1

Unintended Consequences of E-Learning: Reflections on the

Digital Transformation of Learning in Higher Education

Elaine Robinson, Ronald McQuaid, Aleksandra Webb and C. William R. Webster

Robinson, E., McQuaid, R., Webb, A. and C..W.R. Webster (2021) ‘Unintended Consequences
of E-Learning: Reflections on the Digital Transformation of Learning in Higher Education’, in
Larsen, C. et al. (eds) Transformations of Local and Regional Labour Markets across Europe
in Pandemic and Post-Pandemic Times (Rainer Hampp Verlag, Muenchen).

Introduction
The use of digital technologies in Higher Education has grown dramatically dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic with many courses moved to online teaching, a trend
which is likely to continue post-pandemic. However, the rise of such E-Learning
is likely to have a number of unintended consequences for students, teachers,
higher education institutions, employers and society more generally (Webb et
al. 2021)1. These have important implications for regional and local labour mar-
kets, skills development and observatories.
E-Learning can generate innovative approaches to learning and can enhance ef-
ficiently and convenience, particularly for those wishing to work or study re-
motely or ‘at a distance’. Some students favour the use of digital technologies
and enjoy having on-demand access to lecture content and other materials, par-
ticularly for revision and assessment. However, there are a number of associated
issues that can lead to unintended consequences for those involved and for
wider society.
After the introduction, this chapter starts with a brief description of digitalisation
in Higher Education to offer context for the digital transformation of university
learning. Section 3 considers who might be particularly affected by barriers
around the move to large-scale E-Learning in terms of digital access and the dig-
ital divide. This is followed by exploration of three key issues around the

1
The work for this chapter was part funded by the EU ERASMUS+ KA2 programme for the
ESCALATE project (project no. 2019-1-RO01-KA203- 063214), https://escalate.pro-
jects.uvt.ro/.
2

unintended consequences related to the rapid uptake of digitised teaching and

learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These issues are: (1) the impact of E-
Learning on assessment, particularly where and how learning is delivered due to
remote learning and assessment; (2) the use of learning analytics, and how data
is gathered and used particularly with the growing use of learning analytics which
can undermine privacy and increase the surveillance of people’s activities?; (3)
the implications of machine learning/Artificial Intelligence (AI) in learning and
teaching, and what ways students are supported by digitalisation through the
increased use of Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistants for stu-
dents? Finally, conclusions are presented.

Digitalisation in Higher Education

Increasingly education is becoming more digitised and digitalised. Digitisation is
the conversion of information from an analogue to a digital format (De Mauro et
al. 2016). While digitalised concerns technology becoming more embedded and
changing processes, such as marking student assignments online, rather than on
paper and the use of different technologies becoming embedded in the educa-
tion process. A report by the University and College Union (UCU 2020a), points
to increasing quantification, heightened commercial and market aspects of
higher education, and an increasing use of automation in higher education. In-
creased metrification in universities has seen automation and the use of tech-
nology, such as data analytics, as the solution for measuring outputs and perfor-
mance and dealing with the increased use of the world wide web by students.
The increase of automation has led to the outsourcing of much technology, with
commercial entities seeing universities and other Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) as prime customers, changing the higher education landscape to become
more and more like a market.
In education, digitalisation includes the use of technologies that analyse digital
information to help make decisions, such as data analytics, AI and machine learn-
ing and the algorithms that these run on. For example, algorithms help to pro-
cess information and data, and machine learning can process and adapt to infor-
mation they are being fed (UCU 2020a). The use of AI, or more specifically
machine learning in this paper, in teaching includes chatbots and learning ana-
lytics. AI used in teaching can provide tailored support by processing information
 3

about students, analysing their behaviours, assessing their engagement with

classes and personalising learning support (Houser 2017).
Making information processes machine-readable – datafication – has led to
many tasks once carried out by humans now being carried out by machines. This
automation includes automated testing such as the use of software to proctor
exams, AI grading, and plagiarism detection software. The use of automation in
education represents a growing industry, with a focus on improving efficiency
for tasks such as assessments (UCU 2020a). Furthermore, automation in libraries
can increase their performance and the quality of work for librarians, as well as
being more convenient for those accessing such resources (Olagoke and Ko-
lawole 2019).
There are considerable implications for HEI staff working online (some are dis-
cussed below). The greater use of online meetings to discuss courses and teach-
ing among staff may be subject to various behavioural biases (Bouckley et al.
2020). These may indirectly affect online teaching and its organisation. There is
also a need to understand and operate these processes and interpret their out-
comes. However, such digitalisation has a number of potential unintended con-
sequences for those involved and for links with local or regional labour market
observatories, including issues associated with: the digital divide, remote learn-
ing and assessment, learning analytics and AI.

The Digital Divide

The digital divide can be considered as the ‘gap’ between different groups and
individuals, in relation to accessing adequate Internet and information and com-
munications technology (ICT) facilities and the information, services, or uses
gained through them (Venezky 2000, Nishijima et al. 2017). This becomes a bar-
rier to access online learning, which results in severe disadvantages. An example
for this can be seen in difficulties accessing employment support services that
are increasingly being offered online, for students and young people that are
looking for employment (EEF 2020, Quinn 2020) or access to employment sup-
port services, for instance for students or young people looking for work
(McQuaid et al. 2003, 2004). Digital divides can be influenced by the human and
physical capital and skills required for using ICT (and other digital hardware and
software), as well as availability and use of technical and social support. Remote
4

learning can make access easier for those with different schedules, unable to
attend campuses physically, and to reach a wider audience. However, different
groups of staff and students have varying attitudes towards the use of open ed-
ucational resources (Ochieng and Gyasi 2021). Importantly, the use of online and
remote learning can discourage access to learning for some, highlighting aspects
of the digital divide. These disadvantages may arise from a lack of physical access
to equipment (e.g. laptops) or adequate internet connections (especially if learn-
ing material is presented in forms, such as videos, requiring fast internet connec-
tions that may not be available to all students due to physical limitations (e.g.
many rural areas) or cost constraints for the students etc. Additionally, the ex-
perience of students, and their local support networks, in using ICT-based learn-
ing may vary due to factors such as their primary and secondary schooling op-
portunities and their family income etc. This is particularly apparent where
access to the Internet outside of HEIs campuses is uneven: a study in South Africa
for example, found that the uneven distribution of Internet served to heighten
social inequalities amongst university students (Oyedemi 2012).
Although online education may help expand access, the impact of COVID-19 pan-
demic has highlighted the lack of digital access for certain groups in society, such
as sharing computers or Internet access, or having suitable places to study
(Holmes and Burgess 2020). There are similar patterns across the EU, as indi-
cated in the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI 2020) which measures the
progress made by EU member states towards a Digital Economy. The Open Uni-
versity noted that 88% of organisations state that they have a shortage of digital
skills, which can be wide ranging (The Open University 2019). Some students
have very limited practical support either remotely (e.g., via helplines) or in-per-
son, the latter especially affected those living alone during the COVID-19 pan-
demic with no face-to-face learning or in-person support on campus. Not all peo-
ple are skilled Internet users with relevant study or research skills. In 2018, adults
in the UK who have never used the Internet, or not used it within the last three
months, still numbered 5.3 million (10 per cent of the population), although this
has been declining over the years (ONS 2019). Of these non-users, 56 per cent
are disabled (compared to around 22 per cent of the population being disabled),
58 per cent are women and around three-quarters are over 65 years, while the
economically inactive also have high rates of non-users. However, non-users
have consistently been falling in all of these groups over recent years. Solutions
 5

may vary but might include expanded formal teaching or learning and also less
formal or even volunteer-based intensive, one-to-one support.
The digital divide raises issues around the extent of access:
• what ICT infrastructure do both students and educators have effective ac-
cess to when carrying out E-Learning and teaching remotely (including
hardware such as computers, laptops, as well as Internet access and sup-
port);
• are the necessary digital skills in place for students and staff when learning
and teaching online;
• how do these differentially affect groups in terms of access to learning,
employment opportunities and local labour market information and intel-
ligence;
• how do HEIs and teachers support students who have skills gaps and can-
not make full use of E-Learning or who are particularly affected by issues
such as COVID-19 pandemic?

E-Learning and Assessment

E-Learning (also known as online or virtual learning) allows learning at distance
(remote learning) or in a blended (combining online and classroom-based learn-
ing) format. It allows students to learn outside of the physical university campus.
Blended (or hybrid) learning may have online components that complement
face-to-face interactions and/or elements designed to replace face-to-face inter-
actions (Crosslin et al. 2018, Siegelman 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic has im-
pacted types of online learning, with many HEIs globally choosing to move most
or all teaching online, and by the end of August 2020, 49 per cent of HEIs in the
US intended to use some form of online learning (Quinn 2020).
Lecture capture technology enables recording lectures, which can be accessed,
for instance for students unable to attend a class, or those who attended but
wish to review the class, although this may lead to students replacing attendance
with online viewing, with possible different levels of attention being by them.
Learning Management Systems (LMS) or Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs)
such as Blackboard, Canvas, and Moodle are used to manage these as well as
oversee data relating to digital aspects of courses (UCU 2020a). These platforms
have proven to be especially important as HEIs moved to online learning during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
6

Some universities have moved further providing additional Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) on platforms such as Coursera, edX, Udacity, offer online
learning on a large, global scale to both registered students and other interested
people. An assessment of 76 MOOCs found that although presentation of course
materials scored high, a majority scored poorly on the instructional design qual-
ity (Margaryan et al. 2015), although this varies between MOOCs and over time
some may make considerable changes. Such use may also encourage the use of
completely automated assessment. The use of such assessments can also mean
limited individually tailored feedback for students (de Freitas et al. 2015).
As E-Learning can be synchronist or non-synchronist, space and time can be
changed in the online environment, and thus educators need to be flexible (Bou-
dreau 2020). Online learning such as computer assisted instruction generally
does not have the individualised advantages of one-to-one learning, and will not
be adapted to particular learning styles (Surjono 2015).
In terms of assessment, many standard forms of assessments have been repli-
cated using LMS and VLEs for online submission of assignments. However, class
tests, exams and presentations performed remotely are not subject to the same
types of monitoring as they would in person. Remote proctoring has seen a rise
in numbers since the impact of COVID-19 pandemic caused HEIs to increase the
use of remote learning. Software for remote monitoring of assessments such as
Proctorio uses artificial intelligence to watch body language of learners and scan
the surrounding environment. It includes the use of human proctors via video
calling software as well as the use of adapted web browsers that stops users
moving between tabs during an exam (Hubler 2020). There are significant issues
of surveillance concerning exam monitoring (see: Webb et al. 2021, Schwauger
2020).
There are technological challenges of remote and online learning, including ac-
cess to and skills in using the equipment for both staff and students, as well as
taking learning or administration material designed for face-to-face use and
adapting it to a digital platform. The VLE can aid teaching, if used in effectively,
as many face-to-face teaching principles also apply to virtual learning.
A review of different approaches to remote learning by the Education Endow-
ment Foundation (EEF) found that quality of teaching, ensuring equitable access
to technology, peer interaction, student support, and having different ap-
proaches to different types of assignment were key to remote and blended
 7

teaching through schools (EEF 2020: 22). They also found that pupils are able to
learn by remote teaching, as long as the teaching is delivered appropriately and
uses effective teaching components such as clear explanations, frameworks, and
feedback (EEF 2020: 22). Additionally, teacher involvement has been found to be
crucial in aiding student perception views and perceptions of the usefulness of
remote laboratories (Viegas et al. 2018).
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a swift relocation of classes from
face-to-face to online, which in the longer term may lead to a shift in learning
modes and approaches, including the opportunity for innovative education
methods such as game-based learning to become a standard part of the curricu-
lum (Sutton and Jorge 2020). It is useful to set out potential advantages and pos-
sible challenges with remote learning and assessment.
There are a number of potential advantages of remote learning and assessment
such as:
• VLEs can allow for a deeper engagement with students, as teaching staff
are given more information on how students engage with course content
and students can learn in flexible ways that may suit them more (Minsky
2020).
• A virtual classroom can offer a sense of community (Ogbunu 2020).
• The use of remote and virtual learning for laboratory work, such as Virtual
and Remote Labs (VLRs), allows for a safer learning environment (Gravier
et al. 2008, Heradio et al. 2016).
• They allow students with differing abilities and from different time zones
to participate in learning at times that suit them, and repeatedly (Gravier
et al. 2008, Viegas et al. 2018).
• Lecture capture is can be used regularly to view content which is useful for
students unable to attend classes (Jisc 2018, Morris et al. 2019), but may
deter some students from full participation in other aspects of the course.
• It allows near unlimited and flexible sharing of digital resources with stu-
dents (which are accessible at all times) (Jisc 2016, 2018).
• Remote learning can complement face-to-face teaching as well as being
time-saving for staff (Joseph-Richard et al. 2018)
• It can prompt professional reflection (Morris et al. 2019), and when com-
bined with analytics can help staff tailor their teaching styles, methods and
content (Joseph-Richard et al. 2018).

However, there are challenges and issues that may lead to unintended conse-
quences such as:
8

• The outsourcing of technology – such as plagiarism analysis, or remote as-

sessment software – can lead to students manipulating software, such as
‘gaming’ the system with little to no engagement with the learning mate-
rial (Chin 2020).
• The use of plagiarism software, such as like Turnitin, can make writing es-
says into an algorithm-pleasing exercise, rather than an engagement with
the material students are writing about (Williamson 2019). Concerns arise
also over its accuracy and its exploitation of student writing for its soft-
ware; and issues such as buying assignments from ‘ghost writers’ (people
paid to write an assignment for students) or writing text in a way to sub-
vert the software etc. (Straumscheim 2015, Williamson 2019, UCU 2020a).
• Most software, VLEs, and Artifical Integgligence applications are devel-
oped in countries such as the USA, China, Russia or India, and in the EU,
and may not fully reflect the needs of users in other countries or among
different groups in each society.
• There are concerns that the use of MOOCs, which encourage an open ac-
cess, off-campus mode of learning, could be threatening to existing HE
models (UCU 2020a).
• The use of monitoring practices for assessments have been described as
invasive and discriminatory. There is a danger of violation of privacy, par-
ticularly when student scanning practices are in use. This may also lead to
questioning the legitimacy of the test results, if it makes students feel self-
conscious.
• Lecture capture is more negatively viewed by staff than students because
of issues related to control of the content and quality of recordings cap-
tured (Taplin et al. 2014, Morris et al. 2019), authenticity, spontaneity,
self-censorship and lack of real-time interactions potentially reducing stu-
dent active engagement.
• There can be a feeling of staff being constrained in lecture capture: staff
are more careful of what they are saying, there is a reduction in spontane-
ity, restricted movement due to microphone issues, with lectures becom-
ing more didactic as a result, as well as a lack of interaction with students
(Bond and Grussendorf 2013, Joseph-Richard et al. 2018;). The lack of
physical interaction for some subjects such as healthcare is a concern (Bu-
tina et al. 2013, Quinn 2020).
• Adapting lessons to go online and responding to individual e-mails or other
communications by students (when issues could have been resolved dur-
ing lectures) can significantly increase workload for staff. (Taplin et al.
2014).
• Workloads are also affected by staff spending time helping students navi-
gate IT resources. The role of staff can then turn into facilitator, rather
 9

than educator: “While the intention is to equip faculty with relevant teach-
ing tools, the unintended outcome is that it reshapes their traditional
roles.” (Nworie and Houghton 2008: 55). Anecdotally, the number of
teaching and administration related meetings appears to have increased
(even if meetings may often be shorter, overall, more time appears to be
taken up by them).
• The 24-hrs flexibility that the online learning offers blurs work-life bound-
aries and can impact health and wellbeing of staff (Taberner 2018, DeFil-
ippis et al. 2020).
• Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, the transition to online learn-
ing has been very sudden and stressful for many staff and students. A
quick adaptation to online learning teaching is work- and time-intensive
and requires an investment in infrastructure, skills development and sup-
port (Wild et al. 2020).
• E-Learning can reduce attendance in face-to-face lectures (in the blended
learning model) and diminish live interaction and discussion (Chang 2007,
Bond and Grussendorf 2013, Morris et al. 2019) as the new technologies
tend to replace the live experience rather than complement and enhance
it (Nworie and Houghton 2008). Additionally, having the lecture available
to access at any time could lead to reliance upon it as the sole means of
topic revision, rather than exploring other materials.
• Online learning can lead to “e-escaping”: the lack of physical interaction
can make students feel like it is easier to disengage and ultimately drop
out of a course (Nworie and Houghton 2008).
• There may be pressure to focus more on making material attractive (e.g.,
visually), which may in practice (with limited time for preparation) reduce
the depth of appropriate content, possibly reducing deep learning suitable
for higher education, so presentation and content need to be complemen-
tary.
• Various ‘soft’ skills (such as team-working, leadership, etc.) and social skills
may be developed differently, and in different ways, compared to class-
room-based teaching; and those developed more intuitively in face-to-
face classes may be hard to replicate online.

E-Learning has advantages, particularly for those students who have access to
necessary ICT resources, social and academic support and whose style of learn-
ing is suitable for E-Learning. However, it raises many issues for staff, students
and institutions with potential unintended consequences and other implications
for skills development and labour supply in local labour markets that must be
considered. It is important that labour market observatories do not focus just on
10

the potential advantages, but that they identify significant issues for different
student and labour market groups and develop suitable solutions.

Learning Analytics
Learning analytics uses digital data collection to help inform decisions and make
improvements in an educational setting (Buckingham 2012, Corrin et al. 2019,
Jones 2019). This data can be obtained through data recorded about students
(administrative records, surveys), as well as data from online learning platforms,
VLEs, LMS, and social networking sites (Zilvinskis et al. 2017). These can help in-
dividual students by relaying data and information about them to create person-
alised learning and support students.
There is currently limited research on the impact of learning analytics on stu-
dents and its use by educators, with work being more focused on technological
developments rather than on application to learning (Ferguson et al. 2016,
Knight et al. 2020) and integration with local and regional labour market infor-
mation systems that seek to consider both labour market demand and supply
characteristics.
There are a number of potential advantages of using learning analytics such as:
• Learning analytics can help students to identify areas of strength and
weakness, providing a tailored experience for the student (UCU 2020a).
• They can provide data on student engagement, as well as predictive infor-
mation on student performance (Wong 2017), thus assisting academic de-
cision-making.
• If provided to the student, they can allow for a reflective standard of learn-
ing, one in which they may be able to engage deeper with the learning
process (Rivera-Pelayo, et al. 2012, Eynon 2015).
• They can give a unique, user-centric, up-to-date service in libraries (Mann-
heimer et al. 2016), and therefore enhance learning .
• They can be used with data analytic systems, such as Integrated Planning
and Advising Services (IPAS) to give personalised and developmental feed-
back (Educause 2014).
• The data can provide information for algorithms to facilitate university ad-
missions and student support departments to considerably shorten the
administrative labour related to advice giving to current students and ap-
plications processing from prospective students (UCU 2020a).
 11

• They potentially provide new information in a timely way that might effi-
ciently be included in information on, and analysis of, local labour market
supply and demand factors.

However, there are issues that may lead to potential unintended consequences
such as:
• The outsourcing of technology has led to concerns over data usage with-
out acknowledgement of pedagogical approaches and frameworks. Its us-
age can be vague and rely on private companies using the data for com-
mercial purposes in a non-transparent way (Zeide 2019, UCU 2020a).
• Decisions about student attainment or development can be influenced, or
even fully made, by algorithms rather than academic staff with associated
concerns (Zeide 2019).
• Learning analytics can be used to predetermine student success and fail-
ure (Educause 2014) and can lead to datafication of student learning and
behaviours (NUS 2015), for example, by ‘game playing’ to fit with expec-
tations set by the analytics system.
• The use of AI in learning analytics may be also subject to bias especially as
they are often based on data that is itself biased (e.g. AI used to help
choose software engineers for recruitment used data on existing engi-
neers, but these engineers were relatively homogenous and mainly male,
so the AI determined an ‘ideal’ engineer to be male and rejected female
candidates). Hence AI are usually based on, and can reinforce, existing sit-
uations and power relations and so favour or be biased against certain
groups (O’Neil 2016, UCU 2020a, EC 2019).
• A reliance on metrics, coupled with the marketisation of the university,
has led to a push on improving the “student experience”, which often falls
onto the work of academics increasing workloads, and consequently their
declining mental health (Morrish 2019).
• The processing of information about students, against parameters they
may be unaware of, can impact self-identity and undermine privacy
(Drachsler and Greller 2016), and question institutional transparency (Zim-
mer 2013).
• HEIs need to make increased efforts to ensure that they have strong pro-
tection of data against misuse and loss (Educasue 2014).
• There is a risk of Learning Analytics leading to technology- rather than ed-
ucation-led learning (Price and Kirkwood 2014). This form of technological
determinism might also lead to questionable decisions, especially when
analytics fail to consider a complex context of education and learning, and
needs for discretion (Zilvinskis et al. 2017).
12

• Despite potentially using algorithms every day, most staff are unaware of
how learning analytics work, and thus it becomes difficult for them to
question the decisions that the algorithm makes (O’Neil 2016, Rainie and
Anderson 2017, Prinsloo 2020).

The greater use of E-Learning entails changes to where and how learning is done.
It also may shift power relations towards third-parties and away from qualified
staff and individual students, and even teaching institutions. Opportunities for
labour market observatories may include better integration of information but
they must be aware of the many issues raised in this discussion.

AI assistants
Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistants are being used more often to help students,
both with academic subjects, as well as more general guidance, such as univer-
sity life. Commercial companies are increasingly being used to provide some of
these assistants, such as Microsoft’s Cortana, Amazon’s Alexa, and Apple’s Siri.
It is suggested that people may share more personal details with an AI assistant
than a human (Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation 2019). One such assistant,
named Jill Watson, was built at Georgia Tech’s School of Interactive Computing
in 2016, and was designed to help increase student social interaction and work-
ing together quickly and to answer basic questions about studied content so that
educators could focus on more complex teaching problems (Georgia Tech 2020).
There are a number of potential advantages of using AI assistants such as:
• AI assistants can learn from and adapt to students’ needs.
• They can provide tailored support to students (UCU 2020a).
• They can be available at all times, and its ability to answer basic questions
can free up time for educators to focus on deeper teaching issues, partic-
ularly if staff find they are being inundated with similar and repetitive
questions (Georgia Tech 2020).

However, issues that may lead to unintended consequences include:

• It may not be clear to the student that they are conversing with a machine,
particularly if it is given a name or personality traits (Georgia Tech 2020).
• There are potential privacy implications of third parties providing these
assistants, and danger over commercial providers becoming a powerful
 13

players in education (Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation 2019, William-
son and Hogan 2020).
• Such software could affect pedagogic guidance and the teaching methods
of educators, as they adapt their teaching styles to fit with AI tutors (UCU
2020b).
• The push to use such assistants could leave students with a lack of social
interactions between staff and peers, and could limit depth of discussions.

Again, while opportunities are presented for observatories to gather new infor-
mation almost in ‘real time’, it is crucial that they consider the potential unin-
tended consequences of extensive use of AI and their effects on education la-
bour, new labour market demands, and a wider local and regional skills
development.

Conclusions
This chapter explored some of the unintended consequences of digitalisation in
Higher Education and the move to large-scale and wide-spread E-Learning during
the COVID-19 pandemic. These mainly reflect overlapping behavioural, pedagog-
ical, technological, ownership issues and digital exclusion.
Some areas of potential unintended consequences discussed include engage-
ment of some students, staff skills and workloads, privacy and surveillance, and
the non-transparent ‘nudging’ of staff and student behaviour by the software
systems used. The growth in E-Learning offers many opportunities for innova-
tion, especially when blended with other face-to-face, peer-to-peer learning and
social support activities. However, there is a danger that the E-Learning model
has become technology-led (hardware and software), rather than pedagogically-
led. Although digital learning can provide a tailored and self-reflective means of
learning, there are issues regarding student engagement, the potentially higher
workloads for staff, the possible biases in AI, and compromised decision-making
processes that can lose sight of pedagogical priorities in the face of technological
appeal. Further issues relate to limitations and potential biases in the develop-
ment and availability of software and VLEs and effects of their ownership. Finally,
the issues regarding access to both infrastructure and digital skills highlights the
need to ensure advancements in technology do not leave some individuals ex-
cluded.
14

There remain many further issues that are crucial for local and regional labour
markets. The requirements for more relevant labour market information and in-
telligence can also help create an agenda for future research, but have not been
explored in this paper. For instance, the effects of: 1) various uses of surveillance
based on the compulsory use of E-Learning software (such as monitoring student
attendance and participation); 2) the generation and analysis of digital footprints
of staff and students, with information generated online being used by employ-
ers and influencing university recruitment; 3) the implications of outsourcing
technology to private companies with high levels of monopoly power; 4) cyber
security which is a major threat to universities; 5) copyright of materials used in
learning and their wider use; 6) data protection and legislation such as GDPR
which are particularly important as higher education institutions deal with huge
amounts of information; and 7) the complex ethical issues related to the use of
digital technologies and datafication, (such as who has access to data, who is
making decisions, what is data being used for, what value does online learning
have compared to face-to-face, ensuring informed consent, protection of vulner-
able groups, etc) (Williamson et al. 2020).
Finally, additional major issues related to potential unintended consequences
include the monitoring and use of AI, which raise further issues for staff, as well
as students. The use of specialist software to monitor staff and student activities,
for instance through advising them on replies to e-mails or deadlines that they
should meet, may mean that they need to accept the analysis by third-parties
(private companies) of their e-mails and other communications (such as ‘Teams’
or other online meetings) and the possible use of this analysis for wider third-
party use (even if anonymously) such as the development of AI or machine learn-
ing for the third-party. In addition, they may also seek to influence staff behav-
iour (e.g., by ‘nudging’ or suggesting that staff block certain time for different
activities). Finally, the use of third-party software may tie both institutional users
and staff or students, who wish to operate compatible software on their per-
sonal equipment, into ongoing annual charges rather than one-off purchases.
Currently, there is a lack of research, and a coherent framework of analysis, on
the medium- and long-term impacts of the move to greater E-Learning, using
learning analytics on student performance and engagement and using AI to as-
sist staff, students and institutions. During and following the pandemic, research
should focus on the effects of remote learning and assessment on different types
 15

of students, the commercialisation of infrastructure and data, surveillance and

the treatment of staff and student digital footprints, as well as the increased
work demands related to the rollout of E-Learning. Further research is also re-
quired into how local and regional labour market information and intelligence
can be integrated with the rise of digital information on students, courses and
employers. How to avoid unintended consequences of such digitalisation of
learning, and dangers related to implicitly influenced (nudged) or changed be-
haviours of those involved in higher education, is an important concern.

References
Bond, Steve/Grussendorf, Sonja (2013): Staff attitudes to lecture capture. London: London
School of Economics and Political Science. Accessed: 04/11/20 at:URL:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54870/1/__libfile_REPOSITORY_Content_Bond, Stephen_Staff atti-
tudes_Bond_Staff attitudes_2013.pdf [04 November 2020].

Bouckley, Catherine/Fricova, Michaela/Glatzel, Sammy/Hall, Natalie/Khullar, Ipsi-

taa/Kirienko, Alexandra/Raj, Sharon/Soh, Tina/Zeller, Sego (2020): Hybrid Working: A Dic-
tionary of Behavioral Biases. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. .
Accessed: 04/11/20 at:URL: https://www.lse.ac.uk/PBS/Research/tii/assets/documents/Hy-
brid-Working-report.pdf [04 November 2020].

Boudreau, Emily (2020): What makes an excellent online teacher? Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Graduate School of Education. Accessed: 27/10/20 at:URL: https://www.gse.har-
vard.edu/news/uk/20/07/what-makes-excellent-online-teacher [27 October 2020].

Buckingham Shum, Simon (2012): Learning Analytics. Policy Brief. Moscow: UNESCO In-
stitute for Information Technologies in Education. Accessed: 04/11/20 at:URL:
https://iite.unesco.org/publications/3214711/ [04 November 2020].

Butina, Michelle/Brooks, Donna/Dominguez, Paul J./Mahon, Gwendolyn M. (2013): Utiliza-

tion of virtual learning environments in the allied health professions. In: Journal of Allied
Health 42(1), pp.7E-10E

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (2019): Snapshot Paper - Smart Speakers and Voice
Assistants. London: DCMS. Accessed: 11/02/21 at:URL: https://www.gov.uk/govern-
ment/publications/cdei-publishes-its-first-series-of-three-snapshot-papers-ethical-issues-in-
ai/snapshot-paper-smart-speakers-and-voice-assistants#data-collection-use-and-privacy [11
February 2021].

Chang, Shanton (2007): Academic perceptions of the use of lectopia: A university of Mel-
bourne example. In: ICT: providing choices for learners and learning. In Proceedings ascilite
Singapore (2007), pp. 135-144

Chin, Monica (2020): These students figured out their tests were graded by AI — and the easy
way to cheat. Accessed: 27/10/2020 at:URL:
16

https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/2/21419012/edgenuity-online-class-ai-grading-keyword-
mashing-students-school-cheating-algorithm-glitch [27 October 2020].

Corrin, Linda/Gregor, Kennedy/French, Sarah/Buckingham Shum, Simon/Kitto, Kirsty/

Pardo, Abelardo/West, Deborah/Mirriahi, Negin/Colvin, Cassandra (2019): The Ethics of
Learning Analytics in Australian Higher Education. A Discussion Paper. URL: https://mel-
bournecshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/research-projects/edutech/the-ethical-use-of-learning-
analytics [04 November 2020].

Crosslin, Matt (2018): Designing Online Learning Experiences. Arlington: MAVS Publish-
ing.

Davies, Sarah/Mullan, Joel/Feldman, Paul (2017): Rebooting learning for the digital age:
What next for technology enhanced higher education? Oxford: Higher Education Policy Insti-
tute (HEPI).

de Freitas, Sarah Isabella/Morgan, John/Gibson, David (2015): Will MOOCs transform learn-
ing and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning
provision. In: British Journal of Educational Technology 46(3), pp. 455-471

De Mauro, Andrea/Greco, Marco/Grimaldi, Michele (2016): A formal definition of Big Data

based on its essential features. In: Library Review 65(3), pp. 122-135

DeFilippis, Evan/Impink, Stephen Michael/Singell, Madison/Polzer, Jeffrey T/Sadun, Raffa-

ella (2020): Collaborating during coronavirus: The impact of covid-19 on the nature of work.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Drachsler, Hendrick/Greller, Wolfgang (2016): 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 (LAK '16), pp. 89-98

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (Ellis-Thompson, Amy et al.) (2020): Remote

Learning Rapid Evidence Assessment. London: Education Endowment Foundation. URL:
https://edtechhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Remote_Learning_Rapid_Evidence_As-
sessment.pdf [18 March 2021].

Educause (2014): What Leaders Need to Know About Managing Data Risk in Student Suc-
cess Systems. URL: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2014/4/what-leaders-need-to-
know-about-managing-data-risk-in-student-success-systems [04 November 2020].

Eynon, Rebecca (2015) The quantified self for learning: critical questions for education. In:
Learning, Media and Technology 40(4), pp. 407-411

Ferguson, Rebecca/Brasher, Andrew/Clow, Doug/Cooper, Adam/Hillaire, Garron/Mittel-

meier, Jenna/Rienties, Bart/Ullmann, Thomas/Vuorikari, Riina (2016): Research Evidence on
the Use of Learning Analytics - Implications for Education Policy: Joint Research Centre Sci-
ence for Policy Report. In: Vuorikari, Riina/Castaño Muñoz, Jonatan (Ed.). Brussels: Euro-
pean Commission.
 17

Georgia Tech (2020): Jill Watson, AI Pioneer in Education, Turns 4. URL:

https://ic.gatech.edu/news/631545/jill-watson-ai-pioneer-education-turns-4 [11 February
2021]

Gravier, Christophe/Fayolle, Jacques/Bayard, Bernard/Ates, Mikaël/Lardon, Jérémy (2008):

State of the art about remote laboratories paradigms – foundations of ongoing mutations. In:
International Journal of Online Engineering 4(1), pp. 19-25

Heradio, Ruben/de la Torre, Luis/Galan, Daniel/Cabrerizo, Francisco Javier/Herrera-Viedma,

Enrique/Dormido, Sebastian (2016): Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric
analysis. In: Computers & Education (98), pp. 14-38

Holmes, Hannah/Burgess, Gemma (2020): Pay the wi-fi or feed the children: Coronavirus has
intensified the UK’s digital divide. URL: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/digitaldivide [22 Jan-
uary 2021].

Houser, Kristin (2017): Why robots could replace teachers as soon. URL: https://www.wefo-
rum.org/agenda/2017/12/why-robots-could-replace-teachers-as-soon-as-2027 [15 December
2020].

Hubler, Shawn. 2020. Keeping Online Testing Honest? Or an Orwellian Overreach? URL::
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/us/online-testing-cheating-universities-coronavirus [27
October 2020].

Jisc (2016): Student digital experience tracker 2016: results from the pilot project. Bristol:
Jisc.

Jisc (2018): Digital experience insights survey 2018: findings from students in UK further and
higher education. Bristol: Jisc.

Jones, Kyle M.L. (2019): Learning analytics and higher education: a proposed model for es-
tablishing informed consent mechanisms to promote student privacy and autonomy. In: Inter-
national Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 16(1), pp. 1-24

Joseph‐Richard, Paul/Jessop, Tansy/Okafor, Godwin/Almpanis, Timos/Price, Daran (2018):

Big brother or harbinger of best practice: Can lecture capture actually improve teaching? In:
British Educational Research Journal 44(3), 377-392

Knight, Simon/Gibson, Andrew/Shibani, Antonette (2020): Implementing learning analytics

for learning impact: Taking tools to task. In: The Internet and Higher Education 45(2020), pp.
1-17.

Mannheimer, Sara/Young, Scott.W.H/Rossmann, Doralyn (2016): On the ethics of social net-

work research in libraries. In: Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society
14(2), pp. 139-151.

Margaryan, Anoush/Bianco, Manuela/Littlejohn, Allison (2015): Instructional quality of mas-

sive open online courses (MOOCs). In: Computers & Education 80(2015), pp. 77-83

McQuaid, Ronald/Lindsay, Colin/Greig, Malcolm (2003): Wired For Work? ICT and Job
Seeking in Rural Areas. York: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. URL:
18

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/information-technology-and-job-seeking-rural-areas [18
March 2021].

McQuaid, Ronald/Lindsay, Colin/Greig, Malcolm (2004): Re-Connecting the Unemployed:

ICT and Services for Job Seekers in Rural Areas. In: Information, Communication & Society
7(3), pp. 364-388

Minsky, Carly (2020): ‘Surveillance creep’ as cameras spread on campus.URL:

https://www.ft.com/content/dd732ab4-3e0a-11ea-b84f-a62c46f39bc2 [27 October 2020].

Morris, Neil.P/Swinnerton, Bronwen/Coop, Taryn (2019): Lecture recordings to support

learning: A contested space between students and teachers. In: Computers & Education
140(2019), pp. 1-23

Morrish, Liz (2019): Pressure Vessels: The Epidemic of Poor Mental Health among Higher
Education Staff. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI).

National Union of Students. NUS. (2015): Learning Analytics: A Guide for Students’ Unions.
London: National Union of Students.

Nishijima, Marislei/Ivanauskas, Terry Macedo/Sarti, Flavia Mori (2017): Evolution and deter-
minants of digital divide in Brazil (2005–2013). In: Telecommunications Policy 41(1), pp. 12-
24

Nworie, John/Haughton, Noela (2008): Good intentions and unanticipated effects: The unin-
tended consequences of the application of technology in teaching and learning environments.
In: TechTrends 52(5), pp. 52-58

Ochieng, Vollan/Gyasi, Razak, (2021): Open educational resources and social justice: Poten-
tials and implications for research productivity in higher educational institutions. In: E-Learn-
ing and Digital Media 18(2), pp. 105-124

Office of National Statistics. ONS. (2019): Exploring the UK’s Digital Divide. URL:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinter-
netandsocialmediausage/articles/exploringtheuksdigitaldivide/2019-03-04 [20 December
2020].

Ogbunu, C. Brandon (2020): The Flagrant Hypocrisy of Bungled College Reopenings. URLt:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-flagrant-hypocrisy-of-bungled-college-reopenings/
[27 October 2020].

Olagoke, Dolapo Peter/Kolawole, Joseph Adeniyi (2019): Effect of library automation on per-
formance of librarians in private universities in South-West Nigeria. In: Information and
Knowledge Management 9(5), pp. 1-10

The Open University (2019): Bridging the Digital Divide. Milton Keynes: The Open Univer-
sity.

O’Neil, Cathy (2016): Weapons of Maths Destruction. New York: Crown.

 19

Oyedemi, Toks Dele (2012): Digital inequalities and implications for social inequalities: A
study of Internet penetration amongst university students in South Africa. In: Telematics and
Informatics 29(3), pp. 302-313

Price, Linda/Kirkwood, Adrian (2014): Using technology for teaching and learning in higher
education: a critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. In: Higher Education
Research & Development 33(3), pp. 549-564

Prinsloo, Paul (2020): Of ‘black boxes’ and algorithmic decision-making in (higher) educa-
tion – A commentary. In: Big Data & Society 7(1), pp. 1-6

Quinn, Callan (2020): Universities prepare for semester of online and hybrid learning. URL:
https://thepienews.com/analysis/university-prepare-online-hybrid-learning/ [27 October
2020].

Rainie, Lee/Anderson, Janna (2017): Code-Dependent: Pros and Cons of the Algorithm Age.
Washington D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Rivera-Pelayo, Verónica/Zacharias, Valentin/Müller, Lars/Braun, Simone (2012): Applying

Quantified Self Approaches to Support Reflective Learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (Lak ’12), pp. 111–114

Siegelman, Ariel (2019): Blended, Hybrid, and Flipped Courses: What’s the Difference? Cen-
ter for the Advancement of Teaching. URL: https://teaching.temple.edu/edvice-ex-
change/2019/11/blended-hybrid-and-flipped-courses-what%E2%80%99s-difference [04 No-
vember 2020].

Straumscheim, Carl (2015): What Is Detected? URL: https://www.insidehigh-

ered.com/news/2015/07/14/turnitin-faces-new-questions-about-efficacy-plagiarism-detection-
software [27 October 2020].

Surjono, Herman Dwi (2015): The effects of multimedia and learning style on student
achievement in online electronics course. In: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology 14(1), pp. 116-122

Sutton, Michael.J.D/Jorge, Carlos Francisco Bitencourt Jorge (2020): Potential for radical
change in Higher Education learning spaces after the pandemic. In: Journal of Applied Learn-
ing and Teaching 3(1), pp. 1-5

Swauger, Shea (2020). Software that monitors students during tests perpetuates inequality and
violates their privacy. Accessed: URL: https://www.technolo-
gyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006132/software-algorithms-proctoring-online-tests-ai-ethics/ [27
October 2020].

Taberner, Andrea M. (2018): The marketisation of the English higher education sector and its
impact on academic staff and the nature of their work. In: International Journal of Organiza-
tional Analysis 26(1), pp. 129-152

Taplin, Ross H./Kerr, Rosemary/Brown, Alistair M. (2014): Opportunity costs associated

with the provision of student services: A case study of web-based lecture technology. In:
Higher Education 68(1), pp. 15-28
20

UCU. (2020a): The Automatic University: A review of datafication and automation in higher
education. London: UCU.

UCU. (2020b): UCU guidance on working from home and teaching online. URL:
https://www.ucu.org.uk/coronavirus [15 December 2020].

Venezky, Richard L. (2000): Learning to Bridge the Digital Divide: The digital divide within
formal school education: causes and consequences. Paris: OECD.

Viegas, Clara/Pavani, Ana/Lima, Natércia/Marques, Arcelina/Pozzo, Isabel/Dobboletta,

Elsa/Atencia, Vanessa/Barreto, Daniel/Calliari, Felipe/Fidalgo, André/Lima, Delberis/Tem-
porão, Guilherme/Alves, Gustavo (2018): Impact of a remote lab on teaching practices and
student learning. In: Computers & Education 126(2018), pp. 201-216

Webb, Aleksandra (2020): State of the Art Review (WP2) Higher Education Institutions/Uni-
versities Responses to Digitalization (IO1) Scotland Country Report. Available: https://esca-
late.projects.uvt.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SOTA-Country-Report-SCOTLAND.pdf [21
April 2021]

Webb, Aleksandra/ McQuaid, Ronald/Webster, C. William R. (2021): Moving learning online

and the COVID-19 pandemic: a university response. In: World Journal of Science, Technol-
ogy and Sustainable Development https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-11-2020-0090 [03 March
2021]

Wild, Duncan A/Yeung, Alexandra/Loedolff, Matthys/Spagnoli, Dino (2020): Lessons

learned by converting a first-year physical chemistry unit into an online course in 2 weeks. In:
Journal of Chemical Education 97(9), pp. 2389-2392

Williamson, Ben (2019): Automating mistrust. URL: https://codeactsineducation.word-

press.com/2019/06/28/automating-mistrust/ [27 October 2020].

Williamson, Ben/Bayne, Sian/Shay, Suellen (2020): The datafication of teaching in Higher

Education: critical issues and perspectives. In: Teaching in Higher Education 25(4), pp.351-
365

Williamson, Ben/Hogan, Anna (2020): Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in

the context of Covid-19. Brussels: Education International.

Wong, Billy Tak Ming (2017): Learning analytics in higher education: an analysis of case
studies. In: Asian Association of Open Universities Journal 12(1), pp. 21-40

Zeide, Elana (2019): Robot Teaching, Pedagogy, and Policy. In: Dubber, Markus D/Pasquale,
Frank/ Das, Sunit (Ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Zilvinskis, John/Willis III, James/Borden, Victor.M.H. (2017): An overview of learning ana-

lytics. In: New Directions for Higher Education 179(2017), pp. 9-17

Zimmer, Michael (2013): Patron privacy in the “2.0” era: Avoiding the Faustian bargain of
library 2.0. In: Journal of Information Ethics 22(1), pp. 44-59
 21

Websites

Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) (2020): 2020 country report United Kingdom,
available at: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id566933.

European Commission (EC) (2019): Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, High-Level Expert
Group on Artificial Intelligence. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
ESCALATE project: https://escalate.projects.uvt.ro
Twitter: @digitalescalate
The Digital Economy and Society Index: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/docu-
ment.cfm?doc_id566933
Blackboard: https://www.blackboard.com/
Canvas: https://canvas.instructure.com/
Moodle: https://moodle.org/
Proctorio: https://proctorio.com/

Information on the authors

Elaine Robinson is a research assistant at the University of Stirling working on
the ESCALATE project (all of the authors are researchers on this project). She has
researched public library e-services access and usage policies, and has been a
researcher on the SmartGov project – smart governance of sustainable cities,
and the UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science.
Dr Elaine Robinson
Stirling Management School
University of Stirling
FK9 4LA Stirling
Scotland, UK
E-mail: elaine.robinson1@stir.ac.uk

Ronald McQuaid is Professor of Work and Employment at the University of Stir-

ling’s Management School. He has published many books, scientific and policy
papers on employment, employability, regional development, entrepreneurship
and SMEs.
Professor Dr Ronald McQuaid
22

Stirling Management School

University of Stirling
FK9 4LA Stirling
Scotland, UK
E-mail: ronald.mcquaid@stir.ac.uk
http://rms.stir.ac.uk/converis-stirling/person/22715

Dr Aleksandra Webb is a lecturer in the Division of Management, Organisations

and People at the University of the West of Scotland. She has been a co-investi-
gator on several European research projects related to skills and labour markets.
She has also researched women’s work, employment in creative industries, cul-
tural leadership and digitalisation in higher education.
Dr Aleksandra Webb
University of the West of Scotland
School of Business and Creative Industries
PA1 2BE Paisley
Scotland, UK
E-mail: Aleksandra.Webb@uws.ac.uk
https://research-portal.uws.ac.uk/en/persons/aleksandra-webb

William Webster is Professor of Public Policy and Management at the University

of Stirling’s Management School. He is also a director of CRISP (Centre for Re-
search into Information Surveillance and Privacy: www.crisp-surveillance.com)
and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Information Polity (https://informationpol-
ity.com). He is an expert on the governance of surveillance, surveillance ethics
and surveillance in everyday life.

Professor Dr C. William R. Webster

Stirling Management School
University of Stirling
FK9 4LA Stirling
Scotland, UK
E-mail: william.webster@stir.ac.uk
Website: https://www.stir.ac.uk/people/256405
Twitter: @CrispSurv