University of South Australia

About: University of South Australia is a education organization based out in Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 10086 authors who have published 32587 publications receiving 913683 citations. The organization is also known as: The University of South Australia & UniSA.

A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies on Learning Analytics Dashboards: A Self-Regulated Learning Perspective

Abstract: This paper presents a systematic literature review of learning analytics dashboards (LADs) research that reports empirical findings to assess the impact on learning and teaching. Several previous literature reviews identified self-regulated learning as a primary focus of LADs. However, there has been much less understanding how learning analytics are grounded in the literature on self-regulated learning and how self-regulated learning is supported. To address this limitation, this review analyzed the existing empirical studies on LADs based on the well-known model of self-regulated learning proposed by Winne and Hadwin. The results show that existing LADs are rarely grounded in learning theory, cannot be suggested to support metacognition, do not offer any information about effective learning tactics and strategies, and have significant limitations in how their evaluation is conducted and reported. Based on the findings of the study and through the synthesis of the literature, the paper proposes that future research and development should not make any a priori design decisions about representation of data and analytic results in learning analytics systems such as LADs. To formalize this proposal, the paper defines the model for user-centered learning analytics systems (MULAS). The MULAS consists of the four dimensions that are cyclically and recursively interconnected including: theory, design, feedback, and evaluation.

Photographic measurement of upper-body sitting posture of high school students: A reliability and validity study

Abstract: All the reported measures of sitting posture, as well as photographs, have one flaw, as these measures are external to the body. These measures use calculations from external bony landmarks to estimate spinal posture, on the understanding that what is being measured externally reflects the shape, health and performance of structures of the underlying spine. Without a comparative measure of the relative position of the structures of the spine, the validity of any external spinal posture measure cannot be established. This paper reports on a study which tests the validity of photographs to measure adolescent sitting posture. The study was conducted in a laboratory at the Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town. A random sample of 40 adolescents were recruited from the Cape metropolitan schools, to detect differences of three degrees or more between the repeated measures of upright, normal or slouched posture (photographs) and between the posture photographs and LODOX measures. Eligible participants were healthy male and female subjects aged 15 or 16 years old, in Grade 10, and who were undertaking Computer or Computype studies at their schools. Two posture measurement tools were used in the study, namely: Photographs were taken using the Photographic Posture Analysis Method (PPAM) and Radiographs were taken using the LODOX (LODOX (Pty) Ltd) system. Subjects' posture was assessed in simulated computer workstations. The following angles were measured: the sagittal head angle, cervical angle, protraction/retraction angle, arm angle and the thoracic angle. Data from 39 subjects (19 males, 20 females) was used for analysis (17 15-year-olds (7 boys and 10 girls), 22 16-year-olds (12 boys and 10 girls)). All but one photographic angle showed moderate to good correlation with the LODOX angles (Pearson r values 0.67–0.95) with the exception being the shoulder protraction/retraction angle Pearson r values. Bland Altman limits of agreement illustrated a slight bias for all angles. The reliability study findings from repeated photographs demonstrated moderate to good correlation of all angles (ICC values 0.78–0.99). The findings of this study suggest that photographs provide valid and reliable indicators of the position of the underlying spine in sitting. Clinically it is important to know whether a patient is showing true progression in relation to a postural intervention. Based on the results of this study, the PPAM can be used in practice as a valid measure of sitting posture.

Knee kinematics and joint moments during gait following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background Abnormal gait after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may contribute to development and/or progression of knee osteoarthritis. Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of knee kinematics and joint moments during walking after ACLR. Methods We searched seven electronic databases and reference lists of relevant papers, for cross-sectional, human-based observational studies comparing knee joint kinematics and moments during level walking in individuals with ACLR, with the uninjured contralateral knee or healthy individuals as a control. Two independent reviewers appraised methodological quality (modified Downs and Black scale). Where possible, data were pooled by time post-ACLR (RevMan), otherwise narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results Thirty-four studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed significant sagittal plane deficits in ACLR knees. We found greater knee flexion angles (standardised mean difference: 1.06; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.74) and joint moments (1.61; 0.87 to 2.35) 3 years after ACLR (vs healthy controls) (0.09; −0.63 to 0.81). No transverse plane conclusions could be drawn. Conclusions Sagittal plane biomechanics, rather than the knee adduction moment, appear to be more relevant post-ACLR. Better understanding of sagittal plane biomechanics is necessary for optimal post-operative recovery, and to potentially prevent early onset and progression of knee OA after ACLR. Trial registration number PROSPERO systematic review protocol registration number CRD4201400882 2.