K-means clustering of K–8 students' platform trace data yields seven distinct engagement profiles¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Clustering students in Grades 1–8 on percentage-based engagement features identified seven unique learner profiles, with seven clusters for Grades 2–5 and six for other grades. → Er 2024

Evidence¶

Er 2024¶

Er, E., Silik, S., & Cansiz, S. (2024). Uncovering Engagement Profiles of Young Learners in K–8 Education through Learning Analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 11(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2024.8133

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Observational log analysis of anonymized activity data from 67,686 students in 26,742 classes across 10,872 Turkish schools, reduced from 82,189 records after cleaning. K-means clustering on daily percentage features for lessons, practices, exams, and games "yielded seven clusters for Grades 2 to 5 and six for the other grade levels."

"The analysis yielded seven clusters for Grades 2 to 5 and six for the other grade levels."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Game-oriented engagement declines with grade level while assessment-driven engagement peaks in Grade 8 — related
• No K–8 student profile showed balanced engagement across all four platform components — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Three distinct learner profiles emerge from function art activities: Repetitivists, Simplists, and Multifunctionists — related
• The 96 thinking styles profiles cluster into three groups, with Achievement Motivation Thinking the most common — related
• K-means clustering of factor scores identifies 10 distinct types of teacher feedback content, mostly scaffolding-oriented — related
• Exploratory K-means clustering identifies four heterogeneous student AI-user profiles differing in experience, competence, usefulness, trust, and control, but the solution's optimality and stability are not established — related
• Teachers' post-workshop platform engagement fell into three behavioral profiles, with most teachers showing minimal creation and browsing — related
• Clustering yields a small number of behaviorally distinct team clusters that instructors can use for cluster-differentiated feedback — related
• Four distinct session-level engagement types emerge in GenAI Tutor use: Deep, Shallow, Routine-Learning, and Exam-Driven — related
• K-Means++ clustering of self-reported behavioral proxies yields six distinct, stable learner profiles (k = 6, Silhouette = 0.62) — related
• Four distinct LLM learner profiles emerge from latent class analysis of learning contexts, tasks, and devices — related
• Three learning profiles emerge among university students: organized-deep, unorganized-deep, and dissonant — related
• Affinity propagation clustering of gameplay attempts yielded an interpretable six-cluster solution (part.6)
• K-means clustering of standardized prior knowledge and final grades yields four performance profiles: Consistent Achievers, Growing Achievers, Declining Performers, and Struggling Performers — related
• The theory-into-game profile appears only in Grades 1–5 and the traditional comprehensive profile is absent in Grade 1 — related
• Trace data is the dominant data type LA uses to support feedback in higher education (36% of coded data types) — related