Exploring the ethical topic of learning analytics
- PDF / 578,088 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 90 Downloads / 226 Views
Exploring the ethical topic of learning analytics Wenting Weng1 Accepted: 31 October 2020 © Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2020
Abstract This response reviews the article entitled “Ethical oversight of student data in learning analytics: a typology derived from a cross-continental, cross-institutional perspective” (Willis et al. in Educ Technol Res Dev 64(5):881–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-94634, 2016) from a policy perspective. The paper summarizes the typology of learning analytics and its core ideas proposed in Willis et al. (2016), but also highlights the challenges considering the third-party policies of data privacy and usage. Additionally, the paper addresses the core ethical principles declared in Corrin et al. (Access Online 26, 2019) and suggests using these principles as underpinnings when considering the ethics of learning analytics and seeking effective solutions to best ensure ethical practices of implementing learning analytics. The establishment of a comprehensive data governance system by institutions of higher education is recommended. Keywords Learning analytics · Ethics of learning analytics · IRB · MOOCs · Higher education · Education policy Willis et al. (2016) summarize four common ethical issues, which include (1) using the invasive techniques that could direct students to participate in other activities, (2) surveilling students’ activities, (3) conducting questionable interventions, and (4) storing and interpreting data for different purposes. To solve these issues, Willis et al. (2016) propose a typology of defining learning analytics (LA) as research, “an emerging specific form of research needing oversight”, or practice including four different types (Willis et al. 2016, p. 893). Formulating this typology, they conducted a qualitative multiple-case study involving three higher education institutions from three continents. This study analyzes the existing institutional practices from the aspect of institutional review boards (i.e. IRBs) review processes. Willis et al. (2016) reference Kitchin’s definitions and types of data surveillance (Kitchin 2013), the respective surveillance scopes proposed by Knox (2010) as well as the processes regarding IRBs’ approval, related personnel in the LA studies, and dissemination of the results. The value of Willis et al. (2016) is its proposed typological framework which reveals the possible hidden assumptions and purposes of different LA projects. The * Wenting Weng [email protected] 1
Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, 540 Ross Street, College Station, TX 77843, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
W. Weng
awareness of the hidden assumptions and different research purposes can help maintain the effectiveness of the current IRBs’ rules and review processes. In practice, the typology of LA by Willis et al. (2016) can give a multi-angle insight to the related stakeholders, such as researchers in this field and IRBs’ reviewers. Utilizing this typology framework can guide researchers
Data Loading...
