Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education

Sanna Uotinen 1 , Tarja Ladonlahti 1 , and Merja Laamanen 1
  • 1 University of Jyväskylä, , Finland

Abstract

E-authentication is one of the key topics in the field of online education and e-assessment. This study was aimed at investigating the user experiences of students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) while developing the accessible e-authentication system for higher education institutions. Altogether, 15 students tested the system (including instruments for face recognition, voice recognition, keystroke dynamics, text style analysis and anti-plagiarism), developed as part of the TeSLA project. Students also completed pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and attended individual interviews. The findings reveal positive expectations and experiences of e-authentication. Students believed that the e-authentication system increased trust and, thus, diversified their possibilities for studying online. Students found some challenges and emphasized that the e-authentication system should be reliable and easy to use. The possibility to use different kinds of instruments was perceived as an important feature. Students’ willingness to use these instruments and share their personal data for e-authentication varied due to their disabilities or individual preferences. The results suggest that students should have options for what kind of e-authentication they use.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Amigud, A. (2013). Institutional level identity control strategies in the distance education environment: a survey of administrative staff. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1541

  • 2. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1). Retrieved from https://www.thejeo.com/archive/archive/2010_71/bakerpaperpdf

  • 3. Betts, K., Cohen, A. H., Veit, D. P., Alphin, H. C., Broadus, C., & Allen, D. (2013). Strategies to increase online student success for students with disabilities. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(3), 49-64.

  • 4. Chou, C., Peng, H., & Chang, C. (2010). The technical framework of interactive functions for course-management systems: students’ perceptions, uses, and evaluations. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1004-1017. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/66863/

  • 5. Coleman, M., & Berge, Z. L. (2018). A review of accessibility in online higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(1). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring211/coleman_berge211.html

  • 6. EUR-lex. (2019). Directive (EU) 2016/2102. Retrieved from https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2102/oj

  • 7. European Commission. (2010). Communication from the Commission to European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European Disability Strategy 2010–2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe. Retrieved from https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:en:PDF

  • 8. Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate students’ perceptions of online learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056187.pdf

  • 9. Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K. Verstichele, M., & Andries, C. (2017). Higher education students with disabilities speaking out: perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627-1649. doi:10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695

  • 10. Grimes, S., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., & Buchanan, R. (2017). Non-disclosing students with disabilities or learning challenges: characteristics and size of a hidden population. Australian Educational Researcher, 44(4-5), 425-441.

  • 11. Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Garcia-Magarino, I., & Romero, S. J. (2015). Analysis of the perceptions of students about biometric identification. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and teaching Technologies, 10(3), 1–18. doi:10.4018/ijwltt.2015070101

  • 12. Heiman, T., Fichten, C. S., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Keshet, N. S., & Jorgenson. M. (2017). Access and perceived ICT usability among students with disabilities attending higher education institutions. Journal Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2727-2740.

  • 13. Kent, M., Ellis, K., & Giles, M. (2018). Students with disabilities and eLearning in Australia: experiences of accessibility and disclosure at Curtin University. TechTrends, 62(6), 654-663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0337-y

  • 14. Knuth, M. (2016). D5.3 – Instruments technical description and development scheduling. TeSLA Adaptive Trust-Based e-Assessment System for Learning. Retrieved from https://tesla-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/D5.3-Instruments-technical-description-anddevelopmenet-scheduling.pdf

  • 15. Kunttu, K., Pesonen, T., & Saari, J. (2017). Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden terveystutkimus 2016. [A National Survey of Finnish University Students 2016]. Helsinki: Finnish Student Health Service, Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiön tutkimuksia 48. Retrieved from https://www.yths.fi/app/uploads/2020/01/KOTT_2016-1.pdf

  • 16. Ladonlahti, T., Laamanen, M., & Uotinen, S. (2020). Ensuring diverse user experiences and accessibility while developing the TeSLA e-assessment system. In D. Baneres, M.E. Rodríguez & A.E. Guerrero-Roldán (Eds.), Engineering Data-Driven Adaptive Trust-Based e-Assessment Systems. Series title: Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies 34 (pp. 213–238). Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi:10.10007/978-3-030-29326-0. Chapter’s doi:10.10007/978-3-030-29326-0_10

  • 17. Lee-Post, A., & Hapke H. (2017). Online learning integrity approaches: current practices and future solution. Online Learning, 21(1), 135-145.

  • 18. Levy, Y., Ramim, M. M., Furnell, S. M., & Clarke, N. L. (2011). Comparing intentions to use university-provided vs vendor-provided multibiometric authentication in online exams. Campus-Wide Information System, 28(2), 102-113. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/10650741111117806/full/html

  • 19. Lombardi, A., Vukovic, B., & Sala-Bars, I. (2015). International comparisons of inclusive instruction among college faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(4), 447-460.

  • 20. Macy, M., Macy, C., & Shaw, M. E. (2018). Bringing the ivory tower into students’ homes: promoting accessibility in online courses. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal, 1(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v11i01/13-21

  • 21. Mellar, H., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., & Yovkova. B. (2018). Addressing cheating in e-Assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: teachers’ perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(2). doi:10.1007/s40979-018-0025-x

  • 22. Okada, A., Noguera, I., Alexieva, L., Rozeva, A., Kocdar, S., Brouns, F., Ladonlahti, T., Whitelock, D., & Guerrero-Roldán, A-E. (2019). Pedagogical approaches for e-assessment with authentication and authorship verification in Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3264-3282. doi:10.1111/bjet.12733

  • 23. Okada, A., Whitelock, D., Holmes, W., & Edwards C. (2019). E-authentication for online assessment: a mixed-method study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 861-875. doi:10.1111/bjet.12608

  • 24. Patton, M., Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • 25. Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Blagovesna, Y., & Ladonlahti, T. (2017). The potential of the TeSLA authentication system to support access to e-assessment for students with special educational needs and disabilities (Sofia University experience). Proceedings of ICERI2017 Conference 16–18 November, Seville, Spain, 4593–4602.

  • 26. Potila, A-K., Moisio, J., Ahti-Miettinen, O., Pyy-Martikainen, M., & Virtanen, V. (2017). Opiskelijatutkimus 2017. EUROSTUDENT VI –tutkimuksen keskeiset tulokset. [Student survey 2017. Key results of Finnish Eurostudent VI survey]. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture 37. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-500-6

  • 27. Snyder, T. D., Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2018). Digest of Education Statistics 2016 (52nd ed.). NCES National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017094.pdf

  • 28. TeSLA. (2019). TeSLA Project. Retrieved from https://tesla-project.eu

  • 29. Timmis, S., Bradfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Oldfield, A. (2016). Rethinking assessment in a digital age: opportunities, challenges and risks. British Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 452-476. doi:10.1002/berj.3215

  • 30. Verdinelli, S., & Kutner, D. (2016). Persistence factors among online graduate students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(4), 353-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039791

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search