Increasingly, higher education institutions are exploring the potential of learning analytics to predict student retention, understand learning behaviors, and improve student learning through providing personalized feedback and support. The technical development of learning analytics has outpaced consideration of ethical issues surrounding their use. Of particular concern is the absence of the student voice in decision-making about learning analytics. We explored higher education students' knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about big data and learning analytics through four focus groups (N = 41). Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts identified six key themes. The first theme, “Uninformed and Uncertain,” represents students' lack of knowledge about learning analytics prior to the focus groups. Following the provision of information, viewing of videos and discussion of learning analytics scenarios three further themes; “Help or Hindrance to Learning,” “More than a Number,” and “Impeding Independence”; represented students' perceptions of the likely impact of learning analytics on their learning. “Driving Inequality” and “Where Will it Stop?” represent ethical concerns raised by the students about the potential for inequity, bias and invasion of privacy and the need for informed consent. A key tension to emerge was how “personal” vs. “collective” purposes or principles can intersect with “uniform” vs. “autonomous” activity. The findings highlight the need the need to engage students in the decision making process about learning analytics.

Higher education institutions are developing the capacity for learning analytics. However, the technical development of learning analytics has far exceeded the consideration of ethical issues around learning analytics. We examined higher education academics' knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about the use of learning analytics though four focus groups (N = 35). Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts identified five key themes. The first theme, 'Facilitating learning', represents academics' perceptions that, while currently unrealized, there could be several benefits to learning analytics that would help their students. Three themes; 'Where are the ethics?', 'What about the students!', and 'What about me!' represented academics' perceptions of how learning analytics could pose some considerable difficulties within a higher education context. A final theme 'Let's move forward together' reflected that despite some challenges and concerns about learning analytics, academics perceived scope for learning analytics to be beneficial if there is collaboration between academics, students, and the university. The findings highlight the need to include academics in the development of learning analytics policies and procedures to promote the suitability and widespread adoption of learning analytics in the higher education sector.

No abstract

No abstract

Increasingly, students completing undergraduate dissertations in Australia are expected by their supervisors to produce publishable research. Despite this, limited resources are available for supervisors of undergraduate dissertation students on how best to supervise students toward this aim. Building on our previous research on the perspectives of supervisors and dissertation coordinators of what constitutes good undergraduate dissertation supervision, we present here the findings on student perspectives of good supervision. Twenty-five students (seventeen students who were currently completing an undergraduate dissertation and eight who had recently completed an undergraduate dissertation) were interviewed about their experiences in being supervised. A critical incident methodology was used to invite students to reflect on times when supervision had gone well, and times when it had not. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Key themes to emerge were that students viewed "good" supervisors as those that were supportive and empowering, directed learning, and whose style and interests aligned with those of the students. Challenges in supervision related to lack of clarity and inconsistencies, perceived power imbalances between students and supervisors, and perceived inequities in the amount of supervision provided across students. Whilst the publication of undergraduate research is a worthy aim, the pressure to publish for some students resulted in feelings of inadequacy and perceptions of supervisors losing interest when findings were not deemed publishable.