“相信我们,”他们说。绘制学习分析中可信度的轮廓

IF 1.6 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Sharon Slade, Paul Prinsloo, Mohammad Khalil
{"title":"“相信我们,”他们说。绘制学习分析中可信度的轮廓","authors":"Sharon Slade, Paul Prinsloo, Mohammad Khalil","doi":"10.1108/ils-04-2023-0042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore and establish the contours of trust in learning analytics and to establish steps that institutions might take to address the “trust deficit” in learning analytics. Design/methodology/approach “Trust” has always been part and parcel of learning analytics research and practice, but concerns around privacy, bias, the increasing reach of learning analytics, the “black box” of artificial intelligence and the commercialization of teaching and learning suggest that we should not take stakeholder trust for granted. While there have been attempts to explore and map students’ and staff perceptions of trust, there is no agreement on the contours of trust. Thirty-one experts in learning analytics research participated in a qualitative Delphi study. Findings This study achieved agreement on a working definition of trust in learning analytics, and on factors that impact on trusting data, trusting institutional understandings of student success and the design and implementation of learning analytics. In addition, it identifies those factors that might increase levels of trust in learning analytics for students, faculty and broader. Research limitations/implications The study is based on expert opinions as such there is a limitation of how much it is of a true consensus. Originality/value Trust cannot be assumed is taken for granted. This study is original because it establishes a number of concerns around the trustworthiness of learning analytics in respect of how data and student learning journeys are understood, and how institutions can address the “trust deficit” in learning analytics.","PeriodicalId":44588,"journal":{"name":"Information and Learning Sciences","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Trust us,” they said. Mapping the contours of trustworthiness in learning analytics\",\"authors\":\"Sharon Slade, Paul Prinsloo, Mohammad Khalil\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ils-04-2023-0042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore and establish the contours of trust in learning analytics and to establish steps that institutions might take to address the “trust deficit” in learning analytics. Design/methodology/approach “Trust” has always been part and parcel of learning analytics research and practice, but concerns around privacy, bias, the increasing reach of learning analytics, the “black box” of artificial intelligence and the commercialization of teaching and learning suggest that we should not take stakeholder trust for granted. While there have been attempts to explore and map students’ and staff perceptions of trust, there is no agreement on the contours of trust. Thirty-one experts in learning analytics research participated in a qualitative Delphi study. Findings This study achieved agreement on a working definition of trust in learning analytics, and on factors that impact on trusting data, trusting institutional understandings of student success and the design and implementation of learning analytics. In addition, it identifies those factors that might increase levels of trust in learning analytics for students, faculty and broader. Research limitations/implications The study is based on expert opinions as such there is a limitation of how much it is of a true consensus. Originality/value Trust cannot be assumed is taken for granted. This study is original because it establishes a number of concerns around the trustworthiness of learning analytics in respect of how data and student learning journeys are understood, and how institutions can address the “trust deficit” in learning analytics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information and Learning Sciences\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information and Learning Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-04-2023-0042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-04-2023-0042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文的目的是探索和建立学习分析中的信任轮廓,并建立机构可能采取的步骤,以解决学习分析中的“信任赤字”。“信任”一直是学习分析研究和实践的重要组成部分,但对隐私、偏见、学习分析日益扩大的影响范围、人工智能的“黑匣子”以及教学和学习的商业化的担忧表明,我们不应该把利益相关者的信任视为理所当然。虽然有人试图探索和绘制学生和员工对信任的看法,但对信任的轮廓没有达成一致。31位学习分析研究专家参与了一项定性德尔菲研究。本研究就学习分析中信任的工作定义、影响信任数据、信任机构对学生成功的理解以及学习分析的设计和实施的因素达成了一致。此外,它还确定了那些可能提高学生、教师和更广泛的对学习分析的信任水平的因素。研究的局限性/启示该研究基于专家意见,因此它在多大程度上是真正的共识是有限的。独创性/价值信任不是想当然的。这项研究是原创的,因为它建立了一些关于学习分析的可信度的关注,包括如何理解数据和学生的学习历程,以及机构如何解决学习分析中的“信任赤字”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Trust us,” they said. Mapping the contours of trustworthiness in learning analytics
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore and establish the contours of trust in learning analytics and to establish steps that institutions might take to address the “trust deficit” in learning analytics. Design/methodology/approach “Trust” has always been part and parcel of learning analytics research and practice, but concerns around privacy, bias, the increasing reach of learning analytics, the “black box” of artificial intelligence and the commercialization of teaching and learning suggest that we should not take stakeholder trust for granted. While there have been attempts to explore and map students’ and staff perceptions of trust, there is no agreement on the contours of trust. Thirty-one experts in learning analytics research participated in a qualitative Delphi study. Findings This study achieved agreement on a working definition of trust in learning analytics, and on factors that impact on trusting data, trusting institutional understandings of student success and the design and implementation of learning analytics. In addition, it identifies those factors that might increase levels of trust in learning analytics for students, faculty and broader. Research limitations/implications The study is based on expert opinions as such there is a limitation of how much it is of a true consensus. Originality/value Trust cannot be assumed is taken for granted. This study is original because it establishes a number of concerns around the trustworthiness of learning analytics in respect of how data and student learning journeys are understood, and how institutions can address the “trust deficit” in learning analytics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Information and Learning Sciences
Information and Learning Sciences INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Information and Learning Sciences advances inter-disciplinary research that explores scholarly intersections shared within 2 key fields: information science and the learning sciences / education sciences. The journal provides a publication venue for work that strengthens our scholarly understanding of human inquiry and learning phenomena, especially as they relate to design and uses of information and e-learning systems innovations.
×
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