Methods for Evaluating Learning Analytics and Learning Analytics Dashboards in Adaptive Learning Platforms: A Systematic Review

IF 2.4 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Tobias Alexander Bang Tretow-Fish, Md Saifuddin Khalid
{"title":"Methods for Evaluating Learning Analytics and Learning Analytics Dashboards in Adaptive Learning Platforms: A Systematic Review","authors":"Tobias Alexander Bang Tretow-Fish, Md Saifuddin Khalid","doi":"10.34190/ejel.21.5.3088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research paper highlights and addresses the lack of a systematic review of the methods used to evaluate Learning Analytics (LA) and Learning Analytics Dashboards (LAD) of Adaptive Learning Platforms (ALPs) in the current literature. Addressing this gap, the authors built upon the work of Tretow-Fish and Khalid (2022) and analyzed 32 papers, which were grouped into six categories (C1-6) based on their themes. The categories include C1) the evaluation of LA and LAD design and framework, C2) the evaluation of user performance with LA and LAD, C3) the evaluation of adaptivity, C4) the evaluation of ALPs through perceived value, C5) the evaluation of Multimodal methods, and C6) the evaluation of the pedagogical implementation of ALP’s LA and LAD. The results include a tabular summary of the papers including the categories, evaluation unit(s), methods, variables and purpose. While there are numerous studies in categories C1-4 that focus on the design, development, and impact assessment of ALP's LA and LAD, there are only a few studies in categories C5 and C6. For the category of C5), very few studies applied any evaluation methods assessing the multimodal features of LA and LADs on ALPs. Especially for C6), evaluating the pedagogical implementation of ALP's LA and LAD, the three dimensions of signature pedagogy are used to assess the level of pedagogy evaluation. Findings showed that no studies focus on evaluating the deep or implicit structure of ALP's LA. All studies examine the structural surface dimension of learning activities and interactions between students, teachers, and ALP's LA and LAD, as examined in categories C2-C5. No studies were exclusively categorized as a C6 category, indicating that all studies evaluate ALP's LA and LAD on the surface structure dimension of signature pedagogy. This review highlights the lack of pedagogical methodology and theory in ALP's LA and LAD, which are recommended to be emphasized in future research and ALP development and implementation.","PeriodicalId":46105,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of e-Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of e-Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.21.5.3088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research paper highlights and addresses the lack of a systematic review of the methods used to evaluate Learning Analytics (LA) and Learning Analytics Dashboards (LAD) of Adaptive Learning Platforms (ALPs) in the current literature. Addressing this gap, the authors built upon the work of Tretow-Fish and Khalid (2022) and analyzed 32 papers, which were grouped into six categories (C1-6) based on their themes. The categories include C1) the evaluation of LA and LAD design and framework, C2) the evaluation of user performance with LA and LAD, C3) the evaluation of adaptivity, C4) the evaluation of ALPs through perceived value, C5) the evaluation of Multimodal methods, and C6) the evaluation of the pedagogical implementation of ALP’s LA and LAD. The results include a tabular summary of the papers including the categories, evaluation unit(s), methods, variables and purpose. While there are numerous studies in categories C1-4 that focus on the design, development, and impact assessment of ALP's LA and LAD, there are only a few studies in categories C5 and C6. For the category of C5), very few studies applied any evaluation methods assessing the multimodal features of LA and LADs on ALPs. Especially for C6), evaluating the pedagogical implementation of ALP's LA and LAD, the three dimensions of signature pedagogy are used to assess the level of pedagogy evaluation. Findings showed that no studies focus on evaluating the deep or implicit structure of ALP's LA. All studies examine the structural surface dimension of learning activities and interactions between students, teachers, and ALP's LA and LAD, as examined in categories C2-C5. No studies were exclusively categorized as a C6 category, indicating that all studies evaluate ALP's LA and LAD on the surface structure dimension of signature pedagogy. This review highlights the lack of pedagogical methodology and theory in ALP's LA and LAD, which are recommended to be emphasized in future research and ALP development and implementation.
评估自适应学习平台中学习分析和学习分析仪表板的方法:系统回顾
本研究论文强调并解决了当前文献中缺乏对用于评估自适应学习平台(ALP)的学习分析(LA)和学习分析仪表板(LAD)的方法进行系统综述的问题。针对这一空白,作者在 Tretow-Fish 和 Khalid(2022 年)的工作基础上,对 32 篇论文进行了分析,并根据论文主题将其分为六类(C1-6)。这些类别包括:C1)LA 和 LAD 设计和框架评估;C2)用户使用 LA 和 LAD 的表现评估;C3)适应性评估;C4)通过感知价值评估 ALP;C5)多模态方法评估;C6)ALP 的 LA 和 LAD 的教学实施评估。研究结果包括论文摘要表,其中包括类别、评价单位、方法、变量和目的。在 C1-4 类中,有许多研究侧重于 ALP 的 "学 习方法 "和 "本地学习与发展 "的设计、开发和影响评估,而在 C5 和 C6 类中,只有少数研究。在 C5) 类研究中,很少有研究采用任何评估方法,对 ALP 的 LA 和 LAD 的多模式特征进行评估。特别是在 C6)类别中,评估 ALP 的 LA 和 LAD 的教学实施情况时,使用了标志性教学法的三个维度来评估教学法的评估水平。研究结果表明,没有研究侧重于评估 ALP 的 "学习方法 "的深层或内隐结构。所有研究都考察了学习活动的结构表层维度,以及学生、教师、ALP的LA和LAD之间的互动,如C2-C5类的考察。没有一项研究专门被归入 C6 类,这表明所有研究都是在标志性教学法的表面结构维度上评估 ALP 的 "洛杉矶 "和 "本地学习与发展 "的。本综述强调了ALP的LA和LAD缺乏教学方法和理论,建议在未来的研究和ALP的开发与实施中予以强调。
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
Electronic Journal of e-Learning
Electronic Journal of e-Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
34
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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