Cited by 8Online Learning and AnalyticsData Privacy and CybersecurityPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

“We Know What You Were Doing”: Understanding Learners’ Concerns Regarding Learning Analytics and Visualization Practices in Learning Management Systems

Velander, Johanna, Otero, Nuno, Pargman, Teresa Cerratto, Milrad, Marcelo·2021·Advances in Analytics for Learning and Teaching

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-81222-5_15

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Velander, J., Otero, N., Pargman, T. C., & Milrad, M.
Affiliations
  • Linnaeus University (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Milrad, Marcelo
Venue
Advances in Analytics for Learning and Teaching
Published
2021
Pages
323-347
ISSN
  • 2662-2122 (ISSN-L)
  • 2662-2130
OpenAlex
W4205190443
Cited by
8
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
6.51
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in analytics for learning and teaching (publishedVersion)
  • Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Data Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
learning analytics, virtual learning environments, student privacy, dashboards, student trust, informed consent, transparency, privacy paradox, contextual integrity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review