Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Arnout Terpstra

dblp:01/7984 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-3904-8461ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Learning and educational technologies · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection › privacy analysis › privacy models
contextual integrity
0.712023
Online Proctoring: Privacy Invasion or Study Alleviation?: Discovering Acceptability Using Contextual Integrity · CHI 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 1.3contextual integrity framework · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Online Proctoring: Privacy Invasion or Study Alleviation?: Discovering Acceptability Using Contextual Integrity
abstract
Detecting fraud during online exams using proctoring software comes with substantial privacy challenges. Previous work argues students experience heightened anxiety and have privacy concerns. However, little is known about which specific aspects of online proctoring cause these concerns. This study contributes such insights by using the Contextual Integrity (CI) framework to discover how students (N = 456) rate the acceptability of 1064 proctoring information flows with varying information types, recipients, and transmission principles. We find that the acceptability varies considerably depending on the context. Besides exposing obvious privacy violations, we find that, under certain conditions, students consider it acceptable to share data with teachers - despite their lack of involvement in proctoring. Also, the acceptability of sharing highly sensitive information - which should under no circumstances be shared - sometimes increases. We discuss the implications of these and other findings and provide concrete recommendations for educational institutions using online proctoring.
Arnout Terpstra, Alwin de Rooij, Alexander P. Schouten
CHI1