The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online
Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia
Basmah Almekhled
1,2 a
and Helen Petrie
1b
1
Department of Computer Science, University of York, Heslington East, York, U.K.
2
College of Computing and Informatics, Saudi Electronic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Keywords: Online Higher Education, Privacy and Security Concerns in Online Teaching, Trust in Online Teaching,
Videoconferencing Technologies, Webcam Use.
Abstract: Higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly using online teaching, particularly since the COVID-19
pandemic. Numerous digital technologies are now used in online teaching, such as videoconferencing for
online classes. This has raised privacy and security concerns for students, as well as a reluctance to have
webcams on during online classes. This study investigated the privacy and security concerns in online
teaching of HEI students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), as well as their trust in a range of actors and
entities involved in online teaching. It also investigated their use of webcams and their reasons for having
their webcams off during online classes. The study was conducted in the real-world context of online courses
at a HEI in KSA. It found high levels of concern about online privacy in relation to the institution, but
moderate levels in relation to instructors and classmates and in relation to online security. Complex,
unexpected relationships were found between online privacy and security concerns and trust. As with previous
research, students were reluctant to have their webcams on for a variety of reasons, often concerned with
privacy of personal information. Only trust in instructors was a significant predictor of whether students were
likely to have their webcams on during online classes.
1 INTRODUCTION
Online teaching has become increasingly popular in
recent years, especially since the COVID-19
pandemic. Although many higher education
institutions (HEIs) were already using online systems
such as virtual learning environments (VLEs) before
the pandemic, the use of a range of different digital
technologies greatly increased when HEIs moved to
fully or nearly fully online teaching as a result of the
pandemic. The move to online teaching has also
highlighted issues around the privacy and security of
these technologies for students.
A number of studies in different countries have
investigated HEI students’ privacy and security
concerns about online teaching during the pandemic.
These concerns include being recorded without
permission during online classes, not knowing where
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9985-7869
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0100-9846
personal information and recordings are stored and
who has access to them, unauthorised people entering
and disrupting online classes, and the need to have
webcams on during online classes. Cultural and
contextual variations add layers of complexity in
understanding these concerns.
Our study explores the relationships between
privacy, security, and various forms of trust in online
teaching. Trust can take various forms, for example
interpersonal, institutional, and technological. It may
play an important role in students’ experience of
online teaching. This study also explores the use of
videoconferencing technology, particularly the use of
webcams, in online teaching. Previous research has
identified students' reservations about webcam use,
relating to anxiety, shyness, and privacy issues.
Our research questions are:
RQ1: For HEI students in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA), what are the levels of concern about
66
Almekhled, B. and Petrie, H.
The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
DOI: 10.5220/0012616200003693
Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2024) - Volume 1, pages 66-77
ISBN: 978-989-758-697-2; ISSN: 2184-5026
Proceedings Copyright © 2024 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda.

online privacy, security and trust in a range of actors
and entities in online teaching?
RQ2: For KSA HEI students, what is the relationship
between trust in different actors and entities in online
teaching and their privacy and security concerns
about online teaching?
RQ3: For KSA HEI students, what are the levels of
webcam use and attitudes to webcams in online
teaching?
RQ4: With respect to privacy and security concerns
and trust in online teaching, how do these affect KSA
students’ use of webcams in online teaching?
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Students’ Privacy and Security
Concerns in Online Teaching
Many researchers fail to discuss what they
specifically mean by online privacy and security
concerns when discussing these concepts. However,
the privacy and security issues of online teaching
have been analysed for a number of different
contexts, including privacy in collaborative tasks
(Patil & Kobsa, 2005), protecting students' privacy
and security in online teaching environments (by this
term we mean not just the VLE, but the whole
environment, which may include a range of
technologies) (Anwar & Greer, 2012), preserving
students' personal and private information during
online discussions (Booth, 2012), and maintaining
privacy on social networking sites used for online
teaching (Salmon et al., 2015).
Recently, Kularski and Martin (2021) conducted
a systematic review of issues related to online privacy
for HEI students and identified 41 relevant papers.
Most of these papers focused on students’ online
privacy on social network sites and their online
privacy beliefs and behaviours in those environments.
However, the authors identified a lack of research on
privacy concerns in online classes and students’
perceptions of interacting and sharing information in
online teaching environments.
Since online teaching environments allow
students to interact, edit, share, and study using
personal and private information sources, security
concerns have also gained importance. As a result, it
is critical to restrict access to information and
resources to authorised users and to safeguard the
privacy, accessibility, and integrity of the online
teaching environment for those users (Aldheleai et al.,
2015). Students' information should not be
compromised by an online teaching environment, and
it should be well secured (Zhang & Nunamaker,
2003). For instance, it matters whether or not students
are being recorded during online classes, as well as
who may access the recordings (especially academic
staff members) and where the recordings will be
stored.
Greater dependence on digtal technologies for
teaching has brought a new set of online privacy
concerns for both students and instructors. Privacy
concerns differ by context and might shift over time
among different communities. New privacy concerns
may arise, and privacy agreements may need to be
amended and tailored to new sets of people or a new
context (Martin, 2016). In a recent study exploring
the attitudes and concerns of HEI students regarding
the use of technology in online teaching and studying,
distinctions emerged between Saudi Arabian and
British students regarding their concerns about online
privacy and security about the use of chat
technologies (Almekhled & Petrie, 2023a & b).
Nevertheless, both Saudi and British students showed
similar concerns related to online privacy and security
when considering the use of video conferencing for
online teaching. Also, British students' ratings of their
concerns about online security and privacy were low,
but further investigation through open-ended
questions revealed concerns such as unauthorised
recording of online classes, disruptions during
classes, and uncertainty about data access.
Smith et al. (2011) noted that it can be practically
impossible to assess privacy overall when
considering the diverse definitions of privacy. Given
that privacy depends on context, and its measurement
will likewise depend on context. The choice of
privacy concern measurement scales in this study is
driven by a consideration of the online teaching
context. Numerous researchers have developed scales
to measure online privacy concerns. For example, the
scales about Internet users’ concerns about the
privacy of their information developed by Malhotra
et al. (2004) and Buchanan et al. (2007) were not used
due to their emphasis on general technology-related
concerns and lack of consideration of crucial
dimensions in online teaching. Liu et al.'s (2018)
scale was also considered unsuitable as it measures
privacy risk rather than concerns about privacy.
In contrast, the Concern for Information Privacy
Scale (CFIP), initially developed by Smith et al.
(1996) and later adapted by Peng and Dutta (2022),
was selected due to its suitability in evaluating the
privacy concerns of students about online teaching.
This scale addresses a broad range of concerns related
to personal information and its reliability in the
context of online teaching research has been
The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia
67

demonstrated. In addition, the scale developed by
Kim (2021) is useful in providing an understanding
of students' privacy and security concerns during
online classes. It allows for the identification of
specific concerns, such as unauthorised access and
monitoring during online classes. Finally, we
developed new items to measure privacy concerns
about the student’s location and personal space in
online teaching classes and concerns about the
privacy of information in a range of different online
teaching situations. These were developed as they
were considered important concepts to measure but
were not covered by previous scales.
2.2 Trust in Online Teaching
As with privacy, researchers highlight the complex
nature of trust, and have developed a number of
definitions emphasising different aspects of the
concept. McEvily et al. (2003) gave a definition of
trust as "an expectation, a willingness to be
vulnerable, and a risk-taking act". On the other hand,
Fukuyama (1996) and Van Houtte (2007) emphasized
the communal dimension of trust, defining it as "an
expectation that other members of the community
will behave cooperatively and honestly". Tierney
(2006) introduced the idea that trust is not a static
concept but rather a dynamic process, involving a
series of interactions characterized by risk-taking or
faith. For this study we defined trust as a "firm belief
in the competence of an entity to act dependably,
securely, and reliably within a specific context"
(based largely on the definition from Grandison &
Sloman, 2000). In the context of online teaching, this
belief is what the students have in their instructors and
their classmates and the VLE they are using, as well
as the institution as a whole.
According to Ejdys (2018), research on trust in
technology has considered multiple trust types such
as interpersonal trust, institutional, organizational and
trust in technology per se. In the context of online
teaching, interpersonal trust can take two forms:
within the community of students and the trust
between students and their instructor. In terms of trust
within the community of students, this type of trust is
the assumption that other community members (i.e.,
other students) will behave cooperatively and
honestly (Rice & Schroeder, 2021). In terms of trust
in instructors, according to Cavanagh et al. (2018)
students’ trust in their instructors can be defined as
the belief that the instructor understands the
challenges that students face as they advance through
the course, accepts students for who they are, and
cares about their educational welfare.
Another type of trust is that in an organisation or
institution such as an HEI. Trust in an organisation
can be defined as individuals' positive expectations
about an organisation (Luhmann, 1979; Misztal,
1996). In the context of online teaching, this type of
trust means that students have positive expectations
about their institution that reflect the institution’s care
for its students, its implementation of principles of
ethics and social responsibility in its activities, and its
offering of opportunities for the personal
development of its students.
Thus, trust in online teaching covers a range of
components, reflecting trust in different actors
(instructors, other students) and entities, both
organisational (the institution) and technological (the
VLE, as well as other digital technologies such as
video conferencing, chat, webcams, microphones
which may be used in online teaching). Participating
in online teaching, like all teaching, involves sharing
one’s opinions, information and knowledge, but also
in the case of online teaching, potentially one’s
location and physical environment (e.g., a view of
some of one’s house) with potentially
considerable
self-disclosure. Self-disclosure may lead to privacy
concerns involving such personal information and
how this is shared with others and used by them
(Joinson & Paine, 2006). Self and personal
information disclosure may be very dependent on
trust (Briggs et al., 2004). Trust reduces the perceived
risks of disclosing self and personal information
(Anwar and Greer, 2012; Steel, 1991).
Due to its importance, we investigated the impact
of different types of trust on students' concerns about
privacy and security in online teaching.
2.3 Use of Webcams in Online
Teaching
Previous research has explored the role of webcams
in videoconferencing technologies and their potential
impact on engagement, interaction and learning in
online teaching classes. The expectation is that the
use of webcams can facilitate a more direct and
personal connection between students and instructors,
leading to increased engagement and more active and
meaningful interaction (Giesbers et al., 2013; Gillies,
2008).
A number of studies have investigated HEI
students’ attitudes to the use of webcams in online
teaching and specifically why students do not want to
have their webcams on during online classes
(Almekhled & Petrie 2023a; Bedenlier et al., 2021;
Castelli & Sarvary, 2021; Dixon & Syred, 2022;
Gherheș et al., 2021). These studies have been
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
68

conducted in a number of countries (Saudi Arabia,
Germany, the USA, the United Kingdom, and
Romania, respectively), and all found students were
very reluctant to have webcams on during online
classes. A range of reasons has been found to explain
this reluctance: shyness, anxiety, social norms, and
lack of pressure to turn the webcam on unless the
instructor specifically requests it. All these studies
also highlighted privacy issues as major concerns in
relation to webcam use. However, research has also
shown that if students in online classes cannot see one
another or the instructor, they feel isolated and
disengaged (Pallof & Pratt, 2007; Petchamé et al.,
2022). While previous studies have explored students'
perspectives on webcam use during online teaching,
the connection between privacy and security
concerns, trust, and the use of webcams remains an
unexplored area in the context of online teaching, and
is the focus of our research.
3 METHOD
3.1 Design
A study was conducted in a real-world blended
teaching situation at the Saudi Electronic University
(SEU), a blended teaching HEI in Saudi Arabia. The
study targeted undergraduate students taking a range
of synchronous blended courses in computer science,
at all levels of undergraduate study (i.e., Years 1, 2
and 3).
The study took place in Weeks 10 and 11 of
courses which lasted 13 weeks in Spring 2023.
Students take two classes per week for a course, one
online and one in person. Both sessions are lectures
and last one hour.
Students taking part in the study were asked to
complete three questionnaires: one at the start of the
study, one immediately after attending an online class
and one at the end of the study. The questionnaires
were largely based on previously developed
and
validated questionnaires and measured concerns
about privacy, security and trust in the context of
online teaching. Some additional questions were
developed to cover aspects of concerns about online
teaching not covered in previous questionnaires, such
as concern about sharing information about a
student’s location and physical space, use of
webcams and
concerns about webcam use.
In the information provided to participants, our
interest in participants’ webcam use and concerns
about it was deliberately not emphasised This choice
was motivated by the aim of preventing any potential
influence on participants’ natural webcam behaviour
during the targeted online
classes.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from
both the Physical Sciences Ethics Committee at the
University of York and the Ethics Committee at SEU.
3.2 Participants
Students from eight online courses participated in the
study, these courses had a total of 162 students
enrolled in them. Course sizes ranged from 7 to 35
students enrolled. The courses covered a range of
topics in computer science including decision support
systems, system integration, data mining, web
technologies, operating systems, Java programming,
project management, and mobile applications Four of
the courses were at first year undergraduate level,
three at second year level and one at third year level.
116 students in total took part in the study,
answering at least one of the questionnaires. 108
students responded to the pre-study questionnaire, 72
students to the post-online class questionnaire, and 75
students to the post-study questionnaire.
Demographic information for the participants is
shown in Table 1. The age range of the participants
was surprisingly wide for undergraduate students (20
– 45 years), but 42 participants (41.0%) were 25 years
or younger. The sample had more women than men
(63.0% women, 37.0% men), although the overall
enrolment of women at SEU is 46.3% (2021/2022
figures, figures for 2022/2023 academic year not
available). This over representation of women in the
sample may be due
to the tendency of women to
volunteer for research more than men (Rosnow &
Rosenthal, 2012).
Table 1: Demographics of the participants.
Age
Range
Mean
Standard deviation
20 – 45 years
28.5
6.0
Gender
Men
Women
40 (37.0%)
68 (63.0%)
Level of Study
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
32 (29.6%)
49 (45.4%)
27 (25.0%)
3.3 Online Questionnaires
Three questionnaires were developed and deployed in
the Qualtrics survey software (www.qualtrics.com): a
pre-study questionnaire, a post-class questionnaire,
and the post-study questionnaire. Questionnaires
The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia
69

comprised mainly 7-point Likert items, with some
multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Most of
the Likert item questions were mandatory, but the
open-ended questions were optional.
Pre-Study Questionnaire: measured students'
privacy and security concerns about online teaching
and their trust in different actors and entities in online
environments. This questionnaire included seven
previous questionnaires on online privacy, security
and trust in online teaching, adapted for use in the
current context:
- Privacy concerns in online teaching (11 items,
adapted from Peng & Dutta, 2022)
- Privacy concerns about instructors and
classmates during online teaching (3 items,
adapted from Kim, 2021)
- Security concerns in online teaching (4 items,
adapted Kim, 2021)
- Trust in the VLE (in this case, Blackboard) (6
items, adapted from Ejdys, 2018)
- Trust in the institution (7 items, adapted from
Ejdys, 2018)
- Trust in the instructor (5 items, adapted from
Cavanagh et al., 2018)
- Trust in classmates (5 items, adapted from Rice
& Schroeder, 2021).
A set of new items was also developed, these
measured:
- Privacy concerns about the student’s location
and personal space in online teaching classes (1
item)
- Concerns about the privacy of information in
online teaching situations (3 items).
This questionnaire also collected basic demographic
information about age, gender and year of study.
Post-Class Questionnaire: gathered information
about the use of webcams during online classes. At
the end of the online class, students were asked
whether they had their webcam on during the class
and their reasons for having the webcam on or not.
Post-Study Questionnaire: measured students’
frequency of having their webcam on during online
classes in general (plus a number of other questions,
not included in this paper, so details are not included
here).
The questionnaires were all developed in English
and then translated into Arabic with back translation
to check their accuracy.
A pilot study was conducted with five
undergraduate computer science students. They
completed all the questionnaires and were asked to
assess the clarity of the questions and the time
required to complete the questionnaire. A number of
small adjustments to the questionnaires were made as
a result.
The questionnaires are available from the authors
on request.
3.4 Procedure
The questionnaires were electronically delivered to
students through their SEU email addresses. To
optimize accessibility and engagement, this method
ensured that participants received the questionnaires
directly in their university email accounts. We also
encouraged participation by reminding all
participants to complete questionnaires. Participants
were given an information sheet about the aims of the
study and how their responses would be processed
and stored. In particular, participants were assured
that their individual responses would not be shared
with their instructors or the institution and that only
aggregate data would be shared or made public. The
study was conducted during weeks 10 and 11 of the
2023 Spring semester.
3.5 Data Analysis
The data collected included both quantitative and
qualitative data. The Likert item ratings were often
skewed towards the lower end of the scale, so non-
parametric statistical methods were used. The
Wilcoxon One Sample Signed Ranks Test was used
to investigate whether distributions of ratings differed
from the midpoint of the scale. As the sample size
exceeded 30 observations, the Z statistic for the
normal distribution approximation was used as an
extension of the Wilcoxon
test to compare different
ratings (Siegel & Castellan, 1988). Spearman’s non-
parametric correlations were used to investigate
relationships between groups of measures.
To analyse the large number of items measuring
online concerns about privacy and trust, Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) was used, grouping the
items by topic. Thus, one PCA was conducted on the
18 privacy items, and another on the 23 trust items.
As there were only four items on online security
concerns about online teaching, these were analysed
with Spearman non-parametric correlations, as this is
not enough items to conduct a PCA.
A linear regression was used to investigate
whether a range of measures could predict
participants’ self-reported frequency of webcam use
in online classes.
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
70

Table 2: PCA of privacy concerns about online teaching.
Component 1: Institutional use and protection of
students’ personal information
Universities should never sell students’ personal
information to another organization
Universities should not share students’ personal
information with other organizations unless it has been
authorised by the students
Universities should devote more time and effort to
preventing unauthorised access to students’ personal
information
Universities should prevent unauthorised people from
accessing students’ personal information without
considering the cost
Universities should take more measures to ensure that
unauthorised people cannot access students’ personal
information
Component 2: Information collection by institution
It bothers me when I am asked for personal information
during online teaching classes
I think for a while if I am asked to provide personal
information during online teaching classes
It bothers me to give personal information to so many
different courses for online teaching
It bothers me that so much personal information is
collected during online teaching courses
Component 3: Unauthorised information use by
instructors and classmates
I am concerned that another student will use my personal
information (e.g. captured facial images) without my
permission.
I am concerned that my personal information will be
leaked by another student against my will
I am concerned about my personal information (e.g. facial
expressions, physical appearance, etc.) being exposed
online
Component 4: Privacy during online
teaching (in relation to instructors and classmates)
I am not comfortable with my physical location and
personal space (e.g. my room, my whereabouts etc.)
being seen by other participants in online teaching classes
I am concerned that my instructor will use my
contribution to an online class (e.g. my work being used
as an example) without my permission.
I am concerned that my classmates will use my
contribution to an online session (e.g. my idea provided in
an online group discussion) without my permission.
Overall, I am concerned about my personal information
when participating in online class activities (e.g. online
group discussions)
Component 5: Unauthorised information use by
institution
Universities should never use students’ personal
information for any other purposes unless it has been
authorized by the individual student
When students give personal information during online
teaching classes for some particular reason, the university
should never use the information for any other purpose
Table 3: PCA of questions on trust in online teaching
Component 1: Trust in instructor
My instructor can be described as someone who listens
very carefully to me
It's important to my instructor to understand what my
educational goals are
My instructor understands me
My instructor accepts me for who I am
My instructor is careful not to dismiss my concerns
My instructor cares about my education
My instructor truly cares about my educational welfare
Component 2: Trust in institution
(Name of institution) takes care of its students
Graduates of (name of institution) have no problem
finding a job in their profession
(Name of institution) is well recognised by employers
in the labour market
(Name of institution) applies the principles of ethics
and social responsibility in its activities
(Name of institution) provides opportunities for
students’ personal development
(Name of institution) is recognised internationally
(Name of institution) uses new technology to improve
my studies and gain knowledge and skills
Component 3: Trust in classmates
Overall, the students in my (name of course) class are
very trustworthy
The students in my (name of course) class are friendly
I can rely on my (name of course) classmates
I trust that my (name of course) classmates will keep
my personal information confidential
We are usually considerate of one another’s feelings in
this (name of course) class
Component 4: Trust in VLE
(Name of VLE) guarantees the anonymity of users
In (name of VLE), I can express my opinion about
studies, subjects and instructors without any fear
(Name of VLE) ensures the security of my personal data
(Names of VLE) is efficient and always works reliably
I can rely on (name of VLE)
Table 4: Security concerns about online teaching.
I do not feel secure about the online teaching resources
and tools used in my online teaching classes.
I am concerned that online teaching resources and tools
will not implement appropriate security measures for my
protection.
I am concerned that hacking might occur during online
teaching classes which will lead to the disclosure of my
personal information.
I am concerned that online teaching resources
The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia
71

4 RESULTS
4.1 Initial Analysis of the Privacy,
Security and Trust Questions
108 participants answered the pre-study
questionnaire which presented the questions about
concerns about privacy and security in online
teaching and those about trust in different actors and
entities in online teaching. Separate PCAs were
conducted on the ratings of privacy concerns and
those of trust to investigate whether they formed
meaningful groups for the participants.
The PCA of the privacy concern questions
produced an optimal solution with five components
that accounted for 70.0% of the variance (see Table
2). The components were: Institutional use and
protection of students' personal information
(accounted for 24.5% of the variance); Information
collection by institution (21.8%); Unauthorised
information use by instructors and classmates
(9.1%); Privacy during online teaching (in relation to
instructors and classmates) (7.1%); and
Unauthorised information use by institution (6.5%).
The PCA of the trust questions produced an
optimal solution with four components that accounted
for 62.4% of the variance (see Table 3). The
components were: Trust in instructor (accounted for
26.4% of the variance); Trust in institution (15.7%);
Trust in classmates (11.4%); and Trust in VLE (8.9%).
For the four questions about security concerns
about online teaching all the questions correlated with
each other at p < 0.001 (Spearman non-parametric
correlations), so these were treated as one component,
Security concerns about online teaching.
4.2 Levels of Concern About Privacy
and Security and Trust in a Range
of Actors and Entities in Online
Teaching (RQ1)
To investigate participants’ levels of concern about
privacy in online teaching, their scores on each of the
components which emerged from the PCA were
calculated by taking the median of the relevant items.
The same procedure was followed for the ratings of
concerns about security and the level of trust in
different actors and entities in online teaching.
Participants’ scores on the five components of
concern about privacy in online teaching are given in
Table 5. Participants showed significantly high levels
of concern about Institutional use and protection of
students’ personal information, Information
collection by institution, and Unauthorised
information use by institution, but only moderate
levels of concern (not significantly different from the
midpoint of the scale
) about Unauthorised
information use by instructors and classmates and
Privacy during online teaching (in relation to
instructors and classmates). Thus, their privacy
concerns are related to their institution and the
information it might collect about them and how it
would use that information, but not their instructors
or their classmates to such an extent.
Participants’ scores on their Security concerns in
online teaching are also given in Table 5. These
scores did not differ significantly from the midpoint
on the scale, showing the participants had moderate
levels of concern about security in online teaching.
Finally, participants’ scores in their trust in
different actors and entities are given in Table 6.
These showed that participants had significantly high
levels of trust in their classmates and the VLE used
for online teaching (in their case the VLE was
Blackboard), moderate levels of trust in the institution
(the scores did not differ significantly from the
midpoint of the scale) and significantly low levels of
trust in their instructors.
4.3 Relationship Between Trust in
Different Actors and Entities, and
Security and Privacy Concerns in
Online Teaching (RQ2)
To investigate the possible relationships between
students’ trust in different actors and entities in online
Table 5: Levels of concern about privacy and security in online teaching.
Median SIQR Z p
Privacy concerns in online teaching …
Institutional use and protection of students’ personal information 7.00 0.00 9.40 <0.001
Unauthorised information use by institution 7.00 0.25 9.01 <0.001
Information collection by institution 5.25 1.13 4.49 <0.001
Privacy during online teaching (in relation to instructors and classmates) 4.75 1.35 1.74 n.s.
Unauthorised information use by instructors and classmates 4.50 2.09 1.39 n.s.
Security concerns in online teaching 4.00 2.00 0.55 n.s.
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
72

Table 6: Students’ Trust in Different Actors.
Trust in .. Median SIQR Z p
Instructors 2.00 1.75 -4.49 < 0.001
Institution 4.00 1.25 1.47 n.s.
Classmates 6.00 1.50 5.51 < 0.001
VLE 6.00 1.50 5.83 < 0.001
Table 7: Correlations between privacy concerns and trust in different actors and entities in online teaching.
Instructors Institution Classmates VLE
Institutional use and protection of students’ personal
information
Information collection by institution < 0.005
Unauthorised information use by instructors and classmates
Privacy during online
teaching (in relation to instructors and classmates)
< 0.005
< 0.05
neg
Unauthorised information use by institution < 0.05 < 0.05
Table 8: Reasons why participants leave their webcam off during online classes (N = 58).
Reason N (%)
I am concerned if other students made recordings or screenshots without my permission (e.g., using their
camera phone)
34 (58.6%)
It makes me focus on how I look instead of the course content 32 (55.2%)
I do not know who can access recordings of online sessions or where they are stored 31 (53.4%)
It impairs my flexibility of where I can attend the session from (e.g., attending from a café) 29 (50.0%)
It makes it hard for me to conduct other activities during the class 28 (48.3%)
It makes it hard for me to move away from my computer 26 (44.8%)
It would distract other students 19 (32.8%)
I am concerned that online sessions might be hacked which will lead to disclosure of my personal
information
19 (32.8%)
It overloads the bandwidth I have 18 (31.0%)
I am concerned about my physical location being seen 13 (22.4%)
teaching and their online privacy concerns,
Spearman’s non-parametric correlations were
calculated between the components which emerged
from the PCA. Table 7 shows the pattern of
correlations. There was a significant positive
correlation between concerns about Information
collection by institution and Trust in institution. This
is a counter-intuitive direction for the correlation, as
one would expect that as trust in the institution
increases, concern about privacy issues related to
information collection by the institution would
decrease. But a strong positive correlation (p < 0.005)
was found. Thus, although some students may have
general trust in their institution, they still have
concerns about the information the institution is
collecting about them. Interestingly, there were no
other significant correlations between trust in the
institution and privacy concerns, for example there
was no correlation between trust in the institution and
the institution’s unauthorized use of information.
The was also a strong significant positive
correlation (p < 0.005) between Privacy during online
teaching (in relation to instructors and classmates)
and Trust in instructors. This direction of this
correlation is also counter-intuitive, as one would
expect that as trust in instructors increases, concern
about privacy during online teaching in relation to
instructors and classmates would decrease. As with
trust in the institution, there was no other significant
correlations, particularly between Trust in instructor
and Unauthorised information use by instructors and
classmates.
There was also a significant positive correlation
between Unauthorised use of information by
institution and Trust in VLE. This was another
correlation in the unexpected direction, although the
link between the institution and the VLE is not
necessarily clear. Do students see the VLE as
“belonging” to the institution or as an entirely
separate entity? This point needs further
investigation.
The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia
73

These counter-intuitive and unexpected
correlations suggest that trust in actors and entities in
online teaching is separate from possible privacy
concerns about them. This possibility clearly needs
further investigation.
Finally, there was a significant negative
correlation between Privacy during online teaching
(in relation to instructors and classmates) and Trust
in classmates. This is a correlation in the expected
direction, in that as trust in classmates increases,
privacy concerns decrease. It is interesting that this
expected relationship is with classmates, which may
suggest that because students know each other
personally, their perception of trust in their
classmates is of a different nature to their perception
of other, more remote and in some cases, abstract
actors and entities.
To investigate the possible relationships between
students’ trust in different actors in online teaching
and their online security concerns in online teaching,
Spearman’s non-parametric correlations were also
calculated between these components. There was no
significant correlation between Security concerns in
online teaching and trust in any of the different actors
and entities in online teaching. This result was also
quite unexpected.
4.4 Students’ Use of and Attitudes to
Webcams in Online Teaching
(RQ3)
At the end of one of the online classes during the two
week study period, 72 participants completed the
post-class questionnaire. One set of questions in this
questionnaire was about their webcam use in the
class. 58 participants (80.6%) reported having their
webcam off during the preceding online class, 14
(19.4%) reported that they did not remember whether
they had it on or off and none reported having it on.
In the post-study questionnaire, participants were
asked to rate how often they were turned on their
webcam during online classes in general (scored as
Never = 1 to Very frequently = 7). 67 participants
answered this question. They rated their frequency of
turning on their webcam as very low (median: 1.00,
SIQR: 0.50), the median was significantly below the
midpoint of the rating scale (Z = -6.85, p < .001).
Indeed, 47 (70.1%) of participants stated that they
never turned their webcam on, and only 20 (29.9%)
stated that they turned it on at least occasionally, with
only one participant stating that they turned it on all
the time.
In the post-class questionnaire participants were also
asked why they left their webcams off in online
classes in a multiple-choice question with a set of
options developed from previous research results.
Table 8 gives the frequency of responses (answered
by 58 participants). Two of the three most frequent
answers were about privacy and security of personal
information in online teaching, and mentioned by
more than half the participants: “I am concerned if
other students made recordings or screenshots
without my permission (e.g., using their camera
phone)” (mentioned by 34 participants, 58.6%) of
responding participants and “I do not know who can
access recordings of online sessions or where they are
stored” (mentioned by 31 participants, 53.4%).
Interestingly the first statement is about privacy and
security in relation to other students, whereas the
second is more about privacy and security in relation
to instructors and the institution. Also of note is that
fact that concern about the participant’s physical
location being seen, which we predicted would be a
prominent concern, was only chosen by less than a
quarter of participants (13, 22.4%).
4.5 Relationship Between Webcam Use
and Trust, Privacy and Security
Concerns in Online Teaching
(RQ4)
To investigate the relationship between participants’
webcam use and their trust in different actors and
entities and concerns about privacy and security in
online teaching, a linear regression was conducted to
predict their frequency of webcam use from the other
measures. Overall, there was no significant prediction
of frequency of webcam use from this set of predictor
variables (F
10, 57
= 1.75, n.s.). However, one
individual variable, Trust in instructors was a strong
predictor of frequency of webcam use (t = 2.76, p <
0.008). There was a positive relationship between
Trust in instructors and frequency of use of webcams.
5 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
This study explored the relationship between the
privacy and security concerns of HEI students in the
KSA in relation to online teaching, their level of trust
in the various actors and entities involved in online
teaching and the relationship between these variables.
In addition, it investigated their use of and attitudes to
webcams in online teaching and how their use of
webcams related to privacy and security concerns and
trust in various actors and entities.
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
74

In relation to RQ1, participants showed high
levels of privacy concern about their institution, but
only moderate levels of concern about their
instructors and classmates and about security in
online teachers. This raises important questions about
how HEIs deal with the privacy of students’
information and how they communicate their policies
and actions in that area to students. The levels of trust
in actors and entities in online teaching also produced
interesting results, with high levels of trust in
classmates and the VLE, but low levels of trust in
instructors. Again, this raises important questions for
HEI instructors (and the institutions employing
them), as to why students appear not to trust them.
In relation to RQ2, the correlations between
privacy and security concerns among HEI students in
the KSA and their trust in various actors and entities
in online teaching revealed complex and somewhat
perplexing results. While there were a number of
significant correlations, they were not always the
ones we were predicting or more importantly in the
directions we were predicting, with increased
concerns about the institution and instructors aligned
with increased trust. This suggests that having a high
level of concern about privacy does not necessarily
mean a lack of trust; in fact, it may be associated with
a higher level of trust. Clearly the relationships
between these variables in online teaching needs
further investigation.
These finding are interesting in relation to issues
raised in the literature, which emphasise the
importance of transparent and responsible
information handling in fostering institutional trust
(Teng & Song, 2022). According to Anwar (2021)
institutions need to address privacy concerns and
exhibit ethical conduct to build and maintain trust,
reinforcing the significance of transparent data
practices. In addition, these finding are interesting in
relation to previous work of the impact of trust on
institutions and its influence on individuals' attitudes
towards information sharing (Nwebonyi et al. ,2022).
Ejdys (2018) also notes the significance of
institutional trust in the implementation, adaptation,
and use of new technologies, especially in the public
sector. This highlights the necessity to address not
only the technical functionality of digital
technologies but also the broader societal and ethical
implications, encompassing concerns about data
privacy and security.
The unexpected positive correlation between
privacy concerns during online teaching and trust in
instructors is also interesting. Contrary to
expectations, increased privacy concerns were
positively associated with higher levels of trust in
instructors. This finding does not align with the idea
that a positive instructor-student relationship,
extending beyond academic matters to include
personal understanding, respect, and a genuine
concern for the student's well-being and educational
success, contributes significantly to building trust in
instructors. This result raises questions about the role
of privacy perceptions in shaping interpersonal
relationships within online teaching.
In relation to RQ3, the fact that no participant
reported their webcam being during the online class
agrees with previous research from a number of
countries that students are very reluctant to have their
webcams on during online teaching (Almekhled &
Petrie 2023a; Bedenlier et al., 2021; Castelli &
Sarvary, 2021; Dixon & Syred, 2022; Gherheș et al.,
2021). Thus, Saudi students are no different in this
respect to students in other countries. The most
frequently mentioned reasons for not wanting the
webcam on related to privacy concerns about
personal information, which only partly aligns with
the ratings of privacy concerns in online teaching.
The most frequently mentioned reason was the
concern that other students would make recordings
without permission, but in the ratings, only moderate
levels of concern were expressed about other students
and instructors. It may be that when presented with a
specific scenario, participants did feel this was a
concern. However, there was good alignment
between the reason for not having the webcam on,
which was that participants did not know who could
access the recordings or where they are stored with
the high levels of concern about institutional use and
unauthorised use of students’ information. These
results highlight the fact that the way questions are
worded may affect the outcome, as well as the
complex relationships between these variables.
In relation to RQ4, only Trust in instructors was
a significant predictor of participants’ self-reported
frequency of having their webcam on during online
classes. This makes sense as a finding, and the low
levels of trust in instructors may be a further reason
for not having the webcam on. In this study,
instructors also did not have their webcams on (this is
typical in this institution) and it would be very
interesting to explore whether if instructors had their
webcams on, would that increase trust and encourage
students to have theirs on as well.
The study had a number of limitations which need
addressing. The first is related to the cultural and
linguistic context. All the questionnaires used in the
research were translated into Arabic from English due
to the absence of prior validation with Saudi
participants. The original validation of these
The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia
75

instruments was conducted with samples from North
America, Europe, and East Asia, so their validity for
the Saudi context is not established.
Secondly, the results relied on the honesty and
accuracy of the participants’ self-reports. Because the
study is about online teaching and participants were
assured that their individual responses would not be
shared with their instructors or the institution,
however they may still have been hesitant to answer
completely frankly on certain questions. But even if
participants are trying to be honest, it may have been
difficult to be accurate to answer in terms of largely
rating items. Triangulation with other research
methods such as interviews and logging actual
behaviour (which may in itself raise serious ethical
issues) is clearly need to explore the issues further.
Thirdly, in an effort to not overburden participants
with too many time-consuming questions, wherever
possible, rating items and multiple-choice options
were used. In retrospect, it many have been preferable
to include a greater number of open-ended questions.
Particularly on the issue of why participants did not
have their webcam on during online classes, although
we based the multiple-choice options on reasons
found in previous research, this may have primed the
participants, and an open-ended question would have
been better for that issue.
As highlighted in the Introduction, our study
focused on KSA students enrolled in Saudi HEIs. It is
important to acknowledge that the concerns and
behaviour of students in other countries are likely to
differ. However, our research complements research
conducted in a range of other countries and expands
the variables considered in relation to students’
concerns about online teaching.
In conclusion, our research makes a contribution
to the existing body of research on privacy and
security concerns and trust in different actors and
entities in online teaching. The findings offer
questions for future investigations, to further
investigate the specific factors influencing students’
concerns and trust in this area.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the Saudi Electronic
University for their support in conducting this
research, as well as the instructors and students who
participated. This research is part of the PhD
programme for the first author which is funded by the
Saudi Electronic University.
REFERENCES
Aldheleai, H. F., Bokhari, M. U., & Hamatta, H. S. A.
(2015). User security in an e-learning system. In
Proceedings of 2015 Fifth International Conference on
Communication Systems and Network Technologies
(pp. 113). doi: 10.1109/CSNT.2015.113.
Almekhled, B., & Petrie, H. (2023a). Concerns of Saudi
higher education students about the security and
privacy of online digital technologies during the
coronavirus pandemic. In Proceedings of 19th
International Conference of Technical Committee 13
(Human-Computer Interaction) of IFIP (International
Federation for Information Processing).
Almekhled, B., & Petrie, H. (2023b). Privacy and security
in online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic:
experiences and concerns of teachers in UK higher
education. In Proceedings of 36th International BCS
Human-Computer Interaction Conference.
Anwar, M., & Greer, J. (2012). Facilitating trust in privacy-
preserving e-learning environments. IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(1), 62–73.
Bedenlier, S., Wunder, I., Glaser-Zikuda, M., Kammerl, R.,
Kopp, B., Ziegler, A., Handel, M. (2021). Generation
invisible?: Higher education students’ (non)use of
webcams in synchronous online learning. International
Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100068
Booth, M. (2012). Boundaries and student self-disclosure in
authentic, integrated learning activities and
assignments. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 131, 5–14.
Briggs, P., Simpson, B., & Angeli, A. D. (2004).
Personalisation and trust: A reciprocal relationship? In
C. Karat, J. O. Blom, & J. Karat (Eds.), Designing
personalized user experiences in eCommerce (pp. 39–
55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U.-D.
(2007). Development of measures of online privacy
concerns and protection for use on the Internet. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 58(2), 157–165.
Castelli, F. R., & Sarvary, M. A. (2021). Why students do
not turn on their video cameras during online classes
and an equitable and inclusive plan to encourage them
to do so. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3565-3576.
Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J.,
Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Trust, growth
mindset, and student commitment to active learning in
a college science course. CBE Life Sciences Education,
17(1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-06-0107.
Dixon, M., & Syred, K. (2022). Factors Influencing student
engagement in online synchronous teaching sessions:
Student perceptions of using microphones, video,
screen-share, and chat. In Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference, LCT 2022, Held as Part of
the 24th HCI International Conference, HCII 2022,
Virtual Event, June 26 – July 1, 2022, Proceedings,
Part I (pp. 209–227).
Ejdys, J. (2018). Building technology trust in ICT
application at a university. International Journal of
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
76

Emerging Markets, 13(5), 980-997.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-07-2017-0234.
Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust: Social virtues and the creation
of prosperity. Simon and Schuster.
Gherheş, V., Simon, S., & Para, I. (2021). Analysing
students’ reasons for keeping their webcams on or off
during online classes. Sustainability, 13, 3203.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063203.
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W.
(2013). Investigating the relations between motivation,
tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning
course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(1), 285–292.
Gillies, D. (2008). Student perspectives on
videoconferencing in teacher education at a distance.
Distance Education, 29(1), 107–118.
Grandison, T., & Sloman, M. (2000). A survey of trust in
Internet applications. IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, 3(4), 2–16.
Joinson, A. N., & Paine, C. (2006). Self-disclosure, privacy
and the Internet. In A. Joinson, K. McKenna, T.
Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of Internet Psychology (pp. 237–252). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Kim, S. S. (2021). Motivators and concerns for real-time
online classes: focused on the security and privacy
issues. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4),
1875-1888.
Kularski, C. M., & Martin, F. (2021). Online student
privacy in higher education: A systematic review of the
research. American Journal of Distance Education,
36(3), 227–241.
Liu, Z., Wang, X., Min, Q., & Li, W. (2018). The effect of
role conflict on self-disclosure in social network sites:
An integrated perspective of boundary regulation and
dual process model. Information Systems Journal,
29(2), 279-316.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet
users’ information privacy concerns (quips): The
construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information
Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.
Martin, K. (2016). Understanding privacy online:
Development of a social contract approach to privacy.
Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 551–569.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an
organizing principle. Organisation Science, 14(1), 91-
103.
Misztal, B. (1996). Trust in modern societies: The search
for the bases of social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pallof, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning
communities: Effective strategies for the virtual
classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
Patil, S., & Kobsa, A. (2005). Privacy in collaboration:
Managing impression. In Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Online Communities and
Social Computing, Las Vegas, NV, 2005.
Peng, M.-H., & Dutta, B. (2022). Impact of personality
traits and information privacy concern on E-Learning
environment adoption during COVID-19 pandemic: An
empirical investigation. Sustainability, 14, 8031.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138031
Petchamé, J., Iriondo, I., & Azanza, G. (2022). “Seeing and
Being Seen” or just “Seeing” in a smart classroom
context when videoconferencing: A user experience-
based qualitative research on the use of cameras.
International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 19(15), 9615.
Rice, V. J., & Schroeder, P. J. (2021). In-person and virtual
world mindfulness training: Trust, satisfaction, and
learning. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 24(8), 526–535.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2012). Beginning
Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Primer (7th
edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Salmon G., Ross B., Pechenkina E., & Chase A.-M. (2015).
The space for social media in structured online learning.
Research in Learning Technology, 23, 28507
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.28507.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric
statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill.
Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information
privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS
Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1015.
Smith, H. J., Milburg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996).
Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns
about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20, 167–
196.
Steel, J. L. (1991). Interpersonal correlates of trust and self-
disclosure. Psychological Reports, 68, 1319–1320.
Teng, Y., & Song, Y. (2022). Beyond legislation and
technological design: The importance and implications
of institutional trust for privacy issues of digital contact
tracing. Frontiers in Digital Health, 4, 916809.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.916809
Tierney, W. (2006). Trust and the public good. New York:
Peter Lang.
Van Houtte, M. (2007). Exploring teacher trust in
technical/vocational secondary schools. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23, 826-839.
Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-learning
in the new millennium: an overview of e-learning and
enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers,
5(2), 207-218.
The Role of Privacy and Security Concerns and Trust in Online Teaching: Experiences of Higher Education Students in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia
77