Program health
liveWhat this dashboard can and can't show
IntelliView is learning-intelligence decision support — it surfaces program-level signals worth a look, not a complete prediction of student or cohort success. Treat every flag as a prompt to investigate, not a verdict.
It shows: engagement with IntelliView content, completion & pacing, knowledge-check performance, confusion & content difficulty, confidence relative to performance, and use of tools like the AI Tutor.
It does not show: overall course grades, summative exam scores, clinical or psychomotor performance, professional or affective concerns, or academic-standing / probation status.
Mastery & confidence trend
Weekly cohort averages
Students needing attention
liveFlagged in more than one course
The students most likely to need coordinated, program-level follow-up — their concerns span multiple courses, so no single instructor sees the whole picture.
Students needing attention
Current-status flags from this term's signals — not a prediction of passing a board or licensure exam.
| Student | Course | RiskHow students are flagged A student is flagged when they show warning signs this term, like low scores, overconfidence, low completion, or unusual answer speed. High = two or more signs · Medium = one · On track = none. This shows where students stand now, not a prediction of passing a board or licensure exam. Scoring detail: low scores and overconfidence count double (High ≥ 4, Medium 2–3); same model as the Faculty Dashboard. |
Score | Signals | Avg masteryHow mastery is calculated Rule-based score, not AI-generated: each quiz and exam answer is weighted by recency — an answer 90 days old counts half as much as today's. Score = Σ (score × recency weight) / Σ (recency weight). |
Faculty intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | ||||||
Flagged by course
Interventions by course
Logged by faculty · all students, including students not currently flagged
Courses & content
liveCourse health
One row per program course
| Course | Faculty | Enrolled | Avg masteryHow mastery is calculated Rule-based score, not AI-generated: each quiz and exam answer is weighted by recency — an answer 90 days old counts half as much as today's. Score = Σ (score × recency weight) / Σ (recency weight). |
Avg confidence | Completion | Time to answer | AI questions | Exam avg | StatusCourse status definitions Good — course avg mastery ≥ 0.70. Watch — 0.55–0.69. Flag — below 0.55. Course avg mastery = decay-weighted mean over the cohort's answered statements for the course. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | |||||||||
Outcome mastery by course
Cohort average per learning outcome
Videos needing review
Content the cohort is collectively struggling with
Which videos need review?
Top AI tutor topics
Most-asked across the program
| Topic | Qs | Students | Unsat.Unsatisfied AI answers Count of 👎 "not helpful" ratings students gave AI-tutor answers on this topic ( rated statements with helpful=false, tied to the originating question). High counts mean the AI is fielding questions the content should be answering. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | |||
Questions to review
Program-wide items with weak or negative discrimination — most suspect first
| Question | Video | Discrimination | Accuracy | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | ||||
Reading this: Miskeyed? (a negative value) means weaker students outscored stronger ones — check the keyed answer first. Weak means the question barely separates strong from weak students. Faculty can drill into a specific question's answer choices on the faculty dashboard's video view.
Exams
liveCBEPT
APTA CBEPT · 8 domains · 54 competencies · 19 EPAs Knowledge-testing evidence liveWhat this tab shows — and what it doesn't
Not an entry-level PT (CBEPT) program? This tab won't apply — use the Topic mastery tab instead, which works for any discipline or post-professional program.
In the APTA CBEPT framework an EPA is entrusted on a supervision scale (e.g. TRUST PT, L1 “ready to observe” → L6 “ready to supervise others”), decided through workplace-based direct observation across 5–10 formal assessments in more than one setting (report p.40). This tab reports one of the report's evidence sources: non-workplace-based, written/online knowledge testing — how well students answer the quiz items that assess each competency and EPA. Read it as evidence toward an entrustment decision, not the decision itself. Workplace-based entrustment data (a future phase) would complete the picture.
Coverage & performance by domain
All 8 CBEPT domains · sorted by coverage gaps, largest first
| Domain | Competencies assessedWhat counts as assessed A competency is assessed when at least one published quiz item is tagged to it and students have scored answers on record. Sparse — tagged, but not enough answers yet to read the rate with confidence. No items — nothing in the item bank is tagged to it yet (a coverage gap). |
Tagged items | Cohort correctCohort correct rate Share of correct answers across everything students answered on items tagged to the domain's competencies. ≥ 0.70 · 0.55–0.69 · < 0.55. Not the mastery score — no recency decay or outcome weighting; this is the raw item-bank rollup. |
Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | ||||
Where this data comes from
Competency detail
Per-competency coverage and performance within one domain
| Code | Competency | Tagged items | Cohort correct | StatusStatus definitions Assessed — tagged items with enough answers to trust the rate. Sparse — tagged, but under 50 answers; the correct rate is low-confidence. No items — no item in the bank is tagged to this competency yet. |
|---|
EPA readiness
All 19 Entrustable Professional Activities · correct rate derived from each EPA's critical competencies
How EPA evidence works
Coverage gaps
How gaps get closed
Per-student CBEPT mastery
Decay-weighted competency mastery per learner · weakest first
| Student | Avg competency masteryDecay-weighted mastery The recency-weighted mastery score (an answer 90 days old counts half as much), averaged across the competencies this student has evidence for. Unlike the cohort rate above, it is per-student and decays over time. |
Competencies | EPAs | Due for reassessmentDue for reassessment Competencies/EPAs whose most recent evidence is older than the reassessment window (default 180 days). The APTA report notes competence has an “expiration date” — after a lapse the learner should be reassessed (p.40). |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | ||||
How this is computed
Entrustment (workplace supervision)
Workplace evidenceLatest TRUST-PT level per student per EPA, with the report's evidence-sufficiency check (enough assessments across multiple settings & assessors).
| TRUST-PT supervision level L1 (most supervision) → L6 (can supervise others). The exact anchors follow your program's TRUST-PT rubric. Higher = more entrustable. |
Settings / assessors | Evidence sufficiency The report recommends ~5–10 formal assessments per EPA spanning multiple settings and assessors (p.40). Insufficient < 5 · Developing · Sufficient ≥ 10 & diverse. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | |||||
How to read this
Topic mastery
liveMastery of the actual course content, one row per lecture — the recency-weighted average of the cohort's quiz & exam answers on that video. Grouped by the courses in this program. A content-based alternative to competency frameworks, fit for any discipline or post-professional program.