Supporting user interaction and control in the indicator implementation process positively affects transparency, trust, satisfaction, and acceptance in LA¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer?·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-09 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? A qualitative user study found evidence that giving users control over indicator implementation positively affects transparency, trust, satisfaction, and acceptance. → Joarder 2026
Evidence¶
Joarder 2026¶
Joarder, S., & Chatti, M. A. (2026). Human-Centred Development of Indicators for Self-Service Learning Analytics: A Transparency through Exploration Approach. Journal of Learning Analytics, 13(1), 163-189. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2026.8921
q2 · i? · qualitative · r?
Qualitative online user study with moderated think-aloud sessions and semi-structured interviews with 15 participants (13 students, two teachers). The article reports qualitative evidence of positive effects on "transparency, trust, satisfaction, and acceptance"; no effect sizes are printed.
"Our study showed qualitative evidence that supporting user interaction and providing user control in the indicator implementation process can have positive effects on different crucial aspects of LA, namely transparency, trust, satisfaction, and acceptance."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Interview respondents identify collaborative relationships, trust in evidence and its users, clarity on research types, and supportive leadership as facilitators of evidence use — related
- Making year-over-year change salient helped users identify which schools improved most but lowered usability and satisfaction ratings — related
- AIfred users report higher perceived learning support, innovation, satisfaction, and cognitive demand, with no difference in perceived productivity — related
- Explainability's effect on trust in AI-enabled systems is mixed: it can increase trust and reliance but also raises cognitive load, slows performance, and sometimes does not improve trust — related
- User acceptance of AI-driven decisions depends on explanation type, with sensitivity-analysis and certification explanations increasing acceptance — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ssla-user-control-improves-transparency-trust-acceptance |
title |
Supporting user interaction and control in the indicator implementation process positively affects transparency, trust, satisfaction, and acceptance in LA |
description |
Supporting user interaction and control in the indicator implementation process positively affects transparency, trust, satisfaction, and acceptance in LA |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-09 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — joarder-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.