Student privacy self-management: implications for learning analytics

In the citing paper

“So-called “nudging” techniques direct students toward particular learning resources or to change their behaviors.90”

In the citing paper

“In an analysis of the TACs of three providers of massive open online courses (MOOCs) namely Coursera, EdX, and FutureLearn, Prinsloo and Slade (2015) found several troubling gaps in both the providers' fiduciary duty to students and their consideration for the inherent privacy issues and resulting student vulnerability.”

In the citing paper

“Though the intention of collecting and using student data arguably falls within the scope of the fiduciary duty of higher education, it is increasingly possible that student data may be also used inappropriately and unethically, further increasing the vulnerability of students (Prinsloo & Slade, 2015).”

In the citing paper

“Individuals may adapt decisions regarding how much information they are prepared to share (and for what purpose) depending on the context.”

In the citing paper

“In this context, HEIs are increasingly vulnerable and must optimize their use of data, in particular student data (Baker & Siemens, 2014;Gašević & Siemens, 2015;Prinsloo & Slade, 2015).”

In the citing paper

“Prinsloo and Slade (2015) identified the following problems regarding the notion of informed consent: 1) the problem of scale; 2) the re-identification and the problem of aggregation; 3) the quality, accountability, and purpose of data; 4) the drawbacks in setting limitations for use; 5) the impact of the increasing openness and sharing of data; and 6) the problematics and understandings of user a”

In the citing paper

“This study found that the length, font size, and number of headings used in these TACs would, in all probability, discourage engagement, so that users would accept the TACs without reading them.”

In the citing paper

“There was no indication whether that use would include a depersonalization of the data.”

In the citing paper

“Interestingly, while all three providers acknowledged that they used cookies to collect data, only one (FutureLearn) provided a list of cookies with clear descriptions of their function.”

In the citing paper

“One MOOC provider explicitly stated that they may request information from third parties such as credit reference agencies.”

In the citing paper

“One provider (EdX) alerted users that student posts are owned by EdX in perpetuity and could be used for whatever purposes EdX decides.”

In the citing paper

“All three providers made it clear that disabling the cookies would disrupt the service, potentially to the extent that it would be rendered unusable.”

In the citing paper

“All three providers stated clearly that all information provided by users would be collected and used.”

In the citing paper

“Only one, FutureLearn, provided an opportunity (for a small fee) for users to request access to the data held by the company (in line with national data protection requirements).”

In the citing paper

“In following Solove (2013), Prinsloo and Slade suggest that despite concerns about the effectiveness of regulation and legislation, we cannot altogether negate the role of substantive rules and hard boundaries”

In the citing paper

“Interestingly, and of some concern, was the encouragement by FutureLearn for users to reveal personal details such as gender, location, and history in order to deepen the personal element in the learning.”

In the citing paper

“None of the providers gave the option to opt out -indeed, users were alerted to the inability of their MOOC provider to ensure and guarantee that information shared would not be used by fellow users or made public because of security breaches.”

In the citing paper

“Regarding the collected data, all three stated that it would be used to increase the efficiency of the platform and the structure of the learning experience.”