Learning analytics (LA) draws from the learning sciences to interpret learner behavior and inform system design. Yet, past personalization remains largely at the content or performance level (during learner-system interactions), overlooking relatively stable individual differences such as personality (unfolding over long-term learning trajectories such as college degrees). The latter could bring underappreciated benefits to the design, implementation, and impact of LA. In this position paper, we conduct an ad hoc literature review and argue for an expanded framing of LA that centers on learner traits as key to both interpreting and designing close-the-loop experiments in LA. We show that personality traits are relevant to LA's central outcomes (e.g., engagement and achievement) and conducive to action, as their established ties to human-computer interaction (HCI) inform how systems time, frame, and personalize support. Drawing inspiration from HCI, where psychometrics inform personalization strategies, we propose that LA can evolve by treating traits not only as predictive features but as design resources and moderators of analytics efficacy. In line with past position papers published at LAK, we present a research agenda grounded in the LA cycle and discuss methodological and ethical challenges.
Large language models offer a scalable alternative to human coding for data annotation tasks, enabling the scale-up of research across data-intensive domains. While LLMs are already achieving near-human accuracy on objective annotation tasks, their performance on subjective annotation tasks, such as those involving psychological constructs, is less consistent and more prone to errors. Standard evaluation practices typically collapse all annotation errors into a single alignment metric, but this simplified approach may obscure different kinds of errors that affect final analytical conclusions in different ways. Here, we propose a diagnostic evaluation paradigm that incorporates a human-in-the-loop step to separate task-inherent ambiguity from model-driven inaccuracies and assess annotation quality in terms of their potential downstream impacts. We refine this paradigm on ordinal annotation tasks, which are common in subjective annotation. The refined paradigm includes: (1) a diagnostic taxonomy that categorizes LLM annotation errors along two dimensions: source (model-specific vs. task-inherent) and type (boundary ambiguity vs. conceptual misidentification); (2) a lightweight human annotation test to estimate task-inherent ambiguity from LLM annotations; and (3) a computational method to decompose observed LLM annotation errors following our taxonomy. We validate this paradigm on four educational annotation tasks, demonstrating both its conceptual validity and practical utility. Theoretically, our work provides empirical evidence for why excessively high alignment is unrealistic in specific annotation tasks and why single alignment metrics inadequately reflect the quality of LLM annotations. In practice, our paradigm can be a low-cost diagnostic tool that assesses the suitability of a given task for LLM annotation and provides actionable insights for further technical optimization.
Learning analytics can guide human tutors to efficiently address motivational barriers to learning that AI systems struggle to support. Students become more engaged when they receive human attention. However, what occurs during short interventions, and when are they most effective? We align student-tutor dialogue transcripts with MATHia tutoring system log data to study brief human-tutor interactions on Zoom drawn from 2,075 hours of 191 middle school students' classroom math practice. Mixed-effect models reveal that engagement, measured as successful solution steps per minute, is higher during a human-tutor visit and remains elevated afterward. Visit length exhibits diminishing returns: engagement rises during and shortly after visits, irrespective of visit length. Timing also matters: later visits yield larger immediate lifts than earlier ones, though an early visit remains important to counteract engagement decline. We create analytics that identify which tutor-student dialogues raise engagement the most. Qualitative analysis reveals that interactions with concrete, stepwise scaffolding with explicit work organization elevate engagement most strongly. We discuss implications for resource-constrained tutoring, prioritizing several brief, well-timed check-ins by a human tutor while ensuring at least one early contact. Our analytics can guide the prioritization of students for support and surface effective tutor moves in real-time.
The learning analytics (LA) community has recently reached two important milestones: celebrating the 15th LAK conference and updating the 2011 definition of LA to reflect the 15 years of changes in the discipline. However, despite LA's growth, little is known about how research topics, funding, and collaboration, as well as the relationships among them, have developed within the community over time. This study addressed this gap by analyzing all 936 full and short papers published at LAK over a 15-year period using unsupervised machine learning, natural language processing, and network analytics. The analysis revealed a stable core of prolific authors alongside high turnover of newcomers, systematic links between funding sources and research directions, and six enduring topical centers that remain globally shared but vary in prominence across countries. These six topical centers, which encompass LA research, are: self-regulated learning, dashboards and theory, social learning, automated feedback, multimodal analytics, and outcome prediction. Our findings highlight key challenges for the future: widening participation, reducing dependency on a narrow set of funders, and ensuring that emerging research trajectories remain responsive to educational practice and societal needs.
The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 education highlights the need for psychometrically-tested measures of teachers' AI literacy. Existing work has primarily relied on either self-report (SR) or objective-based (OB) assessments, with few studies aligning the two within a shared framework to compare perceived versus demonstrated competencies or examine how prior AI literacy experience shapes this relationship. This gap limits the scalability of learning analytics and the development of learner profile-driven instructional design. In this study, we developed and evaluated SR and OB measures of teacher AI literacy within the established framework of Concept, Use, Evaluate, and Ethics. Confirmatory factor analyses support construct validity with good reliability and acceptable fit. Results reveal a low correlation between SR and OB factors. Latent profile analysis identified six distinct profiles, including overestimation (SR > OB), underestimation (SR < OB), alignment (SR close to OB), and a unique low-SR/low-OB profile among teachers without AI literacy experience. Theoretically, this work extends existing AI literacy frameworks by validating SR and OB measures on shared dimensions. Practically, the instruments function as diagnostic tools for professional development, supporting AI-informed decisions (e.g., growth monitoring, needs profiling) and enabling scalable learning analytics interventions tailored to teacher subgroups.
The field of learning analytics has made notable strides in automating the detection of complex learning processes in multimodal data. However, most advancements have focused on individualized problem-solving instead of collaborative, open-ended problem-solving, which may offer both affordances (richer data) and challenges (low cohesion) to behavioral prediction. Here, we extend predictive models to automatically detect socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) behaviors in collaborative computational modeling environments using embedding-based approaches. We leverage large language models (LLMs) as summarization tools to generate task-aware representations of student dialogue aligned with system logs. These summaries, combined with text-only embeddings, context-enriched embeddings, and log-derived features, were used to train predictive models. Results show that text-only embeddings often achieve stronger performance in detecting SSRL behaviors related to enactment or group dynamics (e.g., off-task behavior or requesting assistance). In contrast, contextual and multimodal features provide complementary benefits for constructs such as planning and reflection. Overall, our findings highlight the promise of embedding-based models for extending learning analytics by enabling scalable detection of SSRL behaviors, ultimately supporting real-time feedback and adaptive scaffolding in collaborative learning environments that teachers value.
The expansion of large-scale online education platforms has made vast amounts of student interaction data available for knowledge tracing (KT). KT models estimate students' concept mastery from interaction data, but their performance is sensitive to input data quality. Gaming behaviors, such as excessive hint use, may misrepresent students' knowledge and undermine model reliability. However, systematic investigations of how different types of gaming behaviors affect KT remain scarce, and existing studies rely on costly manual analysis that does not capture behavioral diversity. In this study, we conceptualize gaming behaviors as a form of data poisoning, defined as the deliberate submission of incorrect or misleading interaction data to corrupt a model's learning process. We design Data Poisoning Attacks (DPAs) to simulate diverse gaming patterns and systematically evaluate their impact on KT model performance. Moreover, drawing on advances in DPA detection, we explore unsupervised approaches to enhance the generalizability of gaming behavior detection. We find that KT models' performance tends to decrease especially in response to random guess behaviors. Our findings provide insights into the vulnerabilities of KT models and highlight the potential of adversarial methods for improving the robustness of learning analytics systems.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to annotate learning interactions, yet concerns about reliability limit their utility. We test whether verification-oriented orchestration-prompting models to check their own labels (self-verification) or audit one another (cross-verification)-improves qualitative coding of tutoring discourse. Using transcripts from 30 one-to-one math sessions, we compare three production LLMs (GPT, Claude, Gemini) under three conditions: unverified annotation, self-verification, and cross-verification across all orchestration configurations. Outputs are benchmarked against a blinded, disagreement-focused human adjudication using Cohen's kappa. Overall, orchestration yields a 58 percent improvement in kappa. Self-verification nearly doubles agreement relative to unverified baselines, with the largest gains for challenging tutor moves. Cross-verification achieves a 37 percent improvement on average, with pair- and construct-dependent effects: some verifier-annotator pairs exceed self-verification, while others reduce alignment, reflecting differences in verifier strictness. We contribute: (1) a flexible orchestration framework instantiating control, self-, and cross-verification; (2) an empirical comparison across frontier LLMs on authentic tutoring data with blinded human "gold" labels; and (3) a concise notation, verifier(annotator) (e.g., Gemini(GPT) or Claude(Claude)), to standardize reporting and make directional effects explicit for replication. Results position verification as a principled design lever for reliable, scalable LLM-assisted annotation in Learning Analytics.
