互动性的(81%的论文比31%的lad),报告评估(76%对59%),使用评估数据(100%对37%),为学生提供比较标准(52%对38%),但不太可能使用行为指标或资源使用数据(33%对75%的lad)。在OLM工作中,高度关注学习者的控制和对自己数据的访问。
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