Cited by 211Online Learning and AnalyticsBig Data and Business IntelligenceEducational and Technological Research

Learning analytics in higher education --- challenges and policies: a review of eight learning analytics policies

Tsai, Yi-Shan, Gasevic, Dragan·2017·Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a review of eight policies for learning analytics of relevance for higher education, and discusses how these policies have tried to address prominent challenges in the adoption of learning analytics, as identified in the literature. The results show that more considerations need to be given to establishing communication channels among stakeholders and adopting pedagogy-based approaches to learning analytics. It also reveals the shortage of guidance for developing data literacy among end-users and evaluating the progress and impact of learning analytics. Moreover, the review highlights the need to establish formalised guidelines to monitor the soundness, effectiveness, and legitimacy of learning analytics. As interest in learning analytics among higher education institutions continues to grow, this review will provide insights into policy and strategic planning for the adoption of learning analytics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3027385.3027400

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • It is possible that stakeholders might not be aware of their textual data on digital platforms being used in LLMs-based innovations for different purposes of automation as the consenting process is often embedded into the enrollment or signing up of these platforms.

    “It is possible that stakeholders might not be aware of their textual data (eg, forum posts or conversations) on digital platforms (eg, MOOCs and LMS) being used in LLMs-based innovations for different purposes of automation (eg, automated reply and training chatbots) as the consenting process is often embedded into the enrollment or signing up of these platforms (Tsai & Gasevic, 2017).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsai, Y.-S., & Gasevic, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Venue
Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-03-13
Pages
233-242
OpenAlex
W2593639882
Cited by
211
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
14.63
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (562080-EPP-1-2015-1-BE-EPPKA3-PIFORW)
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 and Technological Research
Keywords
learning analytics, higher education, barriers to adoption, stakeholder communication, data literacy, strategic planning

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