Search

A common recommendation in critiques of datafication in education is for greater conversation between the two sides of the (critical) divide – what might be characterised as sceptical social scientists and (supposedly) more technically-minded and enthusiastic data scientists. This article takes the form of a dialogue between two academics representing these different perspectives – Dragan Gasevic (a data scientist who is one of the founders of the 'learning analytics' field) and Neil Selwyn (a social scientist and long-time critic of educational technology). Over the course of a six-month email exchange, we explore various arguments for and against the datafication of higher education. Thus, we are able to add a computational dimension to well-worn social criticisms of data representativeness, reductionism and injustice, as well as exploring social tensions inherent in technical claims to data-based precision, clarity and predictability. Crucially, these exchanges allow us to explore ways in which our two viewpoints converge, and therefore highlight opportunities for productive inter-disciplinary exchange and collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of personalised data technologies such as learning analytics is framed as a solution to manage the needs of higher education student populations that are growing ever more diverse and larger in size. However, the current approach to learning analytics presents tensions between increasing student agency in making learning-related decisions and 'datafying' students in the process of collecting, analysing and interpreting data. This article presents a study that explores staff and student experience of agency, equity and transparency in existing data practices and expectations towards learning analytics in a UK university. The results show a number of intertwined factors that have contributed to the tensions between enhancing a learner's control of their studies and, at the same time, diminishing their autonomy as an active agent in the process of learning analytics. This article argues that learner empowerment should not be automatically assumed to have taken place as part of the adoption of learning analytics. Instead, the interwoven power relationships in a complex educational system and the interactions between humans and machines need to be taken into consideration when presenting learning analytics as an equitable process to enhance student agency and educational equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of personalised data technologies such as learning analytics is framed as a solution to manage the needs of higher education student populations that are growing ever more diverse and larger in size. However, the current approach to learning analytics presents tensions between increasing student agency in making learning-related decisions and 'datafying' students in the process of collecting, analysing and interpreting data. This article presents a study that explores staff and student experience of agency, equity and transparency in existing data practices and expectations towards learning analytics in a UK university. The results show a number of intertwined factors that have contributed to the tensions between enhancing a learner's control of their studies and, at the same time, diminishing their autonomy as an active agent in the process of learning analytics. This article argues that learner empowerment should not be automatically assumed to have taken place as part of the adoption of learning analytics. Instead, the interwoven power relationships in a complex educational system and the interactions between humans and machines need to be taken into consideration when presenting learning analytics as an equitable process to enhance student agency and educational equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning analytics (LA) employs educational data to improve the timeliness of support for learners. Apart from technical aspects, there is a need to understand social complexities brought about by different stakeholders, so as to systematise the adoption of LA in Higher Education (HE). We present an analysis of the situation, needs and challenges of LA in the context of Spanish HE, considering managers', teachers' and students' perspectives. Qualitative research is employed using recursive abstraction. Results reveal that the level of institutional adoption is low and none of the analysed institutions had an LA policy. Furthermore, only two of these institutions had an initial LA strategy. While the institutions shared some commonalities in their objectives for LA, chosen tools and adoption challenges, the distinct differences in the political contexts and institutional practices among the institutions reaffirmed that LA solutions and services cannot be implemented in the same manner. Moreover, different needs for LA and concerns are identified about its adoption among managers, students and teachers. These observations lead to our conclusion that the main challenges to implement LA in Spain are not related to technological issues but to the social and cultural issues rooted in institutions and those associated with different stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) is now common practice across higher education, with the results used for both course improvement and quality assurance purposes. While much research has examined the validity of SETs for measuring teaching quality, few studies have investigated the factors that influence student participation in the SET process. This study aimed to address this deficit through the analysis of an SET respondent pool at a large Canadian research-intensive university. The findings were largely consistent with available research (showing influence of student gender, age, specialisation area and final grade on SET completion). However, the study also identified additional influential course-specific factors such as term of study, course year level and course type as statistically significant. Collectively, such findings point to substantively significant patterns of bias in the characteristics of the respondent pool. Further research is needed to specify and quantify the impact (if any) on SET scores. We conclude, however, by recommending that such bias does not invalidate SET implementation, but instead should be embraced and reported within standard institutional practice, allowing better understanding of feedback received, and driving future efforts at recruiting student respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]