Subject: EducationSpecific: Online Learning and FunType: Questionnaire survey data (csv / excel)Date: February - March 2020Content: Students' views about online learning and fun Data Source: Project OLAFValue: These data provide students' beliefs about how learning occurs and correlations with fun. Participants were 206 students from the OU

The dataset is related to student data, from an educational research study focusing on student demographics, academic performance, and related factors. Here’s a general description of what each column likely represents:

Sex: The gender of the student (e.g., Male, Female). Age: The age of the student. Name: The name of the student. State: The state where the student resides or where the educational institution is located. Address: Indicates whether the student lives in an urban or rural area. Famsize: Family size category (e.g., LE3 for families with less than or equal to 3 members, GT3 for more than 3). Pstatus: Parental cohabitation status (e.g., 'T' for living together, 'A' for living apart). Medu: Mother's education level (e.g., Graduate, College). Fedu: Father's education level (similar categories to Medu). Mjob: Mother's job type. Fjob: Father's job type. Guardian: The primary guardian of the student. Math_Score: Score obtained by the student in Mathematics. Reading_Score: Score obtained by the student in Reading. Writing_Score: Score obtained by the student in Writing. Attendance_Rate: The percentage rate of the student’s attendance. Suspensions: Number of times the student has been suspended. Expulsions: Number of times the student has been expelled. Teacher_Support: Level of support the student receives from teachers (e.g., Low, Medium, High). Counseling: Indicates whether the student receives counseling services (Yes or No). Social_Worker_Visits: Number of times a social worker has visited the student. Parental_Involvement: The level of parental involvement in the student's academic life (e.g., Low, Medium, High). GPA: The student’s Grade Point Average, a standard measure of academic achievement in schools.

This dataset provides a comprehensive look at various factors that might influence a student's educational outcomes, including demographic factors, academic performance metrics, and support structures both at home and within the educational system. It can be used for statistical analysis to understand and improve student success rates, or for targeted interventions based on specific identified needs.

This dataset contains statistically weighted estimates of initial education levels, highest education levels, and initial education locations for 43 key health workforce professions actively licensed in California as of July 1st, 2023. These metrics can be compared by workforce category, license type, time since license issue date (in years), race & ethnicity group, assigned sex at birth, and CHIS region.

LearnPlatform is a unique technology platform in the K-12 market providing the only broadly interoperable platform to the breadth of edtech solutions in the US K12 field. A key component of edtech effectiveness is integrated reporting on tool usage and, where applicable, evidence of efficacy. With COVID closures, LearnPlatform has emerged as an important and singular resource to measure whether students are accessing digital resources within distance learning constraints. This platform provides a unique and needed source of data to understand if students are accessing digital resources, and where resources have disparate usage and impact.In this dataset we are sharing educational technology usage across the 8,000+ tools used in the education field in 2020. We make this dataset available to public so that educators, district leaders, researchers, institutions, policy-makers or anyone interested to learn about digital learning in 2020, can use this dataset to understand student engagement with core learning activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some example research questions that this dataset can help stakeholders answer: What is the picture of digital connectivity and engagement in 2020?What is the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on online and distance learning, and how might this evolve in the future?How does student engagement with different types of education technology change over the course of the pandemic?How does student engagement with online learning platforms relate to different geography? Demographic context (e.g., race/ethnicity, ESL, learning disability)? Learning context? Socioeconomic status?Do certain state interventions, practices or policies (e.g., stimulus, reopening, eviction moratorium) correlate with increases or decreases in online engagement?

This dataset supports a meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) study investigating the factors influencing students’ behavioural intention to use educational AI (EAI) technologies. The research integrates constructs from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), and Artificial Intelligence Literacy (AIL), aiming to resolve inconsistencies in previous studies and improve theoretical understanding of EAI technology adoption.

Research Hypotheses The study hypothesized that: Students’ behavioural intention (INT) to use EAI technologies is influenced by perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioural control (PBC), as described in TAM and TPB. AI literacy (AIL) directly and indirectly predicts PU, PEU, ATT, and INT. These relationships are moderated by contextual factors such as academic level (K–12 vs. higher education) and regional economic development (developed vs. developing countries).

What the Data Shows The meta-analytic dataset comprises 166 empirical studies involving over 69,000 participants. It includes pairwise Pearson correlations among seven constructs (PU, PEU, ATT, SN, PBC, INT, AIL) and is used to compute a pooled correlation matrix. This matrix was then used to test three models via MASEM: A baseline TAM-TPB model, An internal-extended model with additional TPB internal paths, An AIL-integrated extended model. The AIL-integrated model achieved the best fit (CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.053) and explained 62.3% of the variance in behavioural intention.

Notable Findings AI literacy (AIL) is the strongest predictor of intention to use EAI technologies (Total Effect = 0.408). PU, ATT, and SN also significantly influence intention. The effect of PEU on intention is fully mediated by PU and ATT. Moderation analysis showed that the relationships differ between developed and developing countries and between K–12 and higher education populations.

How the Data Can Be Interpreted and Used The dataset includes bivariate correlations between variables, publication metadata, sample sizes, coding information, and reliability values (e.g., CR scores). Suitable for replication of MASEM procedures, moderation analysis, and meta-regression. Researchers may use it to test additional theoretical models or assess the influence of new moderators (e.g., AI tool type). Educators and policymakers can leverage insights from the meta-analytic results to inform AI literacy training and technology adoption strategies.

Understanding student performance is key to improving education systems and learning outcomes. This synthetic dataset is designed to simulate real-world academic data, enabling researchers, educators, and data scientists to analyze factors influencing student achievement in a structured and ethical manner.

With AI-generated records, this dataset provides insights into how demographic attributes, academic performance, and attendance patterns interact to shape student success.

🔍 Key Features: ✔️ Demographics & Grade Levels – Understand how age, gender, and grade level influence academic outcomes ✔️ Subject-Specific Performance – Modeled Math, Reading, and Writing scores for detailed analysis ✔️ Attendance Records – Explore the correlation between school presence and academic success ✔️ Comprehensive Student Data – Synthetic records designed for educational research and machine learning applications

📊 Dataset Overview: This dataset has been synthetically generated and does not contain real-world data. It is intended for educational purposes, machine learning practice, and exploratory data analysis related to student performance.

📖 Columns Description: Student_ID – Unique identifier for each synthetic student Gender – Simulated gender representation Age – Modeled student age Grade_Level – Academic level of the student Math_Score, Reading_Score, Writing_Score – Simulated subject-wise scores Attendance – Modeled school attendance record ⚠️ Disclaimer: This dataset is completely synthetic and should not be used for real-world educational policy-making, student assessments, or institutional reporting. It serves as a safe, ethical resource for learning, research, and model development.

🔹 Use this dataset to explore student performance trends, build predictive models, and gain insights into educational success factors! 🎯📊

Quality criteria, analysed data sets, and criteria assessment results of a study in Jul 2019 and Mar 2021. The study was part of a Master Thesis in Information Science (Autor: Gabriel Schneider, Titel: Qualität von Forschungsdaten der Bildungsforschung in offenen Repositorien).

This data set contains an expanded data set and a sub-set (14) of the original 16 quality criteria. Original criteria were translated into English for a presentation at LIDA 21.

Quality criteria were developed based on expertise from the Research Data Centre for Education and the FAIR principles.

In the first study 2019, 29 data sets from Zenodo (search=keyword:Education and type:dataset) were analysed according to the criteria. 20 data sets were excluded due to access restrictions or topic (non educational research).

In 2021, 11 data sets uploaded at Zenodo 2021 were analysed according to the criteria. As search function at Zenodo changed, the search was adapted ((search=keyword:*Education OR keyword:*education) AND type:dataset AND accessright:open). Some data sets were excluded due to topic (non educational research), year published (2020 excluded), language barrieres or insufficient avalaible data.

The files include:

- Criteria: The criteria and assessment points applied

- Dataset: The search terms for the retrieved data sets, and exclusion criteria

- Results: The assessment points given for each criteria to each data set (without further details on decision with regard to specifics of data sets)

This dataset contains data from the National Center for Education Statistics' Academic Library Survey, which was gathered every two years from 1996 - 2014, and annually in IPEDS starting in 2014 (this dataset has continued to only merge data every two years, following the original schedule). This data was merged, transformed, and used for research by Starr Hoffman and Samantha Godbey.This data was merged using R; R scripts for this merge can be made available upon request. Some variables changed names or definitions during this time; a view of these variables over time is provided in the related Figshare Project. Carnegie Classification changed several times during this period; all Carnegie classifications were crosswalked to the 2000 classification version; that information is also provided in the related Figshare Project. This data was used for research published in several articles, conference papers, and posters starting in 2018 (some of this research used an older version of the dataset which was deposited in the University of Nevada, Las Vegas's repository).SourcesAll data sources were downloaded from the National Center for Education Statistics website https://nces.ed.gov/. Individual datasets and years accessed are listed below.[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Academic Libraries Survey (ALS) Public Use Data File, Library Statistics Program, (2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996), https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/aca_data.asp[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institutional Characteristics component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Enrollment component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Human Resources component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Employees Assigned by Position component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2004, 2002), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7[dataset] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall Staff component, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (1999, 1997, 1995), https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/login.aspx?gotoReportId=7

The Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey is the primary source of information on R&D expenditures at U.S. colleges and universities. The survey collects information on R&D expenditures by field of research and source of funds and also gathers information on types of research, expenses, and R&D personnel. The survey is an annual census of institutions that expended at least $150,000 in separately accounted for R&D in the fiscal year. This dataset includes HERD assets for 2022.

The rapid advancements in generative AI models present new opportunities in the education sector. However, it is imperative to acknowledge and address the potential risks and concerns that may arise with their use. We collected Twitter data to identify key concerns related to the use of ChatGPT in education. This dataset is used to support the study "ChatGPT in education: A discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social media."

In this study, we particularly explored two research questions. RQ1 (Concerns): What are the key concerns that Twitter users perceive with using ChatGPT in education? RQ2 (Accounts): Which accounts are implicated in the discussion of these concerns? In summary, our study underscores the importance of responsible and ethical use of AI in education and highlights the need for collaboration among stakeholders to regulate AI policy.

The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002; https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/) is a study that is a part of the Education Longitudinal Study program. It is a longitudinal survey that monitors the transitions of a national sample of young people as they progress from tenth grade to, eventually, the world of work. In 2004, the sample was augmented to make it representative of seniors as well. The study was conducted using self-administered questionnaires and cognitive tests of students, parents, teachers, librarians, and school administrators. Students and their high school administrators, library media coordinators, mathematics and English teachers, and parents in the spring term of the 2002 school year were sampled. The study's base year weighted response rate was 87.3 percent for students, 98.5 percent for school administrators, 95.9 percent for library media coordinators, 91.6 percent for both mathematics and English teachers, 87.5 percent for parents, and 67.8 percent for schools. Key statistics produced from ELS:2002 focus on the changes taking place in the lives of students which can be understood by life achievements, aspirations, and experiences.

Abstract (en): The American College Catalog Study Database (CCS) contains academic data on 286 four-year colleges and universities in the United States. CCS is one of two databases produced by the Colleges and Universities 2000 project based at the University of California-Riverside. The CCS database comprises a sampled subset of institutions from the related Institutional Data Archive (IDA) on American Higher Education (ICPSR 34874). Coding for CCS was based on college catalogs obtained from College Source, Inc. The data are organized in a panel design, with measurements taken at five-year intervals: academic years 1975-76, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, and 2010-11. The database is based on information reported in each institution's college catalog, and includes data regarding changes in major academic units (schools and colleges), departments, interdisciplinary programs, and general education requirements. For schools and departments, changes in structure were coded, including new units, name changes, splits in units, units moved to new schools, reconstituted units, consolidated units, departments reduced to program status, and eliminated units. The American College Catalog Study Database (CCS) is intended to allow researchers to examine changes in the structure of institutionalized knowledge in four-year colleges and universities within the United States. For information on the study design, including detailed coding conventions, please see the Original P.I. Documentation section of the ICPSR Codebook. The data are not weighted. Dataset 1, Characteristics Variables, contains three weight variables (IDAWT, CCSWT, and CASEWEIGHT) which users may wish to apply during analysis. For additional information on weights, please see the Original P.I. Documentation section of the ICPSR Codebook. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: Approximately 75 percent of IDA institutions are included in CCS. For additional information on response rates, please see the Original P.I. Documentation section of the ICPSR Codebook. Four-year not-for-profit colleges and universities in the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: state CCS includes 286 institutions drawn from the IDA sample of 384 United States four-year colleges and universities. CCS contains every IDA institution for which a full set of catalogs could be located at the initiation of the project in 2000. CCS contains seven datasets that can be linked through an institutional identification number variable (PROJ_ID). Since the data are organized in a panel format, it is also necessary to use a second variable (YEAR) to link datasets. For a brief description of each CCS dataset, please see Appendix B within the Original P.I. Documentation section of the ICPSR Codebook.There are date discrepancies between the data and the Original P.I. Documentation. Study Time Periods and Collection Dates reflect dates that are present in the data. No additional information was provided.Please note that the related data collection featuring the Institutional Data Archive on American Higher Education, 1970-2011, will be available as ICPSR 34874. Additional information on the American College Catalog Study Database (CCS) and the Institutional Data Archive (IDA) database can be found on the Colleges and Universities 2000 Web site.

The dataset comprises novel aspects specifically, in terms of student grading in diverse educational cultures within the multiple countries – Researchers and other education sectors will be able to see the impact of having varied curriculums in a country. Dataset compares different levelling cases when student transfer from curriculum to curriculum and the unreliable levelling criteria set by schools currently in an international school. The collected data can be used within the intelligent algorithms specifically machine learning and pattern analysis methods, to develop an intelligent framework applicable in multi-cultural educational systems to aid in a smooth transition “levelling, hereafter” of students who relocate from a particular education curriculum to another; and minimize the impact of switching on the students’ educational performance. The preliminary variables taken into consideration when deciding which data to collect depended on the variables. UAE is a multicultural country with many expats relocating from regions such as Asia, Europe and America. In order to meet expats needs, UAE has established many international private schools, therefore UAE was chosen to be the location of study based on many cases and struggles in levelling declared by the Ministry of Education and schools. For the first time, we present this dataset comprising students’ records for two academic years that included math, English, and science for 3 terms. Selection of subject areas and number of terms was based on influence from other researchers in similar subject matters.

Understanding Society (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex, and the survey research organisations Verian Group and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

Secure Access Dataset:
The Understanding Society: Linked Education Administrative Datasets (National Pupil Database), England, 1995-2018: Secure Access study contains nine files extracted from the National Pupil Database (NPD) for England. These can be linked (within the Secure Access service) to Understanding Society participants using the cross-wave personal identifier (variable pidp). The NPD files include information on pupil background, attainment, school absences and exclusions for all individuals with a valid consent to education linkage collected in Waves 1 and 4 of Understanding Society. This includes consents collected from parents of children aged 4-15 and of young adults aged 16+ and born in 1981 or later. The included files cover Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) data on pupil background; pupil attainment data for the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) (age 5) and Key Stages (KS) 1 (age 7), KS2 (age 11), KS3 (age 14), KS4 (age 16) and KS5 (ages 17-18); and absences and exclusions (ages 4-18). See documentation for further details.

Related UK Data Archive studies:
The equivalent study to this one that covers Scotland is in preparation.

This study is frequently linked through the pidp variable to one of the main Understanding Society datasets: SN 6614 (End User Licence), SN 6931 (Special Licence) or SN 6676 (Secure Access). A Special Licence dataset containing School Codes for the main Understanding Society study (SN 7182) is also available. Further details can be found on the "http://discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/series/?sn=2000053" title="Understanding Society series"> Understanding Society series Key data webpage.

The Archive also holds separate (i.e. not linked to Understanding Society) data from the National Pupil Database, available under Secure Access and Safe Room Access conditions. See SNs 7626, 7627 and 7628 (Secure Access) and SNs 7590, 7625, 7600, 7595, 7612 and 7606 (Safe Room Access) for details.

Latest edition information

The third edition (November 2020) includes Understanding Society participants who gave consent at Wave 4 and could be linked to the National Pupil Database (NPD). It includes NPD data up to academic year 2017/18. It also contains Understanding Society participants who gave consent and could be linked at Wave 1 and did not re-consent at Wave 4. NPD data up to academic year 2012/13 is included for these participants.

This repository contains a dataset of higher education institutions in France. This includes 349 higher education institutions in France, including universities, universities of applied sciences and Higher Institutes as Higher Institute of Engineering, Higher Institute of biotechnologies and few others. This dataset was compiled in response to a cybersecurity investigation of France higher education institutions' websites [1]. The data is being made publicly available to promote open science principles [2].

The data includes the following fields for each institution:

• ETER_Id: A unique identifier assigned to each institution.
• Name: The full name of the institution.
• Category: Indicates whether the institution is public or private.
• Institution_Category_Standardized: Indicates whether the institution is University, University of applied sciences or other.
• Member_of_European_University_alliance: Indicates if the institution is member of European University Alliance (A kind of collaborative higher education institutions network in Europe).
• Url: The website of the institution.
• NUTS2: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS): A classification by the European Union to divide member states' territories into statistical units. The NUTS system has three hierarchical levels, with NUTS2 being the second level.
• NUTS2_Label_2016: Refers to the classification of regions at the NUTS2 level according to the 2016 criteria set by the European Union.
• NUTS2_Label_2021: Refers to the classification of regions at the NUTS2 level according to the 2021 criteria set by the European Union.
• NUTS3: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS): A classification by the European Union to divide member states' territories into statistical units. The NUTS system has three hierarchical levels, with NUTS3 being the third level.
• NUTS3_Label_2016: Refers to the classification of regions at the NUTS3 level according to the 2016 criteria set by the European Union.
• NUTS3_Label_2021: Refers to the classification of regions at the NUTS3 level according to the 2021 criteria set by the European Union.

The methodology for creating the dataset involved obtaining data from two sources: The European Higher Education Sector Observatory (ETER)[3]. The data was collected on December 26, 2024, the Eurostat for NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics 2013-16[4] and 2021[5].

This section outlines the methodology used to create the dataset for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in France. The dataset consolidates information from various sources, processes the data, and enriches it to provide accurate and reliable insights.

Data Sources

1. ETER Database: The primary dataset was sourced from the ETER database, containing detailed information about HEIs in Europe.
   • File: eter-export-2021-FR.xlsx
2. Eurostat NUTS Data: Two datasets from Eurostat were used for regional information:
   • NUTS 2013-2016 regions: NUTS2013-NUTS2016.xlsx
   • NUTS 2021 regions: NUTS2021.xlsx

Data Cleaning and Preprocessing Column Renaming Columns in the raw dataset were renamed for consistency and readability. Examples include:

• ETER ID → ETER_ID
• Institution Name → Name
• Legal status → Category

Value Replacement

1. HEI Categories: The Category column was cleaned, with government-dependent institutions classified as "public."
2. Standardized Institution Categories: Mapped numerical values to descriptive labels such as "University" and "University of applied sciences."
3. European University Alliance Membership: Replaced binary values with "Yes" or "No."

Handling Missing or Incorrect Data

1. Specific entries with missing or incorrect data were updated manually based on their ETER_ID. For instance:
   • Adjusted URLs for entries like FR0333 (updated to www.icam.fr)
   • Adjusted URLs for entries like FR0906 (updated to epss.fr)
   • Adjusted URLs for entries like FR0104 (updated to www.ensa-nancy.fr)
   • Adjusted URLs for entries like FR0466 (updated to www.clermont-auvergne-inp.fr)
   • Adjusted URLs for entries like FR0907 (updated to insp.gouv.fr) - This universety also changed your name for Institut national du service public
   • Removed entries such as FR0129 and FR0944 due to insufficient or invalid information.
   • Removed FR0513 Institut supérieur européen de gestion Lyon because it's the same url and school of Paris, so remains only the main campus in Paris
   • Remove FR0235 Institut supérieur de l'électronique et du numérique Toulon, because it's the same url of Institut supérieur de l'électronique et du numérique Lille, so remains only the main campus
   • Remove FR0106 and FR010 École spéciale militaire, because it's the url returns 403 forbiden
   • Remove FR0970 École nationale de la meteorologie beucase of invalid HTTPS

Regional Data Integration

1. Merged NUTS 2016 and NUTS 2021 data to enrich the dataset with regional labels.

Final Dataset The final dataset was saved as a CSV file: france-heis.csv, encoded in UTF-8 for compatibility. It includes detailed information about HEIs in France, their categories, regional affiliations, and membership in European alliances.

Summary This methodology ensures that the dataset is accurate, consistent, and enriched with valuable regional and institutional details. The final dataset is intended to serve as a reliable resource for analyzing French HEIs.

This data is available under the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license and can be used for any purpose, including academic research purposes. We encourage the sharing of knowledge and the advancement of research in this field by adhering to open science principles [2].

If you use this data in your research, please cite the source and include a link to this repository. To properly attribute this data, please use the following DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7614862

If you have any updates or corrections to the data, please feel free to open a pull request or contact us directly. Let's work together to keep this data accurate and up-to-date.

We would like to acknowledge the support of the Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), within the project "Cybers SeC IP" (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000044). This study was also developed as part of the Master in Cybersecurity Program at the Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Portugal.

1. Pending
2. S. Bezjak, A. Clyburne-Sherin, P. Conzett, P. Fernandes, E. Görögh, K. Helbig, B. Kramer, I. Labastida, K. Niemeyer, F. Psomopoulos, T. Ross-Hellauer, R. Schneider, J. Tennant, E. Verbakel, H. Brinken, and L. Heller, Open Science Training Handbook. Zenodo, Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212496]
3. The European Higher Education Sector Observatory, Dec 2024. Available: ETER
4. NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, Dec 2024. Available: NUTS-2013-2016
5. NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, Dec 2024. Available: NUTS-2021.

The Bangladeshi Universities Dataset provides information on the geographical location, administrative division, field of specialization, type and Ph.D. granting status of various universities in Bangladesh.

The "Location" column in the dataset provides the geographic location of each university in Bangladesh. This information can be used to identify universities located in different parts of the country and to analyze the distribution of higher education institutions across the regions of Bangladesh.

The "Division" column categorizes each university according to its administrative division within Bangladesh. This information can be useful for studying the distribution of higher education institutions across the administrative regions of the country and identifying any regional disparities in access to higher education.

The "Specialization" column in the dataset identifies the fields of study that each university is known for. This information can be useful for students seeking admission to universities that offer programs in their areas of interest and for researchers studying the strengths and weaknesses of higher education institutions in Bangladesh.

The "Type" column categorizes each university as either public or private. This information can be used to analyze the distribution of public and private universities in Bangladesh and to compare the quality and accessibility of education offered by each type of institution.

Finally, the "Ph.D. granting" column indicates whether each university offers doctoral programs or not. This information can be useful for students seeking advanced degrees and for researchers studying the availability and quality of doctoral education in Bangladesh.

Indian Students Abroad

Country-wise Statistics

By Harish Kumar Garg [source]

About this dataset

This dataset is about the number of Indian students studying abroad in different countries and the detailed information about different nations where Indian students are present. The data has been complied from the Ministry Of External Affairs to answer a question from the Member of Parliament regarding how many students from India are studying in foreign countries and which country. This dataset includes two fields, Country Name and Number of Indians Studying Abroad as of Mar 2017, giving a unique opportunity to track student mobility across various nations around the world. With this valuable data about student mobility, we can gain insights into how educational opportunities for Indian students have increased over time as well as look at trends in international education throughout different regions. From comparison among countries with similar academic opportunities to tracking regional popularity among study destinations, this dataset provides important context for studying student migration patterns. We invite everyone to explore this data further and use it to draw meaningful conclusions!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

How to use this dataset?

The data has two columns – Country Name and Number of Indians studying there as of March 2017. It also includes a third column, Percentage, which gives an indication about the proportion of Indian students enrolled in each country relative to total number enrolled abroad globally.

To get started with your exploration, you can visualize the data against various parameters like geographical region or language speaking as it may provide more clarity about motives/reasons behind student’s choice. You can also group countries on basis of research opportunities available, cost consideration etc.,to understand deeper into all aspects that motivate Indians to explore further studies outside India.

Additionally you can use this dataset for benchmarking purpose with other regional / international peer groups or aggregate regional / global reports with aim towards making better decisions or policies aiming greater outreach & support while targeting foreign universities/colleges for educational promotion activities that highlights engaging elements aimed at attracting more potential students from India aspiring higher international education experience abroad!

Research Ideas

• Using this dataset, educational institutions in India can set up international exchange programs with universities in other countries to facilitate and support Indian students studying abroad.

• Higher Education Institutions can also understand the current trend of Indian students sourcing for opportunities to study abroad and use this data to build specialized short-term courses in collaboration with universities from different countries that cater to the needs of students who are interested in moving abroad permanently or even temporarily for higher studies.

• Policy makers could use this data to assess the current trends and develop policies that aim at incentivizing international exposure among young professionals by commissioning fellowships or scholarships with an aim of exposing them to different problem sets around the world thereby making their profile more attractive while they look for better job opportunities globally

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

Unknown License - Please check the dataset description for more information.

Columns

File: final_data.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Country | Name of the country where Indian students are studying. (String) | | No of Indian Students | Number of Indian students studying in the country. (Integer) | | Percentage | Percentage of Indian students studying in the country compared to the total number of Indian students studying abroad. (Float) |

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit ...

Socioeconomic indicators like the poverty rate, population change, unemployment rate, and education levels vary across the nation. ERS has compiled the latest data on these measures into a mapping and data display/download application that allows users to identify and compare States and counties on these indicators.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: Poverty Population Unemployment Education Web page with links to Excel files For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

The open science movement produces vast quantities of openly published data connected to journal articles, creating an enormous resource for educators to engage students in current topics and analyses. However, educators face challenges using these materials to meet course objectives. I present a case study using open science (published articles and their corresponding datasets) and open educational practices in a capstone course. While engaging in current topics of conservation, students trace connections in the research process, learn statistical analyses, and recreate analyses using the programming language R. I assessed the presence of best practices in open articles and datasets, examined student selection in the open grading policy, surveyed students on their perceived learning gains, and conducted a thematic analysis on student reflections. First, articles and datasets met just over half of the assessed fairness practices, but this increased with the publication date. There was a..., Article and dataset fairness To assess the utility of open articles and their datasets as an educational tool in an undergraduate academic setting, I measured the congruence of each pair to a set of best practices and guiding principles. I assessed ten guiding principles and best practices (Table 1), where each category was scored ‘1’ or ‘0’ based on whether it met that criteria, with a total possible score of ten. Open grading policies Students were allowed to specify the percentage weight for each assessment category in the course, including 1) six coding exercises (Exercises), 2) one lead exercise (Lead Exercise), 3) fourteen annotation assignments of readings (Annotations), 4) one final project (Final Project), 5) five discussion board posts and a statement of learning reflection (Discussion), and 6) attendance and participation (Participation). I examined if assessment categories (independent variable) were weighted (dependent variable) differently by students using an analysis of ..., , # Data for: Integrating open education practices with data analysis of open science in an undergraduate course

Author: Marja H Bakermans Affiliation: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Rd, Worcester, MA 01609 USA ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4879-7771 Institutional IRB approval: IRB-24–0314

Data and file overview

The full dataset file called OEPandOSdata (.xlsx extension) contains 8 files. Below are descriptions of the name and contents of each file. NA = not applicable or no data available

1. BestPracticesData.csv
   • Description: Data to assess the adherence of articles and datasets to open science best practices.
   • Column headers and descriptions:
     • Article: articles used in the study, numbered randomly
     • F1: Findable, Data are assigned a unique and persistent doi
     • F2: Findable, Metadata includes an identifier of data
     • F3: Findable, Data are registered in a searchable database
     • A1: ...

Student Performance Dataset 2024 Overview This dataset comprises detailed information about high school students in China, collected from various universities and schools. It is designed to analyze the factors influencing student performance, well-being, and engagement. The data includes a wide range of features such as demographic details, academic performance, health status, parental support, and more. The participating institutions include prominent universities such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, Fudan University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Zhejiang University.

Dataset Description Features Student ID: Unique identifier for each student. Gender: Gender of the student (Male/Female). Age: Age of the student. Grade Level: The grade level of the student (e.g., 9, 10, 11, 12). Attendance Rate: The percentage of days the student attended school. Study Hours: Average number of hours the student spends studying daily. Parental Education Level: The highest level of education attained by the student's parents. Parental Involvement: The level of parental involvement in the student's education (High, Medium, Low). Extracurricular Activities: Whether the student participates in extracurricular activities (Yes/No). Socioeconomic Status: Socioeconomic status of the student's family (High, Medium, Low). Previous Academic Performance: Previous academic performance level (High, Medium, Low). Class Participation: The level of participation in class (High, Medium, Low). Health Status: General health status of the student (Good, Average, Poor). Access to Learning Resources: Whether the student has access to necessary learning resources (Yes/No). Internet Access: Whether the student has access to the internet (Yes/No). Learning Style: Preferred learning style of the student (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic). Teacher-Student Relationship: Quality of the relationship between the student and teachers (Positive, Neutral, Negative). Peer Influence: Influence of peers on the student's behavior and performance (Positive, Neutral, Negative). Motivation Level: Student's level of motivation (High, Medium, Low). Hours of Sleep: Average number of hours the student sleeps per night. Diet Quality: Quality of the student's diet (Good, Average, Poor). Transportation Mode: Mode of transportation used by the student to commute to school (Bus, Car, Walk, Bike). School Type: Type of school attended by the student (Public, Private). School Location: Location of the school (Urban, Rural). Homework Completion Rate: The rate at which the student completes homework assignments. Reading Proficiency: Proficiency level in reading. Math Proficiency: Proficiency level in mathematics. Science Proficiency: Proficiency level in science. Language Proficiency: Proficiency level in language. Physical Activity Level: The level of physical activity (High, Medium, Low). Screen Time: Average daily screen time in hours. Bullying Incidents: Number of bullying incidents the student has experienced. Special Education Services: Whether the student receives special education services (Yes/No). Counseling Services: Whether the student receives counseling services (Yes/No). Learning Disabilities: Whether the student has any learning disabilities (Yes/No). Behavioral Issues: Whether the student has any behavioral issues (Yes/No). Attendance of Tutoring Sessions: Whether the student attends tutoring sessions (Yes/No). School Climate: Overall perception of the school's environment (Positive, Neutral, Negative). Parental Employment Status: Employment status of the student's parents (Employed, Unemployed). Household Size: Number of people living in the student's household. Performance Score: Overall performance score of the student (Low, Medium, High).