Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Reframing Educational Human Resource Evaluation in the Algorithmic Age

Pierre Marcello Lopulalan
Politeknik Pelayaran Banten
Indonesia
pmarcello66@yahoo.com
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to reconstruct the concept of educational human resource evaluation (SDMP) in the algorithmic era by examining how digital transformation and data-based governance reshape teacher performance assessment, professional accountability, and institutional decision-making.

    Methodology: This study employed a mixed-methods approach using an explanatory sequential design. The study involved 55 participants, including teachers, institutional leaders, and digital system developers, selected through purposive sampling from five educational institutions in Indonesia. Quantitative data were obtained from digital performance evaluation records (2022–2024), while qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and direct observation of digital evaluation systems. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis with SPSS, while qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

    Main Findings: The findings indicate that algorithmic systems enhance transparency and consistency in educator performance measurement, with the adoption rate of digital evaluation systems reaching 82.3% across institutions. A significant positive correlation was found between digital technology use and performance evaluation scores (r = 0.62, p < 0.01). However, the results also reveal that algorithmic evaluation systems tend to prioritize measurable digital activities, potentially overlooking educators' social context, pedagogical depth, and professional values.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study introduces the concept of algorithmic reflexivity as a new evaluative framework in educational management. The framework emphasizes integrating algorithmic analytics with human professional judgment, encouraging educational institutions to critically reflect on the ethical, human-centered, and data-driven implications of algorithmic SDMP evaluation.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Reframing Educational Human Resource Evaluation in the Algorithmic Age”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 643–654, Jul. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i3.2536.

    More Citation Formats

  • 12
    Abstract views
    7
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. [1] Y. Wang, “Artificial intelligence in educational leadership: a symbiotic role of human-artificial intelligence decision-making,” J. Educ. Adm., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 256–270, 2021.
    2. [2] R. Riinawati and F. Noor, “Human resource management strategies in welcoming the digital education era in high schools: a literature review,” J. Pendidik. Progresif, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 120–131, 2024.
    3. [3] N. Ben Kasmia and H. M’hamed, “Digitalization of higher education: impacts on management practices and institutional developement. a literature review,” Conhecimento Divers., vol. 15, no. 39, pp. 56–82, 2023.
    4. [4] M. Nicoleta and M.-R. Laura, “Navigating Digital Transformation In Human Resource Management In Education: A Pilot-Study Of Public And Private Schools,” Sciences (New. York)., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4–21.
    5. [5] S. Hartati, “The Basic Role of Islamic Education Management in Human Resource Management in the Digital Era,” J. Res. Islam. Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 59–72, 2025.
    6. [6] A. Konstantinidis, “A Metaphor for Rethinking Artificial Intelligence in/and Education.,” J. Interact. Media Educ., vol. 2025, no. 1, 2025.
    7. [7] O. Kyriakidou, “Algorithms and global diversity management,” in Research Handbook on Global Diversity Management, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025, pp. 148–163.
    8. [8] R. Ovetz, “The algorithmic university: On-line education, learning management systems, and the struggle over academic labor,” Crit. Sociol., vol. 47, no. 7–8, pp. 1065–1084, 2021.
    9. [9] K. N. Gulson, S. Sellar, and P. T. Webb, Algorithms of education: How datafication and artificial intelligence shape policy. U of Minnesota Press, 2022.
    10. [10] S. Lillejord, “From" unintelligent" to intelligent accountability,” J. Educ. Chang., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2020.
    11. [11] Z. Zong and Y. Guan, “AI-driven intelligent data analytics and predictive analysis in Industry 4.0: Transforming knowledge, innovation, and efficiency,” J. Knowl. Econ., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 864–903, 2025.
    12. [12] P. Jandrić and J. Knox, “The postdigital turn: Philosophy, education, research,” Policy Futur. Educ., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 780–795, 2022.
    13. [13] J. Heil and D. Ifenthaler, “Online Assessment in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.,” Online Learn., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 187–218, 2023.
    14. [14] A. Hase and P. Kuhl, “Teachers’ use of data from digital learning platforms for instructional design: a systematic review,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 1925–1945, 2024.
    15. [15] N. Selwyn, Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
    16. [16] J. T. Schmidt and M. Tang, “Digitalization in education: challenges, trends and transformative potential,” in Führen und managen in der digitalen transformation: Trends, best practices und herausforderungen, Springer, 2020, pp. 287–312.
    17. [17] I. Saputra, A. Kurniawan, M. Yanita, E. Y. Putri, and M. Mahniza, “The evolution of educational assessment: How artificial intelligence is shaping the trends and future of learning evaluation,” Indones. J. Comput. Sci., vol. 13, no. 6, 2024.
    18. [18] F. Filgueiras, “Artificial intelligence and education governance,” Educ. Citizsh. Soc. Justice, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 349–361, 2024.
    19. [19] [19] O. A. Ajani, B. T. Gamede, and S. Govender, “Cultural and ethical dimensions of learning management system adoption in rural universities: Exploring data privacy, algorithmic bias, and contextual realities,” Multidiscip. Sci. J, vol. 8, p. 2026142, 2025.
    20. [20] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Thematic analysis: A practical guide,” 2021.
    21. [21] B. Williamson, “Digital policy sociology: Software and science in data-intensive precision education,” Crit. Stud. Educ., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 354–370, 2021.
    22. [22] S. L. von Winckelmann, “Predictive algorithms and racial bias: a qualitative descriptive study on the perceptions of algorithm accuracy in higher education,” Inf. Learn. Sci., vol. 124, no. 9–10, pp. 349–371, 2023.
    23. [23] R. Sari, A. R. Oktori, M. M. A. Utama, T. N. Ibad, and A. Auzai, “Challenges in Primary Education for Developing a Future-Ready Generation in the Disruptive Era,” PrimEdu Asian J. Prim. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2026.
    24. [24] X. Xing and Q. Wen, “A human resource evaluation and recommendation system based on big data mining,” Scalable Comput. Pract. Exp., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 5539–5549, 2024.
    25. [25] P. Jarupunphol et al., “Applying Cronbach’s alpha to ensure reliable online testing in e-learning environments,” in Proceedings of the Computational Methods in Systems and Software, Springer, 2024, pp. 120–139.
    26. [26] K. L. Peel, “A beginner’s guide to applied educational research using thematic analysis,” Pract. Assess. Res. Eval., vol. 25, no. 1, 2020.
    27. [27] American Educational Research Association, “AERA code of ethics,” 2021, American Educational Research Association.
    28. [28] M. Leeker, I. Schipper, and T. Beyes, Performativity, performance studies and digital cultures. transcript, 2017.
    29. [29] N. Ettlinger, “Algorithmic affordances for productive resistance,” Big Data Soc., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 2053951718771399, 2018.
    30. [30] K. Holmes and E. Prieto-Rodriguez, “Student and staff perceptions of a learning management system for blended learning in teacher education,” Aust. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 21–34, 2018.
    31. [31] T. Swist, J. Humphry, and K. N. Gulson, “Pedagogic encounters with algorithmic system controversies: A toolkit for democratising technology,” Learn. Media Technol., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 226–239, 2023.
    32. [32] S. Krasmann, “The logic of the surface: on the epistemology of algorithms in times of big data,” Information, Commun. Soc., vol. 23, no. 14, pp. 2096–2109, 2020.
    33. [33] C. O’Neil, H. Sargeant, and J. Appel, “Explainable fairness in regulatory algorithmic auditing,” W. Va. L. Rev., vol. 127, p. 79, 2024.
    34. [34] M. M. Serrano, M. O’Brien, K. Roberts, and D. Whyte, “Critical Pedagogy and assessment in higher education: The ideal of ‘authenticity’in learning,” Act. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 2018.
    35. [35] M. Byrka, A. Sushchenko, V. Luchko, G. Perun, and V. Luchko, “Algorithmic thinking in higher education: determining observable and measurable content,” Inf. Technol. Learn. Tools, vol. 104, no. 6, p. 1, 2024.
    36. [36] H. Nowotny, In AI we trust: Power, illusion and control of predictive algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
    37. [37] B. Williamson and A. Hogan, “Pandemic privatisation in higher education: Edtech and university reform,” 2021.
    38. [38] S. Lewis, J. Holloway, and B. Lingard, “Emergent developments in the datafication and digitalization of education,” in Reimagining globalization and education, Routledge, 2022, pp. 62–78.
    39. [39] M. R. Ahmed and M. A. Sidiq, “Evaluating online assessment strategies: A systematic review of reliability and validity in e-learning environments,” North Am. Acad. Res., vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1–18, 2023.
    40. [40] S. Mahamad, Y. H. Chin, N. I. N. Zulmuksah, M. M. Haque, M. Shaheen, and K. Nisar, “Technical review: Architecting an AI-driven decision support system for enhanced online learning and assessment,” Futur. Internet, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 383, 2025.
    41. [41] K. N. Gulson et al., “Governing AI in education: Policy opportunities for building participatory and equitable futures,” 2026.
    42. [42] T. Swist and K. N. Gulson, “Instituting socio-technical education futures: encounters with/through technical democracy, data justice, and imaginaries,” 2023, Taylor & Francis.
    43. [43] P. Landri, “Digital governance of education,” 2018.
    44. [44] S. Grimmelikhuijsen and A. Meijer, “Legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making: Six threats and the need for a calibrated institutional response,” Perspect. Public Manag. Gov., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 232–242, 2022.
    45. [45] K. Dowding and B. R. Taylor, “Algorithmic decision-making, agency costs, and institution-based trust,” Philos. Technol., vol. 37, no. 2, p. 68, 2024.
    46. [46] O. Sahlgren, “The politics and reciprocal (re) configuration of accountability and fairness in data-driven education,” Learn. Media Technol., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 95–108, 2023.
    47. [47] F. Diamond and S. Bulfin, “Care of the profession: teacher professionalism and learning beyond performance and compliance,” Pedagog. Cult. Soc., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 503–521, 2025.
    48. [48] E. Brazauskienė, “Educational decision-making in digital education: a conceptual review of data-driven, data-based, and data-informed approaches,” Rev. Pedagog. Digit., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 63–72, 2025.
    49. [49] J. Atenas, L. Havemann, and C. Nerantzi, “Critical and creative pedagogies for artificial intelligence and data literacy: an epistemic data justice approach for academic practice,” Res. Learn. Technol., vol. 32, 2025.
    50. [50] L. Floridi, “The ethics of artificial intelligence: Principles, challenges, and opportunities,” 2023.

Categories