Cited by 55Online Learning and AnalyticsBig Data and Business IntelligenceHigher Education Research Studies

A systematic review on the deployment and effectiveness of data analytics in higher education to improve student outcomes

Foster, Carly, Francis, Peter·2020·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

This is a systematic review conducted of primary research literature published between 2007 and 2018 on the deployment and effectiveness of data analytics in higher education to improve student outcomes. We took a methodological approach to searching databases; appraising and synthesising results against predefined criteria. We reviewed research on the effectiveness of three differentiated forms of data analytics: learning, academic and learner analytics. Student outcomes are defined as retention, academic performance and engagement. Our results find that three quarters of studies report the use of educational data analytics to be effective in improving student outcomes but their relationship with student outcomes requires further and more robust investigation and assessment. We argue that research must interpret and communicate effectiveness qualitatively, as well as quantitatively, by including the student voice in assessments of impact.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2019.1696945

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A lack of theoretical grounding in LA reviews includes underdeveloped theories of change.

    “and underdeveloped theories of change (Foster & Francis, 2020).”
  • Foster and Francis (2020) found evidence that outcomes can be predicted by LA, but inconsistency across terms and definitions led to difficulties in interpreting results.

    “While Foster and Francis (2020) found evidence to suggest that outcomes can be predicted by LA, inconsistency across terms and definitions led to difficulties in the overall interpretation of results.”

    From Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Foster and Francis (2020)

  • Studies using qualitative data collection and analysis methods were rare.

    “However, these were rare, with relatively few studies using qualitative data collection and analysis methods (Banihashem et al., 2022;Foster & Francis, 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foster, C., & Francis, P.
Affiliations
Northumbria University (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Foster, Carly
  • Francis, Peter
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2019-12-18
Volume
45
Issue
6
Pages
822-841
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W2995010956
Cited by
55
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
educational data analytics, learning analytics, academic analytics, student outcomes, student retention, academic performance, student engagement, student voice, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review