Advertisement

Students’ Attitudes Towards Personal Data Sharing in the Context of e-Assessment: Informed Consent or Privacy Paradox?

  • Ekaterina MuravyevaEmail author
  • José Janssen
  • Kim Dirkx
  • Marcus Specht
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1014)

Abstract

Modern technologies increasingly make use of personal data to provide better services. Technologies using biometric data for identity and authorship verification in the context of e-assessment are a case in point. Previous studies in e-health described a privacy paradox in relation to consent to personal data use: even when people consider protection of their personal data important, they consent fairly readily to personal data use. However, the new European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) assumes that people give free and informed consent. In the context of e-assessment, this study investigates students’ attitudes towards personal data sharing for identity and authorship verification purposes with the aim of optimising informed consent practice. Students with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) were included as a specific target group because they may feel more dependent on e-assessment. The findings suggest that a privacy paradox exists in the context of e-assessment as well. Furthermore, the results indicate that students are more reluctant to share video recordings of their face than other personal data. Finally, our results confirm the effect found in previous studies on e-health: those feeling a stronger need for technologies, in this case SEND students, are more inclined to consent to personal data use. Implications for informed consent practice are discussed.

Keywords

Informed consent Personal data Sensitive data e-Assessment Decision-making Privacy paradox 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This project has been co-funded by the HORIZON 2020 Programme of the European Union. Project number: 688520 – TeSLA – H2020 – ICT – 2015/H2015 – ICT – 2015. This publication reflects the views of the authors only, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackerman, R., Lauterman, T.: Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(5), 1816–1828 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awad, N., Krishnan, M.: The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Q. 30(1), 13–28 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bansal, G., Zahedi, F.M., Gefen, D.: Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Inf. Manag. 53(1), 1–21 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohme, R., Kopsell, S.: Trained to accept? A field experiment on consent dialogs. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2403–2406 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bossert, S., Strech, D.: An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving “understanding” in informed consent. Trials 18(1), 1–8 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burgess, M.: Proposing modesty for informed consent. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 2284–2295 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohn, E., Larson, E.: Health policy and systems consent process. J. Nurs. Sch. 39(3), 273–280 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Custers, B.: Click here to consent forever: expiry dates for informed consent. Big Data Soc. 3(1), 1–6 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Custers, B., Van der Hof, S., Schermer, B.: Privacy expectations of social media users: the role of informed consent in privacy policies. Policy and Internet 6(3), 268–295 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dienlin, T., Trepte, S.: Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviours. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45(3), 285–297 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edelson, D.C.: Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. J. Learn. Sci. 11(1), 105–121 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elsen, M., Elshout, S., Kieruj, N., Benning, T.: Onderzoek naar privacyafwegingen. https://www.centerdata.nl/. Accessed 21 Mar 2019
  13. 13.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th edn. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greener, S.: Unlearning with technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24(6), 1027–1029 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hallam, C., Zanella, G.: Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 217–227 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hallinan, Z., Forrest, A., Uhlenbrauck, G., Young, S., McKinney, R.: Barriers to change in the informed consent process: a systematic literature review. Ethics Hum. Res. 38(3), 1–10 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W., Stick, S.L.: Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods 18(1), 3–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kadam, R.: Informed consent process: a step further towards making it meaningful! Perspect. Clin. Res. 8, 107–112 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M.: Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PLoS One 8(2), 1–11 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., Brønnick, K.: Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: effects on reading comprehension. Int. J. Educ. Res. 58, 61–68 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myrberg, C., Wiberg, N.: Screen vs paper: what is the difference for reading and learning? Insights 28(2), 49–54 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noguera, I., Guerrero-Roldan, A.E., Rodríguez, M.E.: Assuring authorship and authentication across the e-Assessment process. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Technology Enhanced Assessment Conference, TEA2016, pp. 86–92 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviours. J. Consum. Aff. 41(1), 100–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Okada, A., Whitelock, D., Holmes, W., Edwards, C.: e-Authentication for online assessment: a mixed-method study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 50(2), 861–875 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plomp, T.: Educational Design Research: An Introduction. In: Plomp, T., Nieveen, N. (Eds.), Educational Design Research, pp. 10–51. Enschede: Netherlands institute for curriculum development (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pollach, I.: A typology of communicative strategies in online privacy policies: ethics, power and informed consent. J. Bus. Ethics 62(3), 221–235 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN. Accessed 21 Mar 2019
  28. 28.
    Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., Ackerman, R.: Generalizing screen inferiority - does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks? Metacognition Learn. 11(1), 15–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Steinfeld, N.: I agree to the terms and conditions: (How) do users read privacy policies online? An eye-tracking experiment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 992–1000 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taddicken, M.: The “Privacy Paradox” in the social web: the impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 19(2), 248–273 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tam, N.T., Huy, N.T., Thoa, L.T.B., Long, N.P., Trang, N.T.H., Hirayama, K., Karbwang, J.: Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull. World Health Organ. 93(3), 186–198 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tamariz, L., Palacio, A., Robert, M., Marcus, E.N.: Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review. J. General Internal Med. 28(1), 121–126 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: Perception of privacy and security for acceptance of e-Health technologies. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, Pervasive Health 2011, pp. 593–600 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yoshida, A., Dowa, Y., Murakami, H., Kosugi, S.: Obtaining subjects’ consent to publish identifying personal information: current practices and identifying potential issues. BMC Medical Ethics 14(1), 1–9 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open University, Welten InstituteHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations