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

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/ Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment : Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education © 2020 EDEN Published version Uotinen, Sanna; Ladonlahti, Tarja; Laamanen, Merja Uotinen, S., Ladonlahti, T., & Laamanen, M. (2020). Developing E-Authentication for EAssessment : Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 23(2), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2020-0013 2020 European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning Vol. 23 / No. 2 – 2020 DOI: 10.2478/eurodl-2020-0013 DEVELOPING E-AUTHENTICATION FOR E-ASSESSMENT – DIVERSITY OF STUDENTS TESTING THE SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATION Sanna Uotinen [[email protected]], Tarja Ladonlahti [tarja.ladonlah[email protected]], Merja Laamanen [merja.h.laaman[email protected]], 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 postquestionnaires 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. Abstract in Finnish Sähköinen tunnistautuminen on yksi keskeisistä teemoista verkko-opetuksessa, -opiskelussa ja - arvioinnissa. Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli tutkia opiskeluunsa erityistä tukea tarvitsevien yliopisto-opiskelijoiden käyttökokemuksia kehitteillä olevasta sähköisestä tunnistautumisjärjestelmästä. Erityistä huomiota kehittämistyössä kiinnitettiin tunnistautumisen saavutettavuuteen. Kaikkiaan 15 opiskelijaa testasi TeSLA-projektin osana kehitettyä tunnistautumisjärjestelmää, johon kuului kasvojentunnistus, äänentunnistus, näppäilyntunnistus, tekstityylianalyysi ja plagioinnin tunnistus. Opiskelijat täyttivät esija jälkikyselylomakkeet sekä osallistuivat henkilökohtaisiin haastatteluihin. Tulokset osoittivat, että opiskelijoilla oli positiivisia odotuksia ja kokemuksia sähköisestä tunnistautumisesta. Opiskelijat uskoivat, että tunnistautumisjärjestelmä lisäsi luottamusta ja siten monipuolisti heidän mahdollisuuksiaan opiskella verkossa. Opiskelijat löysivät joitain haasteita ja korostivat, että sähköisen tunnistautumisjärjestelmän tulisi olla luotettava ja helppokäyttöinen. Mahdollisuutta käyttää erilaisia tunnistautumisvälineitä pidettiin tärkeänä. Opiskelijoiden halu käyttää näitä välineitä ja jakaa henkilötietojaan tunnistautumiseen vaihteli vammaisuuden, tuen tarpeiden tai yksilöllisten mieltymysten mukaan. Tulokset viittaavat siihen, että opiskelijoilla pitäisi olla vaihtoehtoja siihen, millaista sähköistä tunnistautumista he käyttävät. Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 100 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN Keywords: e-authentication, e-assessment, special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), higher education, accessibility, TeSLA system Introduction Integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) in academic studies is a reality at all higher education institutions (Heiman et al., 2017). Online programmes and courses have become a customary part of higher education practices. Some universities are fully online, and traditional universities are increasingly offering blended and online education courses. Eassessment systems follow the same development. Online education provides new options for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) to participate, and thus improves their access to higher education (Coleman & Berge, 2018). European Disability Strategy 2010–2020 highlights the goal of promoting inclusive education and lifelong learning for people with disabilities (European Commission, 2010). It is known that diversity of students as well as the number of higher education students with SEND is growing (Snyder et al., 2018). In Finland, the results of a national survey of higher education students revealed that 8.2% of students have a learning difficulty, illness or disability that affects their learning (Kunttu et al., 2017). While looking at special educational needs of students in larger context, the number is even higher. According to Eurostudent survey, 28% of Finnish higher education students had chronic illness, mental health problems, physical restriction, sensory disability, learning difficulty (ADHD, dyslexia), other long-term health problem, physical restriction or disability (Potila et al., 2017). 70% of those students informed that this hampered their studying. It is also likely that the proportion of students with disabilities in higher education is undervalued and the number is larger than reported (Grimes et al, 2017). For various reasons, students do not always want to disclose disabilities, even if doing so would enable them to receive better support (Grimes et al., 2017; Kent et al., 2018). In Verdinelli and Kutner’s (2016) study, students experienced discrimination due to their disability in the traditional education environment, but in the online environment, they did not endure stigmatization or stereotypical treatment. In addition, participants experienced a greater sense of control and academic efficacy when studying online (Verdinelli & Kutner, 2016). Thus, teachers instruct diverse students enrolled in higher education courses without knowing their special educational needs (Lombardi et al., 2015). In the context of online education, recognizing students’ special educational needs can be even more difficult than in traditional campus education. Therefore, accessibility must be a self-evident part of the online course design, not something to address after a student has disclosed a disability (Betts et al., 2013; Ladonlahti et al., 2020). Accessibility means that “people with disabilities have access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, transportation, information and communications technologies and systems (ICT) and other facilities and services” (European Commission 2010; p.5). Directive (EU) 2016/2102 is aimed at ensuring that all websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies are accessible, so that everyone can access and understand the meaning of the content (EUR-lex, 2019). Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 101 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN Inclusive and accessible online learning requires an approach that addresses both technology and pedagogy (Kent et al., 2018). Access to education should always mean that, for example, course contents, learning activities and all services that students need are accessible (Betts et al. 2013). If online education is created in an accessible way, this will open up more possibilities for all students to study (see Macy et al., 2018). The need for student authentication and authorship verification in online education Although online education offers many benefits, like new ways of representing knowledge and increased flexibility of studying (Timmis et al., 2016), it also raises new issues to consider. Amigud (2013) reminds us that new technologies may facilitate cheating. In addition, in Mellar et al.’s (2018) study, teachers expected cheating to become a greater problem with the increased use of eassessment. Many higher education instructors saw an effective e-authentication system as a prerequisite for the larger use of e-assessment (Mellar et al., 2018). Researchers and higher education staff have acknowledged the need for reliable ways to confirm students’ identities. There is a need to develop systems for student authentication and authorship verification. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the systems are accessible for a diversity of students as well as those using assistive technology (e.g. Amigud, 2013; Mellar et al., 2018). Username and password identification are often used to control access to the online learning environment, but this is an inadequate approach to authentication (Amigud, 2013). Some systems also deploy biometric technologies (Amigud, 2013; Lee-Post & Hapke, 2017). Lee-Post and Hapke (2017) argue that biometric-based authentication solutions require the use of special devices. In addition, concerns have been raised about data security and privacy issues in dealing with sensitive user data (Lee-Post & Hapke, 2017). However, universities seem to enjoy the status of trustworthy operators. Levy et al. (2011) indicate that students taking online courses are more willing to share their biometric data with the university than with a private vendor offering the same service. Guillén-Gámez et al. (2015) recommend the gradual introduction of biometric authentication systems for students online. Students who used biometric authentication in their study were more favourable to, and comfortable with, it and appreciated the implementation of this technology compared to those students who had not tested the software. In Okada, Noguera, et al.’s (2019) study, teaching staff believed that the e-authentication system would increase students’ awareness of cheating and plagiarism. However, they also believed that it would not be possible to prevent fraud totally. In Okada, Whitelock, et al.’s (2019) study, e-authentication for online assessments was received rather positively by students. E-authentication should offer more possibilities for assessment, for example with the flexibility of time or place to study. Nevertheless, students with disabilities, on average, had various concerns and relatively negative attitudes towards e-authentication due to their lack of confidence and concerns about their limitations (Okada, Whitelock, et al., 2019). It appears that students with SEND do not find e-authentication completely suitable for them and their needs are not sufficiently recognized. This underlines the importance of SEND students’ role as partners when developing e-authentication system for e-assessment. Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 102 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN E-authentication system to verify authentication and authorship online Developing and testing the system for verifying students’ authentication and authorship in a digital learning environment (DLE) was the main focus of the TeSLA project (Adaptive Trust-Based eAssessment System for Learning). The TeSLA project (Horizon 2020) involved 18 partners: eight universities, three quality agencies, four research centres and three technological companies. The project was committed to accessibility – that is, students with SEND were included as potential users of the TeSLA system. The developed system was tested at seven pilot universities in 2016– 2018 (TeSLA, 2019). During the project, five different authentication and authorship verification instruments were integrated into the system (Table 1): face recognition, voice recognition and keystroke dynamics for biometric authentication and plagiarism detection and forensic analysis for authorship verification (Knuth, 2016). Table 1. Instruments integrated in the TeSLA system TeSLA instrument Description Face recognition Instrument analyses visual data, such as images or videos. It compares the characteristics of a student shown on video against the characteristics of the student stored in a database. There must be a camera connected to the computer. Voice recognition Instrument verifies a student’s identity by comparing the characteristics of the voice with a model derived from examples of speech during enrolment. To record audio signals, a microphone must be connected to the computer. Keystroke dynamics Instrument recognizes patterns based on the timing information from pressed and released keys when a student is typing on a keyboard. Anti-plagiarism Instrument detects word-for-word copies in a given document by comparing it to all other documents. Forensic analysis Instrument verifies that a document has been written by a specific author. There must be a set of text files written by the author. All instruments, except plagiarism, required at least two samples from each student to allow for comparing the samples. TeSLA system has been designed for use with commonly available devices like ordinary laptop; therefore, students do not have to supply any special devices (see Mellar et al., 2018; TeSLA, 2019). TeSLA system does not require any special software or hardware. It is integrated to the learning management system. Students need a microphone for voice recognition, a web camera for face recognition and a keyboard for keystroke dynamics. The system is also easy to use. The user does not need any specific education to be able to use it. All the instructions are included in the system. Research questions and methods This study was carried out to investigate user experiences of students with SEND, who tested an eauthentication system (face recognition, voice recognition, keystroke dynamics and forensic analysis), and their perceptions of e-authentication in higher education studies. Plagiarism detection was not part of this study. Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 103 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN The research questions were as follows: • What kind of user experiences do students with SEND have of the e-authentication system? • What are the benefits and challenges of the e-authentication system according to higher education students with SEND? Participants Participants of this study came only from one TeSLA pilot university. Altogether, 15 university students (eleven female, four male) participated in the study. They ranged in age from 20 to 48 years, with most of them having been born in the 1990s. They were undergraduate students in a Finnish university from the faculties of humanities and social sciences, education and psychology, mathematics and science. All participants had special educational needs. The classification of students with special educational needs and disabilities for the research were built together with other pilot universities. According to the information that participants shared, nine of them had reading and writing difficulties or some other specific learning difficulty, two of them were partially sighted, one student had chronic illness, one student had problems with attention and concentration, and two students were deaf and used sign language. Students participated voluntarily. Each student received 10 vouchers for lunch at the student canteen after completing the testing and the interview. In addition, they participated in a lottery to win one of two iPads with all other students who took part in the TeSLA study. Data collection University’s accessibility planning coordinator sent an invitation email to all students with SEND at the university. Those students who decided to volunteer sent an email to the researchers and provided their contact information. After that, researches sent more information (e.g. video recording) explaining about the TeSLA project and about the study to the volunteered students. Students took part in structured, face-to-face tests of the system. The testing was conducted between December 2017 and May 2018 and occurred on the university premises. At the time of data collection, the TeSLA system was still in development. Each test scenario included questionnaires and a face-to-face interview at the end of the session. Before the testing and interview, all students provided informed consent, which presented data protection and privacy information about TeSLA project and the present study. Digital consent form included detailed information about what kind of authentication and authorship verification instruments students are asked to use, what kind of data is gathered, where it will be stored, and how it will be used. Participants accepted the digital consent form by marking a cross. Researches also confirmed participants’ agreement orally, and made sure that test situation can be videotaped, and data can be used for research. The researchers emphasized that students were free to drop out of the study at any time. Students were also able to ask the researchers about the study and pose questions about anything that was unclear. Students tested face recognition, voice recognition, keystroke dynamics and forensic analysis, and the whole test took two-to-three hours per student. The time spent for Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 104 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN all these steps varied a lot, depending mainly on the participants’ speed of reading, speed of typing, personal characteristics of speech and voice. All participants were asked to follow the same steps for the system test (Figure 1). Students logged in with their username and password and accessed the TeSLA Moodle environment. Figure 1. Students’ steps for testing the system They accepted the consent form, which confirmed their participation in the TeSLA project and the present study. Subsequently, they completed the pre-questionnaire. Then students were asked to complete the enrolment activities to initialise (set a baseline for) the system. This involved typing 250 words, providing voice samples and videos of the face and sharing text documents. Next, students performed assessment tasks that involved typing answers to some simple questions, reading answers aloud, keeping the camera on and sharing text documents (Table 2). At the end, students completed a post-questionnaire about their experience of the TeSLA system. Table 2: TeSLA instruments’ enrolment and assessment tasks for the participants TeSLA instrument Enrolment tasks Assessment tasks Face recognition Videorecorded face Keep the web camera on Voice recognition Utter voice samples Read answers out load Keystroke dynamics Type 250 words Type answers to questions Forensic analysis Share text documents Share text documents After completing these steps, students were interviewed. This study was mainly based on the interview data. The aim of the interviews was to obtain feedback on the TeSLA system and instruments and gain knowledge of the experiences and expectations of the e-authentication system. All participants were interviewed individually, but the number of researchers in the test situation varied. To build and ensure a common structure for the test situation, three researchers interviewed the first two students. The rest of the interviews were completed by two researchers, with two exceptions when only one researcher was available. The two students using sign language had an interpreter involved in their interviews. Interviews lasted from 7 minutes to 22 minutes. Interviews were conducted in Finnish; thus, all quotations in the Findings section were translated from Finnish to English by the authors. Each student was assigned an individual number and abbreviation, such as S1. Three dots (…) denote that a quotation was condensed. Furthermore, minor parts of the participants’ (N = 15) pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire data were used. One multiple choice question from the pre-questionnaire and three multiple choice questions from the post-questionnaire data were included in this study to add some extra information about the themes that emerged from the interviews. Students were asked in both questionnaires which types of personal data they were willing to share in the e-authentication process. In the post-questionnaire, students were asked about the main advantages and Log in Consent form Prequestionnaire Enrolment tasks Assessment tasks Postquestionnaire Interview Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 105 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN disadvantages of e-assessment for students. Students also had the opportunity to comment freely on the advantages and disadvantages of e-assessment. Analysis Interviews were audio recorded and the recordings were transcribed verbatim. In total, 70 pages of transcribed text (12-point font size) were gathered from the interviews. The transcribed data were analysed qualitatively using content analysis (Patton, 2015; p.541). The analysis process was inductive, and the unit of analysis was unity of one thought or meaning. The length of this unity was usually a sentence or at least a few words. Qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti was used at the beginning of the analysis to organize the data. Both investigator triangulation and data triangulation were used (Patton, 2015, p. 316). Only one researcher conducted the analysis but discussed the categories closely with the other researchers; therefore, all authors were involved. The main data were derived from the interviews, whereas the questionnaire data were used to verify and identify possibly inconsistent contents, meaning that data triangulation was used to a lesser degree. Findings Experiences of the TeSLA e-authentication system Willingness to share personal data All participants had opportunities to test all instruments, including sharing voice, video of their face and written text, and typing. One student with hearing impairment declined to do the voice recognition, but all other participants attempted to use all instruments. Generally, they felt quite comfortable with sharing their personal data for authentication and had positive perceptions of the different ways of sharing data. In the pre-questionnaire (before testing) and post-questionnaire (after testing), students were asked which types of personal data they were willing to share in the e-authentication process. The question was not directed to any specific situation, but into student’s study context in general. When answering the post-questionnaire all students had the experience of using TeSLA e-authentication instruments. In Table 3, the plus sign (+) stands for a student’s willingness to share information and the minus sign (–) stands for a student’s unwillingness to share. The situations before and after testing are separated with a slash (before/after). Students were more willing to share text-based information than biometric data, including picture or audio data (Table 3). Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 106 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN Table 3: Students’ (N = 15) willingness to share information about themselves before and after testing the e-authentication system Type of information and student’s willingness to share it before/after testing (+ means positive, − means negative) Student description Writing for checking plagiarism Writing for analysing style of writing Still photo of face Audio recording of voice Video of face Keyboard dynamic (personal typing rhythm) Student using sign language +/+ +/+ +/+ −/− −/− −/− Student using sign language +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ Student with reading and writing difficulties +/+ −/+ +/+ +/+ −/+ +/+ Student with reading and writing difficulties +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ Student with reading and writing difficulties +/+ +/+ −/− −/− −/− +/+ Student with some physical challenges and slow speech +/+ +/+ +/− −/+ −/− −/− Student with some learning difficulties +/+ −/− +/+ +/− −/− −/− Student with reading and writing difficulties and some other learning difficulties +/+ +/+ −/− −/− −/− +/+ Student with some learning difficulties, perception difficulties and panic disorder +/+ +/+ −/− −/+ −/− +/+ Student with reading and writing difficulties +/+ +/+ −/− −/+ −/− +/+ Student with ADHD +/+ −/− −/− −/+ −/− +/+ Student with reading and writing difficulties and perception difficulties +/+ +/+ +/+ −/− −/− +/+ Student with limited vision +/+ +/+ +/− +/+ −/− +/+ Student with limited vision +/+ +/+ +/+ −/− −/− +/+ Student with reading and writing difficulties +/+ +/+ +/+ −/+ −/+ −/+ Positive views from all 15 students (before/after) 15/15 12/13 10/8 5/9 2/4 11/12 The questionnaire data showed that there were no big differences in students’ willingness to share information about themselves before and after the testing. Seven out of 15 participants did not change their attitudes at all. In all, students were slightly more willing to share information about themselves after the testing than before the testing. Five out of 15 students developed more positive attitudes towards the instruments, with the audio recording of the voice demonstrating the most Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 113 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN TeSLA system was that it included different e-authentication instruments, thus, offering alternatives for students. When possible, students could determine the most comfortable and suitable approach for them. Otherwise, e-authentication itself may be a new barrier. There can be two kinds of barriers. First, if the system does not work or is too difficult to use, it can create a technical barrier. Second, a psychological barrier may exist if using the system is unpleasant or arouses suspicion. Although the assumption is that e-authentication is performed individually, higher education staff should establish channels where students can ask for support if needed. References 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 Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 114 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN 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://teslaproject.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. Developing E-Authentication for E-Assessment – Diversity of Students Testing the System in Higher Education Sanna Uotinen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Merja Laamanen European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning – Vol. 23 / No. 2 115 ISSN 1027-5207 © 2020 EDEN 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 Acknowledgement This work was supported by the European Commission H2020-ICT-2015/H2020-ICT-2015 TeSLAproject, “An Adaptive Trust-Based E-Assessment System for Learning” number 688520.