Run LEAGUE as a repeatable institutional review workflow before approving or renewing a learning analytics initiative¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The article operationalizes LEAGUE as a review workflow for committees adopting dashboards, expanding LMS monitoring, introducing predictive advising, or revising early alert systems. Per the article, "The workflow involves identifying the initiative, mapping data sources and stakeholders, reviewing through each LEAGUE pillar, and documenting risks and safeguards." The institution then decides whether to approve, revise, pilot, or pause, and reassesses after implementation.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Committees and institutional teams apply the workflow; Table 2 pairs each pillar with a guiding question, practical action, and typical evidence such as a data map, bias review memo, or committee charter

Constraints¶

• The workflow structures the conversation rather than forcing a single answer; decisions are to be made deliberately rather than by default

Target Learners¶

• higher education institutional review committees, CIOs, institutional research offices, provosts, and ethics review boards

Target Learning Goals¶

• governed, ethical adoption of learning analytics initiatives

Affordances¶

• League Framework Ethical Student Data Governance

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• S. Varadaraju and B. Vijayakumar. (2026). Beyond Compliance: A Proposed Framework for Ethical Governance of Student Data in Learning Analytics. EDULEARN26 Proceedings, IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2026.1927