skip to main content
10.1145/3576050.3576110acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning Analytics and Stakeholder Inclusion: What do We Mean When We Say "Human-Centered"?

Published: 13 March 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Given the growth in interest in human-centeredness within the learning analytics community - a workshop at LAK, a special issue in the Journal of Learning Analytics and multiple papers published on the topic - it seems an appropriate time to critically evaluate the popular design approach. Using a corpus of 165 publications that have substantial reference to both learning analytics and human-centeredness, the following paper delineates what is meant by "human-centered" and then discusses what the implications are for this approach. The conclusion reached through this analysis is that when authors refer to human-centeredness in learning analytics they are largely referring to stakeholder inclusion and the means by which this can be achieved (methodologically, politically and logistically). Furthermore, the justification for stakeholder inclusion is often coached in terms of its ability to develop more effective learning analytics applications along several dimensions (efficiency, efficacy, impact). With reference to human-centered design in other fields a discussion follows of the issues with such an approach and a prediction that LA will likely move toward a more neutral stance on stakeholder inclusion, as has occurred in both human-centered design and stakeholder engagement research in the past. A more stakeholder-neutral stance is defined as one in which stakeholder inclusion is one of many tools utilized in developing learning analytics applications.

References

[1]
Ian Bogost. 2012. Alien phenomenology, or, what it’s like to be a thing. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
[2]
Simon Buckingham Shum, Rebecca Ferguson, and Roberto Martinez-Maldonado. 2019. Human-centred learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics 6, 2 (2019), 1–9.
[3]
Sven Charleer, Joris Klerkx, and Erik Duval. 2014. Learning dashboards. Journal of Learning Analytics 1, 3 (2014), 199–202.
[4]
Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2014. Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York, NY, 1947–1952.
[5]
Andrea Cornwall. 2007. Buzzwords and fuzzwords: deconstructing development discourse. Development in practice 17, 4-5 (2007), 471–484.
[6]
Leon Cruickshank and Nina Trivedi. 2017. When Your Toaster is a Client, how do you design? Going Beyond Human Centred Design. The Design Journal 20(2017), S4158–S4170. Issue sup1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352914
[7]
Yannis Dimitriadis, Roberto Martínez-Maldonado, and Korah Wiley. 2021. Human-Centered Design Principles for Actionable Learning Analytics. In Research on E-Learning and ICT in Education: Technological, Pedagogical and Instructional Perspectives, Panagiotes Anastasiades, Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos, Stavros N. Demetriadis, Nicholas Zaranis, Anastasios Mikropoulos, and Vasileios Dagdilelis (Eds.). Springer Nature, Switzerland.
[8]
Mollie Dollinger, Danny Liu, Natasha Arthars, and Jason Lodge. 2019. Working together in learning analytics towards the co-creation of value. Journal of Learning Analytics 6, 2 (2019), 10–26.
[9]
Stephen W Draper and Donald A Norman. 1986. User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
[10]
Erin Friess. 2010. The sword of data: Does human-centered design fulfill its rhetorical responsibility?Design Issues 26, 3 (2010), 40–50.
[11]
Joseph Giacomin. 2012. Human Centred Design: A Paradigm for 21st Century Enterprise.
[12]
Joseph Giacomin. 2014. What is human centred design?The Design Journal 17, 4 (2014), 606–623.
[13]
Michelle Greenwood. 2007. Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 74, 4 (2007), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y
[14]
Katie E. Gunnell, Veronica J. Belcourt, Jennifer R. Tomasone, and Laura C. Weeks. 2022. Systematic review methods. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 15, 1(2022), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1966823
[15]
Robert R Hoffman, Axel Roesler, and Brian M Moon. 2004. What is design in the context of human-centered computing?IEEE Intelligent Systems 19, 4 (2004), 89–95.
[16]
ISO. 2019. Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/07/75/77520.html
[17]
David B Knight, Cory Brozina, Eric M Stauffer, Chris Frisina, and Troy D Abel. 2015. Developing a learning analytics dashboard for undergraduate engineering using participatory design. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. ASEE, Seattle, WA, 26–485.
[18]
Johanna Kujala, Sybille Sachs, Heta Leinonen, Anna Heikkinen, and Daniel Laude. 2022. Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future. Business & Society 61, 5 (2022), 1136–1196. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595
[19]
Yi-Chieh Lee and Wai-Tat Fu. 2019. Supporting peer assessment in education with conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces: Companion. ACM, Marina del Ray, CA, 7–8.
[20]
Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 (2019), 72:1–72:23. Issue CSCW. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174
[21]
Donald A Norman. 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things.Basic Books, New York, NY.
[22]
Donald A Norman. 2005. Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions 12, 4 (2005), 14–19.
[23]
Donald A Norman and Roberto Verganti. 2012. Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research versus Technology and Meaning Change. jnd.org. https://jnd.org/incremental_and_radical_innovation_design_research_versus_technology_and_meaning_change/
[24]
Xavier Ochoa and Alyssa Friend Wise. 2021. Supporting the shift to digital with student-centered learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development 69, 1(2021), 357–361.
[25]
Ashley Seidel Potvin, Rebecca G Kaplan, Alison G Boardman, and Joseph L Polman. 2017. Configurations in co-design: Participant structures in partnership work. In Connecting research and practice for educational improvement. Routledge, New York, NY, 135–149.
[26]
Cynthia Putnam, Aaron Reiner, Emily Ryou, Morgan Caputo, Jinghui Cheng, Mace Allen, and Ravali Singamaneni. 2016. Human-Centered Design in Practice: Roles, Definitions, and Communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 46, 4 (Oct. 2016), 446–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653491
[27]
Rodrigo Hernández Ramírez. 2020. The Meaning of ‘Good Design’in the Age of Smart Automation: Why Human-Centered Design Needs Ethics. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts 12, 3 (2020), 100–114.
[28]
George Rehrey, Linda Shepard, Carol Hostetter, Amberly Maurine Reynolds, and Dennis Groth. 2019. Engaging faculty in learning analytics: Agents of institutional culture change. Journal of Learning Analytics 6, 2 (2019), 86–94.
[29]
Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design 4, 1 (2008), 5–18.
[30]
Juan Pablo Sarmiento and Alyssa Friend Wise. 2022. Participatory and Co-Design of Learning Analytics: An Initial Review of the Literature. In LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. ACM, Irvine, 535–541.
[31]
SOLAR. 2021. What is Learning Analytics?Society for Learning Analytics Research. https://www.solaresearch.org/about/what-is-learning-analytics/
[32]
Marc Steen. 2011. Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign 7, 1 (2011), 45–60.
[33]
Jakob Trischler, Simon J Pervan, Stephen J Kelly, and Don R Scott. 2018. The value of codesign: The effect of customer involvement in service design teams. Journal of Service Research 21, 1 (2018), 75–100.
[34]
MS Williams. 2015. The Northern Development Discourse and its Use of English: Implications for a Post-2015 Future. International organisations research journal 10, 3 (2015), 38–49.
[35]
T. Winograd and D. D. Woods. 1997. The challenge of human-centered design.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)SLADE: A Method for Designing Human-Centred Learning Analytics SystemsProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3636555.3636847(24-34)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Academic Performance Prediction. An Experimental Study on the Impact of Accuracy and Simplicity of Decision Trees on Causability and Fairness PerceptionsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658953(1031-1042)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Human‐Centred Learning Analytics: 2019–24British Journal of Educational Technology10.1111/bjet.1344255:3(755-768)Online publication date: 26-Feb-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Learning Analytics and Stakeholder Inclusion: What do We Mean When We Say "Human-Centered"?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    LAK2023: LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference
    March 2023
    692 pages
    ISBN:9781450398657
    DOI:10.1145/3576050
    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 the author(s) 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: 13 March 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Human-centered design
    2. co-design
    3. participatory
    4. user-centered design

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    LAK 2023

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 236 of 782 submissions, 30%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)84
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
    Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)SLADE: A Method for Designing Human-Centred Learning Analytics SystemsProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3636555.3636847(24-34)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
    • (2024)Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Academic Performance Prediction. An Experimental Study on the Impact of Accuracy and Simplicity of Decision Trees on Causability and Fairness PerceptionsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency10.1145/3630106.3658953(1031-1042)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
    • (2024)Human‐Centred Learning Analytics: 2019–24British Journal of Educational Technology10.1111/bjet.1344255:3(755-768)Online publication date: 26-Feb-2024
    • (2024)Designing human-centered learning analytics and artificial intelligence in education solutions: a systematic literature reviewBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2024.2345295(1-28)Online publication date: 24-Apr-2024
    • (2024)Diverging Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Comparison of Student and Public Assessments on Risks and Damages of Academic Performance Prediction in GermanyComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100305(100305)Online publication date: Sep-2024
    • (2023)Curriculum analytics adoption in higher education: A multiple case study engaging stakeholders in different phases of designBritish Journal of Educational Technology10.1111/bjet.1337455:3(785-801)Online publication date: 18-Aug-2023

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media