Amplifying Student and Administrator Perspectives on Equity and Bias in Learning Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When higher education institutions (HEIs) have the potential to collect large amounts of learner data, it is important to consider the spectrum of stakeholders involved with and impacted by the use of learning analytics. This qualitative research study aims to understand the degree of concern with issues of bias and equity in the uses of learner data as perceived by students, diversity and inclusion leaders, and senior administrative leaders in HEIs. An interview study was designed to investigate stakeholder voices that generate, collect, and utilize learning analytics from eight HEIs in the United States. A phased inductive coding analysis revealed similarities and differences in the three stakeholder groups regarding concerns about bias and equity in the uses of learner data. The study findings suggest that stakeholders have varying degrees of data literacy, thus creating conditions of inequality and bias in learning data. By centring the values of these critical stakeholder groups and acknowledging that intersections and hierarchies of power are critical to authentic inclusion, this study provides additional insight into proactive measures that institutions could take to improve equity, transparency, and accountability in their responsible learning analytics efforts.
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 | 0.095 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".