skip to main content
10.1145/3448139.3448165acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Investigating the Well-being Impacts of Educational Technologies Supported by Learning Analytics: An application of the initial phase of IEEE P7010 recommended practice to a set of cases

Published:12 April 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The accelerated adoption of digital technologies by people and communities results in a close relation between, on one hand, the state of individual and societal well-being and, on the other hand, the state of the digital technologies that underpin our life experiences. The ethical concerns and questions about the impact of such technologies on human well-being become more crucial when data analytics and intelligent competences are integrated. To investigate how learning technologies could impact human well-being considering the promising and concerning roles of learning analytics, we apply the initial phase of the recently produced IEEE P7010 Well-being Impact Assessment, a methodology and a set of metrics, to allow the digital well-being of a set of educational technologies to be more comprehensively tackled and evaluated. We posit that the use of IEEE P7010 well-being metrics could help identify where educational technologies supported by learning analytics would increase or decrease well-being, providing new routes to future technological innovation in Learning Analytics research.

References

  1. Christopher Burr, Mariarosaria Taddeo and Luciano Floridi. 2020. The Ethics of Digital Well-Being: A Thematic Review. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 2313–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00175-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. 2019. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, First Edition. IEEE. https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Agnes Kukulska-Hulme, Elaine Beirne, Gráinne Conole, Eamon Costello, Tim Coughlan, Rebecca Ferguson, Elizabeth FitzGerald, Mark Gaved, Christothea Herodotou, Wayne Holmes, Conchúr Mac Lochlainn, Mairéad Nic Giolla Mhichíl, Bart Rienties, Julia Sargent, Eileen Scanlon, Mike Sharples, and Denise Whitelock. 2020. Innovating Pedagogy. Open University Innovation Report 8. Milton Keynes: The Open University. https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2020.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Rebecca Ferguson, Tore Hoel, Maren Scheffel, and Hendrik Drachsler. 2016. Guest Editorial: Ethics and Privacy in Learning Analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics 3, 1. 5–15. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.31.2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Yi-Shan Tsai, Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright, and Dragan Gašević. 2020. The privacy paradox and its implications for learning analytics. 2020. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK ’20), pp. 230-239. ACM, New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375536Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Tore Hoel, Dai Griffiths, and Weiqin Chen. 2017. The influence of data protection and privacy frameworks on the design of learning analytics systems. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA. 243-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027414Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Simon Buckingham Shum. 2017. Black box learning analytics? Beyond algorithmic transparency. Keynote presented at the Learning Analytics Summer Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodong Chen and Haiyi Zhu. 2019. Towards Value-Sensitive Learning Analytics Design. 2019. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK19), pp. 343–352. ACM, New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303798Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Josh Gardner, Christopher Brooks and Ryan Baker. 2019. Evaluating the Fairness of Predictive Student Models Through Slicing Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK19), pp. 225-234. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303791Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Hendrik Drachsler and Wolfgang Greller. 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 & Knowledge. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883893Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Anders Albrechtslund. 2007. Ethics and technology design. Ethics and Information Technology. 9. 63-72. 10.1007/s10676-006-9129-8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sharon Slade, Paul Prinsloo and Mohammad Khalil. 2019. Learning analytics at the intersections of student trust, disclosure and benefit. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK19), pp. 235-244. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303796Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Phill Long and George Siemens. 2011. Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. Educause Review 46, 5 (2011), 30–32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sharon Slade and Paul Prinsloo. 2013. Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. The American behavioral scientist 57, 10 (Oct. 2013), 1510–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479366Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Paul Prinsloo and Sharon Slade. 2017. An elephant in the learning analytics room: the obligation to act. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 46-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027406Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn and Alan Borning. 2002. Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods. University of Washington, 2002Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Luciano Floridi. 2014. The onlife manifesto. In The onlife manifesto (pp. 264–13). Cham: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04093-6_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Margus Pedaste and Äli Leijen. 2018. How can advanced technologies support the contemporary learning approach?. In Presented at the 2018 IEEE 18th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 21–23).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ali Karime, Basim Hafdh, Abdulmajeed Khaldi, Jihad Mohamad Aljaam and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2012. MeMaPads: Enhancing children's well-being through a physically interactive memory and math games. In Presented at the 2012 IEEE international instrumentation and measurement technology conference (pp. 2563–2566).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Karolina Baras, Luisa Soares, Norberto Paulo and Regina Barros. 2016. ‘Smartphine‘: Supporting students’ well-being according to their calendar and mood. In Presented at the 2016 international multidisciplinary conference on computer and energy science (SpliTech) (pp. 1–7).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Aliaksei Andrushevich, Martin Biallas, R. Kistler, Lorenzo Eusebi, Judit Ronai and Judit Valla. 2017. Towards smart working spaces with enhanced well-being and safety of elderly staf. In Presented at the 2017 global internet of things summit (GIoTS) (pp. 1–6).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. André Freitas, Lina Brito, Karolina Baras and José Silva. 2017. Overview of context-sensitive technologies for well-being. In Presented at the 2017 international conference on internet of things for the global community (IoTGC) (pp. 1–8)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Enrique Garcia-Ceja, Venet Osmani and Oscar Mayora. 2016. Automatic stress detection in working environments from smartphones’ accelerometer data: A frst step. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 20(4), 1053–1060Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Barbara Skinner, Gerard Leavey and Despina Rothi. 2018. Managerialism and teacher professional identity: Impact on well-being among teachers in the UK. Educational Review, 00(00), 1–16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Rafael A Calvo and DorianPeters. 2013. Promoting psychological wellbeing: Loftier goals for new technologies [opinion]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 32(4), 19–21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Pieter Desmet and Anna Pohlmeyer. 2013. Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective wellbeing. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 5–19Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. IEEE Recommended Practice for Assessing the Impact of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems on Human Well-Being. 2020. in IEEE Std 7010-2020 , vol., no., pp.1-96, 1 May 2020, doi:10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9084219Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Janet Davis and Lisa P Nathan. 2013. Value Sensitive Design: Applications, Adaptations, and Critiques. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E Vermaas, and Ibo van de Poel (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_3-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2017 OECD-stat better life index- edition 2017, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=BLIGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. U.K. Office for National Statistics. 2015. Measuring national well-being: personal well-being in the U.K., 2014 to 2015, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/personal-well-being-in-the-uk–2014-15/stb-personal-well-being-in-the-uk–2014-15.html#tab-3–Measuring-personal-well-being-in-the-UKGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. World Values Survey. 2010–2012. World values survey wave 6 (official aggregate v.20150418), http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jspGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. European Social Survey. 2015. Europeans' Personal and Social well-being https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS6_toplines_issue_5_personal_and_social_wellbeing.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. (n.d.) SDG indicators, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Tom W. Smith, Peter V. Marsden and Michael Hout. 2013. General social surveys, 1972–2012 [cumulative file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. http://people.wku.edu/douglas.smith/GSS%201972_2012%20Codebook.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. United Nations Development Program. 2019. The Human Development Index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Center for Bhutan Studies and GNH Research. 2015. Third Gross National Happiness http://Questionnairewww.grossnationalhappiness.com/Questionnaire/2015%20GNH%20questionnaire.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Freedom House. 2016. Methodology: Freedom in the World 2016, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2016/methodologyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. World Health Organization. 2002. WHOQOL-HIV instrument. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77774/1/WHO_MSD_MER_Rev.2012.01_eng.pdf?ua=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. European Union. 1998. Minimum set of Euròpean mental health indicators, https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/1998/monitoring/fp_monitoring_1998_annexe2_09_en.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. World Health Organization. 2015. World health organization global reference list of 100 core indicators, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77774/1/WHOMSDMER_Rev.2012.01eng.pdf?ua=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/data/default.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. European Social Survey Round Five Work Family Well-being Module https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round5/questionnaire/ESS5_final_work_family_wellbeing_module_template.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. The Global Reporting Initiative. 2002. https://www.aeca.es/old/comisiones/rsc/documentos_fundamentales_rsc/gri/guidelines/gri_guidelines_2002.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ed Diener. 1984. Subjective Well-Being. Psychological Bulletin 95, no. 3 (May 1984): 542– https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.95.3.542Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Felicia A Huppert. 2009. Psychological Well-Being: Evidence Regarding Its Causes and Consequences. Wiley Online Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), March 9, 2009. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Lexico Dictionary and Oxford University Press. community. https://www.lexico.com/en/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. UNESCO. "Cultural Diversity." http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/cultural-diversityGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. UNESCO. TVETipedia Glossary. formal learning. https://unevoc.unesco.org/go.php?q=TVETipedia+Glossary+A-Z&filt=all&id=305Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Eorostat Life long learning. https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/education/life_long_learning.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Collins Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. World Bank. "What is Governance?" The World Bank Group. https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#:∼:text=What%20is%20Governance%3F,in%20a%20country%20is%20exercisedGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. World Health Organization. 2006. Constitution of the World Health Organization. In Basic Documents Forty-Fifth Edition, Supplement, October 2006. https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    LAK21: LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
    April 2021
    645 pages
    ISBN:9781450389358
    DOI:10.1145/3448139

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 12 April 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format