by David Mather
Universities have invested heavily in understanding awarding gaps. We know more than ever about differential outcomes between student groups. We have sophisticated learning analytics platforms, increasingly accurate predictive models and growing confidence in our ability to identify students who may disengage, withdraw or underperform. This is important work, as it has helped institutions move away from reactive support towards earlier and more informed intervention.
Despite this, awarding gaps remain stubbornly persistent. Perhaps that is because we have spent the last decade using data to identify students rather than improve teaching. If we have become better at identifying students who are likely to struggle, why have we made less progress in changing the outcomes we are trying to improve?
Perhaps the answer lies in the purpose we have given our data. Learning analytics has become one of higher education’s greatest success stories. Universities now know more about their students than at any point in the sector’s history. Attendance, engagement with virtual learning environments, assessment patterns and a range of demographic indicators provide increasingly sophisticated pictures of student behaviour (Romero & Ventura, 2024). Most institutions now use this information to answer a single question: who is most likely to struggle?
It is an important question, but I am no longer convinced it is the most educational one.
Learning analytics has become remarkably good at supporting institutional decision making. It helps us identify educational risk, target student support and improve continuation. However, prediction is not pedagogy. Identifying students who may struggle is not the same as understanding how teaching might change their trajectory. Awarding gaps are not created by dashboards. They emerge through complex interactions between curriculum, assessment, expectations, recognition, belonging and students’ experiences of learning. They will not be closed by increasingly sophisticated prediction alone. Therefore, the assertion of this article is simple: better teaching closes awarding gaps. The role of data should be to improve teaching rather than improve prediction.
The distinction that I have presented became clear to me long before I joined higher education. My career began in further education, where I taught and led in sixth form colleges. Like many colleagues working in that sector, I became accustomed to using ALPS, a value added system that compares students’ outcomes with those expected from their prior attainment (ALPS Education, 2025). The numbers themselves were rarely the most interesting part of the conversation – the pedagogic conversations they created were.
Course teams did not gather simply to identify students who might miss their target grades. They asked why one assessment had produced stronger outcomes than another. They debated whether curriculum sequencing was helping students build confidence. They compared approaches to feedback and questioned whether different teaching strategies had influenced progress. Data became a catalyst for professional dialogue. It encouraged teachers to think critically about pedagogy rather than simply monitor performance.
One observation emerged repeatedly. Students at either end of the attainment spectrum were visible. Those achieving well continued to receive stretch and challenge. Those facing significant barriers rightly attracted additional support. However, those in the middle of those two poles often received much less attention. These were students who attended lessons, completed assignments and achieved respectable grades. They were progressing, but they had begun to plateau. Their potential remained largely hidden because nothing within the data suggested they required intervention. I have become increasingly convinced that higher education contains the same group.
Earlier this year I described those between the two poles as the silent middle (Mather, 2026a). My argument then focused on belonging. Universities have become increasingly effective at identifying students who excel and students who experience significant challenge. Those in between often remain unnoticed because they continue to progress through their programmes without attracting concern. Progress, however, should never be mistaken for fulfilled potential. My earlier articles have led me to a conclusion that the silent middle is not simply a group of overlooked students – they reveal something more fundamental about the questions we ask of our data.
Learning analytics tells us who is likely to struggle. It tells us much less about where teaching is most likely to make the greatest educational difference. Those are not the same question. One helps universities manage institutional risk. The other has the potential to improve educational practice. The distinction is significant because universities cannot close awarding gaps through prediction alone. They will close them by improving teaching, strengthening relationships and creating learning environments in which more students can succeed. Learning analytics has an important role to play in that ambition, but only if we stop asking it to tell us merely who needs support and start asking what it can teach us about teaching itself. The question is not whether universities should continue to invest in learning analytics (they should). The question is whether we have become too comfortable allowing learning analytics to define the educational problem.
For the past decade, learning analytics has largely been framed as an exercise in prediction. Institutions seek to identify students who may withdraw, fail or disengage so that support can be targeted before those outcomes become inevitable (Romero & Ventura, 2024). This represents an advance over retrospective approaches that identified concerns only after students had already fallen behind. Early identification and timely-bound support are crucial. The sector should not lose either.
However, prediction is not an educational strategy. Prediction tells us which students are most likely to experience difficulty. It tells us very little about what educators should do differently. A dashboard cannot redesign a curriculum, improve formative feedback, strengthen relationships between students and staff or create cultivate belonging. All of those are fundamentally pedagogical acts.
Awarding gaps emerge through pedagogy as much as they emerge through student characteristics. Curriculum design, assessment practices, expectations, feedback, representation and relationships all influence whether students flourish or merely progress. All of this means that learning analytics should be judged not simply by its ability to predict outcomes, but by its ability to improve teaching.
The distinction between prediction and teaching quality has profound implications for educational leadership. Every university leader understands that resources are finite. Personal tutors, learning developers, academic skills teams and lecturers cannot provide intensive support to every student throughout the academic year. Decisions therefore have to be made about where educational effort should be concentrated. Those decisions are often informed by indicators of risk. Students who stop attending, miss assessments or disengage understandably receive attention. That is appropriate and necessary, but I wonder whether we have overlooked another question: where is teaching most likely to change a student’s trajectory?
That question shifts the purpose of learning analytics completely. Instead of asking who is most likely to fail, we begin asking where educational opportunity exists. Instead of identifying institutional risk, we begin identifying pedagogical opportunity. Those are not competing priorities – they are different ways of thinking about educational gain.
My experience in further education suggests that this distinction is crucial. ALPS data did not conclude conversations about attainment – it started them. Teachers debated why one class had responded differently from another, why particular assessment approaches appeared more effective and which students seemed to benefit most from timely feedback or increased challenge. Data did not replace professional judgement – it sharpened it. Higher education has an opportunity to claim that mindset.
Freire (1970/2005) argued that education is transformative because it encourages dialogue, reflection and action rather than passive acceptance. His critique was directed at pedagogy, yet it also offers a useful way of thinking about educational data. Learning analytics should not become another form of educational banking in which institutions accumulate information without fundamentally changing practice. Data has educational value only when it changes the conversations educators have about teaching.
Addressing data for the purpose of informing pedagogy and practice should intersect with the conversation about awarding gaps. Universities have invested considerable effort in understanding differential outcomes across student groups. That work has transformed institutional awareness of structural inequalities and rightly challenged assumptions that degree classifications simply reflect individual effort or ability. Research has consistently demonstrated that awarding gaps emerge through complex interactions between curriculum, assessment, belonging, institutional culture and wider social structures rather than any single deficit within students themselves (Mountford-Zimdars et al, 2015). Addressing those gaps therefore requires sustained institutional commitment.
The institutional commitment I refer to is where the silent middle re-enters the conversation. Those in the silent middle are rarely identified as requiring support because they continue to engage, submit work and progress through their programmes (Mather, 2026a). They do not generate alerts because they are doing precisely what institutional systems expect them to do. Many achieve marks in the middle classifications throughout their degrees. They are neither failing nor flourishing – they simply continue. My question is: do our data encourage us to notice them?
I suspect they do not. As such, the consequence is that some of the students with the greatest capacity for educational gain receive the least pedagogical attention. Universities rightly identify students whose continuation is at risk. We devote much less effort to identifying students whose attainment could be transformed through relatively modest changes to teaching, feedback or academic relationships.
Educational gain is not distributed evenly across a student population. Some learners require substantial pastoral support simply to remain engaged, whilst others may experience significant academic development following one timely conversation, carefully designed formative feedback or an increased sense of belonging within their discipline. If learning analytics cannot help us distinguish between those different forms of educational opportunity, then we are asking increasingly sophisticated systems to answer significantly limited questions. Perhaps the challenge facing higher education is not to build better dashboards – perhaps it is to ask more educational questions of the data we already possess.
The argument I have made in this article is not that universities should invest less in learning analytics. Institutions should continue to develop their analytical capability because understanding students’ experiences is crucial if they are to be enhanced. However, my concern is that we have become so focused on prediction that we have paid insufficient attention to pedagogy. Learning analytics has become exceptionally good at telling us which students are most likely to struggle. It has been much less successful in helping us understand how teaching itself should change. If universities genuinely want to reduce awarding gaps, I contend that we should ask different questions of our data.
First, what do the data tell us about our teaching rather than our students? Much of our current use of learning analytics encourages us to examine student behaviour. Attendance, engagement and submission patterns become indicators of individual risk. Those measures have value, but they tell us little about the effectiveness of our curriculum, assessment design or feedback practices. Every dashboard should prompt course teams to ask whether the learning environment itself requires attention before concluding that the student does.
Second, where is the greatest opportunity for educational gain? Universities have become highly effective at identifying educational risk. We should become equally interested in identifying educational opportunity. Some students require substantial pastoral intervention to remain engaged. Others may transform their academic performance following timely feedback, clearer expectations or a stronger sense of belonging. Educational gain is not distributed evenly across a student population. Learning analytics should help us understand where relatively modest pedagogical changes are likely to have the greatest impact.
Third, who have we stopped noticing because they continue to pass? The silent middle is not simply a descriptive label. It represents a challenge to institutional assumptions about success (Mather, 2026a). Students who consistently achieve marks in the middle classifications rarely appear within institutional dashboards because they generate little concern. Their continued progression can disguise unrealised potential. Universities that are serious about improving outcomes should become just as interested in students who have plateaued as those whose continuation is at risk.
Fourth, what should we teach differently tomorrow because of what the data tell us today? This is the most important question of all. Learning analytics should not conclude a conversation, it should start one. If programme teams leave meetings with a list of students to contact but no discussion about teaching, assessment or curriculum, then the data has served an administrative purpose rather than an educational one. Professional judgement remains the most powerful tool available to educators. Analytics should strengthen that judgement, not replace it.
Finally, how will we know whether our teaching has changed outcomes? Universities devote considerable resources to measuring continuation, progression and degree classifications. Those metrics are important, but they should not become proxies for educational quality. We should also ask whether students have become more confident learners, whether they participate more actively, whether they experience a greater sense of belonging (on their terms) and whether teaching has enabled them to exceed the trajectories that seemed likely at the beginning of their studies. Those are educational outcomes. They deserve to be measured with the same seriousness as institutional performance indicators.
None of the questions I have posed requires higher education to adopt a system such as ALPS. Schools, sixth form colleges and universities pursue different purposes, educate different learners and operate within different frameworks. The lesson is not the system itself – it is the educational philosophy that underpins it. Freire (1970/2005) argued that education becomes transformative through dialogue, reflection and action. The same principle should apply to learning analytics. Data should not become another mechanism for classifying students or managing institutional performance – it should encourage educators to reflect critically on their practice, challenge assumptions about learning and act in ways that improve students’ educational experiences.
My own work over the past year has explored transition, belonging, good teaching and the silent middle (Mather, 2026a, 2026b). This article has helped me realise that these are not separate conversations; they point towards the same conclusion: students succeed because teaching matters. Relationships matter, recognition matters, belonging matters and curriculum matters. Learning analytics only become educationally significant when they help us improve all of those things.
David Mather is Associate Head of School (Students) and Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership and Management at the University of Portsmouth. His research explores identity, recognition, and transition across educational and professional contexts, with a particular interest in improving educational practice and the student experience. He is the founder of We See You, an initiative supporting Armed Forces, veteran, and Blue Light communities in higher education.
