Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3631700.3664914acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Toward privacy-focused personalization: Designing a learning experience to facilitate privacy-personalization trade-off

Published: 28 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

In recent years, as a result of the emergence of innovative technologies and applications, several solutions aiming to improve the quality of education have been appearing. However, mainly due to the human factor of lack of understanding and trust in these applications, adoption by higher education institutions remained low. In my doctoral thesis, I aim to contribute to overcoming this barrier in two main steps. First, I try to understand more deeply the nature of the existing contrast between perceived benefits and concerns of higher education students regarding one specific application area, artificial intelligence-based personalized learning. Building on these results, I will then design and evaluate a new personalized learning tool, developed specifically with user-centered data privacy and ethical considerations in mind that specifically respond to the identified concerns. The uniqueness of this tool is the transparency and controllability of different levels of personalization, which ensures that each student can freely choose the extent to which they are willing to make their data available in order to receive a personalized learning experience. The effects of this design principle on privacy concerns and learning outcomes will then be tested in multiple lab- and field studies. I believe this project fits well into both the “Personalizing Learning Experiences through User Modeling” and the “Fairness, Transparency, Accountability, and Privacy” tracks of the UMAP conference, which is why I have decided to apply for the Doctoral Consortium.

References

[1]
Annika Bergström. 2015. Online privacy concerns: A broad approach to understanding the concerns of different groups for different uses. Computers in Human Behavior 53 (Dec. 2015), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.025
[2]
C. George Boeree. [n. d.]. Gestalt Psychology. https://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/gestalt.html
[3]
Ann Cavoukian, Scott Taylor, and Martin E. Abrams. 2010. Privacy by Design: essential for organizational accountability and strong business practices. Identity in the Information Society 3, 2 (Aug. 2010), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12394-010-0053-z
[4]
Karl Ericsson, Ralf Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Roemer. 1993. The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review 100 (July 1993), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.100.3.363
[5]
Sandra Garcia-Rivadulla. 2016. Personalization vs. privacy: An inevitable trade-off?IFLA Journal 42 (Oct. 2016), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035216662890
[6]
HolonIQ. [n. d.]. Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2023 Survey Insights. https://www.holoniq.com/notes/artificial-intelligence-in-education-2023-survey-insights
[7]
Weiyin Hong and James Thong. 2013. Internet Privacy Concerns: An Integrated Conceptualization and Four Empirical Studies. MIS Quarterly 37 (March 2013), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.12
[8]
Duha Ibdah, Nada Lachtar, Satya Meenakshi Raparthi, and Anys Bacha. 2021. “Why Should I Read the Privacy Policy, I Just Need the Service”: A Study on Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Privacy Policies. IEEE Access PP (Nov. 2021), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3130086
[9]
Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark. 2006. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist 41, 2 (June 2006), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
[10]
Ting Li and Till Unger. 2012. Willing to pay for quality personalization? Trade-off between quality and privacy. European Journal of Information Systems 21, 6 (Nov. 2012), 621–642. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.13 Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.13.
[11]
Richard E. Mayer. 2004. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist 59, 1 (Jan. 2004), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
[12]
Richard E. Mayer. 2008. Learning and Instruction. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Google-Books-ID: DPpkSwAACAAJ.
[13]
Aleksandra Milicevic, Boban Vesin, Mirjana Ivanovic, and Zoran Budimac. 2011. E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education 56 (April 2011), 885–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.001
[14]
Chantal Mutimukwe, Olga Viberg, Lena-Maria Oberg, and Teresa Cerratto-Pargman. 2022. Students’ privacy concerns in learning analytics: Model development. British Journal of Educational Technology 53, 4 (2022), 932–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13234 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjet.13234.
[15]
Jonathan A. Obar and Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch. 2020. The biggest lie on the Internet: ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society 23, 1 (Jan. 2020), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870.
[16]
U.S. Department of Education. [n. d.]. Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update | Adult Education and Literacy | U.S. Department of Education. https://lincs.ed.gov/professional-development/resource-collections/profile-902
[17]
Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. 2011. Educational psychology: developing learners (7th ed ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
[18]
Alexandros Paramythis and Susanne Loidl-Reisinger. 2004. Adaptive Learning Environments and e-Learning Standards. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 2 (Jan. 2004).
[19]
André Renz and Romy Hilbig. 2020. Prerequisites for artificial intelligence in further education: identification of drivers, barriers, and business models of educational technology companies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 17, 1 (April 2020), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00193-3
[20]
André Renz, Swathi Krishnaraja, and Elisa Gronau. 2020. Demystification of Artificial Intelligence in Education – How much AI is really in the Educational Technology?International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Education (iJAI) 2 (March 2020). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijai.v2i1.12675
[21]
André Renz and Gergana Vladova. 2021. Reinvigorating the Discourse on Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in Educational Technologies. Technology Innovation Management Review 11 (June 2021), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1438
[22]
Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
[23]
John Sweller. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 4 (Jan. 1994), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
[24]
Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright, Yi-Shan Tsai, Hendrik Drachsler, Maren Scheffel, and Dragan Gašević. 2021. An exploratory latent class analysis of student expectations towards learning analytics services. The Internet and Higher Education 51 (Oct. 2021), 100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100818
[25]
David Wood, Jerome S. Bruner, and Gail Ross. 1976. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving*. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17, 2 (1976), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
[26]
Haoran Xie, Hui-Chun Chu, Gwo-Jen Hwang, and Chun-Chieh Wang. 2019. Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers & Education 140 (Oct. 2019), 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599
[27]
Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Victoria I. Marín, Melissa Bond, and Franziska Gouverneur. 2019. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 16, 1 (Dec. 2019), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Exploring College Students’ Perceptions of Privacy and Security in Online Learning: A Comprehensive Questionnaire-Based StudyInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2379722(1-14)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
UMAP Adjunct '24: Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
June 2024
662 pages
ISBN:9798400704666
DOI:10.1145/3631700
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 June 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Awareness
  2. Education technology
  3. Higher education
  4. Personalization
  5. Privacy concern
  6. User modeling

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

UMAP '24
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 162 of 633 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

UMAP '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)35
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Exploring College Students’ Perceptions of Privacy and Security in Online Learning: A Comprehensive Questionnaire-Based StudyInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2379722(1-14)Online publication date: 14-Aug-2024

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media