Recently, the possibilities for leveraging “big data” in research and pedagogy have given rise to the growing field of “learning analytics” in online education. While much of this work has focused on quantitative metrics, some have called for critical perspectives that interrogate such data as an interplay between technical infrastructures and contingent social practices. Following such calls, this article conceptualizes “learning analytics” as an assemblage of technical, designed, and sociocognitive dimensions. Drawing on DeLanda’s articulation of assemblage theory, we examine the ways online learning unfolds within and across these scales by using illustrative quantitative and qualitative data—click-data, user-generated content, and student interviews—from three online higher education courses. We consider how insights generated from such a stance might contribute to critical perspectives on how power circulates in online learning environments—a framework we call “critical learning analytics.” We conclude by offering some possibilities for which such a framework might be put to use—not only to map learning analytics as assemblage, but also to imagine how they might be assembled otherwise to promote more ethical instruction and more equitable student flourishing.
BakerRSJDYacefK (2009) The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining1(1): 3–17.
2.
Bambrick-SantoyoP (2010) Driven by Data: A Practical Guide to Improve Instruction, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Bogost I and Montfort N (2009) Platform studies: Frequently questioned answers. In: Paper presented at the digital arts and culture conference, 12–15 December, Irvine, California, pp.1–6.
4.
boyddCrawfordK (2012) Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication, and Society15(5): 662–679.
5.
BrattonB (2016) The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
6.
Brown M, Dehoney J and Millichap N (2015) The next generation digital learning environment: A report on research. Educause Learning Initiative paper.
7.
BrowneS (2015) Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
8.
Buckingham ShumSFergusonR (2012) Social learning analytics. Educational Technology and Society15(3): 3–26.
9.
CampanoGGhisoMPSánchezL (2013) “Nobody knows the…amount of a person”: Elementary students critiquing dehumanization through organic critical literacies. Research in the Teaching of English48: 98–125.
10.
De CerteauM (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
de FreitasEDixon-RománELatherP (2016) Alternative ontologies of the number: Rethinking the quantitative in computational culture. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies16(5): 431–434.
12.
De LaatMPrinsenFR (2014) Social learning analytics for higher education. Research and Practice in Assessment9(2): 51–60.
13.
DeLandaM (1997) A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.
14.
DeLandaM (2002) Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, New York: Bloomsbury.
15.
DeLandaM (2006) A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity, New York: Continuum.
16.
DeLandaM (2016) Assemblage Theory, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
17.
DeleuzeGGuattariF (1987) A Thousand Plateaus, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, et al. (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “Gamification.” In: 15th International academic mindtrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, New York, NY, pp.9–15. ACM.
19.
Dicheva D and Dichev C (2015) Gamification in education: Where are we in 2015? In: World conference on E-Learning (ELEARN 2015), Kona, Hawaii, 19–22 October, pp.1276–1284. Chesapeake: AACE.
20.
DominguezASaenz-de-NavarreteJde-MarcosLet al. (2013) Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers in Education63: 380–392.
21.
DutroESellandM (2012) “I like to read, but I know I’m not good at it”: Children’s perspectives on high-stakes testing in a high-poverty school. Curriculum Inquiry42: 340–367.
22.
GallowayA (2012) The Interface Effect, Malden, MA: Polity.
23.
GillespieT (2010) The politics of platforms. New Media and Society12(3): 347–364.
24.
GoodfellowRLeaM (2013) Literacy in the Digital University: Critical Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship, and Technology, New York: Routledge.
25.
GrellerWDrachslerH (2012) Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Educational Technology and Society15(3): 42–57.
26.
HaberJ (2014) MOOCs, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
27.
HackingI (1990) The Taming Of chance, New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HalpernO (2015) Beautiful Data: A History of Vision and Reason Since 1945, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
Hamari J, Koivisto J and Sarsa, H (2014) Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: Paper presented at the 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp.3025–3034. DOI:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.
30.
HeroldB (2016) The future of big data and analytics in K-12 education. Education Week35(17): 2–7.
31.
KappKM (2012) The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
32.
KitchinRDodgeM (2011) Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
33.
KliebardHM (2004) The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893–1958, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
KoretzD (2008) Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
LaneJEZimpherNL (2014) Building a Smarter University: Big Data, Innovation, and Analytics, Albany: SUNY Press.
37.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
LongPSiemensG (2011) Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review46(5): 31–40.
39.
LynchTL (2015) The Hidden Role of Software in Educational Research: Policy to Practice, New York: Routledge.
40.
Mahoney-Roberts H, Means A and Garrison M (2015) Netflixing human capital development: Personalized learning technology and the corporatization of K-12 education. Journal of Education Policy 31(4): 405–442.
41.
Marsh JA, Pane JF and Hamilton SL (2006) Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND Research (OP-170). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
42.
Mayer-SchönbergerVCukierK (2014) Learning with Big Data: The Future of Education, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
43.
MorozovE (2013) To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, New York: Public Affairs.
44.
NicholsTPCampanoG (2017) Post-humanism and literacy studies. Language Arts94(4): 245–251.
45.
O’NeilC (2016) Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, New York: Crown.
46.
Perrotta C and Williamson B (2016) The social life of learning analytics: Cluster analysis and the ‘performance’ of algorithmic education. Learning, Media and Technology 7: 33–43.
47.
PiccianoA (2016) Online Education Policy and Practice: The Past, Present, and Future of the Digital University, New York: Routledge.
48.
PorterT (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
SiemensG (2013) Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist57(10): 1380–1400.
50.
SimoesJRedondoRVilasAet al. (2013) A gamification framework to improve participation in social learning environments. eLearning Papers35: 1–11.
51.
SladeSPrinslooP (2013) Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist57(10): 1509–1528.
52.
TurowJ (2013) The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
van DijckJ (2013) The Culture of Connectivity, New York: Oxford.
54.
Wilson A, Watson C, Thompson TL, et al. (2017) Learning analytics: Challenges and limitations. Teaching in Higher Education 22: 1–17.
