Technological barriers and incentives to learning analytics adoption in higher education: insights from users

Learning analytics (LA) tools promise to improve student learning and retention. However, adoption and use of LA tools in higher education is often uneven. In this case study, part of a larger exploratory research project, we interviewed and observed 32 faculty and advisors at a public research university to understand the technological incentives and barriers related to LA tool adoption and use. Findings indicate that lack of a trustworthy technological infrastructure, misalignment between LA tool capabilities and user needs, and the existence of ethical concerns about the data, visualizations, and algorithms that underlie LA tools created barriers to adoption. Improving tool integration, clarity, and accuracy, soliciting the technological needs and perspectives of LA tool users, and providing data context may encourage inclusion of these tools into teaching and advising practice.

[1]  Olga Viberg,et al.  The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  Marilla D. Svinicki,et al.  Factors Associated with Faculty Use of Student Data for Instructional Improvement. , 2016 .

[3]  Marek Hatala,et al.  A qualitative evaluation of evolution of a learning analytics tool , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Paul Michael Privateer,et al.  Academic Technology and the Future of Higher Education: Strategic Paths Taken and Not Taken , 1999 .

[5]  Jaime Lester,et al.  Organizing Higher Education for Collaboration: A Guide for Campus Leaders , 2009 .

[6]  Franziska Zellweger Moser.  Faculty Adoption of Educational Technology , 2007 .

[7]  Matthew D. Pistilli,et al.  Course signals at Purdue: using learning analytics to increase student success , 2012, LAK.

[8]  Burns B. Crookston.  A Developmental View of Academic Advising As Teaching. , 1994 .

[9]  Franziska Zellweger,et al.  The Strategic Management of E-Learning Support , 2007 .

[10]  R. Stake.  Qualitative Case Studies. , 2005 .

[11]  Tracy Miller,et al.  Understanding Faculty Use of the Learning Management System , 2017 .

[12]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[13]  Yves Balcer,et al.  Technological expectations and adoption of improved technology , 1984 .

[14]  H. Rangwala,et al.  Learning Analytics Tools in Higher Education: Adoption at the Intersection of Institutional Commitment and Individual Action , 2018, The Review of Higher Education.

[15]  E. Straub.  Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning , 2009 .

[16]  Shane Dawson,et al.  Informing Pedagogical Action , 2013 .

[17]  Alejandro Peña-Ayala.  Review: Educational data mining: A survey and a data mining-based analysis of recent works , 2014 .

[18]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[19]  Steven Lonn,et al.  The learning analytics readiness instrument , 2016, LAK.

[20]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[21]  Brian J. Novoselich,et al.  An Investigation of First-Year Engineering Student and Instructor Perspectives of Learning Analytics Approaches , 2016, J. Learn. Anal..

[22]  H. Rangwala,et al.  Learning Analytics in Higher Education , 2021, Advances in Electronic Government, Digital Divide, and Regional Development.

[23]  Steven Lonn,et al.  Perceptions and use of an early warning system during a higher education transition program , 2014, LAK.

[24]  Dragan Gasevic,et al.  From prediction to impact: evaluation of a learning analytics retention program , 2017, LAK.

[25]  Ben Daniel,et al.  Big Data and analytics in higher education: Opportunities and challenges , 2015, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[26]  M. Brown,et al.  Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors' adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching , 2016, Internet High. Educ..

[27]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[28]  Anastasios A. Economides,et al.  Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining in Practice: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Evidence , 2014, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[29]  E. Guba,et al.  The Only Generalization Is: There Is No Generalization , 2009 .

[30]  Anthony G. Picciano.  The Evolution of Big Data and Learning Analytics in American Higher Education , 2012 .

[31]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[32]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge , 2006, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[33]  D. Mertens.  Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods , 1997 .