On the Ethical Issues Posed by the Exploitation of Users’ Data in MOOC Platforms: Capturing Learners’ Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7265Keywords:
learning analytics, massive open online courses, MOOC, ethics, recommender systems, data privacyAbstract
Due notably to the emergence of massive open online courses (MOOCs), stakeholders in online education have amassed extensive databases on learners throughout the past decade. Administrators of online course platforms, for instance, possess a broad spectrum of information about their users. This information spans from users’ areas of interest to their learning habits, all of which is deduced from diverse analytics. Such circumstances have sparked intense discussions over the ethical implications and potential risks that databases present. In this article, we delve into an analysis of a survey distributed across three MOOCs with the intention to gain a deeper understanding of learners’ viewpoints on the use of their data. We first explore the perception of features and mechanisms of recommendation systems. Subsequently, we examine the issue of data transmission to third parties, particularly potential recruiters interested in applicants’ performance records on course platforms. Our findings reveal that younger generations demonstrate less resistance towards the exploitation of their data.
References
Allal-Chérif, O., Aránega, A. Y., & Sánchez, R. C. (2021). Intelligent recruitment: How to identify, select, and retain talents from around the world using artificial intelligence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, Article 120822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120822
Arnold, K. E., & Sclater, N. (2017). Student perceptions of their privacy in leaning analytics applications. In LAK ’17: Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 66 69). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027392
Baumer, B. S., Bray, A. P., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Hardin, J. S. (2020). Teaching introductory statistics with Datacamp. Journal of Statistics Education, 28(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1730734
Bethlehem, J. (2010). Selection bias in Web surveys. International Statistical Review, 78(2), 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x
Bousbahi, F., & Chorfi, H. (2015). MOOC-Rec: A case based recommender system for MOOCs. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1813–1822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.395
Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2015). Exploring business models for MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9297-0
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom research into edX's first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej1062850
Cerratto Pargman, T., & McGrath, C. (2021). Mapping the ethics of learning analytics in higher education: A systematic literature review of empirical research. Journal of Learning Analytics, 8(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2021.1
Cisel, M. T. (2018). Interactions in MOOCs: The hidden part of the iceberg. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3459
Cisel, M. (2019). The structure of the MOOC ecosystem as revealed by course aggregators. American Journal of Distance Education, 33(3), 212-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1610285
Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19–22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ961998.pdf
Culnan, M. J. (1993). “How did they get my name?” An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/249775
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104–115. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2640390
Culnan, M. J., & Bies, R. J. (2003). Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00067
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(3), Article 18. https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2012-18
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853080500010
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2004). Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents-measurement validity and a regression model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(6), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001715723
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23015781
Dinev, T., Xu, H., Smith, J. H., & Hart, P. (2013). Information privacy and correlates: An empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.23
Ferguson, R. (2019). Ethical challenges for learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 25 30. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.5
Hakimi, L., Eynon, R., & Murphy, V. A. (2021). The ethics of using digital trace data in education: A thematic review of the research landscape. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 671 717. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211020116
Ho, A., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C., Whitehill, J., Northcutt, C., Williams, J., Hansen, J., Lopez, G., & Petersen, R. (2015). HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses fall 2012-summer 2014. Available at SSRN 2586847. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2586847
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). Resource requirements and costs of developing and delivering MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1901
Hsu, T.-C., Abelson, H., & Lao, N. (2022). Editorial—Volume 23, issue 1. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 23(1), i–ii. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i4.5949
Hutt, S., Baker, R. S., Ashenafi, M. M., Andres‐Bray, J. M., & Brooks, C. (2022). Controlled outputs, full data: A privacy‐protecting infrastructure for MOOC data. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 756–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13231
Hwang, G.-J., Tu, Y.-F., & Tang, K.-Y. (2022). AI in online-learning research: Visualizing and interpreting the journal publications from 1997 to 2019. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 23(1), 104–130. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v23i1.6319
Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Are higher education institutions prepared for learning analytics? TechTrends, 61(4), 366 371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0154-0
Ifenthaler, D., & Tracey, M. W. (2016). Exploring the relationship of ethics and privacy in learning analytics and design: Implications for the field of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 877–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9480-3
Jisc. (2015, June). Code of practice for learning analytics. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/jd0040_code_of_practice_for_learning_analytics_190515_v1.pdf
Jones, K. M., Asher, A., Goben, A., Perry, M. R., Salo, D., Briney, K. A., & Robertshaw, M. B. (2020). “We're being tracked at all times”: Student perspectives of their privacy in relation to learning analytics in higher education. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(9), 1044–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24358
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
Kizilcec, R. F., Saltarelli, A. J., Reich, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Closing global achievement gaps in MOOCs. Science, 355(6322), 251–252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2063
Kizilcec, R. F., & Schneider, E. (2015). Motivation as a lens to understand online learners: Toward data-driven design with the OLEI scale. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 22(2), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699735
Klopfer, P. H., & Rubenstein, D. I. (1977). The concept privacy and its biological basis. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01882.x
Kolowich, S. (2013). The professors who make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18, 1–12. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-professors-behind-the-mooc-hype/
Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x
Marshall, S. (2014). Exploring the ethical implications of MOOCs. Distance Education, 35(2), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917706
Milne, G. R., & Gordon, M. E. (1993). Direct mail privacy-efficiency trade-offs within an implied social contract framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), 206–215. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30000091
Miltgen, C. L., & Peyrat-Guillard, D. (2014). Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: A qualitative study in seven European countries. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(2), 103 125. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.17
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
Porter, S. (2015). The economics of MOOCs: A sustainable future? The Bottom Line, 28(1/2), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-12-2014-0035
Presthus, W., & Sørum, H. (2019). Consumer perspectives on information privacy following the implementation of the GDPR. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 7(3), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm070302
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: Implications for learning analytics. In LAK ’15: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 83 92). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723585
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2017). Ethics and learning analytics: Charting the (un)charted. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.), Handbook of learning analytics (pp. 49 57). Society for Learning Analytics Research. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.004
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2018). Student consent in learning analytics: The devil in the details? In J. Lester, C. Klein, A. Johri, & H. Rangwala (Eds), Learning analytics in higher education (pp. 118–139). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203731864-6
Radford, A. W., Robles, J., Cataylo, S., Horn, L., Thornton, J., & Whitfield, K. (2014). The employer potential of MOOCs: A mixed-methods study of human resource professionals’ thinking on MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1842
Regan, P., Fitzgerald, G., & Balint, P. (2013). Generational views of information privacy? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 26(1–2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.747650
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273
Rubel, A., & Jones, K. M. L. (2016). Student privacy in learning analytics: An information ethics perspective. The Information Society, 32(2), 143 159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1126142
Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Features students really expect from learning analytics. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 397 407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.030
Sclater, N. (2016). Developing a code of practice for learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(1), 16 42. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.31.3
Selwyn, N. (2019). What’s the problem with learning analytics? Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.3
Stephens-Martinez, K., Hearst, M. A., & Fox, A. (2014). Monitoring MOOCs: Which information sources do instructors value? In L@S ’14: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference (pp. 79–88). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566246
Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris, Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 8, pp. 349–411). JAI Press Inc.
Tough, A. (1971) The adult's learning project. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tzimas, D., & Demetriadis, S. (2021). Ethical issues in learning analytics: A review of the field. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 1101–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09977-4
Viberg, O., Engström, L., Saqr, M., & Hrastinski, S. (2022). Exploring students’ expectations of learning analytics: A person-centered approach. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8561–8581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10980-2
West, D., Huijser, H., & Heath, D. (2016). Putting an ethical lens on learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 903–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9464-3
West, D., Luzeckyj, A., Searle, B., Toohey, D., Vanderlelie, J., & Bell, K. R. (2020). Perspectives from the stakeholder: Students’ views regarding learning analytics and data collection. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5957
Whitelock‐Wainwright, A., Gašević, D., Tejeiro, R., Tsai, Y. S., & Bennett, K. (2019). The student expectations of learning analytics questionnaire. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 633–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12366
Whitelock‐Wainwright, A., Gašević, D., Tsai, Y. S., Drachsler, H., Scheffel, M., Muñoz‐Merino, P. J., Tammets, K., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2020). Assessing the validity of a learning analytics expectation instrument: A multinational study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(2), 209–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12401
Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Tsai, Y. S., Drachsler, H., Scheffel, M., & Gašević, D. (2021). An exploratory latent class analysis of student expectations towards learning analytics services. The Internet and Higher Education, 51, Article 100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100818
Wintermute, E. H., Cisel, M., & Lindner, A. B. (2021). A survival model for course-course interactions in a Massive Open Online Course platform. PloS one, 16(1), e0245718. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245718
Zimmermann, C., Kopp, M., & Ebner, M. (2016). How MOOCs can be used as an instrument of scientific research. In Proceedings of the European Stakeholder Summit on experiences and best practices in and around MOOCs (EMOOCS 2016) (pp. 393–400). BoD. https://graz.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/how-moocs-can-be-used-as-an-instrument-of-scientific-research
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
