Cited by 93Online Learning and AnalyticsPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics

Prinsloo, Paul, Slade, Sharon, Khalil, Mohammad·2022·British Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

Evidence shows that appropriate use of technology in education has the potential to increase the effectiveness of, eg, teaching, learning and student support. There is also evidence that technology can introduce new problems and ethical issues, eg, student privacy. This article maps some limitations of technological approaches that ensure student data privacy in learning analytics from a critical data studies (CDS) perspective. In this conceptual article, we map the claims, grounds and warrants of technological solutions to maintaining student data privacy in learning analytics. Our findings suggest that many technological solutions are based on assumptions, such as that individuals have control over their data (‘data as commodity’), which can be exchanged under agreed conditions, or that individuals embrace their personal data privacy as a human right to be respected and protected. Regulating student data privacy in the context of learning analytics through technology mostly depends on institutional data governance, consent, data security and accountability. We consider alternative approaches to viewing (student) data privacy, such as contextual integrity; data privacy as ontological; group privacy; and indigenous understandings of privacy. Such perspectives destabilise many assumptions informing technological solutions, including privacy enhancing technology (PET). Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Various actors (including those in higher education)…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.13216

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prinsloo, P., Slade, S., & Khalil, M.
Affiliations
  • University of South Africa (ZA)
  • Earth Trust (GB)
  • University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Prinsloo, Paul
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-04-05
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
876-893
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
OpenAlex
W4225558885
Cited by
77
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7
FWCI
11.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
student privacy, learning analytics, privacy-enhancing technologies, critical data studies, contextual integrity, data governance, consent, data security, accountability, group privacy, student agency, data literacy, higher education data

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