Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA 2018)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1014))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Bossert, S., Strech, D.: An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving “understanding” in informed consent. Trials 18(1), 1–8 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burgess, M.: Proposing modesty for informed consent. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 2284–2295 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohn, E., Larson, E.: Health policy and systems consent process. J. Nurs. Sch. 39(3), 273–280 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Custers, B.: Click here to consent forever: expiry dates for informed consent. Big Data Soc. 3(1), 1–6 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Edelson, D.C.: Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. J. Learn. Sci. 11(1), 105–121 (2009)

    Article  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 

  14. Greener, S.: Unlearning with technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24(6), 1027–1029 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  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 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kadam, R.: Informed consent process: a step further towards making it meaningful! Perspect. Clin. Res. 8, 107–112 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Myrberg, C., Wiberg, N.: Screen vs paper: what is the difference for reading and learning? Insights 28(2), 49–54 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  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 

  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)

    Article  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

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Open University, Welten Institute, Valkenburgerweg 177, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Ekaterina Muravyeva, José Janssen, Kim Dirkx & Marcus Specht

Authors
  1. Ekaterina Muravyeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kim Dirkx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcus Specht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ekaterina Muravyeva .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Silvester Draaijer

  2. Welten Instituut, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Desirée Joosten-ten Brinke

  3. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Eric Ras

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Muravyeva, E., Janssen, J., Dirkx, K., Specht, M. (2019). Students’ Attitudes Towards Personal Data Sharing in the Context of e-Assessment: Informed Consent or Privacy Paradox?. In: Draaijer, S., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Ras, E. (eds) Technology Enhanced Assessment. TEA 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1014. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25264-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25264-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25263-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25264-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation