Rights-Respecting Learning Analytics: Data Governance, Privacy, and Transparency for EdTech and Higher Education

Learning analytics is defined as the collection, measurement, analysis, and reporting of learner data and learning contexts to understand and improve learning environments. The article explains that learning analytics has evolved from experimental dashboards into broader institutional infrastructures that connect learning management systems, student information systems, libraries, advising systems, and third-party EdTech services.

The introduction emphasizes that the expansion of AI-based tutoring and automated feedback has increased the importance of learning analytics. These systems rely on continuous streams of interaction data and predictive models to recommend interventions, support student retention, identify learning difficulties, and personalize learning support.

At the same time, the article warns that learning analytics creates serious ethical and governance risks. When institutions and vendors infer risk, motivation, attendance, or well-being from digital traces, the distinction between educational support and surveillance becomes unclear.

The article highlights that students may not understand what data is collected, how long it is stored, who can access it, or how algorithms influence decisions. These decisions may include advising holds, scholarships, or other high-stakes academic outcomes.

A rights-respecting approach is presented as a governance issue rather than only a technical matter. Governance establishes legitimate purposes, oversight structures, accountability mechanisms, and documentation that can be audited and challenged.

The article explains that weak governance can produce harms such as discriminatory risk scoring, chilling effects on student participation, stigmatizing labels, function creep into disciplinary monitoring, and opaque vendor data practices.

The introduction also notes that legal and regulatory environments increasingly require lawful data processing, data minimization, transparency, rights of access, and opportunities to object. AI regulation and algorithmic accountability debates further increase expectations for explainability and contestability.

The article therefore asks how learning analytics principles can be translated into operational governance controls, auditable artifacts, and implementation roadmaps. Its contribution is both practical and conceptual: it provides a governance model, a principle-to-control mapping, and a maturity roadmap that align educational mission, legal duties, and relational trust.

The study uses a design-science research approach to develop an actionable governance artifact for learning analytics. The process includes three stages: a scoping review of learning analytics ethics and governance literature, a comparative synthesis of external governance guidance for education data processing, and an iterative design and validation process for a governance framework with operational controls and evidence artifacts.

In the first stage, the authors reviewed peer-reviewed articles and influential reports on privacy, ethics, accountability, and governance in learning analytics. In the second stage, they analyzed external guidance on data protection, EdTech governance, AI principles, and learner rights. In the third stage, they mapped principles to controls across the analytics lifecycle, including data intake, processing, modeling, deployment, monitoring, and retirement, then organized the controls into Foundational, Developing, and Advanced maturity levels.

The article identifies eight recurring principles for rights-respecting learning analytics: legitimate educational purpose and proportionality, data minimization and quality, transparency and intelligibility, choice and meaningful control, fairness and non-discrimination, security and confidentiality, contestability and due process, and accountability and auditability.

These principles are described as mutually reinforcing. Fairness depends on high-quality data and the ability to challenge harmful inferences, while transparency depends on accountability mechanisms that verify whether disclosed practices are actually followed.

Purpose and proportionality are presented as the starting point of governance. Learning analytics should be justified by a clear educational mission, such as supporting learning, improving course design, or providing timely advising, rather than by vague institutional goals.

The article argues that vague purposes increase the risk of function creep. If analytics systems are introduced for learning support but later used for retention pressure, performance management, disciplinary monitoring, or other unrelated objectives, student autonomy and trust may be harmed.

Transparency must be intelligible to students and staff. Long privacy policies are not enough; institutions should provide concise explanations of what data is used, what models infer, what decisions may be affected, and what uncertainty exists in the results.

The article also emphasizes that educators and advisors need guidance on the assumptions and limits of analytics tools. Analytics should support professional judgment rather than replace it, especially when risk scores or predictive indicators are used.

Meaningful control is complex in higher education because some data processing is necessary for core services. The article argues that consent should not be reduced to a checkbox, especially when students do not have a real ability to refuse.

Where consent is not meaningful, institutions should provide opt-out options for non-essential analytics, alternative learning pathways when tools require extensive tracking, and protections against punitive consequences for refusal.

The governance model shown in Figure 1 on page 5 connects analytics lifecycle stages with operational principles and accountable roles. The lifecycle includes intake, design, deployment, monitoring, and retirement, while the accountability roles include data stewards, analytics leads, privacy officers, pedagogy leads, student representatives, and vendors.

At the intake stage, institutions should create a data inventory and conduct vendor due diligence. This includes identifying data categories, sensitivity levels, retention periods, sharing arrangements, contractual clauses, sub-processors, breach notification obligations, and restrictions on secondary use.

At the design and deployment stages, responsible analytics requires documentation, feature justification, testing for proxy discrimination, model cards, decision records, human review thresholds, and intervention policies that avoid stigmatizing labels. Predictive analytics should be communicated as probabilistic rather than deterministic.

At the monitoring and maturity stages, the article recommends ongoing review of technical drift, fairness drift, and social impact. Table 1 maps principles to governance controls and evidence artifacts, while Table 2 presents a maturity roadmap from Foundational to Developing and Advanced levels. Figure 2 on page 7 presents a transparency and contestability workflow for learning analytics decisions, emphasizing student access, correction, appeal, and human review.

This article proposed a rights-respecting governance framework for learning analytics that translates ethical and legal principles into actionable controls, documentation artifacts, and an adoption roadmap. By organizing governance across the analytics lifecycle and emphasizing transparency and contestability, the framework supports institutions and vendors in implementing analytics as a support system rather than a surveillance apparatus.

The framework is intentionally pragmatic. It provides a principle-to-control mapping and a maturity model that can be used for institutional policy, procurement due diligence, and program evaluation. Future work should empirically evaluate the framework in diverse institutional contexts, including resource-constrained universities and cross-border EdTech arrangements, and should develop measurement tools for learner trust and perceived legitimacy of analytics interventions. Ultimately, learning analytics will be sustainable only if it remains legitimate in the eyes of learners and the public. Rights-respecting governance provides a path to that legitimacy by embedding accountability, intelligibility, and due process into the everyday routines of data-intensive education.

Assarroudi, A., Heshmati Nabavi, F., Armat, M. R., Ebadi, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2018). Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of research in nursing, 23(1), 42-55.

Azra, H., & Zeeshan, I. (2025). Harnessing big data analytics in education: Balancing student success with privacy concerns and ethical considerations in Greenfield University in USA (pseudonym). Available at SSRN 5198908.

Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International journal of qualitative methods, 22, 16094069231183620.

Brown, M., & Klein, C. (2020). Whose data? Which rights? Whose power? A policy discourse analysis of student privacy policy documents. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(7), 1149-1178.

Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2016, April). 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 (pp. 89-98).

Heiser, R., Stritto, M. E. D., Brown, A., & Croft, B. (2023). Amplifying student and administrator perspectives on equity and bias in learning analytics: Alone together in higher education. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(1), 8-23.

Hillman, V. (2023). Bringing in the technological, ethical, educational and social-structural for a new education data governance. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 122-137.

Jones, K. M. (2019). Learning analytics and higher education: a proposed model for establishing informed consent mechanisms to promote student privacy and autonomy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 24.

Karunaratne, T. (2021). For learning analytics to be sustainable under GDPR—Consequences and way forward. Sustainability, 13(20), 11524.

Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), 473-475.

Liu, Q., & Khalil, M. (2023). Understanding privacy and data protection issues in learning analytics using a systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 1715-1747.

Liu, Q., & Khalil, M. (2023). Understanding privacy and data protection issues in learning analytics using a systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 1715-1747.

Morales Tirado, A., Mulholland, P., & Fernandez, M. (2024). Towards an operational responsible AI framework for learning analytics in higher education. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2410.

Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The qualitative report, 27(1), 64-77.

Ncube, M. M., & Ngulube, P. (2024). A Systematic Review of Postgraduate Programmes Concerning Ethical Imperatives of Data Privacy in Sustainable Educational Data Analytics. Sustainability, 16(15), 6377.

Paludi, M. (2023). The Right to Privacy and Data Protection for High School Students in the Context of Digital Learning Models and Learning Analytics. In LASI Europe DC.

in Secondary High School Educational Settings. In ECTEL (Doctoral Consortium) (pp. 83-89).

Reidenberg, J. R., & Schaub, F. (2018). Achieving big data privacy in education. Theory and Research in Education, 16(3), 263-279.

Roberts, K., Dowell, A., & Nie, J. B. (2019). Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), 1-8.

Ruggiano, N., & Perry, T. E. (2019). Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how?. Qualitative social work, 18(1), 81-97.

Schlunegger, M. C., Zumstein-Shaha, M., & Palm, R. (2024). Methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case studies: A scoping review. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 46(8), 611-622.

Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American behavioral scientist, 57(10), 1510-1529.

Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2024). Privacy versus pedagogy–students’ perceptions of using learning analytics in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 14-30.

Sun, J. C. (2023). Gaps, guesswork, and ghosts lurking in technology integration: Laws and policies applicable to student privacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 1604-1618.

Zhan, C., Joksimović, S., Ladjal, D., Rakotoarivelo, T., Marshall, R., & Pardo, A. (2024). Preserving both privacy and utility in learning analytics. IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 17, 1615-1627.