Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
3 references
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapter 12
learning analyticsgenerative artificial intelligencepersonalized interventionspedagogical decision makingaffective inferencestudent data privacyhuman oversightmachine-generated interpretationsPreprint Evidence summaryAt a glance
Sajja, Sermet, Cwiertny, and Demir describe a prototype learning-analytics tool that uses GPT-4 to help instructors interpret student questions and other learning signals.
Key ideas
The system classifies features such as topic, cognitive level using Bloom’s taxonomy, curiosity, confusion, stress, and preferred study approaches, then aggregates them into dashboards intended to show engagement and learning progression. The paper explains the architecture, learning-management-system integration, synthetic-data testing, and a faculty survey about perceived usefulness and risks. Respondents saw potential for timely instructional adjustment and personalized intervention but raised concerns about privacy, security, reliability, bias, and the validity of machine-generated interpretations. The study is exploratory: it does not demonstrate improved learning outcomes, and inference about affect from text requires careful validation.
Why it matters
Its contribution is a concrete design case showing how generative AI might augment pedagogical decision making while making governance, human oversight, transparent metrics, and protection of student data central requirements rather than afterthoughts.
-
- Vol 7 RE: Chapter 10, App D
learning analyticsstudent expectationsstudy planningself-assessmentadaptive recommendationspersonalized feedbackdata privacyJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Schumacher and Ifenthaler investigate what university students want from learning-analytics systems and whether they believe particular features would support their learning. An exploratory qualitative study with 20 students generated a set of expected functions, followed by a quantitative study in which 216 students rated 15 features, their willingness to use them, and perceived learning value.
Key ideas
Students especially valued tools for planning and organizing study, self-assessment, adaptive recommendations, and personalized analysis of learning activity. These expectations map onto phases of self-regulated learning, including preparation, performance monitoring, and reflection. Participants saw potential benefits in timely feedback and individualized support, yet also worried that analytics might become invasive or reduce autonomy. The findings show why dashboard design should begin with learner needs and educational theory rather than the data that happen to be available.
Why it matters
The authors recommend aligning features with self-regulation, feedback, and instruction, while making data practices and purposes transparent. Meaningful user involvement is therefore both a design requirement and a condition for acceptance.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 2 RE: Chapters 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, App E
- Vol 6 RE: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, App C, App D, App E
- Vol 7 RE: Chapters 10, 11, 12, 16, App B, App D
generative artificial intelligencehuman-centred governancedata privacyai literacyalgorithmic accountabilityassessment redesigncritical evaluationReport Evidence summaryAt a glance
UNESCO’s guidance offers a human-centred framework for governing generative AI in education and research. It explains how foundation models produce outputs, surveys emerging uses and risks, and cautions that rapid commercial deployment has outpaced regulation, institutional readiness, and evidence about educational benefit.
Key ideas
The report prioritises data privacy, age-appropriate use, human agency, inclusion, cultural and linguistic diversity, transparency, accountability, and validation of systems for their intended contexts. It recommends that governments develop coordinated regulation and public capacity, while institutions protect personal data, examine providers and models, define ethical and pedagogical standards, and build staff and learner AI literacy. Proposed uses—such as supporting inquiry, co-design, tutoring, language learning, or research—should be tested rather than assumed effective, with teachers and researchers retaining responsibility for judgement. Assessment and curriculum may need redesign to value higher-order thinking and critical evaluation of generated material.
Why it matters
The central message is that GenAI is not itself a solution to educational problems: adoption should serve human capabilities and collective purposes, remain contestable, and be continuously monitored for harms and unequal effects.
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway