Human-Centred Development of Indicators for Self-Service Learning Analytics
A Transparency through Exploration Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2026.8921Keywords:
human-centred learning analytics, trustworthy learning analytics, transparent learning analytics, self-service learning analytics, open learning analytics, transparency, trust, acceptance, research paperAbstract
The aim of learning analytics (LA) is to turn educational data into insights, decisions, and actions to improve learning and teaching. The reasoning of the provided insights, decisions, and actions is often not transparent to the end-user, and this can lead to trust and acceptance issues when interventions, feedback, and recommendations fail. In this paper, we shed light on achieving transparent LA by following a transparency through exploration approach. To this end, we present the design, implementation, and evaluation details of the Indicator Editor, which aims to support self-service LA (SSLA) by empowering end-users to take control of the indicator implementation process. We systematically designed and implemented the Indicator Editor through an iterative human-centred design (HCD) approach. Further, we conducted a qualitative user study (n=15\) to investigate the impact of following an SSLA approach on users' perceptions of and interactions with the Indicator Editor. Our study showed qualitative evidence that supporting user interaction and providing user control in the indicator implementation process can have positive effects on different crucial aspects of LA, namely transparency, trust, satisfaction, and acceptance.
References
Abdi, S., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., & Gasevic, D. (2020). Complementing educational recommender systems with open learner models. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2020), 23–27 March 2020, Frankfurt, Germany (pp. 360–365). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375520
Ahn, J., Campos, F., Hays, M., & DiGiacomo, D. (2019). Designing in context: Reaching beyond usability in learning analytics dashboard design. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.5
Ahn, J., Campos, F., Nguyen, H., Hays, M., & Morrison, J. (2021). Co-designing for privacy, transparency, and trust in K-12 learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2021), 12–16 April 2021, Irvine, California, USA (pp. 55–65). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448139.3448145
Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gaševíc, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024). Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215
Alvarez, C. P., Martinez-Maldonado, R., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2020). LA-DECK: A card-based learning analytics co-design tool. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2020), 23–27 March 2020, Frankfurt, Germany (pp. 63–72). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375476
Alzahrani, A. S., Tsai, Y.- S., Aljohani, N., Whitelock-Wainwright, E., & Gasevic, D. (2023). Do teaching staff trust stakeholders and tools in learning analytics? A mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(4), 1471–1501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10229-w
Amershi, S., Cakmak, M., Knox, W. B., & Kulesza, T. (2014). Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Magazine, 35(4), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
Andjelkovic, I., Parra, D., & O’Donovan, J. (2016). Moodplay: Interactive mood-based music discovery and recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2016), 13–17 July 2016, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (pp. 275–279). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930238.2930280
Barria Pineda, J., & Brusilovsky, P. (2019). Making educational recommendations transparent through a fine-grained open learner model. In C. Trattner, D. Parra, & N. Riche (Eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Intelligent User Interfaces for Algorithmic Transparency in Emerging Technologies at the 24th ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2019), 20 March 2019, Los Angeles, California, USA (Vol. 2327). CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
Barria-Pineda, J., Akhuseyinoglu, K., & Brusilovsky, P. (2019). Explaining need-based educational recommendations using interactive open learner models. In Adjunct Publication of the 27th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2019), 9–12 June 2019, Larnaca, Cyprus (pp. 273–277). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314183.3323463
Bennett, L., & Folley, S. (2019). Four design principles for learner dashboards that support student agency and empowerment. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-11-2018-0251
Bodily, R., Kay, J., Aleven, V., Jivet, I., Davis, D., Xhakaj, F., & Verbert, K. (2018). Open learner models and learning analytics dashboards: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2018), 7–9 March 2018, Sydney, Australia (pp. 41–50). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170409
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Buckingham Shum, S., Ferguson, R., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2019). Human-centred learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.1
Buckingham Shum, S., Martínez-Maldonado, R., Dimitriadis, Y., & Santos, P. (2024). Human-centred learning analytics: 2019–24. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13442
Campos, F., Nguyen, H., Ahn, J., & Jackson, K. (2024). Leveraging cultural forms in human-centred learning analytics design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13384
Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
Chatti, M. A., Dyckhoff, A. L., Schroeder, U., & Thüs, H. (2012). A reference model for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5-6), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2012.051815
Chatti, M. A., & Muslim, A. (2019). The PERLA framework: Blending personalization and learning analytics. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i1.3936
Chatti, M. A., Muslim, A., Guesmi, M., Richtscheid, F., Nasimi, D., Shahin, A., & Damera, R. (2020). How to design effective learning analytics indicators? A human-centered design approach. In C. Alario-Hoyos, M. Rodríguez-Triana, M. Scheffel, I. Arnedillo-Sanchez, & S. Dennerlein (Eds.), Addressing global challenges and quality education. EC-TEL 2020. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 303–317, Vol. 12315). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57717-9_22
Chatti, M. A., Muslim, A., Guliani, M., & Guesmi, M. (2020). The LAVA model: Learning analytics meets visual analytics. In D. Ifenthaler & D. Gibson (Eds.), Adoption of data analytics in higher education learning and teaching (pp. 71–93). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47392-1_5
Chen, B., & Zhu, H. (2019). Towards value-sensitive learning analytics design. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2019), 4–8 March 2019, Tempe, Arizona, USA (pp. 343–352). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303798
Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2012), 29 April–2 May 2012, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 134–138). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330636
Conati, C., Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). AI in education needs interpretable machine learning: Lessons from Open Learner Modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.00154. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.00154
Conijn, R., Kahr, P., & Snijders, C. C. (2023). The effects of explanations in automated essay scoring systems on student trust and motivation. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7801
Cramer, H., Evers, V., Ramlal, S., Van Someren, M., Rutledge, L., Stash, N., Aroyo, L., & Wielinga, B. (2008). The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(5), 455–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-008-9051-3
Cukurova, M., Zhou, Q., Spikol, D., & Landolfi, L. (2020). Modelling collaborative problem-solving competence with transparent learning analytics: Is video data enough? In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2020), 23–27 March 2020, Frankfurt, Germany (pp. 270–275). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375484
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
de Quincey, E., Briggs, C., Kyriacou, T., & Waller, R. (2019). Student centred design of a learning analytics system. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2019), 4–8 March 2019, Tempe, Arizona, USA (pp. 353–362). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303793
Dimitriadis, Y., Martınez-Maldonado, R., & Wiley, K. (2021). Human-centered design principles for actionable learning analytics. In T. Tsiatsos, S. Demetriadis, A. Mikropoulos, & V. Dagdilelis (Eds.), Research on E-learning and ICT in education: Technological, pedagogical and instructional perspectives (pp. 277–296). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64363-8_15
Dollinger, M., Liu, D., Arthars, N., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Working together in learning analytics towards the co-creation of value. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.2
Dollinger, M., & Lodge, J. M. (2018). Co-creation strategies for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2018), 7–9 March 2018, Sydney, Australia (pp. 97–101). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170372
Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2016). Privacy and analytics: It’s a DELICATE issue a checklist for trusted learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2016), 25–29 April 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (pp. 89–98). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883893
Du, M., Liu, N., & Hu, X. (2020). Techniques for interpretable machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 63(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359786
Duan, X., Pei, B., Ambrose, G. A., Hershkovitz, A., Cheng, Y., & Wang, C. (2024). Towards transparent and trustworthy prediction of student learning achievement by including instructors as co-designers: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 3075–3096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11954-8
Dudley, J. J., & Kristensson, P. O. (2018). A review of user interface design for interactive machine learning. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 8(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3185517
Dyckhoff, A. L., Zielke, D., Bultmann, M., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2012). Design and implementation of a learning analytics toolkit for teachers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 58–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.15.3.58
Elias, T. (2011). Learning analytics: Definitions, processes and potential. https://scispace.com/pdf/learning-analytics-definitions-processes-and-potential-ps57ps7au6.pdf
Gedikli, F., Jannach, D., & Ge, M. (2014). How should I explain? A comparison of different explanation types for recommender systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.12.007
Gedrimiene, E., Celik, I., Mäkitalo, K., & Muukkonen, H. (2023). Transparency and trustworthiness in user intentions to follow career recommendations from a learning analytics tool. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7791
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
Hakami, E., & Hernández Leo, D. (2020). How are learning analytics considering the societal values of fairness, accountability, transparency, and human well-being? A literature review. In A. Martinez-Mones, A. Alvarez, M. Caeiro-Rodriguez, & Y. Dimitriadis (Eds.), Learning Analytics Summer Institute Spain 2020: Learning Analytics. Time for Adoption?(LASI-SPAIN 2020), 15–16 June 2020, Valladolid, Spain (pp. 121–141). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47392-1_2
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2019). Universal methods of design expanded and revised: 125 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2017). An information policy perspective on learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2017), 13–17 March 2017, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 253–256). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027389
He, C., Parra, D., & Verbert, K. (2016). Interactive recommender systems: A survey of the state of the art and future research challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications, 56, 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.02.013
Hellmann, M., Hernandez-Bocanegra, D. C., & Ziegler, J. (2022). Development of an instrument for measuring users’ perception of transparency in recommender systems. In A. Smith-Renner & O. Amir (Eds.), HUMANIZE: Transparency and Explainability in Adaptive Systems through User Modeling Grounded in Psychological Theory: Workshops at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2022), 21–22 March 2022, Helsinki, Finland (virtual) (pp. 156–165). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3124/paper17.pdf
Hilliger, I., De Laet, T., Henríquez, V., Guerra, J., Ortiz-Rojas, M., Zúñiga, M. Á., Baier, J., & Pérez-Sanagustín, M. (2020). For learners, with learners: Identifying indicators for an academic advising dashboard for students. In C. Alario-Hoyos, M. Rodríguez-Triana, M. Scheffel, I. Arnedillo-Sanchez, & S. Dennerlein (Eds.), Addressing global challenges and quality education. EC-TEL 2020. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 117–130, Vol. 12315). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57717-9_9
Hilliger, I., Miranda, C., Celis, S., & Pérez-Sanagustín, M. (2024). Curriculum analytics adoption in higher education: A multiple case study engaging stakeholders in different phases of design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13374
Hoel, T., Griffiths, D., & Chen, W. (2017). The influence of data protection and privacy frameworks on the design of learning analytics systems. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2017), 13–17 March 2017, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 243–252). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027414
Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2019). Co-designing a real-time classroom orchestration tool to support teacher AI complementarity. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.3
Hosseini, M., Shahri, A., Phalp, K., & Ali, R. (2018). Four reference models for transparency requirements in information systems. Requirements Engineering, 23(2), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-017-0265-y
Hutchins, N. M., & Biswas, G. (2024). Co-designing teacher support technology for problem-based learning in middle school science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 802–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13363
Jiang, L., Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2019). Recent research advances on interactive machine learning. Journal of Visualization, 22, 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12650-018-0531-1
Jin, Y., Tintarev, N., & Verbert, K. (2018). Effects of personal characteristics on music recommender systems with different levels of controllability. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2018), 2 October 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 13–21). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240323.3240358
Jivet, I., Wong, J., Scheffel, M., Valle Torre, M., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2021). Quantum of choice: How learners’ feedback monitoring decisions, goals and self-regulated learning skills are related. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2021), 12–16 April 2021, Irvine, California, USA (pp. 416–427). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448139.3448179
Joarder, S., & Chatti, M. A. (2025). The ISC Creator: Human-centered design of learning analytics interactive indicator specification cards. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (ICETC 2025), 18–21 September 2025, Barcelona, Spain. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07811
Jugovac, M., & Jannach, D. (2017). Interacting with recommenders—overview and research directions. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 7(3), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/3001837
Kaur, D., Uslu, S., Rittichier, K. J., & Durresi, A. (2022). Trustworthy artificial intelligence: A review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491209
Keim, D. A., Mansmann, F., Schneidewind, J., & Ziegler, H. (2006). Challenges in visual data analysis. In E. Banissi, R. A. Burkhard, A. Ursyn, J. J. Zhang, M. Bannatyne, C. Maple, A. J. Cowell, G. Y. Tian, & M. Hou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV 2006), 5–7 July 2006, London, UK (pp. 9–16). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iv.2006.31
Khalil, M., Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2023). Fairness, trust, transparency, equity, and responsibility in learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7983
Khosravi, H., Buckingham Shum, S., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y.-S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S., & Gasevic, D. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100074
Knijnenburg, B. P., Reijmer, N. J., & Willemsen, M. C. (2011). Each to his own: How different users call for different interaction methods in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2011), 23–27 October 2011, Chicago, Illinois, USA (pp. 141–148). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2043932.2043960
Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., Gantner, Z., Soncu, H., & Newell, C. (2012). Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(4), 441–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9118-4
Lang, C., & Davis, L. (2023). Learning analytics and stakeholder inclusion: What do we mean when we say “human-centered”? In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2023), 13–17 March 2023, Arlington, Texas, USA (pp. 411–417). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576050.3576110
Lang, C., Macfadyen, L. P., Slade, S., Prinsloo, P., & Sclater, N. (2018). The complexities of developing a personal code of ethics for learning analytics practitioners: Implications for institutions and the field. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2018), 7–9 March 2018, Sydney, Australia (pp. 436–440). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170396
Lawrence, L., Echeverria, V., Yang, K., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2024). How teachers conceptualise shared control with an AI co-orchestration tool: A multiyear teacher-centred design process. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 823–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13372
Li, W., Brooks, C., & Schaub, F. (2019). The impact of student opt-out on educational predictive models. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2019), 4–8 March 2019, Tempe, Arizona, USA (pp. 411–420). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303809
Ma, S., Zhou, T., Nie, F., & Ma, X. (2022). Glancee: An adaptable system for instructors to grasp student learning status in synchronous online classes. In S. Barbosa, C. Lampe, C. Appert, D. A. Shamma, S. Drucker, J. Williamson, & K. Yatani (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2022), 29 April–5 May 2022, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (pp. 1–25). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517482
Martínez-Maldonado, R. (2023). Human-centred learning analytics: Four challenges in realising the potential. Learning Letters, 1, 6. https://doi.org/10.59453/fizj7007
Martínez-Maldonado, R., Pardo, A., Mirriahi, N., Yacef, K., Kay, J., & Clayphan, A. (2015). LATUX: An iterative workflow for designing, validating, and deploying learning analytics visualizations. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(3), 9–39. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.23.3
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
Miller, T. (2022). Are we measuring trust correctly in explainability, interpretability, and transparency research? arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00651. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00651
Muslim, A., Chatti, M. A., Mughal, M., & Schroeder, U. (2017). The goal-question-indicator approach for personalized learning analytics. In P. Escudeiro, G. Costagliola, S. Zvacek, J. Uhomoibhi, & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017), 21–23 April 2017, Porto, Portugal (pp. 371–378, Vol. 1). SCITEPRESS Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006319803710378
Ngo, T., Kunkel, J., & Ziegler, J. (2020). Exploring mental models for transparent and controllable recommender systems: A qualitative study. In T. Kuflik, I. Torre, R. Burke, & C. Gena (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2020), 14–17 July 2020, Genoa, Italy (pp. 183–191). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340631.3394841
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
Nunes, I., & Jannach, D. (2017). A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(3), 393–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9195-0
Oliver-Quelennec, K., Bouchet, F., Carron, T., Fronton Casalino, K., & Pinc¸ on, C. (2022). Adapting learning analytics dashboards by and for university students. In I. Hilliger, P. Mu ˜noz-Merino, T. De Laet, A. Ortega-Arranz, & T. Farrell (Eds.), Educating for a new future: Making sense of technology-enhanced learning adoption. EC-TEL 2022. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 299–309, Vol. 13450). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16290-9_22
Ooge, J., Dereu, L., & Verbert, K. (2023). Steering recommendations and visualising its impact: Effects on adolescents’ trust in e-learning platforms. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2023), 27-31 March 2023, Sydney, Australia (pp. 156–170). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581641.3584046
Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12152
Pozdniakov, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Tsai, Y.- S., Cukurova, M., Bartindale, T., Chen, P., Marshall, H., Richardson, D., & Gasevic, D. (2022). The question-driven dashboard: How can we design analytics interfaces aligned to teachers’ inquiry? In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2022), 21–25 March 2022, online (pp. 175–185). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506885
Prieto-Álvarez, C. G., Martínez-Maldonado, R., & Anderson, T. D. (2018). Co-designing learning analytics tools with learners. In J. Lodge, J. Horvath, & L. Corrin (Eds.), Learning analytics in the classroom (pp. 93–110). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351113038-7
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2013). An evaluation of policy frameworks for addressing ethical considerations in learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2013), 8–13 April 2013, Leuven, Belgium (pp. 240–244). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460344
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: Implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2015), 16–20 April 2015, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA (pp. 83–92). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723585
Pu, P., Chen, L., & Hu, R. (2011). A user-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2011), 23–27 October 2011, Chicago, Illinois, USA (pp. 157–164). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2043932.2043962
Rehrey, G., Shepard, L., Hostetter, C., Reynolds, A., & Groth, D. (2019). Engaging faculty in learning analytics: Agents of institutional culture change. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.6
Roberts, L. D., Howell, J. A., & Seaman, K. (2017). Give me a customizable dashboard: Personalized learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22, 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9316-1
Sarmiento, J. P., Campos, F., & Wise, A. (2020). Engaging students as co-designers of learning analytics. In Companion Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2020), 23–27 March 2020, Frankfurt, Germany (pp. 29–32). ACM. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341030912_Engaging_Students_as_Co_Designers_of_Learning_Analytics
Sarmiento, J. P., & Wise, A. F. (2022). Participatory and co-design of learning analytics: An initial review of the literature. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2022), 21–25 March 2022, online (pp. 535–541). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506910
Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., & Specht, M. (2015). Developing an evaluation framework of quality indicators for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2015), 16–20 April 2015, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA (pp. 16–20). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723629
Shibani, A., Knight, S., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2019). Contextualizable learning analytics design: A generic model and writing analytics evaluations. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2019), 4–8 March 2019, Tempe, Arizona, USA (pp. 210–219). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303785
Shibani, A., Knight, S., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2022). Questioning learning analytics? Cultivating critical engagement as student automated feedback literacy. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2022), 21–25 March 2022, online (pp. 326–335). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506912
Shneiderman, B. (2020). Bridging the gap between ethics and practice: guidelines for reliable, safe, and trustworthy human-centered AI systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 10(4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419764
Shneiderman, B. (2022). Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192845290.001.0001
Shreiner, T. L., & Guzdial, M. (2022). The information won’t just sink in: Helping teachers provide technology-assisted data literacy instruction in social studies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1134–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13255
Shute, V. J., Smith, G., Kuba, R., Dai, C.- P., Rahimi, S., Liu, Z., & Almond, R. (2021). The design, development, and testing of learning supports for the physics playground game. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31(3), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00196-1
Siepmann, C., & Chatti, M. A. (2023). Trust and transparency in recommender systems. In Human-Centred Explainable AI Workshop at the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2023), 23–28 April 2023, Hamburg, Germany. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08094
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479366
Slade, S., Prinsloo, P., & Khalil, M. (2019). Learning analytics at the intersections of student trust, disclosure and benefit. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2019), 4–8 March 2019, Tempe, Arizona, USA (pp. 235–244). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303796
Spinner, T., Schlegel, U., Schafer, H., & El-Assady, M. (2019). explAIner: A visual analytics framework for interactive and explainable machine learning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1), 1064–1074. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934629
Sundar, S. S. (2020). Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026
Swenson, J. (2014). Establishing an ethical literacy for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2014), 24–28 March 2014, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA (pp. 246–250). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567613
Teasley, S. D. (2017). Student facing dashboards: One size fits all? Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9314-3
Tintarev, N., & Masthoff, J. (2015). Explaining recommendations: Design and evaluation. In F. Ricci, L. Rokach, & B. Shapira (Eds.), Recommender systems handbook (pp. 353–382). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_10
Topali, P., Ortega-Arranz, A., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Er, E., Khalil, M., & Akçapınar, G. (2025). Designing human-centered learning analytics and artificial intelligence in education solutions: A systematic literature review. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(5), 1071–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2024.2345295
Tsai, C. -H., & Brusilovsky, P. (2017). Providing control and transparency in a social recommender system for academic conferences. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2017), 9–12 July 2017, Bratislava, Slovakia (pp. 313–317). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3079628.3079701
Tsai, C.-H., & Brusilovsky, P. (2021). The effects of controllability and explainability in a social recommender system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 31(3), 591–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-020-09281-5
Tsai, Y. -S., & Gašević, D. (2017). Learning analytics in higher education—challenges and policies: A review of eight learning analytics policies. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2017), 13–17 March 2017, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 233–242). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027400
Tsai, Y. - S., Perrotta, C., & Gašević, D. (2020). Empowering learners with personalised learning approaches? Agency, equity and transparency in the context of learning analytics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 554–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1676396
Tsai, Y.- S., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., & Gašević, D. (2020). The privacy paradox and its implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2020), 23–27 March 2020, Frankfurt, Germany (pp. 230–239). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375536
Usmani, U. A., Happonen, A., & Watada, J. (2023). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Designing for user empowerment and ethical considerations. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA 2023), 8–10 June 2023, Istanbul, Turkiye. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/hora58378.2023.10156761
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Verbert, K., De Laet, T., Millecamp, M., Broos, T., Chatti, M. A., & Muslim, A. (2020). XLA: Explainable Learning Analytics. In Companion Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2020), 23–27 March 2020, Frankfurt, Germany (pp. 477–479). ACM. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/606655
Verbert, K., Duval, E., Klerkx, J., Govaerts, S., & Santos, J. L. (2013). Learning analytics dashboard applications. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1500–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479363
Verbert, K., Parra, D., Brusilovsky, P., & Duval, E. (2013). Visualizing recommendations to support exploration, transparency and controllability. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2013), 19–22 March 2013, Santa Monica, California, USA (pp. 351–362). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2449396.2449442
Viberg, O., Jivet, I., & Scheffel, M. (2023). Designing culturally aware learning analytics: A value sensitive perspective. In O. Viberg & A. Grönlund (Eds.), Practicable learning analytics (pp. 177–192). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27646-0_10
West, D., Luzeckyj, A., Toohey, D., Vanderlelie, J., & Searle, B. (2020). Do academics and university administrators really know better? The ethics of positioning student perspectives in learning analytics. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4653
Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Gašević, D., & Tejeiro, R. (2017). What do students want? Towards an instrument for students’ evaluation of quality of learning analytics services. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2017), 13–17 March 2017, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 368–372). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027419
Wiley, K., Dimitriadis, Y., & Linn, M. (2024). A human-centred learning analytics approach for developing contextually scalable K-12 teacher dashboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 845–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13383
Wilson, J., Huang, Y., Palermo, C., Beard, G., & MacArthur, C. A. (2021). Automated feedback and automated scoring in the elementary grades: Usage, attitudes, and associations with writing outcomes in a districtwide implementation of MI Write. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31(2), 234–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00236-w
Yang, F., Huang, Z., Scholtz, J., & Arendt, D. L. (2020). How do visual explanations foster end users’ appropriate trust in machine learning? In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2020), 17–20 March 2020, Cagliari, Italy (pp. 189–201). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377480
Zhao, R., Benbasat, I., & Cavusoglu, H. (2019). Do users always want to know more? Investigating the relationship between system transparency and users’ trust in advice-giving systems. In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2019), 8–14 June 2019, Stockholm, Sweden. AIS eLibrary. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019rip/42/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Learning Analytics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
