Students’ Attitudes Towards Personal Data Sharing in the Context of e-Assessment: Informed Consent or Privacy Paradox?
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.
KeywordsInformed consent Personal data Sensitive data e-Assessment Decision-making Privacy paradox
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.
- 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
- 12.Elsen, M., Elshout, S., Kieruj, N., Benning, T.: Onderzoek naar privacyafwegingen. https://www.centerdata.nl/. Accessed 21 Mar 2019
- 13.Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th edn. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2017)Google Scholar
- 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
- 18.Kadam, R.: Informed consent process: a step further towards making it meaningful! Perspect. Clin. Res. 8, 107–112 (2017)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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