None of the 46 key publications on learning analytics for study success were rated as strong research rigour (11 weak; 35 moderate)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·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? Across the 46 included studies, the review's rigour appraisal rated none as strong, 11 as weak and 35 as moderate, mainly due to missing operationalisation of study success, imprecise methods or limited sample size. → Dirk Ifenthaler 2020
Evidence¶
Dirk Ifenthaler 2020¶
Dirk Ifenthaler, Jane Yin-Kim Yau. (2020). Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: a systematic review. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review team evaluated each key publication's theoretical rigour, methodological rigour, and rigour of findings and implications, categorised as weak, moderate or strong; the average of the categories produced the overall score. "None of the key publications were rated as strong research rigour".
"None of the key publications were rated as strong research rigour (11 weak; 35 moderate), mainly because of the missing operationalisation of study success, lack of precise methodological approaches or limited sample size."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Predictors of study success in the reviewed studies draw on two broad data sets: online behaviour trace data and students' background information — related
- Learning analytics approaches show promise for supporting study success and identifying students at risk of dropping out, but rigorous large-scale evidence of effectiveness is still lacking — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
la-studies-rigour-none-strong |
title |
None of the 46 key publications on learning analytics for study success were rated as strong research rigour (11 weak; 35 moderate) |
description |
None of the 46 key publications on learning analytics for study success were rated as strong research rigour (11 weak; 35 moderate) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dirk-ifenthaler-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.