Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 923–938 | Cite as

Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics

  • Dirk IfenthalerEmail author
  • Clara Schumacher
Development Article


The purpose of this study was to examine student perceptions of privacy principles related to learning analytics. Privacy issues for learning analytics include how personal data are collected and stored as well as how they are analyzed and presented to different stakeholders. A total of 330 university students participated in an exploratory study confronting them with learning analytics systems and associated issues of control over data and sharing of information. Findings indicate that students expect learning analytics systems to include elaborate adaptive and personalized dashboards. Further, students are rather conservative in sharing data for learning analytics systems. On the basis of the relationship between the acceptance and use of learning analytics systems and privacy principles, we conclude that all stakeholders need to be equally involved when learning analytics systems are implemented at higher education institutions. Further empirical research is needed to elucidate the conditions under which students are willing to share relevant data for learning analytics systems.


Learning analytics Privacy Control over data Transparency Higher education 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aïmeur, E., Hage, H., & Onana, F. S. M. (2008). Anonymous credentials for privacy-preserving e-learning. Paper presented at the International MCETECH Conference.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, L., Hatala, M., Gašević, D., & Jovanović, J. (2012). A qualitative evaluation of evolution of a learning analytics tool. Computers & Education, 58(1), 470–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: using learning analytics to increase student success. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: advancing the science of learning with metacognitive tools. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 225–247). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berland, M., Baker, R. S. J. D., & Bilkstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics: applications to constructionist research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 205–220. doi: 10.1007/s10758-014-9223-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, J., & Nelson, K. (2013). Perspectives on learning analytics: issues and challenges. Oberservations from Shane Dawson and Phil Long. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4(1), 1–8. doi: 10.5204/intjfyhe.v4i1.166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus mode for E-Commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dringus, L. P. (2012). Learning analytics considered harmful. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3), 87–100.Google Scholar
  10. Elgesem, D. (1999). The structure of rights in directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(4), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert lerner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Rogers, T., & Gašević, D. (2016). Learning analytics should not promote one size fits all: the effects of instructional conditions in predicting academic success. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71. doi: 10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gonzalez, D. (2015). Managing online risk: Apps, mobile, and social media security. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: a generic framework for learning analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.Google Scholar
  16. Heath, J. (2014). Contemporary privacy theory contributions to learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(1), 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ifenthaler, D. (2015a). Learning analytics. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 2, pp. 447–451). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Ifenthaler, D. (2015b). Model-based approaches. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 2, pp. 512–525). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Ifenthaler, D., & Widanapathirana, C. (2014). Development and validation of a learning analytics framework: two case studies using support vector machines. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 221–240. doi: 10.1007/s10758-014-9226-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kay, D., Korn, N., & Oppennheim, C. (2012). Legal, risk and ethical aspects of analytics. Cetis Analytics Series, 1(6), 1–30.Google Scholar
  21. Kay, R., & Siriwardena, A. K. (2001). The process of informed consent for urgent abdominal surgery. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(3), 157–161. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.3.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinshuk. (2012). Guest editorial: Personalized learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 561–562. doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9248-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Long, P. D., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 31–40.Google Scholar
  25. Macfadyen, L., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers are not enough Why e-Learning analytics failed to inform an institutional strategic plan. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 149–163.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, S. L., & Ellsworth, J. B. (2014). Ethics of educational technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 113–127). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–157.Google Scholar
  28. Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A contextual approach to privacy online. Deadalus, 140(4), 32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology,. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12152.Google Scholar
  30. Pistilli, M. D., & Arnold, K. E. (2010). Purdue Signals: mining real-time academic data to enhance student success. About campus: Enriching the student learning experience, 15(3), 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pitta, D. A., Fung, H.-G., & Isberg, S. (1999). Ethical issues across cultures: managing the differing perspectives of China and the USA. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2014). Student data privacy and institutional accountability in an age of surveillance. In M. E. Menon, D. G. Terkla, & P. Gibbs (Eds.), Using data to improve higher education. Research, policy and practice (pp. 197–214). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: Implications for learning analytics. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529. doi: 10.1177/0002764213479366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
  36. Tinto, V. (2005). Reflections on student retention and persistence: moving to a theory of institutional action on behalf of student success. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Developmental Psychology, 2(3), 89–97.Google Scholar
  37. Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weippl, E. R., & Min Tjoa, A. (2005). Privacy in e-learning: anonymity, pseudonyms and authenticated usage. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 2(4), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willis, I. J. E., & Strunk, V. A. (2015). Ethical responsibilities of preserving academecians in an age of mechanized learning: Balancing the demands of educating at capacity and preserving human interactivity. In J. White & R. Searle (Eds.), Rethinking machine ethics in the age of ubiquitous technology (pp. 166–195). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yeaman, A. R. J., Koetting, J. R., & Nichols, R. G. (1994). Critical theory, cultural analysis, and the ethics of educational technology as social responsibility. Educational Technology, 34(2), 5–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations