教学人员是否信任利益相关者和学习分析工具?混合方法研究。

IF 3.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development Pub Date : 2023-04-27 DOI:10.1007/s11423-023-10229-w
Asma Shannan Alzahrani, Yi-Shan Tsai, Naif Aljohani, Emma Whitelock-Wainwright, Dragan Gasevic
{"title":"教学人员是否信任利益相关者和学习分析工具?混合方法研究。","authors":"Asma Shannan Alzahrani,&nbsp;Yi-Shan Tsai,&nbsp;Naif Aljohani,&nbsp;Emma Whitelock-Wainwright,&nbsp;Dragan Gasevic","doi":"10.1007/s11423-023-10229-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Learning analytics (LA) has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve different educational aspects (e.g., students' performance and teaching practice). The existing literature identified some factors that are associated with the adoption of LA in higher education, such as stakeholder engagement and transparency in data use. The broad literature on information systems also emphasizes the importance of trust as a critical predictor of technology adoption. However, the extent to which trust plays a role in the adoption of LA in higher education has not been examined in detail in previous research. To fill this literature gap, we conducted a mixed method (survey and interviews) study aimed to explore how much teaching staff trust LA stakeholders (e.g., higher education institutions or third-parties) and LA technology, as well as the trust factors that could hinder or enable adoption of LA. The findings show that the teaching staff had a high level of trust in the competence of higher education institutions and the usefulness of LA; however, the teaching staff had a low level of trust in third parties that are involved in LA (e.g., external technology vendors) in terms of handling privacy and ethics-related issues. They also had a low level of trust in data accuracy due to issues such as outdated data and lack of data governance. The findings have strategic implications for institutional leaders and third parties in the adoption of LA by providing recommendations to increase trust, such as, improving data accuracy, developing policies for data sharing and ownership, enhancing the consent-seeking process, and establishing data governance guidelines. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature on the adoption of LA in HEIs by integrating trust factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":48170,"journal":{"name":"Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10136390/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do teaching staff trust stakeholders and tools in learning analytics? A mixed methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Asma Shannan Alzahrani,&nbsp;Yi-Shan Tsai,&nbsp;Naif Aljohani,&nbsp;Emma Whitelock-Wainwright,&nbsp;Dragan Gasevic\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11423-023-10229-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Learning analytics (LA) has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve different educational aspects (e.g., students' performance and teaching practice). The existing literature identified some factors that are associated with the adoption of LA in higher education, such as stakeholder engagement and transparency in data use. The broad literature on information systems also emphasizes the importance of trust as a critical predictor of technology adoption. However, the extent to which trust plays a role in the adoption of LA in higher education has not been examined in detail in previous research. To fill this literature gap, we conducted a mixed method (survey and interviews) study aimed to explore how much teaching staff trust LA stakeholders (e.g., higher education institutions or third-parties) and LA technology, as well as the trust factors that could hinder or enable adoption of LA. The findings show that the teaching staff had a high level of trust in the competence of higher education institutions and the usefulness of LA; however, the teaching staff had a low level of trust in third parties that are involved in LA (e.g., external technology vendors) in terms of handling privacy and ethics-related issues. They also had a low level of trust in data accuracy due to issues such as outdated data and lack of data governance. The findings have strategic implications for institutional leaders and third parties in the adoption of LA by providing recommendations to increase trust, such as, improving data accuracy, developing policies for data sharing and ownership, enhancing the consent-seeking process, and establishing data governance guidelines. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature on the adoption of LA in HEIs by integrating trust factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10136390/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10229-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10229-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

学习分析(LA)因其改善不同教育方面(例如,学生的表现和教学实践)的潜力而越来越受到关注。现有文献确定了一些与高等教育中采用LA相关的因素,如利益相关者的参与和数据使用的透明度。关于信息系统的广泛文献也强调了信任作为技术采用的关键预测因素的重要性。然而,在以前的研究中,信任在高等教育中采用LA的程度上没有得到详细的研究。为了填补这一文献空白,我们进行了一项混合方法(调查和访谈)研究,旨在探讨教职员工对LA利益相关者(如高等教育机构或第三方)和LA技术的信任程度,以及可能阻碍或促成采用LA的信任因素。研究结果表明,教师对高等教育机构的能力和LA的有用性有高度的信任;然而,在处理隐私和道德相关问题方面,教职员工对参与LA的第三方(如外部技术供应商)的信任度较低。由于数据过时和缺乏数据治理等问题,他们对数据准确性的信任度也很低。研究结果为机构领导人和第三方提供了增加信任的建议,如提高数据准确性、制定数据共享和所有权政策、加强征求同意程序以及制定数据治理指南,对采用LA具有战略意义。因此,本研究通过整合信任因素,为高等教育机构采用LA的文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do teaching staff trust stakeholders and tools in learning analytics? A mixed methods study.

Learning analytics (LA) has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve different educational aspects (e.g., students' performance and teaching practice). The existing literature identified some factors that are associated with the adoption of LA in higher education, such as stakeholder engagement and transparency in data use. The broad literature on information systems also emphasizes the importance of trust as a critical predictor of technology adoption. However, the extent to which trust plays a role in the adoption of LA in higher education has not been examined in detail in previous research. To fill this literature gap, we conducted a mixed method (survey and interviews) study aimed to explore how much teaching staff trust LA stakeholders (e.g., higher education institutions or third-parties) and LA technology, as well as the trust factors that could hinder or enable adoption of LA. The findings show that the teaching staff had a high level of trust in the competence of higher education institutions and the usefulness of LA; however, the teaching staff had a low level of trust in third parties that are involved in LA (e.g., external technology vendors) in terms of handling privacy and ethics-related issues. They also had a low level of trust in data accuracy due to issues such as outdated data and lack of data governance. The findings have strategic implications for institutional leaders and third parties in the adoption of LA by providing recommendations to increase trust, such as, improving data accuracy, developing policies for data sharing and ownership, enhancing the consent-seeking process, and establishing data governance guidelines. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature on the adoption of LA in HEIs by integrating trust factors.

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
Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development
Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: Educational Technology Research and Development is the only scholarly journal in the field focusing entirely on research and development in educational technology. The Research Section assigns highest priority in reviewing manuscripts to rigorous original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies on topics relating to applications of technology or instructional design in educational settings. Such contexts include K-12, higher education, and adult learning (e.g., in corporate training settings). Analytical papers that evaluate important research issues related to educational technology research and reviews of the literature on similar topics are also published. This section features well-documented articles on the practical aspects of research as well as applied theory in educational practice and provides a comprehensive source of current research information in instructional technology. The Development Section publishes research on planning, implementation, evaluation and management of a variety of instructional technologies and learning environments. Empirically based formative evaluations and theoretically based instructional design research papers are welcome, as are papers that report outcomes of innovative approaches in applying technology to instructional development. Papers for the Development section may involve a variety of research methods and should focus on one aspect of the instructional development process or more; when relevant and possible, papers should discuss the implications of instructional design decisions and provide evidence linking outcomes to those decisions. The Cultural and Regional Perspectives Section (formerly International Review) welcome s innovative research about how technologies are being used to enhance learning, instruction, and performance specific to a culture or region. Educational technology studies submitted to this section should be situated in cultural contexts that critically examine issues and ideologies prevalent in the culture or region or by individuals or groups in the culture or region. Theoretical perspectives can be broadly based and inclusive of research, such as critical race theory, cultural-historical activity theory, and cultural models. Papers published in this section include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods articles and reviews drawing on relevant theories, empirical evidence, and critical analyses of the findings, implications, and conclusions within a cultural context. Educational Technology Research and Development publishes special issues on timely topics of interest to the community, in addition to regular papers.
期刊最新文献
Exploring online authentic learning environment (OnALE) for inferential statistics: its efficacy and benefits to statistics learners Transforming teachers’ self-narratives about game-based learning Learning experience design (LXD) professional competencies: an exploratory job announcement analysis Conceptual and theoretical frameworks for leveraging makerspaces to encourage and retain underrepresented populations in STEM through learning by design Design principles to develop digital innovation skills: a design-based research approach
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1