Cited by 88Online Learning and AnalyticsPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Guest Editorial: Ethics and Privacy in Learning Analytics

Open access
Ferguson, Rebecca, Hoel, Tore, Scheffel, Maren, Drachsler, Hendrik·2016·Journal of Learning Analytics

Abstract

The European Learning Analytics Community Exchange (LACE) project is responsible for an ongoing series of workshops on ethics and privacy in learning analytics (EP4LA), which have been responsible for driving and transforming activity in these areas. Some of this activity has been brought together with other work in the papers that make up this special issue. These papers cover the creation and development of ethical frameworks, as well as tools and approaches that can be used to address issues of ethics and privacy. This editorial suggests that it is worth taking time to consider the often intertangled issues of ethics, data protection and privacy separately. The challenges mentioned within the special issue are summarised in a table of 22 challenges that are used to identify the values that underpin work in this area. Nine ethical goals are suggested as the editors’ interpretation of the unstated values that lie behind the challenges raised in this paper.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18608/jla.2016.31.2

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?

  • Ethical risks of LLMs can be aggregated into three fundamental ethical issues: privacy concerns, equality concerns, and beneficence concerns.

    “These risks can be further aggregated into three fundamental ethical issues, such as privacy concerns regarding educational stakeholders' personal data, equality concerns regarding the accessibility of stakeholders with different backgrounds, and beneficence concerns about the potential harms and negative impacts that LLMs-based innovations may have on stakeholders (Ferguson et al., 2016).”

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
Ferguson, R., Hoel, T., Scheffel, M., & Drachsler, H.
Affiliations
  • The Open University (GB)
  • OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO)
  • Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
Venue
Journal of Learning Analytics
Published
2016-04-23
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
1929-7750 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2338724223
Cited by
88
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Learning Analytics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Research Online (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion)
  • Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Commission (619424)
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 › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
learning analytics, ethics, privacy, data protection, ethical frameworks, values in research

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