Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

8.517192E-4 = product of:
  0.0119240675 = sum of:
    0.0119240675 = weight(_text_:information in 5968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0119240675 = score(doc=5968,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05498814 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031323742 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 5968, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5968)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Higher education institutions are mining and analyzing student data to effect educational, political, and managerial outcomes. Done under the banner of "learning analytics," this work can-and often does-surface sensitive data and information about, inter alia, a student's demographics, academic performance, offline and online movements, physical fitness, mental wellbeing, and social network. With these data, institutions and third parties are able to describe student life, predict future behaviors, and intervene to address academic or other barriers to student success (however defined). Learning analytics, consequently, raise serious issues concerning student privacy, autonomy, and the appropriate flow of student data. We argue that issues around privacy lead to valid questions about the degree to which students should trust their institution to use learning analytics data and other artifacts (algorithms, predictive scores) with their interests in mind. We argue that higher education institutions are paradigms of information fiduciaries. As such, colleges and universities have a special responsibility to their students. In this article, we use the information fiduciary concept to analyze cases when learning analytics violate an institution's responsibility to its students.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.10, S.1227-1241

5.386745E-4 = product of:
  0.0075414423 = sum of:
    0.0075414423 = weight(_text_:information in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075414423 = score(doc=671,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05498814 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031323742 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Inhalt: Introduction -- Autonomy, agency, and responsibility -- What can agents reasonably endorse? -- What we informationally owe each other -- Freedom, agency, and information technology -- Epistemic paternalism and social media -- Agency laundering and information technologies -- Democratic obligations and technological threats to legitimacy -- Conclusions and caveats

4.5708046E-4 = product of:
  0.0063991263 = sum of:
    0.0063991263 = weight(_text_:information in 1340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063991263 = score(doc=1340,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05498814 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031323742 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1340, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1340)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.12, S.2422-2431