Unresolved Privacy and Ethics Issues Related to Learning Analytics in Higher Education and Academic Librarianship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning analytics involve big data collection, analysis processes, and technology that are used in higher education institutes and academic libraries to support student success and perform organizational assessment. Since these processes require the input of personally identifiable student and patron information to be effective, there are major ethical and legal considerations that must be addressed concerning privacy. This article demonstrates that privacy concerns about learning analytics can be mitigated by requiring informed consent from participants, establishing protocols for the collection and management of personally identifiable information, and advocating privacy rights of patrons. By synthesizing and expanding on viewpoints from the literature, this article offers recommendations pertaining to the collection, analysis, and management of patron data that are gathered for the purpose of learning analytics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.130 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".