The main goal of this chapter is twofold. First, we seek to investigate university students’ understanding of learning analytics (LA) practices in learning management systems (LMSs). Second, we examine students’ ethical stances when raising awareness of such practices through a data visualization dashboard. The empirical work carried out involved deploying a LA dashboard during the 2020 summer semester at a university in Sweden. The LA dashboard was designed to raise students’ awareness about LA practices by providing students with visualizations of the data collected by the LMS. Our findings indicate that the students rated values such as trust, privacy, transparency, and informed consent highly. Although most of the students appreciated the efforts made towards transparency through consent forms, and expected to be informed about the collected data, few students read the higher education institution’s (HEI’s) data collection policy documents. We also found that the students’ trust in their institution is a significant motivator for students’ willingness to share their data. However, we believe that this trust needs to be safeguarded by HEIs and not used as a sine qua non condition for collecting, visualizing, storing, and using students’ data. The findings concerning students’ trust highlight the importance of not breaking boundaries to maintain trust and respect among key educational stakeholders (Beattie S, Woodley C, Souter K, Creepy analytics and learner data rights. Rhetoric and reality: critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite, pp 421–425, 2014). Furthermore, we also observed that students’ attitudes towards data collection processes and data usage are highly related to the context of its use and with whom such data is shared. These findings are relevant for the LA community as they contribute with insights that may guide policymaking, implementation of LA at HEIs, and the design of data visualizations. We end the article by discussing the implications of our findings regarding the privacy paradox and contextual integrity (Nissenbaum, Washington Law Review, 79:119, 2004; Slade S, Prinsloo P, Khalil M, Learning analytics at the intersections of student trust, disclosure and benefit. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on learning analytics & knowledge, pp 235–244, 2019), which are central concepts to consider when conceptualizing and designing LA dashboards.
- Data collection
- Learning analytics
- LA dashboards
- Higher education
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Adorjan, M., & Ricciardelli, R. (2019). A new privacy paradox? Youth agentic practices of privacy management despite “nothing to hide” online. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 56(1), 8–29.
Alonso, J. M., & Casalino, G. (2019, June). Explainable artificial intelligence for human-centric data analysis in virtual learning environments. In International workshop on higher education learning methodologies and technologies online (pp. 125–138). Cham: Springer.
Apiola, M., Karunaratne, T., Kaila, E., & Laakso, M. J. (2019, May). Experiences from digital learning analytics in Finland and Sweden: A collaborative approach. In 2019 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO) (pp. 627–632). IEEE.
Arnold, K. E., & Sclater, N. (2017, March). Student perceptions of their privacy in learning analytics applications. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 66–69).
Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., … Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities, and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115.
Barth, S., & De Jong, M. D. (2017). The privacy paradox–Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior–A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038–1058.
Beattie, S., Woodley, C., & Souter, K. (2014). Creepy analytics and learner data rights. In Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite (pp. 421–425).
Cerratto Pargman, T. C., & McGrath, C. (2021a). Mapping the terrain of ethics in learning analytics: A systematic literature review of empirical research. Journal of Learning Analytics. https://learning-analytics.info/index.php/JLA/article/view/7254
Cerratto Pargman, T. & McGrath, C. (2021b). Be Careful What You Wish For! Learning Analytics and the Emergence of Data-Driven Practices in Higher Education In Petersson, S. (ed.) (2021) Digital Human Sciences: New Objects – New Approaches. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. https://doi.org/10.16993/bbk
Connelly, R. J. (2000). Intentional learning: The need for explicit informed consent in higher education. The Journal of General Education, 49(3), 211–230.
Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2016, April). Privacy and analytics: it’s a DELICATE issue a checklist for trusted learning analytics. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 89–98).
Ferguson, R. (2019). Ethical challenges for learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 25–30.
Fowler, M., & Lewis, J. (2014) Microservices. https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27, 1–12.
Howell, J. A., Roberts, L. D., Seaman, K., & Gibson, D. C. (2018). Are we on our way to becoming a “helicopter university”? Academics’ views on learning analytics. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(1), 1–20.
Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2016). Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 923–938.
Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Schmitz, M., Robbers, S., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2020). From students with love: An empirical study on learner goals, self-regulated learning and sense-making of learning analytics in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 47, 100758.
Jones, K. M. (2019). Advising the whole student: eAdvising analytics and the contextual suppression of advisor values. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 437–458.
Khalil, M. (2018). Student privacy questionnaire_anonymized.pdf. figshare. Media. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7150853.v1.
Klein, C., Lester, J., Rangwala, H., & Johri, A. (2019). Technological barriers and incentives to learning analytics adoption in higher education: Insights from users. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(3), 604–625.
Knight, D. B., Brozina, C., & Novoselich, B. (2016). An investigation of first-year engineering student and instructor perspectives of learning analytics approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 215–238.
Lim, L. A., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Fudge, A., Pardo, A., & Gentili, S. (2020). Students’ sense-making of personalised feedback based on learning analytics. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 15–33.
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79, 119.
Ochoa, X., & Wise, A. F. (2021). Supporting the shift to digital with student-centered learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 357–361.
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015, March). Student privacy self-management: Implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 83–92).
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2017, March). An elephant in the learning analytics room: The obligation to act. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 46–55).
Roberts, L. D., Howell, J. A., & Seaman, K. (2017). Give me a customizable dashboard: Personalized learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 317–333.
Rubel, A., & Jones, K. M. (2016). Student privacy in learning analytics: An information ethics perspective. The Information Society, 32(2), 143–159.
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529.
Slade, S., Prinsloo, P., & Khalil, M. (2019, March). Learning analytics at the intersections of student trust, disclosure and benefit. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 235–244).
Tsai, Y. S., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., & Gašević, D. (2020, March). The privacy paradox and its implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 230–239).
Velander, J. (2020). Student awareness, perceptions and values in relation to their university data.
Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 98–110.
Zhu, J., Liapis, A., Risi, S., Bidarra, R., & Youngblood, G. M. (2018, August). Explainable AI for designers: A human-centered perspective on mixed-initiative co-creation. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Velander, J., Otero, N., Pargman, T.C., Milrad, M. (2021). “We Know What You Were Doing”. In: Sahin, M., Ifenthaler, D. (eds) Visualizations and Dashboards for Learning Analytics. Advances in Analytics for Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81222-5_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-81221-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-81222-5