DATA-DRIVEN EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITY PHYSICS: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF LEARNING ANALYTICS DASHBOARDS AND AI TUTORING

Samvel ASATRYAN; Naira SAFARYAN

doi:10.24234/miopap.v12i1.85

Authors

Samvel ASATRYAN https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-822X
Naira SAFARYAN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24234/miopap.v12i1.85

Keywords:

learning analytics, AI tutoring systems, undergraduate Physics, personalized learning, educational equity, technology acceptance model (TAM), actor-network theory (ANT), Bourdieu's theory of practice, digital pedagogy, data-driven education

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive analysis of data-driven learning technologies—specifically Learning Analytics (LA) dashboards and Artificial Intelligence (AI) tutoring systems—in undergraduate physics education. Emphasizing the importance of pedagogical integration and sociological context, the study explores how these tools influence learning outcomes, student engagement, and equity.

Learning Analytics dashboards are shown to support engagement and self-regulation, particularly when integrated with active learning pedagogies. However, their direct impact on academic achievement remains inconsistent, with effectiveness hinging on design and implementation. AI tutoring systems, including cognitive, dialogue-based, and generative models (such as RAG-based LLMs), display greater promise in enhancing conceptual understanding, problem-solving skills, and personalization. Their success depends not only on technological capability but also on the alignment with learner needs, faculty acceptance, and social equity.

The study employs a triangulated methodology combining international case studies, sociological theory (TAM, ANT, Bourdieu), and synthesized survey data to assess user perceptions. It identifies key barriers, such as technological fluency gaps, digital divides, and ethical concerns around data privacy, algorithmic bias, and over-reliance on automation. A focused lens on Armenia’s context underscores infrastructural and pedagogical challenges limiting adoption.

The article concludes with a critical synthesis: data-driven tools can significantly enhance physics education but are not panaceas. Their success depends on context-sensitive pedagogical integration, faculty and student readiness, and ethical design. Recommendations emphasize hybrid human-AI models, explainable AI, and equity-first deployment strategies.

References

Hewitt, H. B., Simon, M. N., Mead, C., Grayson, S., Beall, G. L., Zellem, R. T., Tock, K., & Pearson, K. A. (2023). Development and assessment of a course-based undergraduate research experience for online astronomy majors. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.19.020156 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020156

Liu, V., Latif, E., & Zhai, X. (2025). Advancing education through tutoring systems: A systematic literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09748. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09748

Calonge, D. S., Riggs, K. M., Shah, M. A., & Cavanagh, T. A. (2018). Using learning analytics to improve engagement, learning, and design of massive open online courses. In Advances in higher education and professional development book series (pp. 76–107). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7470-5.ch004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7470-5.ch004

Nuangchalerm, P. (2023). AI-Driven Learning Analytics in STEM Education. International Journal on Research in STEM Education, 5(2), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v5i2.1596 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v5i2.1596

Shafiq, N. M., Sami, N. M. A., Bano, N. N., Bano, N. R., & Rashid, N. M. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Physics Education: Transforming Learning from Primary to University Level. Indus Journal of Social Sciences., 3(1), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.59075/ijss.v3i1.807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59075/ijss.v3i1.807

Yang, J., DeVore, S., Hewagallage, D., Miller, P., Ryan, Q. X., & Stewart, J. (2020). Using machine learning to identify the most at-risk students in physics classes. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.16.020130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020130

Odden, T. O. B., Lockwood, E., & Caballero, M. D. (2019). Physics computational literacy: An exploratory case study using computational essays. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.15.020152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020152

AIS Electronic Library (AISEL) - AMCIS 2018 Proceedings: The Effect of Studentsâ€TM Technology Readiness on Technology Acceptance. (n.d.). https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2018/AdoptionDiff/Presentations/18/

Ateş, H., & Gündüzalp, C. (2025). Proposing a conceptual model for the adoption of artificial intelligence by teachers in STEM education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2457350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2457350

Underwood, J. L., & Luckin, R. (2011). What is AIED and why does education need it? Technology Enhanced Learning Research Programme. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241698223_What_is_AIED_and_why_does_Education_need_it

Demirci, N. (2025). How successful are artificial intelligence chatbots on higher education entrance physics exams in Turkey. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), Article 12. https://tojet.net/articles/v24i2/24212.pdf

Flanagan, B., Wasson, B., & Gašević, D. (Eds.). (2024). Companion proceedings of the 14th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK24), March 18–22, 2024, Kyoto, Japan. Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR). https://www.solaresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LAK24_CompanionProceedings.pdf

Gregorcic, B., Polverini, G., & Sarlah, A. (2024). ChatGPT as a tool for honing teachers’ Socratic dialogue skills. Physics Education, 59(4), 045005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad3d21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad3d21

Vasconcelos, M. a. R., & Santos, R. P. D. (2023). Enhancing STEM learning with ChatGPT and Bing Chat as objects to think with: A case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 19(7), em2296. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13313 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13313

Weber, D. (2024). AI in the classroom: Teachers' views on artificial intelligence (Master’s thesis, Uppsala University). Uppsala University Publications. https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1908423/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Fuligni, C., Dominguez Figaredo, D., & Stoyanovich, J. (2025). “Would you want an AI tutor?” Understanding stakeholder perceptions of LLM-based chatbots in the classroom. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02885

Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep430. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176

Grimm, A., Steegh, A., Kubsch, M., & Neumann, K. (2023). Learning Analytics in Physics Education. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7793

Guzmán-Valenzuela, C., Gómez-González, C., Tagle, A. R., & Lorca-Vyhmeister, A. (2021). Learning analytics in higher education: a preponderance of analytics but very little learning? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00258-x

Ignatow, G., & Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: theorizing the digital. Information Communication & Society, 20(7), 950–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1301519 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301519

Guzmán-Valenzuela, C., Gómez-González, C., Tagle, A. R., & Lorca-Vyhmeister, A. (2021b). Learning analytics in higher education: a preponderance of analytics but very little learning? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00258-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00258-x

Grimm, A., Steegh, A., Kubsch, M., & Neumann, K. (2023b). Learning Analytics in Physics education. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7793 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7793

Zhang, C., Schießl, J., Plößl, L., Hofmann, F., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: a multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7

Yusuf, I., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2024). The Frontier Areas’ student Acceptance of Physics fun-based mobile application: Incorporating the Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning (POGIL) Strategy. Participatory Educational Research, 11(6), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.84.11.6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.84.11.6

Ng, J. T., Wang, Z., & Hu, X. (2022). Needs Analysis and Prototype Evaluation of Student-facing LA Dashboard for Virtual Reality Content Creation. LAK22: LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506880 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506880

Borchers, C., & Pardos, Z. A. (2023). Insights into undergraduate pathways using course load analytics. LAK2023: LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576081

Brown, M., & Cain, C. (2025). “I wish there was a way to share”: the changing campus ecologies around community college life science courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2024.2426186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2024.2426186

Goertzen, R. M., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. (2012). Expanded markers of success in Introductory university Physics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 262–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.718099 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.718099

Kamp, A. (2019). Actor–Network Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.526 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.526

Thomas, T., & De Villiers, C. (2002). Using actor-network theory to study an educational situation: An example from information systems at a technikon. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC36931 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/sajhe.v16i3.25230

Stahl, G., Mu, G. M., Ayling, P., & Weininger, E. B. (2023). Applying Bourdieu in educational research (pp. 1–18). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350349193.ch-i DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350349193.ch-I

Dart, S., Cunningham, S., Gregg, A., & Young, A. (2024). Factors influencing educators’ implementation of quality teaching practices in Australian engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2024.2407284 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2024.2407284

Chikwe, N. C. F., Dagunduro, N. a. O., Ajuwon, N. O. A., & Ediae, N. a. A. (2024). Sociological barriers to equitable digital learning: A data-driven approach. Comprehensive Research and Reviews in Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(1), 027–034. https://doi.org/10.57219/crrms.2024.2.1.0038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.57219/crrms.2024.2.1.0038

Galaige, J., Torrisi, R., Binnewies, S., & Wang, K. (2018). What is important in student-facing learning analytics? A user-centered design approach. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2018) (Paper 127). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/127

Kannan, V., Warriem, J. M., Majumdar, R., & Ogata, H. (2022). Learning dialogs orchestrated with BookRoll: effects on engagement and learning in an undergraduate physics course. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00203-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00203-0

Reid, D. P., & Drysdale, T. D. (2024). Student-Facing Learning Analytics Dashboard for Remote Lab Practical work. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2024.3354128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.3354128

Borden, V. M. H., & Coates, H. (2017). Learning Analytics as a counterpart to surveys of student experience. New Directions for Higher Education, 2017(179), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20246 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20246

NotebookLM: An LLM with RAG for active learning and collaborative tutoring. (n.d.). https://arxiv.org/html/2504.09720v1

Katz, S., & Albacete, P. L. (2013). A tutoring system that simulates the highly interactive nature of human tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1126–1141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032063

Tan, D. Y., & Cheah, C. W. (2021). Developing a gamified AI-enabled online learning application to improve students’ perception of university physics. Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100032

Tufino, E. (2025). NotebookLM: An LLM with RAG for active learning and collaborative tutoring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09720. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09720

Dihan, Q. A., Nihalani, B. R., Tooley, A. A., & Elhusseiny, A. M. (2024). Eyes on Google’s NotebookLM: using generative AI to create ophthalmology podcasts with a single click. Eye. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03481-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03481-8

Vogt, N. P., & Muise, A. S. (2015). An online tutor for astronomy: The GEAS self-review library. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1037990. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2015.1037990 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1037990

Blankstein, M., & Wolff-Eisenberg, C. (2019). Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2018. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.311199 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.311199

Tschisgale, P., Wulff, P., & Kubsch, M. (2023). Integrating artificial intelligence-based methods into qualitative research in physics education research: A case for computational grounded theory. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.19.020123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020123

DeVaney, J. (2018, December 27). How can learning analytics improve the student experience? EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-08-31-how-can-learning-analytics-improve-the-student-experience

Kcowan. (2025, January 30). Using learning analytics for effective formative feedback – Teaching Matters. https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/teaching-matters/using-learning-analytics-for-effective-formative-feedback/

Taqa, A. (2025, February). The digital divide: Ensuring equitable access to online learning resources.

NSF. (2025, April 17). Learning analytics: Harnessing data science to transform education. https://www.nsf.gov/events/learning-analytics-harnessing-data-science

Center for Curriculum Redesign. (2025, April 17). Artificial intelligence in education. https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/AIED-Book-Excerpt-CCR.pdf

Society for Learning Analytics Research. (2025, April 17). The Fifteenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. https://www.solaresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LAK25_CompanionProceedings-Final.pdf

Stanford SCALE. (2025, April 17). Impact – Quasi–experimental. https://scale.stanford.edu/genai/repository/impact-quasi-experimental

Reddit. (2025, April 17). New article says AI teachers are better than human teachers. Quote: "Students who were given access to an AI tutor learned more than twice as much in less time compared to those who had in-class instruction." https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1geyshu/new_article_says_ai_teachers_are_better_than/