LAK of Direction

IF 2.9 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Benjamin A. Motz, Yoav Bergner, Christopher A. Brooks, Anna Gladden, G. Gray, Charles Lang, Warren Li, F. Marmolejo‐Ramos, Joshua D. Quick
{"title":"LAK of Direction","authors":"Benjamin A. Motz, Yoav Bergner, Christopher A. Brooks, Anna Gladden, G. Gray, Charles Lang, Warren Li, F. Marmolejo‐Ramos, Joshua D. Quick","doi":"10.18608/jla.2023.7913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Learning analytics defines itself with a focus on data from learners and learning environments, with corresponding goals of understanding and optimizing student learning.  In this regard, learning analytics research, ideally, should be characterized by studies that make use of data from learners engaged in education systems, should measure student learning, and should make efforts to intervene and improve these learning environments. However, a common concern among members of the learning analytics research community is that these standards are not being met.  In two analysis waves, we review a large and comprehensive sample of research articles from the proceedings of the three most recent Learning Analytics and Knowledge conferences, the premier conference venue for learning analytics research, and from articles published during the same time in the Journal of Learning Analytics (over the years of 2020, 2021, and 2022).  We find that 37.4% of articles do not analyze data from learners in an education system, 71.1% do not include any measure of learning, and 89.0% of articles do not attempt to intervene in the learning environment.  We contrast these findings with the stated definition of learning analytics and infer, like others before us, that scholarship in learning analytics research presently lacks clear direction toward its stated goals.  We invite critical discussion of these findings from the learning analytics community, through open peer commentary.","PeriodicalId":36754,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Analytics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7913","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: 3

Abstract

Learning analytics defines itself with a focus on data from learners and learning environments, with corresponding goals of understanding and optimizing student learning.  In this regard, learning analytics research, ideally, should be characterized by studies that make use of data from learners engaged in education systems, should measure student learning, and should make efforts to intervene and improve these learning environments. However, a common concern among members of the learning analytics research community is that these standards are not being met.  In two analysis waves, we review a large and comprehensive sample of research articles from the proceedings of the three most recent Learning Analytics and Knowledge conferences, the premier conference venue for learning analytics research, and from articles published during the same time in the Journal of Learning Analytics (over the years of 2020, 2021, and 2022).  We find that 37.4% of articles do not analyze data from learners in an education system, 71.1% do not include any measure of learning, and 89.0% of articles do not attempt to intervene in the learning environment.  We contrast these findings with the stated definition of learning analytics and infer, like others before us, that scholarship in learning analytics research presently lacks clear direction toward its stated goals.  We invite critical discussion of these findings from the learning analytics community, through open peer commentary.
方向LAK
学习分析将自己定义为关注来自学习者和学习环境的数据,并以理解和优化学生学习为相应目标。在这方面,理想情况下,学习分析研究的特点应该是利用教育系统中学习者的数据,测量学生的学习,并努力干预和改善这些学习环境。然而,学习分析研究社区的成员普遍关心的是这些标准没有得到满足。在两波分析中,我们回顾了大量全面的研究文章样本,这些研究文章来自最近三次学习分析和知识会议(学习分析研究的主要会议场所)的论文集,以及在同一时间发表在《学习分析杂志》(2020年、2021年和2022年)上的文章。我们发现37.4%的文章没有分析教育系统中学习者的数据,71.1%没有包括任何学习测量,89.0%的文章没有试图干预学习环境。我们将这些发现与学习分析的既定定义进行对比,并像我们之前的其他人一样推断,学习分析研究中的学术研究目前缺乏明确的方向,无法实现其既定目标。我们邀请学习分析社区通过公开的同行评论对这些发现进行批判性讨论。
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
Journal of Learning Analytics
Journal of Learning Analytics Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
25
×
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