The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An elephant in the learning analytics room: the obligation to act
Abstract
As higher education increasingly moves to online and digital learning spaces, we have access not only to greater volumes of student data, but also to increasingly fine-grained and nuanced data. A significant body of research and existing practice are used to convince key stakeholders within higher education of the potential of the collection, analysis and use of student data to positively impact on student experiences in these environments. Much of the recent focus in learning analytics is around predictive modeling and uses of artificial intelligence to both identify learners at risk, and to personalize interventions to increase the chance of success.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“An experimental philosophical study (McGrath et al., 2023) of university teachers' perceptions of responsibility and AI in higher education found a broad consensus among participants that universities should provide AI educational tools, especially to support first-generation students and those with learning disabilities, reflecting a commitment to equity and fairness, as argued by Prinsloo and Sl”
From Artificial intelligence in higher education: exploring faculty use, self-efficacy, distinct profiles, and professional development needs (2024) · cites this paper as Prinsloo and Slade, 2017
Citations
Cites
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 · Cited by 44,601
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
The qualitative content analysis process
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x · Cited by 22,617
In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory And Women's Development
Gilligan, & Carol, C. (1982) · Cited by 10,877
Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research
Tinto, V. (1975) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170024 · Cited by 7,888
Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed.
Creswell, J. W. (2007) · Cited by 4,999
(2010) · Cited by 1,886
The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences
Kitchin, R. (2014) · doi:10.4135/9781473909472 · Cited by 1,469
Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis
Spady, W. G. (1970) · Interchange · doi:10.1007/bf02214313 · Cited by 1,374
Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges
Ferguson, R. (2012) · International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1504/ijtel.2012.051816 · Cited by 1,357
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Baijnath N., 2015, Learning Africa Conference
- Blythe S., 2009, Exploring options for students at the boundaries of the" at-risk" designation, WPA: Writing Program Administration-Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 33, 9
- El-Khawas E., 2000, S. Schwarz & U, 45
- Griffiths D. Drachsler H. Kickmeier-Rust M. Hoel T. & Greller W. (2016). Is privacy a show-stopper for learning analytics? A review of current issues and solutions. Learning Analytics Review 6. LACE. Retrieved from http://www.laceproject.eu/learning-analytics-review/is-privacy-a-show-stopper/ Griffiths D. Drachsler H. Kickmeier-Rust M. Hoel T. & Greller W. (2016). Is privacy a show-stopper for learning analytics? A review of current issues and solutions. Learning Analytics Review 6. LACE. Retrieved from http://www.laceproject.eu/learning-analytics-review/is-privacy-a-show-stopper/
- Kogan M., 2000, S. Schwarz & U, 25
- Patton MC. 2008. Utilization-focused evaluation. {4th edition}. London UK: Sage. Patton MC. 2008. Utilization-focused evaluation. {4th edition}. London UK: Sage.
- Prinsloo, 2016, Jan Botha & Nicole Muller (Eds.), Institutional Research in support of evidence-based decision-making in Higher Education in Southern Africa (pp. 331--353). Stellenbosch
- Prinsloo P. (2016b October 5). The increasing (im)possibilities of justice and care in open distance learning. Presentation at EDEN Research Workshop Oldenburg Germany. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/the-increasing-impossibilities-of-justice-and-care-in-open-distance-learning Prinsloo P. (2016b October 5). The increasing (im)possibilities of justice and care in open distance learning. Presentation at EDEN Research Workshop Oldenburg Germany. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/the-increasing-impossibilities-of-justice-and-care-in-open-distance-learning
- Prinsloo P., 2016, Developing Effective Educational Experiences through Learning Analytics (pp. 174--192).
- 10.3102/00346543045001089 · DOI · Paper page
- Wolff A., 2014, Workshop: Machine Learning and Learning. Presented at the Learning Analytics and Knowledge
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education
Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.027 · Cited by 766
Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100152 · Cited by 416
du Plooy, E., Casteleijn, D., & Franzsen, D. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39630 · Cited by 567
AI in education: learner choice and fundamental rights
Berendt, B., Littlejohn, A., & Blakemore, M. (2020) · Learning, Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1786399 · Cited by 281
Mah, D.-K., & Groß, N. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00490-1 · Cited by 218
“…and AI in higher education found a broad consensus among participants that universities should provide AI educational tools, especially to support first-generation students and those with learning disabilities, reflecting a commitment to equity and fairness, as argued by Prinsloo and Slade (2017).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S.
- Affiliations
- University of South Africa (ZA)
- The Open University (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2017-03-13
- Pages
- 46-55
- OpenAlex
- W2592547188
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 9.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational and Technological Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
- Keywords
- learning analytics, student data, higher education, online learning, predictive modeling, artificial intelligence, at-risk students, personalized interventions, student success, student experience
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