Adoption of learning analytics in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review
Open accessAbstract
Learning analytics (LA) is an emerging area that has had extensive development in higher education in recent years, focused both on the learning process of students within subjects and on monitoring their trajectories in training programmes. However, most of the developments remain in the pilot phase without reaching institutional adoption. This paper reports the results of a systematic review of the literature carried out with the aim of identifying the factors that influence the adoption of LA, as well as the existing strategies that facilitate such adoption in higher education institutions. The results show that factors for LA adoption are situated in multiple dimensions, including stakeholders at different levels, institutional and pedagogical processes, technical limitations and ethical considerations. This work contributes with a consolidated list of 14 critical factors to be considered to effectively adopt LA tools, addressing planning, strong leadership, collaboration and prioritizing senior management commitment, goal setting, cross‐organizational design, educational process redesign, system integration and legacy system linkage. On the other hand, a variety of frameworks, models and approaches are distinguished in the literature to help the adoption of LA, however, none of them cover all the factors involved in such adoption. Therefore, we provide a compilation of strategies that have been used in the literature to reduce the gaps associated with the different factors described. Practitioner notes: What is already known about this topic LA is a field of research that has had a lot of interest and a wide variety of tools have been developed. Still, it is criticized that they originate more from data availability than from the needs of students, teachers and decision makers. LA tools are mostly evaluated on their usability aspects and to a lesser extent on their usefulness to impact learning processes. The adoption processes of LA in higher education are oriented to specific aspects such as the relevance of the visualizations in the different contexts of application, but they do not address extensively other important aspects involved in such adoption. What this paper adds This article seeks to synthesize what has been investigated in the literature regarding the factors that affect the adoption of LA by higher education institutions. Describe the 14 critical factors identified from the literature to address adoption of multiple dimensions that include stakeholders at different levels, institutional contexts and ethical considerations. A compilation of strategies that have been used in the literature to reduce the gaps associated with the different factors are described, and the aspects or dimensions that are not addressed are highlighted. Implications for practice and/or policy The synthesis of LA adoption factors and the approach strategies present in the literature allow practitioners to focus their efforts on the key aspects to consider in their LA adoption processes. Future work could shift from a pure design perspective to strengthen an engineering perspective in the adoption practices. From the point of view of the policies associated with the adoption of LA in higher education institutions, it is concluded that it is necessary to approach the process from a comprehensive perspective considering all the dimensions involved.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Higher education remains slow to adopt learning analytics.
“This finding is consistent with research showing that higher education remains slow to adopt learning analytics (Márquez et al., 2023; Tsai et al., 2020).”
From Artificial intelligence in higher education: exploring faculty use, self-efficacy, distinct profiles, and professional development needs (2024) · cites this paper as Márquez et al., 2023
Cites
Wohlin, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268 · Cited by 4,234 · see citing works
Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732312452938 · Cited by 2,608 · see citing works
Learning analytics in European higher education—Trends and barriers
Tsai, Y.-S., Rates, D., Moreno-Marcos, P. M., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., Delgado Kloos, C., & Gašević, D. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103933 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
How do we start? An approach to learning analytics adoption in higher education
Gasevic, D., Tsai, Y.-S., Dawson, S., & Pardo, A. (2019) · The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-02-2019-0024 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Educator perspectives on learning analytics in classroom practice
Shibani, A., Knight, S., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2020) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100730 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Are We on Our Way to Becoming a “Helicopter University”? Academics’ Views on Learning Analytics
Howell, J. A., Roberts, L. D., Seaman, K., & Gibson, D. C. (2018) · Technology, Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-017-9329-9 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Klein, C., Lester, J., Rangwala, H., & Johri, A. (2019) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-019-09210-5 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
The learning analytics readiness instrument
Oster, M., Lonn, S., Pistilli, M. D., & Brown, M. G. (2016) · Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge - LAK '16 · doi:10.1145/2883851.2883925 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mah, D.-K., & Groß, N. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00490-1 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
“This finding is consistent with research showing that higher education remains slow to adopt learning analytics (Márquez et al., 2023; Tsai et al., 2020).”
- Authors
- Márquez, L., Henríquez, V., Chevreux, H., Scheihing, E., & Guerra, J.
- Affiliations
- Austral University of Chile (CL)
- Corresponding author
- Scheihing, Eliana
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-09-04
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 439-459
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W4386417492
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Universidad Austral de Chile
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
- Keywords
- learning analytics, technology adoption, higher education institutions, adoption factors, adoption strategies, institutional leadership, stakeholder engagement, system integration, legacy systems, ethical considerations, adoption framework
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