SEERNet platforms trade off open science against availability of individual student data, with eTrials and ASU L@S at opposite extremes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-09 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The design of eTrials prioritizes open science with little individual student data, while ASU L@S prioritizes extensive individual student data making open science harder to achieve. → platform-tradeoff

Evidence¶

platform-tradeoff¶

Zacamy, J., & Roschelle, J. (2022, August). Navigating the tensions: How could equity-relevant research also be agile, open, and scalable? Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/159

q1 · i? · qualitative · r1

This is a descriptive statement from the report's Figure 2 discussion of variation among the five SEERNet platforms, not a tested comparison. The report adds that "The other three platforms fall in the middle, leaving each researcher team to make choices about their priorities."

"The design of eTrials prioritizes open science, but little individual student data is available . The design of ASU L@S prioritizes extensive individual student data, but open science will be harder to achieve ."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• PETs trade utility for privacy, limiting use where accuracy is mandated — a broader claim this one bears on
• Educators rate student data privacy as very or extremely important, but K-12 educators largely remain unaware of the privacy measures DLP research takes — related
• Working a research scenario against a DLP surfaced concrete platform needs: adding measures, linking observational data, and enabling districtwide studies — related
• SEERNet's five DLPs each have more than 100,000 regular users, which the network cites as grounding research in practice — related
• PETs expand the value of data by enabling sharing where in-the-clear approaches are infeasible — related