Abstracts
Abstract
While many strategies for protecting personal privacy rely on regulatory frameworks, consent, and anonymizing data, they are not always effective. Terms and Conditions often lag behind advances in technology, software, and user behaviours, and consent to use data for a range of unclear purposes may be provided unwittingly. As the commercial market for (student) data expands, so does the number of brokers who move, share and sell data across continents and legislative environments. This paper reviews four Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) providers from different geopolitical and regulatory contexts. It explores how consent to collect and use data is described to potential users, and how that consent applies at micro, meso, and macro levels.This paper proposes a need for greater transparency around the implications of users granting consent at the point of registration. Further, it highlights that though MOOC providers have a responsibility to make clear the potential uses and sharing of user data, users themselves should also be more aware and consider how meaningful student agency can be achieved.
Keywords:
- consent,
- massive open online course (MOOC),
- micro,
- meso,
- macro,
- privacy,
- policy
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Ball, K., Haggerty, K.D., & Lyon, D. (2012). Routledge handbook of surveillance studies. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
- Bellman, S., Johnson, E.J., & Lohse, G.L. (2001). On site: to opt in or opt-out?: It depends on the question. Communications of the ACM, 44(2), 25-27. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=359241
- Bennett, C. J. (2018). The European general data protection regulation: An instrument for the globalization of privacy standards? Information Polity, (Preprint), 1-8. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3813/041fc44467933d64c54c3e39a467c2be63c3.pdf
- Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(8), 659-671. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00032-4
- Buckingham Shum, S. (2012). Learning analytics. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved from http://iite.unesco.org/files/policy_briefs/pdf/en/learning_analytics.pdf
- Cormack, A.N. (2016). Downstream consent: A better legal framework for Big Data. Journal of Information Rights, Policy and Practice, 1(1). doi: 10.21039/irpandp.v1i1.9
- Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2013). Big data and due process: Towards a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55(1). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2325784
- Drachsler, H., & Kalz, M. (2016). The MOOC and learning analytics innovation cycle (MOLAC): A reflective summary of ongoing research and its challenges. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 281-290. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12135
- Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
- Fairfield, J.A.T. (2017). Owned: Property, privacy, and the new digital serfdom. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
- Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6) 304-317. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/36374/1/IJTEL40501_Ferguson%20Jan%202013.pdf
- Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let's not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64-71. doi: 10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x
- Hern, A. (2018, April 19). Facebook moves 1.5bn users out of reach of new European privacy law [Blog post]. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law
- Kehr, F., Kowatsch, T., Wentzel, D., & Fleisch, E. (2015). Blissfully ignorant: The effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal, 25(6), 607-635. doi: 10.1111/isj.12062
- Khalil, M., Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2018, June 26-28). The unbearable lightness of consent: Mapping MOOC providers' response to consent. In Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM conference on learning at scale. London, United Kingdom: ACM. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3231659
- Khalil, M., Taraghi, B., & Ebner, M. (2016). Engaging learning analytics in MOOCs: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and New Developments (END 2016; pp. 3-7). Ljubljana, Slovenia.
- Krasnova, H., Veltri, N. F., & Günther, O. (2012). Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: The role of culture. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(3), 127-135. doi: 10.1007/s12599-012-0216-6
- Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (Eds.). (2015). Privacy, big data, and the public good. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Leitner, P., Khalil, M., & Ebner, M. (2017). Learning analytics in higher education - a literature review. In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Learning analytics: Fundamentals, applications, and trends (pp. 1-23). Springer, Cham.
- Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011a). Message from the LAK 2011 general & program chairs. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics & knowledge. Alberta, Canada: ACM. Retrieved from https://portalparts.acm.org/2100000/2090116/fm/frontmatter.pdf?ip=129.177.96.37
- Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011b). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30-32. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2011/9/penetrating-the-fog-analytics-in-learning-and-education
- Meyer, R. (2018, March 20). The Cambridge Analytica scandal, in three paragraphs [Blog post]. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-in-three-paragraphs/556046/
- Miltgen, C. L., & Smith, H. J. (2015). Exploring information privacy regulation, risks, trust, and behaviour. Information & Management, 52(6), 741-759. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2015.06.006
- Miyazaki, D., & Fernandez, A. (2000). Internet privacy and security: An examination of online retailer disclosures. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 54-61. doi: 10.1509/jppm.19.1.54.16942
- Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. The secret algorithms that control money and information. London: Harvard University Press.
- Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2014). Learning analytics and educational data mining in practice: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 49-64. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.17.4.49.pdf
- Payne, R. (2014). Frictionless sharing and digital promiscuity. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 11(2), 85-102. doi: 10.1080/14791420.2013.873942
- Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015, March). Student privacy self-management: Implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 83-92). ACM. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=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.), Learning analytics handbook (pp. 49-57). Edmonton, AB, Canada: Society of Learning Analytics.
- Rule, P., & John, V. (2011). Case study research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
- Russell, N.C., Reidenberg, J.R., Martin, E., & Norton, T.B. (June 6, 2018). Transparency and the marketplace for student data. Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, Forthcoming. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3191436
- Sclater, N. (2017a, February 16). Consent for learning analytics: some practical guidance for institutions [Blog post]. Jisc. Retrieved from https://analytics.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/02/16/consent-for-learning-analytics-some-practical-guidance-for-institutions/
- Sclater, N. (2017b, June 30). Consent and the GDPR: What approaches are universities taking? [Blog post]. Jisc. Retrieved from https://analytics.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/06/30/consent-and-the-gdpr-what-approaches-are-universities-taking/
- Sclater, N. (2018, June 1). GDPR and learning analytics - Frequently asked questions [Blog post]. Jisc. Retrieved from https://analytics.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2018/06/01/gdpr-and-learning-analytics-frequently-asked-questions/
- Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380-1400. doi: 10.1177/0002764213498851
- Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist 57(10), 1509-1528. doi: 10.1177/0002764213479366
- Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York, USA: New York University Press.
- Solove, D.J. (2013). Introduction: Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harvard Law Review 126(7), 1880-1904.
- Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2012). Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 239, 1-36. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nwteintp11&id=265&collection=journals
- Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Young, E. (2014). Educational privacy in the online classroom: FERPA, MOOCs, and the big data conundrum. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 28(2), 549-592. Retrieved from http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v28/28HarvJLTech549.pdf
- Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B.M. (2009) Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in Information and library science (pp. 308-319). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.