Learning analytics sits in the middle space between learning theory and data analytics. The inherent diversity of learning analytics manifests itself in an epistemology that strikes a balance between positivism and interpretivism, and knowledge that is sourced from theory and practice. In this paper, we argue that validation approaches for learning analytics systems should be cognisant of these diverse foundations. Through a systematic review of learning analytics validation research, we find that there is currently an over-reliance on positivistic validity criteria. Researchers tend to ignore interpretivistic criteria such as trustworthiness and authenticity. In the 38 papers we analysed, researchers covered positivistic validity criteria 221 times, whereas interpretivistic criteria were mentioned 37 times. We motivate that learning analytics can only move forward with holistic validation strategies that incorporate “thick descriptions” of educational experiences. We conclude by outlining a planned validation study using argument-based validation, which we believe will yield meaningful insights by considering a diverse spectrum of validity criteria.Horizon 2020(H2020)883588Algorithms and the Foundations of Software technolog
