The field of learning analytics has the potential to enable higher education institutions to increase their understanding of their students' learning needs and to use that understanding to positively influence student learning and progression. Analysis of data relating to students and their engagement with their learning is the foundation of this process. There is an inherent assumption linked to learning analytics that knowledge of a learner's behavior is advantageous for the individual, instructor and educational provider. It seems intuitively obvious that a greater understanding of a student cohort and of the learning designs and interventions to which they best respond would be of benefit to students and, in turn, for the retention and success rate of the institution. Yet, such collection of data and its use faces a number of ethical challenges, including issues of the location and interpretation of data; informed consent, privacy and the de-identification of data; and the classification and management of data.Approaches taken to understand the opportunities and ethical challenges of learning analytics necessarily depend on a range of ideological assumptions and epistemologies. This paper proposes a socio-critical perspective on the use of learning analytics. Such an approach highlights the role of power, the impact of surveillance, the need for transparency and an acknowledgment that student identity is a transient, temporal and context-bound construct.

Produced from experiences at the outset of the intense times when Covid-19 lockdown restrictions began in March 2020, this collaborative paper offers the collective reflections and analysis of a group of teaching and learning and Higher Education (HE) scholars from a diverse 15 of the 26 South African public universities. In the form of a theorised narrative insistent on foregrounding personal voices, it presents a snapshot of the pandemic addressing the following question: what does the ‘pivot online’ to Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning (ERTL), forced into urgent existence by the Covid-19 pandemic, mean for equity considerations in teaching and learning in HE? Drawing on the work of Therborn (2009: 20–32; 2012: 579–589; 2013; 2020) the reflections consider the forms of inequality - vital, resource and existential - exposed in higher education. Drawing on the work of Tronto (1993; 2015; White and Tronto 2004) the paper shows the networks of care which were formed as a counter to the systemic failures of the sector at the onset of the pandemic.

After several months of personal journey towards accepting that the coronavirus pandemic is real (see Jandrić 2020a, b), in early March, it dawned on me that the pandemic does not need only so-called essential workers. Self-quarantined after returning from abroad weeks before the Croatian government locked down the country, I immediately wrote an editorial for Postdigital Science and Education and argued that 'While doctors, nurses, politicians, food suppliers, and many other brave people self-sacrifice to support our daily survival, this editorial argues that academics have a unique opportunity, and a moral duty, to immediately start conducting in-depth studies of current events.' (Jandrić 2020c: 234) I had no idea how to even approach these studies, yet I had a strong feeling that something needed to be done urgently. So, I just did what I know best and issued calls for 3 different types of Covid-19-related material to be published in Postdigital Science and Education: short testimonies, longer commentary articles, and full-length original articles. I had no idea how much material I would receive, what this material would look like, and what I would do with this material. I just had a deep gut feeling that we are witnessing a unique time in human history, a once-in-a-lifetime event, that needs to be recorded as it unfolds. For better or for worse, I decided to follow that feeling. This general vision, without a clear idea of what I was doing, paved a bumpy road for the development of this collection. On 17 March 2020, I shared the Call for Testimonies on Postdigital Science and Education social network sites and I emailed it to the journal's mailing list. Based on my previous experience with similar calls, I expected to receive 10 to 15 contributions and produce a standard-length collective article aiming at postdigital dialogue (Jandrić et al. 2019) about the pandemic. Yet my call went 'viral', at least for academic standards, and a couple of weeks later, I had more than 50,000 words written by more than 80 authors. So how do I make sense of all that material? My dear friend and Associate Editor of Postdigital Science and Education, Sarah Hayes, came to my rescue. We first tried to make sense of the contributions using critical discourse

The article presents a socio-critical model and framework for understanding, predicting, and enhancing student success developed at the University of South Africa. An extensive literature review indicated that predominant models from international contact institutions were of partial application in this context. Integrating socio-critical, anthropological, and cultural theoretical perspectives, the model applies the key constructs of situated agency, capital, habitus, attribution, locus of control, and self-efficacy to both students and institutions in understanding success at each step of the student's journey. The model and framework, to be implemented incrementally during 2011, provide useful pointers for open distance learning and other institutions in pursuing greater student success.

No abstract