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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bossert, S., Strech, D.: An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving “understanding” in informed consent. Trials 18(1), 1–8 (2017)
Burgess, M.: Proposing modesty for informed consent. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 2284–2295 (2007)
Cohn, E., Larson, E.: Health policy and systems consent process. J. Nurs. Sch. 39(3), 273–280 (2007)
Custers, B.: Click here to consent forever: expiry dates for informed consent. Big Data Soc. 3(1), 1–6 (2016)
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)
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)
Edelson, D.C.: Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. J. Learn. Sci. 11(1), 105–121 (2009)
Elsen, M., Elshout, S., Kieruj, N., Benning, T.: Onderzoek naar privacyafwegingen. https://www.centerdata.nl/. Accessed 21 Mar 2019
Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th edn. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2017)
Greener, S.: Unlearning with technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24(6), 1027–1029 (2016)
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)
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)
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)
Kadam, R.: Informed consent process: a step further towards making it meaningful! Perspect. Clin. Res. 8, 107–112 (2017)
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)
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)
Myrberg, C., Wiberg, N.: Screen vs paper: what is the difference for reading and learning? Insights 28(2), 49–54 (2015)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Pollach, I.: A typology of communicative strategies in online privacy policies: ethics, power and informed consent. J. Bus. Ethics 62(3), 221–235 (2005)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
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)