Agentic education · Learning science

Actionable companion · Feedback & scaffolding

Learning with agency: Empowering Health Care Education Through Learning Analytics: In-depth Scoping Review

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paperSearch paper agentCC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Age / stage not established. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Background Digital education has expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic began. A substantial amount of recent data on how students learn has become available for learning analytics (LA). LA denotes the “measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs.” Objective This scoping review aimed to examine the use of LA in health care professions education and propose a framework for the LA life cycle. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search of 10 databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ICTP, Scopus, and IEEE Explore. In total, 6 reviewers worked in pairs and performed title, abstract, and full-text screening. We resolved disagreements on study selection by consensus and discussion with other reviewers. We included papers if they met the following criteria: papers on health care professions education, papers on digital education, and papers that collected LA data from any type of digital education platform. Results We retrieved 1238 papers, of which 65 met the inclusion criteria. From those papers, we extracted some typical characteristics of the LA process and proposed a framework for the LA life cycle, including digital education content creation, data collection, data analytics, and the purposes of LA. Assignment materials were the most popular type of digital education content (47/65, 72%), whereas the most commonly collected data types were the number of connections to the learning materials (53/65, 82%). Descriptive statistics was mostly used in data analytics in 89% (58/65) of studies. Finally, among the purposes for LA, understanding learners’ interactions with the digital education platform was cited most often in 86% (56/65) of papers and understanding the relationship between interactions and student performance was cited in 63% (41/65) of papers. Far less common were the purposes of optimizing learning: the provision of at-risk intervention, feedback, and adaptive learning was found in 11, 5, and 3 papers, respectively. Conclusions We identified gaps for each of the 4 components of the LA life cycle, with the lack of an iterative approach while designing courses for health care professions being the most prevalent. We identified only 1 instance in which the authors used knowledge from a previous course to improve the next course. Only 2 studies reported that LA was used to detect at-risk students during the course’s run, compared with the overwhelming majority of other studies in which data analysis was performed only after the course was completed.

What kind of evidence is this?

Intelligent tutoring & adaptive learning · Evidence synthesis

Stage: Age / stage not established. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Study methods · source passage

To provide a comprehensive overview of the use of LA in health care professions education, we analyzed the literature by conducting a scoping review. This study used the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) standards [19].

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

Although this scoping review was conducted according to the scoping review methodology, some limitations are worth noting. This review was guided by a formal protocol. To ensure a broad search of the literature, the search strategy included 10 databases; however, our inclusion criteria limited our review results to only English-language articles and published peer-reviewed literature from January 2010 to October 2021. Furthermore, as the data were extracted by 6 reviewers, we used the standardized extraction form to ensure consistency among reviewers. Nevertheless, the extraction process might be slightly affected by the presence of multiple reviewers. A final limitation is the rapid growth of the field; therefore, it is important to acknowledge that this scoping review is a snapshot at a particular point in time. Unlike traditional systematic reviews guided by well-defined constructs, in scooping reviews, it might be unfeasible to screen and synthesize all relevant literature on an emergent topic [133]. As our purpose was to primarily understand what LA techniques have been used in the education of health care professionals, our efforts to identify all eligible studies were limited in some respects.

Design the system before the pilot

Document the learner model, mastery rule, hint sequence and adaptation signal. Compare adaptive routing with the same content in a non-adaptive sequence. Check whether early errors lead to persistent low-expectation pathways.

  • Give feedback on the learner’s reasoning, then fade hints. Record whether the learner can complete the next task without that scaffold.
  • Co-design accommodations with learners and specialists. Check access and error burden across groups without inferring subgroup effectiveness from small or unreported samples.

A 90-day district pilot

  1. Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
  2. Days 16–30 · Design. Treat the paper as background evidence until its population is verified in the full text. Do not assign an age-specific intervention or extend adult results to children. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
  3. Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
  4. Days 61–90 · Decide. Extract the participant ages or education stage, recruitment, task and comparator before selecting a local pilot. If these cannot be established, retain the paper for design discussion rather than age-band efficacy claims. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Iva Bojic; Maleyka Mammadova; Chin-Siang Ang; Wei Lung Teo; Cristina Diordieva; Anita Pienkowska; Dragan Gašević; Josip Car. Empowering Health Care Education Through Learning Analytics: In-depth Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research (2023-05-17). https://doi.org/10.2196/41671

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.