=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2985/paper3
|storemode=property
|title=Students’ Information Privacy Concerns in Learning Analytics: Towards Model Development
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2985/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2985
|authors=Chantal Mutimukwe,Jean Damascene Twizeyimana,Olga Viberg
}}
==Students’ Information Privacy Concerns in Learning Analytics: Towards Model Development==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2985/paper3.pdf
Students’ Information Privacy Concerns in Learning Analytics:
Towards Model Development
Chantal Mutimukwea, Jean Damascene Twizeyimanab and Olga Viberga
a
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 10044, Sweden
b
University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda
Abstract
The widespread interest in learning analytics (LA) is associated with increased availability of and access
to student data where students’ actions are monitored, recorded, stored and analyzed. The availability and
analysis of such data is argued to be crucial for improved learning and teaching. Yet, these data can be
exposed to misuse, for example, to be used for commercial purposes, consequently, resulting in
information privacy concerns (IPC) of students who are the key stakeholders and data subjects in the LA
context. The main objective of this study is to propose a theoretical model to understand the IPC of students
in relation to LA. We explore the concept of IPC as a central construct between its two antecedents:
perceived privacy vulnerability and perceived privacy control, and its consequences, trusting beliefs and
self-disclosure behavior. Although these relationships have been investigated in other contexts, this study
aims to offer mainly theoretical insights on how these relationships may be shaped in the context of LA in
higher education. Understanding students’ IPC, the related root causes and consequences in LA is the key
step to a more comprehensive understanding of privacy issues and the development of effective privacy
practices that would protect students’ privacy in the evolving setting of data-driven higher education.
Keywords 1
Information Privacy Concerns, Learning Analytics, Students, Higher Education, Model Development.
1. Introduction
Learning Analytics (LA) refers to “the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data
about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and
the environments in which it occurs” [1, p.34]. Although the practices of data collection,
analysis, and reporting are beneficial for improved teaching and learning [2], they are also
associated with the risks of privacy violation of students’ personal information [3]–[5]. One of
the most critical issues is that students’ personal information can be accessed and used for
commercial purposes without student’s awareness and/or consent [6]. Based on that, scholars
highlight the need for further research that takes into account information privacy concerns of
students in relation to LA [3], [7].
Information privacy concerns (IPC) have been identified as a major and central construct
in various studies that have attempted to conceptualize ‘information privacy’ in different
contexts, including social media, commerce, governance, and health care contexts e.g., [9]–
[11]. IPC refer to individual concerns about the possible loss of privacy as a result of
information disclosure to a specific external agent/institution [12]. Such concerns may vary
from the intrusion of an individual’s privacy to potential breaches that can lead to identity theft
[13]. IPC reflect an individual’s perception of his/her concerns/worry for how his/her personal
information is handled by a specific institution, and this is different from his/her expectations,
______________________________________________________________________
Nordic Learning Analytics Summer Institute, 23 August, 2021, Stockholm (online)
EMAIL: chantal@kth.se (C. Mutimukwe); damas3d@gmail.com (J. D. Twizeyimana), oviberg@kth.se (O. Viberg)
ORCID: 0000-0002-5966-7649 (C. Mutimukwe);0000-0002-3249-0599 (J. D. Twizeyimana); 0000-0002-8543-3774 (O.Viberg)
© 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Wor
Pr
ks
hop
oceedi
ngs
ht
I
tp:
//
ceur
-
SSN1613-
ws
.or
0073
g
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
general perceptions, or awareness of how the institution should handle his or her personal
information [10].
Researchers in information system have earlier identified a number of factors, including
awareness of information collection, unauthorized access, perceived vulnerability to
information misuse, experience with Internet use, cultural background of users to be
antecedents to individuals’ IPC [14]–[17]. The consequences of such concerns could range
from individuals declining or refusing to disclose personal information, and/or mistrust of
online service [18], [19]. In the context of LA, all these consequences can slow down and
hinder the adoption of LA, at scale. A stressed by Tsai et al. [20. p.230], “the associated [with
LA promises to support adaptive learning in higher education] issues around privacy
protection, especially their implications for students as data subjects, has been a hurdle to wide-
scale adoption”.
As mentioned above, there is a significance number of studies that have explored IPC in
different contexts (e.g., e-commerce, e-government, e-health, social media), but our analysis
of extant literature shows this matter has so far received little attention in the context of LA.
Studies that explored students’ privacy – sometimes intermingled with other ethical issues from
the student perspectives in LA – focused on expectations, e.g., [21], [22], perceptions e.g., [3],
awareness e.g., [23], and preferences e.g., [24]. To our knowledge, few studies developed
models and/or carried empirical studies to explain the construct of IPC, by together exploring
its antecedents, and consequences.
Researchers suggest that to better address the problems of information privacy within a
certain context, it is crucial to first comprehend the nature of IPC, its root causes, and
consequences from data subject perspective in that particular context e.g., [17], [18]. Moreover,
others stress that IPC is context-specific, and it is important to understand how they may vary
from one context to another or may be shaped by the type of information, the level of
sensitivity, and the types of institutions and data collection and analysis practices [9], [19].
To address the gap in the existing research, this study aims at proposing a model that would
explain the construct of IPC from the student – the primary data subjects – perspective in the
LA context. We explore it as a central construct, between its two antecedents; perceived
privacy risks and perceived privacy control, and its consequences, trusting beliefs, and self-
disclosure behavior. For this study, we consider students from high education institutions since
the prevailing part of the LA research has hitherto been performed in the setting of higher
education [2]. Yet, Slade et al. [8] pointed out that higher education institutions are increasingly
making a complex, but fluid context where governments, business entities, and data brokers
can collect, analyze and exchange information.
2. Research background
2.1. Defining privacy
Privacy is a complex concept that is associated with several interrelated definitions and
interpretations. Some scholars define privacy is the desire of people to have the freedom of
choice under whatever circumstances and to whatever extent they expose their attitude and
behavior to others [25]. Others state that privacy “represents the control of transactions between
person(s) and other(s), the ultimate aim of which is to enhance autonomy and/or minimize
vulnerability” [26, p.10]. Moreover, researchers have suggested that privacy is one's ability to
control information about oneself [27], [28]. Different definitions and interpretations of
privacy have led to the observation that there is a general lack of consensus on what privacy
means. Because of the difficulties in defining privacy and also because the salient relationships
depend more on cognitions and perceptions than on rational assessments, most empiric privacy
research in the social sciences relies on the measurement of a privacy-related proxy of some
sort [12].
In the information systems field for example, there has been a movement toward the
measurement of IPC as the central construct between different antecedents and/or
consequences [12]. Many studies have developed models with the aim of exploring the concept
of IPC from data subjects in different contexts, including ecommerce, e-government, e-health,
and social media e.g., [10], [12], [16]–[18], [29], [30]. However, in the context of LA research
in higher education, the IPC concept from the student perspective has been hitherto unexplored,
and this study aims to fill this gap by proposing a relevant theoretical model.
2.2. Related studies
Unlike other contexts, to our knowledge, there is a lack of literature, related evidence as well
as knowledge that pays attention to and explains students’ IPC related to LA, in the context of
higher education. The vast majority of studies that addressed privacy issues in this context have
been largely focused on the institutional perspective rather than on the student perspectives [7].
Few of the studies that attempted to cover this gap include the study of Ifenthaler and
Schumacher [3]; they conducted a quasi-experimental study for surveying students' preferences
for LA systems, their attitudes toward privacy as they relate to specific types of data, and how
their attitudes influence the acceptance of LA systems. The results revealed that students
consider some types of data (e.g., course enrollment, course results) to be much more important
to keep private than others (e.g., medical data, income, marital status).
In another study, [28] carried out a survey aimed at investigating students' satisfaction with
the practice of LA. Their findings showed students in particular were agreeable to the use of
data to monitor their learning activity, and there was an overall acceptance of data usage to
improve their grades. Jones et al. [31] conducted interviews to see how US students perceive
privacy in relation to LA. The students highlighted that the process of data collection, sharing
and usage should be clear to them. The study’s findings stress that there is a general lack of
awareness among students about the importance and functionality of LA.
Based on the views of students at the Open University (UK), Slade et al. [8] explored
differences between students’ attitudes to privacy and their online behaviors. The results
indicated that there was a lower level of awareness about the collection, analysis and use of
personal data. Also, the findings revealed that there is no obvious relationship between
students’ online frequency, privacy awareness and what they actually do to protect themselves.
The findings also indicated that students trust their university to use their data appropriately
and ethically.
The study of Whitelock-Wainwright et al. [21] developed and validated the instrument
SELAQ to measure ‘ethical and privacy expectations’ and LA ‘service feature expectations’
from the student perspective. The instrument was primarily validated from a UK university.
One of the more recent studies [22] validated SELAQ in other three contexts – Estonian,
Spanish, and Dutch universities – to assess how students’ expectations may vary from one
context to another. The findings show that the model provided acceptable fits in both the
Spanish and Dutch context, but was not supported in the Estonian student context.
In another recent work, Botnevik [32] utilized several privacy principles (i.e.,
accountability, accuracy, anonymity, awareness, consent, data ownership, data security, data
sharing, data preservation, limited access, opt-out, personal access, personal control, purpose,
relevance, trust) as indicators to measure students’ privacy perceptions in LA. The results
suggest that the majority of students accept the use of LA but with data security and consent
as the most important privacy principles for students. Also, Jones et al. [31] carried out an
investigation to understand students’ expectations of privacy issues related to LA, and their
study showed that while students have high expectations of how the university handles their
data, but they also held a self-protective attitude towards personal data.
All in all, a brief analysis of the aforementioned studies highlights that there is already
some research literature in regards to understanding privacy issues and students’ expectations
and perceptions of LA, but there is still limited understanding of the concept of IPC. The
majority of studies investigated students’ awareness of privacy related issues, preferences and
expectations, and overall, the related insights from their studies do not reveal students’
concerns in relation to IPC. Thong and Hong [10] posit that perception of one’s concern for
others’ behavior is different from one’s expectation of others’ behavior. From that, they also
stress that IPC reflects an individual’s perception of his or her concern for how personal
information is handled by a certain institution, which is different from his or her expectation
of how institutions should handle his or her personal information [10]. For example, an
individual may expect an institution to provide adequate protection of his or her personal
information, but it does not necessarily mean that this individual is genuinely concerned about
providing his or her personal information to a specific agent. In the LA setting, “privacy
expectations refer to how the university collects and analyses student data, specifically
encompassing student expectations towards the provision of consent and the security of the
data itself” [20]. This may imply that to investigate students’ privacy expectations can help to
reveal students’ beliefs toward university privacy practices, but not necessarily individual
beliefs or concerns that are based for example, on personal experience and privacy awareness
gained from outside university boundaries.
3. Research Model
The present study aims at proposing a model that explores the concept of IPC from a student
perspective in the LA context. To take one step further toward a more cohesive knowledge
base that can guide a more responsible implementation of LA in higher education practice, we
propose a model that is inspired by the APCO (antecedents–IPC–consequences) framework
proposed by Smith et al. [33], by including constructs originating from the related previous
studies’ results. We have adapted two antecedents; perceived vulnerability, and perceived
ability to control from Dinev and Hart [16]. The motivation to start with these two constructs
is grounded in the fact that these constructs account for concerns an individual can develop
when determining whether to disclose personal information or not. These constucts “are related
to a ‘privacy calculus’ that is, an assessment individuals make that their personal information
will subsequently be used fairly and they will not suffer negative consequences”[16]. Further,
the relationships between them and IPC are based on different interpretations and definitions
of privacy per se [16]. Other previous studies (e.g., [10], [17]–[19]) have been also considered
perceived vulnerability and/ or perceived ability to control as antecedents of IPC constructs.
Dinev and Hart [16] did not consider the consequences of IPC, but they suggested that
future research may include other factors (e.g., trust) that may play an important role in
mediating the control, vulnerability, and privacy concerns relationship. Other studies,
including [10], [17], [19], [33] hypothesized that it is important to not only explore individual
concerns or control-risks but to also explore how these concerns can be translated into trusting
beliefs and information disclosure behaviors, that have also been found important in the
learning analytics setting (Slade et al., 2019). Consequently, in our proposed model we include
two more constructs (i.e., consequences of IPC), namely trusting beliefs and self-disclosure
behaviors.
In summary, the research model (Figure 1) underlying the present research takes into
account five constructs: the mediating variable; 1) information privacy concerns (IPC), two
independent variables: 2) perceived vulnerability and 3) perceived ability to control, and two
dependent variables: 4) trusting beliefs and 5) self-disclosure behavioral. For this study, we
understand perceived vulnerability as “the perceived potential risk when personal information
is revealed and has been considered in the literature as a factor that determines the perceived
state of privacy and individual experiences” [16, p.415], and perceived ability to control as
privacy control as the individual’s beliefs in his or her ability to manage the release and
dissemination of personal information [12], [16]. We consider trusting beliefs as the degree to
which organizations (e.g., higher educational institutions) are dependable in protecting users’
(e.g., students’) personal information [18] and self-disclosure behaviors generally involve
revealing information about oneself to others [34]. The relationship between these constructs
resulted in 8 hypotheses.
Figure 1. Research model
1. Increased perceived vulnerability increases IPC.
2. Increased perceived privacy vulnerability positively affects non-self-disclosure
behavior.
3. Increased perceived vulnerability negatively affects trusting beliefs.
4. Increased perceived ability control reduces information privacy concerns.
5. Perceived ability to control reduces non-self-disclosure behavior.
6. Perceived ability to control increases trusting belief.
7. Information privacy concerns increase non-self-disclosure behavior.
8. Information privacy concerns reduce trusting beliefs.
Below, we present the theoretical foundation of the suggested hypotheses.
4. Research hypotheses
4.1. The effect of perceived vulnerability to information privacy concerns,
trusting beliefs and self-disclosure behavior
The notion of vulnerability emerges from the complex definition of privacy. Perceived
vulnerability describes the perceived potential risk when personal information is revealed and
has been considered in the literature as a factor that determines the perceived state of privacy
and individual experiences [16]. Various studies [12], [34]–[36] have shown that perceived
vulnerability strongly influences individuals’ IPC. Within the context of LA, students are
exposed to a risk of misuse and abuse of personal information that might raise the perception
of vulnerability e.g., [37]. They can be exposed to problems of surreptitious collection of, and
unauthorized access to, their personal information that can be caused by many factors including
insider curiosity or external threats [20]. All these factors contribute to increased perceived
vulnerability on the students' side, and thus, their concerns related to information privacy[16].
Hence, we hypothesize that:
H1: Increased perceived vulnerability increases IPC
The perceived vulnerability is associated with risk that may affect an individual
emotionally, materially, and physically [38]. In the LA setting, one risk that is associated with
students’ perceptions of privacy vulnerability is their awareness of the LAs’ practices of
collecting, analyzing, and reporting personal information. Consciously and unconsciously
students may experience privacy vulnerability regarding the use of their personal data. This
can deter students from sharing their personal information, perhaps even leading them to the
provision of incomplete, false or inaccurate information [39]. Hence, we assume that students
with high vulnerability perceptions should exhibit self-limitation toward disclosing personal
information, such as refusing to give information to an institution because it is considered too
personal. In line with this reasoning, we hypothesize that:
H2: Increased perceived privacy vulnerability positively affects non-self-disclosure behavior.
Malhotra et al. [18] define trusting beliefs as the degree to which organizations are
dependable in protecting users' personal information. Others explain trusting beliefs as
individual's beliefs that an organization (e.g., higher educational institution) will act according
to their expectations, without exploiting their vulnerabilities [40]. To gain users’(students’)
confidence, organizations need to gain trust of the users so that if users were to allow
organizations to access their personal information, this information will be safe and will not be
exploited [41]. It has been also indicated that perceived privacy vulnerability influences the
beliefs of trustworthiness. For example, Dinev and Hart [34] highlighted a direct negative
effect of perceived vulnerability on individual trust on online services or institutions.
Correspondingly, Liu et al. [42] suggest that the higher the perceived risks or vulnerability the
lower level of trust. Consistent with them, we hypothesize that:
H3: Increased perceived vulnerability negatively affects trusting beliefs.
4.2. The effect of perceived ability to control to information privacy
concerns, trusting beliefs and self-disclosure behavior
The ability to control individuals' information privacy is also embedded in the definition of
privacy. Dinev & Hart [16] found that control is one of the major factors influencing privacy
concerns. Other studies showed that low perceptions of control lead individuals to have high
levels of IPC [43], and vice versa for high perceptions of privacy control [17]. Therefore, we
hypothesize that:
H4: Increased perceived privacy control reduces information privacy concerns.
Previous studies argued that when control is not allowed or when the future use of
information is not known, individuals distrust organizations [44], and consider that control is
possible only through limiting self-disclosure [18], [45]. Hence, we hypothesize that:
H5: Perceived privacy control increases non-self-disclosure behavior, and
H6: Perceived privacy control increases trusting belief.
4.3. The effect of information privacy concerns to trusting beliefs and self-
disclosure behavior
Researchers posit that people are more willing to disclose their personal information in online
interactions if they perceive less information privacy concerns e.g., [35], [46], [47]. Moreover,
Steward and Segars [30] also stress that individuals of high level of IPC are prone to non-self-
disclosure behavior such as removing their names from mailing lists and refusing to provide
personal information in the future. Consistent with this, we hypothesize that:
H7: Information privacy concerns increase non-self-disclosure behavior.
A consensus in the privacy-trust literature shows that individuals with high levels of IPC
are likely to be low in trusting beliefs [18]. In addition, Thong and Hong [10] in their study,
confirmed a significant negative effect of IPC to trusting beliefs. From that we also
hypothesized that:
H8: Information privacy concerns reduces trusting beliefs.
5. Conclusion
In this study, we have proposed a theoretical model that aims to unveil students’ information
privacy concerns in regard to learning analytics in higher education. The concept of students’
information privacy concerns is one of the key pillars in a more comprehensive understanding
of students’ privacy. A further theoretical justification as well as an empirical validation of the
proposed model across different higher educational settings and cultures will assist in
developing and practicing more effective practices at different levels aimed at protecting
students’ privacy in online higher education settings.
6. References
[1] P. Long and G. Siemens, “Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education.”
EDUCAUSE REVIEW, pp. 31–40, 2011.
[2] O. Viberg, M. Hatakka, O. Bälter, and A. Mavroudi, “The current landscape of
learning analytics in higher education Olga,” Comput. Hum. Behav. J., vol. 89, no.
July, pp. 98–110, 2018.
[3] D. Ifenthaler and C. Schumacher, “Student perceptions of privacy principles for
learning analytics,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 923–938, 2016.
[4] R. Kimmons, “Safeguarding student privacy in an age of analytics,” Educ. Technol.
Res. Dev., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 343–345, 2021.
[5] J. Park and A. Vance, “Data Privacy in Higher Education: Yes, Students Care.”
EDUCAUSE REVIEW, 2021.
[6] M. Alier, C. Severance, and D. Amo, “Learner Privacy , a pending assignment,” in
Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing
Multiculturality (TEEM’20), 2020, pp. 725–729.
[7] M. Mahmoud, “Learning analytics stakeholders ’ expectations in higher education
institutions : a literature review,” Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 33–48,
2021.
[8] S. Slade, P. Prinsloo, and M. Khalil, “Learning analytics at the intersections of student
trust , disclosure and benefit,” in The 9th International Learning Analytics &
Knowledge Conference (LAK19), 2019, pp. 235–244.
[9] F. Bélanger and R. E. Crossler, “Privacy in the digital age: A review of information
privacy research in information systems,” MIS Q., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1017–1041, 2011.
[10] W. Hong and J. Y. L. Thong, “Internet Privacy Concerns: An Integrated
Conceptualization and Four Empirical Studies,” MIS Q., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 275–298,
2013.
[11] D. K. Rath and A. Kumar, “Information privacy concern at individual , group ,
organization and societal level - a literature review,” Vilakshan - XIMB J. Manag., no.
January, 2021.
[12] H. Xu, T. Dinev, J. Smith, and P. Hart, “Information Privacy Concerns : Linking
Individual Perceptions with Institutional Privacy Assurances.,” J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol.
12, no. 12, pp. 798–824, 2011.
[13] S. Bandyopadhyay, “Antecedents And Consequences Of Consumers Online Privacy
Concerns,” J. Bus. Econ. Res., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 41–48, 2009.
[14] H. J. Smith, S. J. Milberg, and S. J. Burke, “Information Privacy: Measuring
Individuals’ Concerns about Organizational Practices,” Manag. Inf. Syst. Q., vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 167–196, 1996.
[15] S. Bellman, E. J. Johnson, S. J. Kobrin, and G. L. Lohse, “International differences in
information privacy concerns: A global survey of consumers,” Inf. Soc., vol. 20, no. 5,
pp. 313–324, 2004.
[16] T. Dinev and P. Hart, “Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents - measurement
validity and a regression model,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 413–422,
2004.
[17] Y. Chang, S. F. Wong, C. F. Libaque-Saenz, and H. Lee, “The role of privacy policy
on consumers’ perceived privacy,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1–15, 2018.
[18] N. K. Malhotra, S. S. Kim, and J. Agarwal, “Internet users’ information privacy
concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol.
15, no. 4, pp. 336–355, 2004.
[19] C. Mutimukwe, E. Kolkowska, and Å. Grönlund, “Information privacy in e-service :
Effect of organizational privacy assurances on individual privacy concerns ,
perceptions , trust and self-disclosure behavior,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 37, no. 1, 2020.
[20] Y. Tsai, A. Whitelock-wainwright, and D. Gasevic, “The privacy paradox and its
implications for learning analytics,” in the 10th International Conference on
LearningAnalytics andKnowledge was formally introduced to students, we set out to
explore student (LAK ’20), 2020, no. March.
[21] A. Whitelock-wainwright, D. Gasevic, Y. S. Tsai, R. Tejeiro, and K. Bennett, “The
Student Expectations of Learning Analytics Questionnaire,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn.,
vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 633–666, 2019.
[22] A. Whitelock-wainwright, D. Gasevic, Y.-S. Tsai, and H. Drachsler, “Assessing the
validity of a learning analytics expectation instrument : A Assessing the validity of a
learning analytics expectation instrument : A multinational study,” J. Comput. Assist.
Learn., no. February, 2020.
[23] P. Vu, M. Adkins, and S. Henderson, “Aware , but Don ’ t Really Care : Student
Perspectives on Privacy and Data Collection in Online Courses,” J. Open, Flex.
Distance Learn., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 42–51, 2020.
[24] K. M. L. Jones, “Learning analytics and higher education : a proposed model for
establishing informed consent mechanisms to promote student privacy and autonomy,”
Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 16, no. 24, 2019.
[25] A. F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967.
[26] S. T. Margulis, “Conceptions of privacy: current status and next steps,” J. Soc. Issues,
vol. 33, 1977.
[27] F. Bélanger, J. Hiller, and W. J. Smith, “Trustworthiness in Electronic Commerce: The
Role of Privacy, Security, and Site Attributes,” J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., vol. 11, 2002.
[28] E. F. Stone, D. G. Gardner, H. G. Gueutal, and S. McClure, “A Field Experiment
Comparing Information-Privacy Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes Across Several Types
of Organizations,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 459–468, 1983.
[29] M. . Culnan and P. K. Armstrong, “Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness
and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation.,” Organ. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 104–
115, 1999.
[30] K. a Stewart, A. H. Segars, and H. Albert, “Examination Empirical for Information
Privacy of the Concern Instrument,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 36–49, 2002.
[31] K. M. L. Jones et al., “‘ We ’ re being tracked at all times ’ : Student perspectives of
their privacy in relation to learning analytics in higher education,” J. Acad. Libr. Inf.
Sci. Technol., vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 1044–1059, 2020.
[32] S. Botnevik, “Student Perceptions of Privacy in Learning Analytics : A Quantitative
Study of Norwegian Students,” University of Bergen, 2021.
[33] H. J. Smith, T. Dinev, and H. Xu, “Information Privacy Research: An interdisciplinary
Review.,” Mis Q., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 989–1015, 2011.
[34] T. Dinev and P. Hart, “An Extended Privacy Calculus Transactions Model for E-
Commerce Transactions,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 61–80, 2006.
[35] T. Dinev and P. Hart, “Internet Privacy Concerns and Social Awareness as
Determinants of Intention to Transact,” Int. J. Electron. Commer., vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
7–29, 2006.
[36] H. Xu, H. Teo, B. C. Y. Tan, and R. Agarwal, “Effects of Individual Self-Protection ,
Industry Self-Regulation , and Government Regulation on Privacy Concerns : A Study
of Location-Based Services.,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1342–1363, 2012.
[37] P. Prinsloo and S. Slade, “Student privacy self-management : implications for learning
analytics Student privacy self-management : implications for learning analytics,” in
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And
Knowledge, 2015, no. March.
[38] Y. Moon, “Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from
consumers.,” J. Consum. Res., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 323–339, 2000.
[39] D. a Abri, T. Mcgill, and M. Dixon, “Examining the Impact of E-Privacy Risk
Concerns on Citizens’ Intentions to Use E-Government Services: An Oman
Perspective,” J. Inf. Priv. Secur., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3–26, 2009.
[40] P. A. Pavlou and M. Fygenson, “Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior.,” Manag. Inf. Syst. Q., vol.
30, no. 1, pp. 115–143, 2006.
[41] J. Wirtz and M. O. Lwin, “Regulatory Focus Theory, Trust and Privacy Concern,” J.
Serv. Res., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 190–205, 2009.
[42] C. Liu, J. Marchewka, J. Lu, and C.-S. Yu, “Beyond cocnern a privacy-trust-behavior
intention model of electronic commerce.,” Inf. Manag., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 289–304,
2005.
[43] C. F. Libaque-Sáenz, S. F. Wong, Y. Chang, Y. W. Ha, and M. C. Park,
“Understanding antecedents to perceived information risks: An empirical study of the
Korean telecommunications market,” Inf. Dev., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 91–106, 2016.
[44] S. Taddei and B. Contena, “Privacy, trust and control: Which relationships with online
self-disclosure?,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 821–826, 2013.
[45] R. Clarke, “Beyond the OECD Guidelines: Privacy Protection for the 21st Century,”
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra, 2000. [Online]. Available:
http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/PP21C.html.
[46] T. Dinev, P. Hart, and M. R. Mullen, “Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about
government surveillance - An empirical investigation,” J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., vol. 17,
no. 3, pp. 214–233, 2008.
[47] M. Mousavizadeh and D. J. Kim, “A Study of the Effect of Privacy Assurance
Mechanisms on Self-disclosure in Social Networking Sites from the View of
Protection Motivation Theory,” in International Conference on Information Systems,
2015, pp. 1–20.