"It's like a double-edged sword": Mentor Perspectives on Ethics and Responsibility in a Learning Analytics-Supported Virtual Mentoring Program

Hakeoung Hannah Lee, Emma C. Gargroetzi
{"title":"\"It's like a double-edged sword\": Mentor Perspectives on Ethics and Responsibility in a Learning Analytics-Supported Virtual Mentoring Program","authors":"Hakeoung Hannah Lee, Emma C. Gargroetzi","doi":"10.18608/jla.2023.7787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data-driven learning analytics (LA) exploits artificial intelligence, data-mining, and emerging technologies, rapidly expanding the collection and uses of learner data. Considerations of potential harm and ethical implications have not kept pace, raising concerns about ethical and privacy issues (Holstein & Doroudi, 2019; Prinsloo & Slade, 2018). This empirical study contributes to a growing critical conversation on fairness, equity, and responsibility of LA lending mentor voices in the context of an online mentorship program through which undergraduate students mentored secondary school students. Specifically, this study responds to a phenomenon shared by four mentors who recounted hiding from mentees that they had seen their LA data. Interviews reveal the convergent and divergent ideas of mentors regarding LA in terms of 1) affordances and constraints, 2) scope and boundaries, 3) ethical tensions and dilemmas, 4) paradoxical demands, and 5) what constitutes fairness, equity, and responsibility. The analysis integrates mentor voices with Slade and Prinsloo’s (2013) principles for an ethical framework for LA, Hacking’s (1982, 1986) dynamic nominalism, and Levinas’s (1989) ethics of responsibility. Design recommendations derived from mentor insights are extended in a discussion of ethical relationality, troubling learners as data-subjects, and considering the possibilities of the agency, transparency, and choice in LA system design.","PeriodicalId":145357,"journal":{"name":"J. Learn. Anal.","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Learn. Anal.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Data-driven learning analytics (LA) exploits artificial intelligence, data-mining, and emerging technologies, rapidly expanding the collection and uses of learner data. Considerations of potential harm and ethical implications have not kept pace, raising concerns about ethical and privacy issues (Holstein & Doroudi, 2019; Prinsloo & Slade, 2018). This empirical study contributes to a growing critical conversation on fairness, equity, and responsibility of LA lending mentor voices in the context of an online mentorship program through which undergraduate students mentored secondary school students. Specifically, this study responds to a phenomenon shared by four mentors who recounted hiding from mentees that they had seen their LA data. Interviews reveal the convergent and divergent ideas of mentors regarding LA in terms of 1) affordances and constraints, 2) scope and boundaries, 3) ethical tensions and dilemmas, 4) paradoxical demands, and 5) what constitutes fairness, equity, and responsibility. The analysis integrates mentor voices with Slade and Prinsloo’s (2013) principles for an ethical framework for LA, Hacking’s (1982, 1986) dynamic nominalism, and Levinas’s (1989) ethics of responsibility. Design recommendations derived from mentor insights are extended in a discussion of ethical relationality, troubling learners as data-subjects, and considering the possibilities of the agency, transparency, and choice in LA system design.
“这就像一把双刃剑”:在学习分析支持的虚拟指导项目中,导师对道德和责任的看法
数据驱动学习分析(LA)利用人工智能、数据挖掘和新兴技术,迅速扩大了学习者数据的收集和使用。对潜在危害和伦理影响的考虑没有跟上步伐,引发了对伦理和隐私问题的担忧(Holstein & Doroudi, 2019;Prinsloo & Slade, 2018)。本实证研究有助于在本科生指导中学生的在线指导计划背景下,对洛杉矶贷款导师的公平、公平和责任进行越来越多的批判性讨论。具体来说,这项研究回应了四位导师分享的一种现象,他们讲述了向学员隐瞒他们已经看到了他们的洛杉矶数据。访谈揭示了导师们在以下方面对洛杉矶的认同和分歧:1)支持和约束,2)范围和边界,3)道德紧张和困境,4)矛盾的要求,以及5)公平、公平和责任的构成。该分析将导师的声音与Slade和Prinsloo(2013)关于洛杉矶伦理框架的原则、Hacking(1982、1986)的动态唯名论和Levinas(1989)的责任伦理结合起来。从导师的见解中得到的设计建议在道德关系的讨论中得到扩展,作为数据主体的学习者感到不安,并考虑到洛杉矶系统设计中的代理、透明度和选择的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信