Claims

LA implementation outcomes leaned towards agreement for solving problems and informing institutional decisions, with polarised views on achieving goals and improving retention

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Survey respondents leaned towards agreement on using LA as solutions to existing problems and to inform institutional decisions, with polarised views on achieving goals and improving retention. → Tsai 2020

Evidence

Tsai 2020

Tsai, Yi-Shan, et al. (2020). Learning Analytics in European Higher Education – Trends and Barriers. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103933

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Survey of 15 respondents with implemented LA rating outcomes on a 5-Likert scale found "the participants wereleaningtowardsagreementintermsofusingLAassolutionstoexistingproblems(Item1)andusingLAtoinform institutional decisions (Item 3)."

"the results show that the participants wereleaningtowardsagreementintermsofusingLAassolutionstoexistingproblems(Item1)andusingLAtoinform institutional decisions (Item 3). The views towards the rest of the items appeared to be polarised, and slightly more negative about ‘achieving goals’ (Item 2) and ‘improving retention’ (Item 7) compared to the others."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-30
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.