René F. Kizilcec
Olga Viberg
ABSTRACT
The protection of students’ privacy in learning analytics (LA) applications is critical for cultivating trust and effective implementations of LA in educational environments around the world. However, students’ privacy concerns and how they may vary along demographic dimensions that historically influence these concerns have yet to be studied in higher education. Gender differences, in particular, are known to be associated with people's information privacy concerns, including in educational settings. Building on an empirically validated model and survey instrument for student privacy concerns, their antecedents and their behavioral outcomes, we investigate the presence of gender differences in students’ privacy concerns about LA. We conducted a survey study of students in higher education across five countries (N = 762): Germany, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United States. Using multiple regression analysis, across all five countries, we find that female students have stronger trusting beliefs and they are more inclined to engage in self-disclosure behaviors compared to male students. However, at the country level, these gender differences are significant only in the German sample, for Bachelor's degree students, and for students between the ages of 18 and 24. Thus, national context, degree program, and age are important moderating factors for gender differences in student privacy concerns.
- Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 89, 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.027Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sønderlund, A., Hughes, E., & Smith, J. (2019). The efficacy of learning analytics interventions in higher education: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2594-2618, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12720Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reidenberg, J. R., & Schaub, F. (2018). Achieving big data privacy in education. Theory and Research in Education, 1–17.Google Scholar
- Mutimukwe, C., Viberg, O., Oberg, L.-M., & Cerratto‐Pargman, T. (2022). Students’ privacy concerns in learning analytics: Model development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 932–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13234Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joksimović, S., Marshall, R., Rakotoarivelo, T., Ladjal, D., Zhan, C., Pardo, A. (2022). Privacy-Driven Learning Analytics. In: McKay, E. (eds) Manage Your Own Learning Analytics. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 261. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86316-6_1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ahn, J., Campos, F., Nguyen, H., Hays, M., & Morrison, J. (2021). Co-Designing for Privacy, Transparency, and Trust in K-12 Learning Analytics. In LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (pp. 55–65). https://doi.org/10.1145/3448139.3448145Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 438–450.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Li, W., Sun, K., Schaub, F., & Brooks, C. (2021). Disparities in students’ prosperity to consent to learning analytics. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00254-2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tsai, Y., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., & Gasevic, D. (2020). The privacy paradox and its implications for learning analytics. In LAK ’20: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on LearningAnalytics andKnowledge. Frankfurt, Germany: ACM.Google Scholar
- Marshall, R., Pardo, A., Smith, D., & Watson, T. (2022). Implementing next generation privacy and ethics research in education technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53, 737-755. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13224Google ScholarCross Ref
- Watson C., & Nations H.J. (2019). Addressing the growing need for algorithmic transparency. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 45, 488–510. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04526Google ScholarCross Ref
- Milberg, S., Smith, J., & Burke, S. (2000). Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation. Organization Science, 11(1), 35–57.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhang, R., & Fu, J.S. (2020). Privacy management and self-disclosure on social network sites: The moderating effects of stress and gender. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25 (3), 236–251, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Park, J. (2015). Do men and women differ in privacy? Gendered privacy and (in)equality in the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior 50, 252-258.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rice, S., Tamilselvan, G., Winter, S., Winter, M., Anania, E., Sperlak, L., & Marte, D. (2018). Public perception of UAS privacy concerns: a gender comparison. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2017-0011Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rowan, M.& Dehlinger, J. (2014). Observed gender differences in privacy concerns in behaviors of mobile devices and users. Proceedia Computer Science 37, 340-347.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tifferet, S. (2019). Gender differences in privacy tendencies on social network sites: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.046Google ScholarDigital Library
- Weinberger, M., Shitomirsky-Geffet, M., & Bouhnik, D. (2017). Sex differences in attitudes towards online privacy and anonymity among Israeli students with different technical backgrounds. Information Research, University of Borås. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1164311.pdf Google Scholar
- Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henwood, K.L., Parkhill, K.A., and Pidgeon, N.F. 2008. Science, technology, and risk perception. Equal Opport. Int. 27(8): 662–676.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Byrnes, J., Miller, D., & Schaffer, W. (1999). Gender differences in risk-taking: A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boyd, D. & Frener, R., & Trepte, S. (2022). Theorizing gender in online privacy research. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 34(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000327Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vu, P., Adkins, M., & Henderson, S. (2019). Aware, but don't really care: student perspectives on privacy and data collection in online courses. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 23(2), 42-51.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sørum, H., Eg. R., & Presthus, W. (2022). A Gender Perspective on GDPR and Information Privacy. Procedia Computer Science, 196, 175-182.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., & Hart, P. (2011). Information Privacy Concerns: Linking Individual Perceptions with Institutional Privacy Assurances. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12), 798–824.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ifenthaler, D., & Schumacher, C. (2016). Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 923–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9477-yGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Korir, M., Slade, S., Holmes, W., & Rienties, B. (2022). Eliciting students’ preferences for the use of their data for learning analytics: A crowdsourcing approach. In Open World Learning (pp. 144–156). Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jones, K. M. L. (2019). Learning analytics and higher education: a proposed model for establishing informed consent mechanisms to promote student privacy and autonomy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 24.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Slade, S., Prinsloo, P., & Khalil, M. (2019). Learning analytics at the intersections of student trust, disclosure and benefit. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303796Google ScholarDigital Library
- Whitelock‐Wainwright, A., Gašević, D., Tsai, Y., Drachsler, H., Scheffel, M., Muñoz‐Merino, P. J., Tammets, K., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2020). Assessing the validity of a learning analytics expectation instrument: A multinational study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(2), 209–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12401Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viberg, O., Engström, L., Saqr, M., & Hrastinski, S. (2022). Exploring students’ expectations of learning analytics: A person-centered approach. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10980-2Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gray, G., Schalk, A.E., Cooke, G., Murnion, P., Rooney, P., & O'Rourke, K. (2022). Stakeholders’ insights on learning analytics: Perspectives of students and staff. Computers & Education, 187, 104550.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Weber E., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Solove DJ. (2020). “The myth of the privacy paradox”. George Washington Law Review, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010; 86, 1–46Google Scholar
- Hoy, M., & Milne, G. (2013). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising 10 (2), 28-45.Google Scholar
- Milne, G. R., Rohm, A. J. & Bahl, S. (2004). Consumers' protection of online privacy and identity. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(2), 217-232.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22-27.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Madden, M. (2017). Privacy, security, and digital inequality: How technology experiences and resources vary by socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. Data and Society Research Institute. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/DataAndSociety_PrivacySecurityandDigitalInequality.pdf Google Scholar
- Sun, X., Wiedenbeck, S., Chintakovis, T., & Zhang, Q. (2008). The effect of gender on trust perception and performance in computer-mediated virtual environments. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450440211Google ScholarCross Ref
- Milberg, S., Smith, J., & Burke, S. (2000). Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation. Organization Science, 11(1), 35–57.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., & Straub, D. (2014). Examining trust in information technology artifacts: The effects of system quality and culture. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 73-100.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The Role of Gender in Students’ Privacy Concerns about Learning Analytics: Evidence from five countries
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Effects of Learning Analytics on Students' Self-Regulated Learning in Flipped Classroom
The present article is aimed at analyzing the effects of learning analytics on students' self-regulated learning in a flipped classroom. An experiment was conducted with 96 engineering students, enrolled in a subject offered in the Flipped Classroom ...
Gender related correlations of computer science students
In this article, statistical findings obtained by a large survey containing about 120 questions and options are presented. An inquiry using this survey was carried out on a considerable sample of students from four countries of Balkan region, studying ...
Intersections of gender and sexual minority status
The present study refined existing bullying literature by examining differences in risk of three types of bullying victimization (offline only, cyberbullying only, and co-occurring victimization) for four different gender-sexual minority status groups ...
Comments