Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical oversight of student data in learning analytics: a typology derived from a cross-continental, cross-institutional perspective

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The growth of learning analytics as a means to improve student learning outcomes means that student data is being collected, analyzed, and applied in previously unforeseen ways. As the use of this data continues to shape academic and support interventions, there is increasing need for ethical reflection on operational approvals for learning analytics research. Though there are clear processes for vetting studies resulting in publication of student-gathered data, there is little comparable oversight of internally generated student-focused research. Increasingly, ethical concerns about the collection and harvesting of student data have been raised, but there is no clear indication how to address or oversee these ethical concerns. In addition, staff members who are not typical researchers may be less familiar with approvals processes and the need to demonstrate potential for harm, etc. If current trends point to a range of individuals harvesting and analyzing student data (mostly without students’ informed consent or knowledge), how can the real danger of unethical behavior be curbed to mitigate the risk of unintended consequences? A systematic appraisal of the policy frameworks and processes of ethical review at three research institutions (namely, the University of South Africa, the Open University in the United Kingdom, and Indiana University in the United States) provides an opportunity to compare practices, values, and priorities. From this cross-institutional review, a working typology of ethical approaches is suggested within the scope of determining the moral intersection of internal student data usage and application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, L., & Grady, C. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives. Modernity and its outcasts. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bledsoe, C. H., Sherin, B., Galinsky, A. G., & Headley, N. M. (2007). Regulating creativity: research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwestern University Law Review, 101, 593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brumbaugh, A. J. (1960). Research designed to improve institutions of higher learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED017141.pdf

  • Buchanan, E. A., & Ess, C. M. (2009). Internet research ethics and the institutional review board: Current practices and issues. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 39(3), 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, E. A., & Hvizdak, E. E. (2009). Online survey tools: Ethical and methodological concerns of human research ethics committees. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(2), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum, S., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social learning analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., DeBlois, P. B., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Academic analytics: A new tool for a new era. EDUCAUSE Review.

  • Carr, C. T. (2015). Spotlight on ethics: institutional review boards as systemic bullies. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(1), 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K., Duckham, M., Guillemin, M., Hunter, A., McVernon, J., O’Keefe, C., et al. (2015). Guidelines for the ethical use of digital data in human research. Melbourne: Carlton Connect Initiative, The University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, C., Rogers, T., Wade, A., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Buckingham Shum, S., Nelson, K., Alexander, S., Lockyer, L., Kennedy, G., Corrin, L., & Fisher, J. (2016). Student retention and learning analytics: a snapshot of Australian practices and a framework for advancement. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/project-student-retention-and-learning-analytics-snapshot-current-australian-practices-and-framework.

  • Cross, K. P. (1967). When will research improve education? Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED025206

  • Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Joksimović, S. (2014). Current state and future trends: A citation network analysis of the learning analytics field. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 231-240). ACM.

  • de Freitas, S., Gibson, D., Plessis, C. D., Halloran, P., Williams, E., Ambrose, M., et al. (2014). Foundations of dynamic learning analytics: Using university student data to increase retention. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1175–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321. doi:10.1080/07399339209516006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., Jakubson, G. H., Groen, J. A., So, E., & Price, J. (2007). Inside the black box of doctoral education: What program characteristics influence doctoral students’ attrition and graduation probabilities? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 134–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 42–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guta, A., Nixon, S. A., & Wilson, M. G. (2013). Resisting the seduction of “ethics creep”: Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review. Social Science and Medicine, 98, 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hack, C. (2015a). Applying learning analytics to smart learning — ethics and policy. In Andrew Middleton (Ed.), Smart Learning—teaching and learning with smartphones and tablets in post-compulsory education (57-62). Retrieved from http://melsig.shu.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/Smart-Learning.pdf

  • Hack, C. (2015b, April 30). Does pedagogic research require ethical review? [Web log]. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/does-pedagogic-research-require-ethical-review

  • Howard, R. D., McLaughlin, G. W., & Knight, W. E. (2012). The handbook of institutional research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indiana University. (2015). Office of Research Compliance. Retrieved from: http://researchcompliance.iu.edu/hso/index.html

  • Kay, D., Korn, N., & Oppenheim, C. (2012). Legal, risk and ethical aspects of analytics of analytics in higher education. CETIS Analytics Series, 1(6), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. E., & Seppälä, M. (2015). Changing policies concerning student privacy and ethics in online education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(8), 652–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin, R. (2013). Big data and human geography: Opportunities, challenges and risks. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 262–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, S. (2000). Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobelsdorf, M. (2008). A typology of CS students’ preconditions for learning. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on computing education research (pp. 62-71). ACM.

  • Knox, D. (2010). Spies in the house of learning: A typology of surveillance in online learning environments. In Proceedings from e-Learning: The Horizon and Beyond conference. St. John’s, Newfoundland.

  • Koops, B-J., Newell, B. C., Timan, T., Škorvánek, I., Chokrevski, T., & Galič, M. (forthcoming). A typology of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2754043

  • Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Hatala, M., & Siemens, G. (2015). Content Analytics: the definition, scope, and an overview of published research. Handbook of Learning Analytics. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vitomir_Kovanovic/publication/283462803_Content_Analytics_the_definition_scope_and_an_overview_of_published_research/links/5639163008ae4624b75efb36.pdf

  • Kruse, A. & Pongsajapan, R. (2012). Student-centered learning analytics. CNDLS Thought Paper. 1-12. Retrieved from: https://cndls.georgetown.edu/m/documents/thoughtpaper-krusepongsajapan.pdf

  • Largent, E. A., Grady, C., Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2012). Money, coercion, and undue inducement: A survey of attitudes about payments to research participants. IRB, 34(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, S., Ovando, C. J., & Montecinos, C. (2016). Institutional power and the IRB: Saving souls or silencing the other in international field work. In K. Bhopal & R. Deuchar (Eds.), Researching Marginalized Groups. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfadyn, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers are not enough. Why e-learning analytics failed to inform an institutional strategic plan. Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 149–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfadyn, L. P., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., & Gašević, D. (2014). Embracing big data in complex educational systems: The learning analytics imperative and the policy challenge. Research and Practice in Assessment, 9(2), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, P. D. (2016). Incorporating the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) into instruction. In C. D. Dziuban, A. G. Picciano, C. R. Graham, & P. D. Moskal (Eds.), Conducting Research in Online and Blended Environments: New Pedagogical Frontiers. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moxley, J. (2013). Big data, learning analytics, and social assessment. The Journal of Writing Assessment 6(1)

  • Open University. (2013). Code of practice for research at the Open University. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/research/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.research.main/files/files/ecms/web-content/CoP-amended-after-Senate-Feb-2014-Final-version-updated-Dec-2014-for-external-use-FINAL.pdf

  • Open University (2014). Policy on ethical use of student data for learning analytics. Retrieved from https://learn3.open.ac.uk/mod/url/view.php?id=85812

  • Precision Medicine Initiative (2015). Privacy and Trust Principles. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/precision-medicine

  • 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. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinsloo, P. & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: Implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 83-92). ACM.

  • Redeker, G. (2000). Coherence and structure in text and discourse.Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue, 233-263. Retrieved from http://www.let.rug.nl/~redeker/redeker2000.pdf

  • Regan, J., Baldwin, M. A., & Peters, L. (2012). Ethical issues in pedagogical research. Journal of Pedagogic Research, 2(3), 44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rule, P., & John, V. (2011). Case study research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildkamp, K., Lay, M. K., & Earl, L. (Eds.). (2013). Data-based decision making in education. Challenges and opportunities. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (Ed.). (2005). Documentary research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2012). Learning analytics: Envisioning a research discipline and a domain of practice. In Second international conference on learning analytics & knowledge, Vancouver, BC, 29 April–2 May 2012.

  • Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE review, 46(5), 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subotzky, G., & Prinsloo, P. (2011). Turning the tide: A socio-critical model and framework for improving student success in open distance learning at the University of South Africa. Distance Education, 32(2), 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study. A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unisa. (2012). Policy on research ethics. Retrieved from http://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/faculties/service_dept/ice/docs/Ethics%20and%20research_Policy_2012.pdf

  • Unisa. (2014). Data privacy policy. Approved by Council, November. Pretoria, South Africa: Unisa.

  • Vitak, J., Shilton, K., & Ashktorab, Z. (2016). Beyond the Belmont principles: Ethical challenges, practices, and beliefs in the online data research community. Forthcoming for CSCW 2016, 27 February–2 March. Retrieved from: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jessica_Vitak/publication/282348909_Beyond_the_Belmont_Principles_Ethical_Challenges_Practices_and_Beliefs_in_the_Online_Data_Research_Community/links/560d69bd08ae6cf68153efcd.pdf

  • Willis, III, J. E. (2014). Learning analytics and ethics: A framework beyond utilitarianism. EDUCAUSE Review.

  • Willis, III, J. E., Campbell, J., & Pistilli, M. (2013). Ethics, big data, and analytics: A model for application. EDUCAUSE Review Online.

  • Willis, III, 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yanqing, D., Guangming, C., One, V., & Woolley, M. (2013). Big data in higher education: An action research on managing student engagement with business intelligence. In second international conference on emerging research paradigm in business and social science, Middlesex University, Dubai, 26-28 November 2013

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5)., Applied Social Research Methods Series London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Viktoria A. Strunk for providing feedback and suggested edits on early drafts of this paper. The authors are also appreciative of three reviewers’ close reading and anonymous peer review feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

    James E. Willis III

  2. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Sharon Slade

  3. University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

    Paul Prinsloo

Authors
  1. James E. Willis III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharon Slade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Prinsloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Willis III.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Willis, J.E., Slade, S. & Prinsloo, P. Ethical oversight of student data in learning analytics: a typology derived from a cross-continental, cross-institutional perspective. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 881–901 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9463-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9463-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation