Advertisement

Understanding Privacy and Trust Issues in a Classroom Affective Computing System Deployment

  • Shaundra Bryant Daily
  • Dante Meyers
  • Shelby Darnell
  • Tania Roy
  • Melva T. James
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8028)

Abstract

Our research group is in the midst of working with teachers to co-design an affective computing system that uses physiological measures, gathered via wrist worn sensors, to understand how students are engaging with classroom instruction. Optimally, our goal is to find new ways of supporting empathetic practices in the classroom by providing teachers real-time (or reflective) feedback on student engagement. In parallel, with our work with teachers, we are working to pinpoint the privacy and trust issues that might be associated with this type of system. The objective of this paper is to present the results of a series of studies conducted to understand the challenges associated with introducing a pervasive affective computing system into classroom environments. While we focus on physiological sensors, the implications apply to other pervasive technologies as well.

Keywords

Affective Computing Privacy Adoption 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Picard, R.W.: Affective Computing, 1st edn. The MIT Press, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reynolds, C., Picard, R.W.: Affective Sensors, Privacy and Ethical Contracts. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, April 24-29, pp. 1103–1106. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lane, N.D., Miluzzo, E., Lu, H.L.H., Peebles, D., Choudhury, T., Campbell, A.T.: A Survey of Mobile Phone Sensing. IEEE Communications Magazine (2010), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5560598 (retrieved)
  4. 4.
    Ameen, M.A., Liu, J., Kwak, K.: Security and Privacy Issues in Wireless Sensor Networks for Healthcare Applications. Journal of Medical Systems 36(1), 93–101 (2012), http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10916-010-9449-4?LI=true CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Furlong, M.J.: Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct. Psychology in the Schools 45(5), 369–386 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., Reschly, A.L.: Measuring Cognitive and Psychological Engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology 44(5), 427–445 (2006), doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mant, J., Wilson, H., Coates, D.: The Effect of Increasing Conceptual Challenge in Primary Science Lessons on Pupils’ Achievement and Engagement. International Journal of Science Education 29(14), 1707–1719 (2007), doi:10.1080/09500690701537973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H.: School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59–109 (2004), doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yazzie-Mintz, E., McCormick, K.: Finding the Humanity in the Data: Understanding, Measuring, and Strengthening Student Engagement. In: Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Wylie, C. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, pp. 743–761. Springer (2012), http://www.springerlink.com/content/v53410867366517m/abstract/ (retrieved)
  10. 10.
    Fredricks, J.A., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., Mooney, K.: Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Picard, R.W., Daily, S.B.: Evaluating Affective Interactions: Alternatives to Asking What Users Feel. In: CHI Workshop on Evaluating Affective Interfaces: Innovative Approaches, Portland, OR (April 2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boucsein, W.: Electrodermal Activity. Plenum Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fenz, W., Epstein, S.: Gradients of Physiological Arousal in Parachutists as a Function of an Approaching Jump. Psychosom. Med. 29(1), 33–51 (1967)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Podlesny, J.A., Raskin, D.C.: Physiological measures and the detection of deception. Psychological Bulletin 84(4), 782–799 (1977), doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marci, C., Orr, S.: The Effect of Emotional Distance on Psychophysiologic Concordance and Perceived Empathy Between Patient and Interviewer. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 31(2), 115–128 (2006), doi:10.1007/s10484-006-9008-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marci, C.D., Ham, J., Moran, E., Orr, S.P.: Physiologic Correlates of Perceived Therapist Empathy and Social-Emotional Process During Psychotherapy. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 195(2), 103–111 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mandryk, R.L., Inkpen, K.M., Calvert, T.W.: Using Psychophysiological Techniques to Measure User Experience with Entertainment Technologies. Behaviour & Information Technology 25(2), 141–158 (2006), doi:10.1080/01449290500331156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mandryk, R.L., Atkins, M.S., Inkpen, K.M.: A continuous and objective evaluation of emotional experience with interactive play environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2006, pp. 1027–1036. ACM, New York (2006b), doi:10.1145/1124772.1124926Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101 (2006), doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rietveld, T., van Hout, R.: Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behaviour. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orwell, G.: Penguin, London (1977,1984)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Culnan, M.J.: Protecting privacy online: is self-regulation working? J. Public Policy Market 19(1), 20–26 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kotter, J.P., Cohen, D.S.: The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shaundra Bryant Daily
    • 1
  • Dante Meyers
    • 2
  • Shelby Darnell
    • 1
  • Tania Roy
    • 1
  • Melva T. James
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing, Human-Centered Computing DivisionClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations