Cited by 41Online Learning and AnalyticsData Privacy and CybersecurityEducational and Technological Research

Student and Staff Perspectives on the Use of Big Data in the Tertiary Education Sector: A Scoping Review and Reflection on the Ethical Issues

Braunack-Mayer, Annette J., Street, Jackie M., Tooher, Rebecca, Feng, Xiaolin, Scharling-Gamba, Katrine·2020·Review of Educational Research

Abstract

While universities routinely use student data to monitor and predict student performance, there has been limited engagement with student and staff views, social and ethical issues, policy development, and ethical guidance. We reviewed peer-reviewed and grey-literature articles of 2007 to 2018 describing the perspectives of staff and students in tertiary education on the use of student-generated data in data analytics, including learning analytics. We used an ethics framework to categorize the findings. There was considerable variation but generally low awareness and understanding amongst students and staff about the nature and extent of data collection, data analytics, and use of predictive analytics. Staff and students identified potential benefits but also expressed concerns about misinterpretation of data, constant surveillance, poor transparency, inadequate support, and potential to impede active learning. This review supports the contention that consideration of ethical issues has failed to keep pace with the development of predictive analytics in the tertiary sector.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/0034654320960213

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Previous reviews have criticised LA interventions for lack of methodological quality, such as tending to be small in scale.

    “Previous reviews have also criticised LA interventions for lack of methodological quality (e.g., Larrabee Sønderlund et al., 2019), such as tending to be small in scale (e.g., Braunack-Mayer et al., 2020)”

    From Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Braunack-Mayer et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Braunack-Mayer, A. J., Street, J. M., Tooher, R., Feng, X., & Scharling-Gamba, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Published
2020-09-23
Volume
90
Issue
6
Pages
788-823
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
OpenAlex
W3088198127
Cited by
41
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Wollongong (Faculty Seed Grant)
  • University of Adelaide (IRF0006003759)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Data Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational and Technological Research
Keywords
big data in education, learning analytics, predictive analytics, student data, ethical considerations, student perceptions, staff perspectives, surveillance in higher education, data transparency, higher education, active learning

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