, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 366–371 | Cite as

Are Higher Education Institutions Prepared for Learning Analytics?

Original Paper


Higher education institutions and involved stakeholders can derive multiple benefits from learning analytics by using different data analytics strategies to produce summative, real-time, and predictive insights and recommendations. However, are institutions and academic as well as administrative staff prepared for learning analytics? A learning analytics benefits matrix was used for this study to investigate the current capabilities of learning analytics at higher education institutions, explore the importance of data sources for a valid learning analytics framework, and gain an understanding of how important insights from learning analytics are perceived. The findings reveal that there is a lack of staff and technology available for learning analytics projects. We conclude that it will be necessary to conduct more empirical research on the validity of learning analytics frameworks and on expected benefits for learning and instruction to confirm the high hopes this promising emerging technology raises.


Learning analytics Higher education Benefits matrix Change management 


  1. 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
  2. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring standards in Australian higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. d’Aquin, M., Dietze, S., Herder, E., Drachsler, H., & Taibi, D. (2014). Using linked data in learning analytics. eLearning Papers, 36, 1–9.Google Scholar
  7. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert lerner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Gibson, D. C., & de Freitas, S. (2016). Exploratory analysis in learning analytics. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(1), 5–19. doi: 10.1007/s10758-015-9249-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson, D. C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2016). Preparing the next generation of education researchers for big data in higher education. In B. Kei Daniel (Ed.), Big data and learning analytics: Current theory and practice in higher education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: a generic framework for learning analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.Google Scholar
  13. Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Learning analytics. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 2, pp. 447–451). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2016). Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 923–938. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9477-y.
  15. 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
  16. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  17. Kevan, J. M., & Ryan, P. R. (2016). Experience API: flexible, decentralized and activity-centric data collection. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(1), 143–149. doi: 10.1007/s10758-015-9260-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Locke, W., Cummings, W. K., & Fisher, D. (Eds.). (2011). Changing governance and management in higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439–1459. doi: 10.1177/0002764213479367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Long, P. D., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 31–40.Google Scholar
  21. Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12152.Google Scholar
  22. Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations