Content uploaded by Alexander Pfeiffer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexander Pfeiffer on Oct 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of the
19th European Conference on e-Learning
ECEL 2020
a Virtual Conference
Supported by
University of Applied Sciences HTW Berlin
Germany
28-30 October 2020
Copyright the authors, 2020. All Rights Reserved.
No reproduction, copy or transmission may be made without written permission from the individual
authors.
Review Process
Papers submitted to this conference have been double-blind peer reviewed before final acceptance
to the conference. Initially, abstracts were reviewed for relevance and accessibility and successful
authors were invited to submit full papers. Many thanks to the reviewers who helped ensure the
quality of all the submissions.
Ethics and Publication Malpractice Policy
ACIL adheres to a strict ethics and publication malpractice policy for all publications – details of which
can be found here:
http://www.academic-conferences.org/policies/ethics-policy-for-publishing-in-the-conference-proceedings-
of-academic-conferences-and-publishing-international-limited/
Self-Archiving and Paper Repositories
We actively encourage authors of papers in ACIL conference proceedings and journals to upload their
published papers to university repositories and research bodies such as ResearchGate and
Academic.edu. Full reference to the original publication should be provided.
Conference Proceedings
The Conference Proceedings is a book published with an ISBN and ISSN. The proceedings have been
submitted to a number of accreditation, citation and indexing bodies including Thomson ISI Web of
Science and Elsevier Scopus.
Author affiliation details in these proceedings have been reproduced as supplied by the authors
themselves.
The Electronic version of the Conference Proceedings is available to download from DROPBOX
https://tinyurl.com/ECEL20 Select Download and then Direct Download to access the Pdf file. Free
download is available for conference participants for a period of 2 weeks after the conference.
The Conference Proceedings for this year and previous years can be purchased from http://academic-
bookshop.com
E-Book ISBN: Prof. Dr. Tilo Wendler
E-Book ISSN: 2048-8645
Book version ISBN: Prof. Dr. Tilo Wendler
Book Version ISSN: 2048-8637
Published by Academic Conferences International Limited
Reading, UK
www.academic-conferences.org
info@academic-conferences.org
i
Contents
Paper Title
Author(s)
Paper
No
Preface
vii
Committee
viii
Biographies
xi
Research papers
Measuring the Perception of Knowledge
Gained During the Virtual Learning: Business
Research Method Course Case Study
Hawra Abdulla, Mohamed Ebrahim, Ameena
Hassan, Khadim Al Hashimi, Allam Hamdan, Anjum
Razzaque and Abdulmutallab Musleh
1
How to Increase Knowledge Retention in
eLearning During Covid-19 Pandemic?
Noor Al Shehab
10
The Potential of Podcasts as a Learning
Medium in Higher Education
René Holm Andersen and Susanne Dau
16
e-Mentoring: A web Platform to Support
Mentoring Programs
Cassiano Andrade, Paulo Alves, José Eduardo
Fernandes1 and Flávio Coutinho
23
A Comparison under the RASE Model of
Open-Source e-Learning Platforms Supporting
Video-Streaming
Isabel Araújo, Pedro Miguel Faria and José Evaristo
Lima
31
Covid-19 Mis-Infodemic: Reinventing Social
Media Platforms as Trustworthy Health
Messaging and Learning Tools
Niyi Awofeso
39
Challenges and Relationships of e-Learning
Tools to Teaching and Learning
Don Anton Robles Balida and Riah Encarnacion
48
Towards a Model for an Emotionally
Intelligent Learning Environment Using NLP
Tools
Mohammed Berehil, Sarra Roubi and Karim Arrhioui
57
How can Agility Sustain a Change of Mindset
in Education?
Cella-Flavia Buciuman
66
TechArt Learning Practices for 1st to 3rd
Grade in Danish Schools
Mie Buhl and Kirsten Skov
73
Do e-Learning Activities Increase Students’
Academic Satisfaction?
Sanja Candrlic, Danijela Jaksic and Patrizia Poscic
80
Learning-Teaching Innovation of a University
e-Learning Course
Graziano Cecchinato and Laura Carlotta Foschi
89
Zoom-ing out: The Impact of International
Online Practicum Opportunities on Pre-
Service Teachers’ Development
Paula Charbonneau-Gowdy and Ivana Cechova
95
ii
Paper Title
Author(s)
Paper
No
Test-Run: Mediating Changes to Online
Assessment Practices in a Teacher Education
Setting
Paula Charbonneau-Gowdy and Danisa Salinas
104
The Influence of Students’ Professional
Orientation on the Self-Evaluation of Digital
Competences and use of Digital Technologies
by Teachers
Milan Chmura, Josef Malach and Dana Vicherková
113
Online Vocabulary Learning and Instruction in
the Japanese Context
Adam Christopher
121
Lessons Learned From Developing and
Evaluating an Educational Database Modeling
Tool
Olav Dæhli, Bjørn Kristoffersen and Tomas Sandnes
129
Create. Distribute. Evaluate: Prototyping
Holistic Lightweight Digital Components to
Support Microlearning
Stefan Dahlmanns, Alexander Kuehn, Isabelle
Kuxdorf-Dixon, Thoralf Gebel, Christian Ulbrich,
Holger Langner, Christian Roschke and Marc Ritter
139
Educational Process Digiltalization in Ural
Federal University
Liudmila Daineko, Viola Larionova, Inna Yurasova,
Yury Davy and Natalia Karavaeva
146
Effects of Course Design on Learning
Outcomes in Pre-Course in Mathematics and
Subsequent Study Success in STEM Subjects
Katja Derr, Reinhold Hübl and Miriam Weigel
154
Embedding LinkedIn Learning MOOCs to
Enhance Students’ Educational Experience
and Employability
Xiangping Du
163
Evaluating a Pattern Language for Scientific
Texts in Higher Education
Gert Faustmann, Dagmar Monett, Kathrin Kirchner
and Claudia Lemke
173
Barriers to Implementing Technology-
Enhanced Learning in South African Primary
Schools
Tamás Fergencs, Olga Pilawka, Rasmus Broholm
and Rikke Magnussen
182
Video Blogs as a Tool for Forming a Cultural
Dialogue Between Foreign and Local
University Students
Valeria Frants
190
Suddenly eLearning: A Qualitative Study of
University Students During COVID-19
Sonja Gabriel
198
Towards Hybrid Learning in Higher Education
in the Wake of the COVID-19 Crisis
Dorina Gnaur, Anette Lykke Hindhede and Vibeke
Harms Andersen
205
Quiz Aftercare With Moodle’s Facility and
Discrimination Indexes
Thomas Goetz
212
Responses of Russian Universities to the
Challenges of Covid-19 Pandemic
Natalia Goncharova and Ekaterina Zaitseva
221
iii
Paper Title
Author(s)
Paper
No
E-Learning and Online Quizzing: Pedagogical
Effects of the Corona Crisis
Hanne Haave and Tone Vold
229
Teaching Visual Facilitation and Sketching for
Digital Learning Design in Higher Education
Heidi Hautopp and Mie Buhl
235
How Higher Education Adapted to Online
Teaching at Aalborg University After COVID-
19: Experiences and Perspectives
Hans Hüttel and Dorina Gnaur
243
Active Learning in Accounting and the Impact
on Student Engagement
Daniel King
252
Problems and Ways of Forming the
Educational Strategy of Students in the
Process of Remote Learning
Ekaterina Kubina, Marina Bareicheva, Natalia
Stepanova and Ken Brown
260
Teaching Online During a Pandemic:
Pedagogical Skills Transfer From Face To Face
Support to Online Synchronous Support
Provision
Iain Lambie and Bobby Law
270
Opportunities and Limitations Regarding
Praxis in Online Education: Three Narratives
Monica Lervik, Stig Holen and Tone Vold
278
A Learner-Centred Approach for Evaluating
Software Tools
Mariana Lilley, Andrew Pyper, Xianhui Che, Wei Ji
and Gani Nashi
284
Applying User Experience Techniques to the
Design of a Programme Site
Mariana Lilley, Andrew Pyper and Joanna Rawska
291
Design Pedagogical Script for Short-Term
Online Course
Le Long, Huynh Son and Nguyen Ly
298
Activity of Estonian Facebook Group During
Transition to e-Learning due to COVID-19
Piret Luik and Marina Lepp
308
Online Education During the COVID19
Pandemic: Perceptions and Expectations of
Romanian Students
Veronica Maier, Lidia Alexa and Razvan Craciunescu
317
Innovative Ways to Assess Soft-Skills: The in-
Basket Game Online Experience
Agostino Marengo and Alessandro Pagano
325
Introducing Evidence-Based Practices to
Manage Problem Behaviours at School: The
BEHAVE Application
Gianluca Merlo, Antonella Chifari, Giuseppe
Chiazzese, Davide Taibi, Silvia Alves, Colin McGee,
Sebastian Bilanin, Isabella Giammusso, Melanie
Vanoort, Nicola Lo Savio and Luciano Seta
335
A Skill set for Gamification Readiness
Josefin Mueller
344
Efficiency: Compromise Between Resources
Available and Created in On-Line Courses
Marie Myers
351
iv
Paper Title
Author(s)
Paper
No
Development of Critical Thinking Disposition
During a Blended Learning Course
Minoru Nakayama, Satoru Kikuchi and Hiroh
Yamamoto
358
Influence of e-Learning via Blackboard on the
Learning Experiences of Late Bloomers in
Information Technology
Tabisa Ncubukezi and Olawande Daramola
365
Enabling e-Portfolio Development Through
Whatsapp Support: Reflections From School
Experience Students
Vuyisile Nkonki, Nobulali Tsipa-Booi and Bongo
Mqukuse
374
Two Ways of Using ICT in Multicultural
Mathematics Teaching Units
Jarmila Novotná and Andreas Ulovec
380
Intentional Content: Usage and Engagement
in a F-L-I-P Classroom Environment
Michael O’Brien, John Walsh and Yvonne Costin
388
Students Perception on Group Workshops: A
Comparison Between Campus-Based and
Online Workshops
Johan Petersson, Mathias Hatakka and Panagiota
Chatzipetrou
397
The Learner’s Perceptions of an Integrated
System for Learning Management of Non-
Cognitive Skills
Maria Petritsopoulou, Thashmee Karunaratne and
Myrsini Glinos
406
Beyond Classical Gamification: In- and
Around-Game Gamification for Education
Alexander Pfeiffer, Stephen Bezzina, Nikolaus König
and Simone Kriglstein
415
Blockchain Technologies for the Validation,
Verification, Authentication and Storing of
Students’ Data
Alexander Pfeiffer, Stephen Bezzina, Thomas
Wernbacher and Simone Kriglstein
421
Analysis of Student Behaviour in e-Learning
Courses in Relation to Academic Performance
Radim Polasek and Tomas Javorcik
428
Narratively Driven Educational Experiences in
Remote Learning Scenarios
Moritz Philip Recke and Stefano Perna
438
E-Learning as an Efficient Technology in
Accounting Education
Olga Reshetnikova
445
Learners’ Sequence of Course Activities
During Computer Programming MOOC
Marili Rõõm, Piret Luik and Marina Lepp
452
Development of a German Digital Assessment
of Reading Comprehension in Grades 3-4
Susanne Seifert and Lisa Paleczek
460
Smart Didactic Means in Learning English for
Specific Purposes
Ivana Simonova, Katerina Kostolanyova and Ludmila
Faltynkova
468
Macro Design of Multiple-Choice Questions
for Learning
Heinrich Söbke and Jan Mosebach
476
v
Paper Title
Author(s)
Paper
No
An Evaluation Approach to Evaluate a
Recommendation Approach Within Social
Learning Network
Sonia Souabi, Asmaâ Retbi, Mohammed Khalidi
Idrissi and Samir Bennani
485
An Augmented Reality Book for Training a
Child With Autism Spectrum Disorders:
Towards an Inclusive Primary School
Education
Ludmila Tokarskaya, Tatiana Bystrova and
Guillermo Rodrigez Aguilera
490
Emergency Remote Learning in the Times Of
Covid: A Higher Education Innovation
Strategy
Brenda van Wyk, Gillian Mooney, Martin Duma and
Samuel Faloye
499
Teacher’s Education for Oral Graduation
Exam in the Czech Republic
Dana Vicherková, Markéta Šenkeříková and Denisa
Lichá
508
E-Learning of Students for Elaboration of
Reading Lists for Secondary School Exam
Dana Vicherková, Andrea Paličková and Pavla
Davidová Dis
517
Literature Review: How e-Learning Enhances
Students’ Academic Performance
Rami Abu Wadi and Ala’ Bashayreh
526
Impact of GUI Evaluation on the Affordance
of Interactive Learning Environments
Arnaud Zeller and Pascal Marquet
531
Reflecting on e-Assessment Practices and
Students’ Performance in a Java Programming
Course
Estelle Zietsman, Karin Swart and Olawande
Daramola
537
Phd Research Papers
545
Designing a Mobile Learning Application by
Integrating Universal Design for Learning
Principles and Digital Storytelling: Pilot Study
Sara Alharbi and Paul Newbury
547
Perspectives on Distance Education in
Secondary and Tertiary Education
Ludmila Faltynkova, Ivana Simonova and Katerina
Kostolanyova
556
Clusters of Programming Exercises Difficulties
Resolvers in a MOOC
Lidia Feklistova, Piret Luik and Marina Lepp
563
The Strategy as Perspective for the
Integration of Technology in Education
Sibongile Ngcapu, Andile Mji and Sibongile
Simelane-Mnisi
570
Re-Examining the theory of Transactional
Distance Through the Narratives of
Postgraduate Online Distance Learners
Katharine Stapleford and Kyungmee Lee
579
Masters Research Paper
587
Creating an Authentic Learning Environment
Using e-Learning Application
Muhammad Salman Mushtaq, Muhammad Yousaf
Mushtaq and Muhammad Waseem Iqbal
589
vi
Work In Progress Papers
597
Second Language Oral Assessment and
Feedback for Generation Z in Higher
Education
Nathalie Cazaux and Annika Fuchs
599
Monsters in the Classroom? How to Promote
Gamification Readiness of Educators
Helge Fischer, Corinna Lehmann and Matthias Heinz
603
Comparison of Traditional and Online
Education in Bhutan
Kazuhiro Muramatsu and Sonam Wangmo
607
How to Produce and Acquire Regional
Knowledge Digitally and in Print:
Conceptualisation of the RegioDiff-Project
Lisa Paleczek
University of Graz, Austria
611
Who is the Learner? A Framework for a
Digital Learning Design Process
Michal Pilgaard, Jette Aabo Frydendahl and Lillian
Buus
615
Communication Culture of Generation Z:
Opportunities and Risks for the Education
System
Dmitry Rudenkin and Anastasia Yufereva
619
Increasing Motivation to Practice English
Through Videoconferencing: A Preliminary
Study
Michiko Toyama
622
Blockchain Technologies for the Validation, Verification,
Authentication and Storing of Students’ Data
Alexander Pfeiffer1 2 3, Stephen Bezzina6, Thomas Wernbacher2 and Simone Kriglstein4 5
1Comparative Media Studies/Writing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),
Cambridge, USA
2Center for Applied Game Studies, Donau-Universität Krems (DUK), Austria
3Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Malta (UoM), Msida, Malta
4Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH (AIT), Vienna, Austria
5Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
6Ministry for Education and Employment, Floriana, Malta
alex_pf@mit.edu
simone.kriglstein@ait.ac.at
Thomas.wernbacher@donau-uni.ac.at
mail@stephenbezzina.com
DOI: 10.34190/EEL.20.009
Abstract: The rapid changes brought about by digital technologies in education offer rich, personalised and differentiated
modes of e-learning. However, the anytime, anywhere access to teaching, learning and assessment material requires a
paradigm shift in the conceptualisation and implementation of validation, verification, authentication and storing of
students’ data. This is especially relevant for accredited or certified programmes such as online bachelor or master degree
courses, which quite often carry a substantial cost and relatively high time-consumption in terms of the recording and
verification of students’ learning credentials. Blockchain technologies offer an interesting and innovative approach for
securing sensitive information in online educational environments. One of its main impetus is the ability, or rather the non-
ability of retrospectively altering data which is stored on the blockchain. This indelible and unalterable nature of blockchain
technologies allow for greater safeguarding when compared to conventional password-protected directories, from both
within and outside the organisational e-learning environment. Furthermore, the open nature of public blockchains, supports
decentralised data verification, hence independent of any central authority and consequently valid across different
programmes, departments, institutions and countries. This also extends beyond traditional formal learning institutions, such
as non-formal or informal education, but more importantly, it offers an easy and inexpensive way for businesses and job
providers to safely and securely verify prospective employees’ credentials. The aim of this paper is to critically evaluate the
role of blockchain technologies in e-learning, by discussing the challenges, prospects and implications of implementation of
this new technology to prevent identity fraud in online (as well as traditional) learning contexts and securely and irrevocably
store students’ data. This includes issues relating to students' records, transcripts, identity and badges, but also the provision
of infrastructure security and smart contracts in online learning environments.
Keywords: Blockchain, DLT, e-learning, validation, verification, authentication
1. Introduction
The rapid changes brought about by digital technologies in education offer rich, personalised and differentiated
modes of e-learning. However, the anytime, anywhere access to teaching, learning and assessment material
requires a paradigm shift in the conceptualisation and implementation of validation, verification, authentication
and storing of students’ data. This is especially relevant for accredited or certified programmes such as online
bachelor or master degree courses, which quite often carry a substantial cost and relatively high time-
consumption in terms of the recording and verification of students’ learning credentials.
Blockchain technologies offer an interesting and innovative approach for securing sensitive information in online
educational environments. One of its main impetus is the ability, or rather the non-ability of retrospectively
altering data which is stored on the blockchain. This indelible and unalterable nature of blockchain technologies
allow for greater safeguarding when compared to conventional password-protected directories, from both
within and outside the organisational e-learning environment. Furthermore, the open nature of public
blockchains, supports decentralised data verification, hence independent of any central authority and
consequently valid across different programmes, departments, institutions and countries. This also extends
beyond traditional formal learning institutions, such as non-formal or informal education, but more importantly,
it offers an easy and inexpensive way for businesses and job providers to safely and securely verify prospective
421
Alexander Pfeiffer et al.
employees’ credentials. The current COVID-19 situation has shown that during times of massive travel
restrictions, problems with mailings and even complete lock-down, we need to have digital capabilities where
secure, non-manipulable storage of data and digital identities are combined. Even during this difficult period,
school grades, certificates, employment certificates and similar documents must be issued on the one hand and
checked for their validity on the other.
Non manipulative storage can be provided by Blockchain Systems. Blockchain, as we know it today, is based on
the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, by the anonymous author Satoshi Nakamoto.
Blockchain technologies belong to the Distributed Ledger Systems, or DLTs in short. This means that information
of the same type is stored on different computers. The ledger is therefore divided into different locations,
operated by different persons or companies, none of which have to know or personally agree with each other
when using a public Blockchain. The special thing about Blockchains is that, according to a set of rules that varies
slightly depending on the Blockchain system, transactions (in the sense of data records, for example, after a
certain period of time or when a certain size of the total data volume has been reached) are combined in a block
and stored in encrypted form (as a block). This process is intended to ensure that the exact same information is
actually stored on the distributed systems and that there is no file or text information among them that may
have the same file name and size as all the others, but does not contain the correct information. The storage
process of a Blockchain is therefore based on the fact that new data blocks are continuously generated. Each of
these new entries (blocks) increases the size of the Blockchain.
This results in the so-called "block height". The block height is the counting mechanism of a Blockchain. It counts
up, starting with block #1, the "Genesis block" without any basic limitation. Each block is encrypted and has a
unique hash value. A hash value results from the data stored in a block plus additional information such as the
time, or for example random numbers that are added by the respective Blockchain according to a certain
algorithm. This has the goal of ensuring the uniqueness of the hash value. Each block now starts with the hash
value of the previous block and passes on its own hash value to the next block. A good metaphor would be that
the blocks are stuck together with a labelled super glue. On the one hand, the connection can be seen in the
chronological order to the previous and next block and on the other hand, in terms of the hash value per block.
It is therefore verifiable that all blocks of the same block height verified as correct are absolutely identical on all
"nodes" that store a copy of the blocks. Nodes is the name for computer systems that store a copy of the
Blockchain. But why is it a decentralized system? It is a decentralized system, because the blocks which, as
already mentioned, must all have the same hash value, are stored on many different computers (nodes). The
way nodes agree on the correctness of the information is determined by the so-called "consensus algorithm".
There are different approaches to this, which were consciously chosen depending on the purpose of the
Blockchain being used. The best known are the "Proof of Work, PoW" and the "Proof of Stake, PoS" algorithm.
PoW is about being the first computer to find a random number, PoS is about the percentage of network tokens
you hold and a random factor that determines whether you are the first to validate a new block. This process is
called "Mining" (with PoW), or "Forging" (with PoS). A node can now simply always save the valid copy of the
Blockchain, or one can decide to additionally secure the Blockchain and perform further validation processes.
As a reward, the "miners" or "forwarders" receive, for example, shares of the transaction fees paid. This is
because every transaction made on a public Blockchain has to be paid by the sender or by a sponsor (in technical
jargon sponsoring is called "bundlng"). (Schmidt 2019)
Blockchain systems can basically be operated in three different ways:
Private Blockchain: is basically a closed system and is operated exclusively within organisations, companies
or government structures. No information is passed on to the outside world unless there is evidence that a
transaction has taken place.
Blockchain operated by a consortium: serves connected parties who have a common goal. Consortium
partners may join the Blockchain on the basis of joint agreements.
Public Blockchain: has no restrictions on joining and/or leaving the Blockchain. All information is public,
although it is possible to store some information in encrypted form.
Private and consortium Blockchains can also store information on a public Blockchain, for example the hash
value of all transactions within 24 hours. This keeps the data content itself private but ensures that no data
manipulation takes place retroactively. Not block by block, but still, as in the example above, for all data older
than 24 hours.
422
Alexander Pfeiffer et al.
For the purpose of secure storage and verification, the aspect of digital identities now needs to be considered.
Such Digital identities can come from various sources; these can be assigned by an employer, through a service
provided by a government entity (For example signatures that comply with the EIDAS regulation) an external
company specializing in the creation of such signatures, the self-sovereign identity (SSI) movement (Sovrin
Foundation) or generated through an interface like Facebook Connect. All these different sources offer a range
of varying levels of trust, both within the institution where the signature is principally used, but especially when
interacting with third parties. Ultimately, this level of trust or its valuation is a determining factor in how far the
authorization of the respective digital/electronic signature goes.
The first state-supported pilot project for a digital identity on blockchain in the EU was launched in Zug,
Switzerland, in September 2017 (Blockchain-Identität für alle Einwohner 2017). It is based on the Ethereum
blockchain. In June 2018 these blockchain identities were officially used for voting (Eixelsberger et al. 2019, 514).
Another application of digital identity is described by Giannopoulou (2020), whereas "data cooperatives"
approaches using "data as a common value", strive to create tools for collective data regulation. However,
community standards for data management in such projects remain opaque. If closed ecosystems of data
emerge as a result, abuse and exploitation within them are technically viable. A non-authoritarian way to
manage digital identities is to provide as many opportunities for integration as possible.
In this paper we critically evaluate the role of blockchain technologies in e-learning from different disciplines by
discussing the challenges, prospects and implications of implementation of this new technology to prevent
identity fraud in online (as well as traditional) learning contexts and securely and irrevocably store students’
data. This includes issues relating to students' records, transcripts, identity and badges, but also the provision of
(technical) infrastructure security and smart contracts in online learning environments.
2. Related work
Grech and Camillieri (2017) have been at the forefront of research into blockchain technologies for the education
sector. They are the authors of the report "JR science for policy reports: Blockchain in Education", which was
published in 2017. According to them, the transfer of data sets into the Blockchain and the rapid verification of
their validity opens up new avenues for action. According to Grech and Camilleri (2017), Blockchain technologies
have the following advantages:
self-determination, which means that users can identify themselves while retaining control over the storage
and management of their personal data;
trust, i.e. for a technical infrastructure that gives people enough confidence in how it works to be able to
carry out transactions such as payments or the issuing of certificates;
transparency & origin, i.e. for users to carry out transactions in the knowledge that each party has the ability
to make that transaction;
immutability, i.e. that the records can be written and permanently stored without the possibility of
modification;
impartiality, i.e. the elimination of the need for a central controller to manage transactions or keep records;
collaboration, i.e. the ability of the parties to negotiate directly with each other without the need to mediate
third parties.
Grech and Camilleri (2017) describe that Blockchain in the educational sector is still in its beginning, but they
see the following use cases in the near future:
creation of digital certificates/certificates or creation of digital proof of authenticity of printed certificates;
storage of proofs of performance after examinations including meta data;
recognition of examination results between and within educational institutions;
use of a personal "lifelong learning" directory (virtual CV);
verification of the authenticity of the certificates by third parties (e.g. personnel managers authorised by
applicants);
management of intellectual property, e.g. in the context of project implementation;
processing of payments.
423
Alexander Pfeiffer et al.
The authors further describe various basic assumptions that need to be made in order for Blockchain to establish
its place in the educational sector
open implementations of the technology;
use the open source software;
use open standards for data;
implement self-managed data management solution;
further developments must be driven forward jointly by market participants and regulators / authorities.
Grech and Camilleri (2017) also note that it is often easier to create centralized solutions with a commercial
background, than truly decentralized approaches.
In an earlier conference paper, Pfeiffer et. al (2019) considered where blockchain can be used in education. In
an online survey, people from the IT industry and the education sector were asked about this topic.
All Interviewees together (multiple responses possible)
Weighted
Average
Handle payment transactions, for example for course fees
4,25
Taking exams "off-school/university/education center", assuming a suitable ID-checking solution is in
place
4,11
Storing the successful completion of a course or class, without any specific grades
4,09
Storing grades at the end of the term
4,03
Handling of voting (e.g. vote for school representatives)
4,01
Scholarship processing and funding management
3,79
Storing competence profiles at the end of the term
3,73
Storing each test completed that has been completed during a term
3,62
Adapting digital serious games for use as assessment tools
3,61
Storing each step/chapter of an exam through e-learning tools while being examined
3,44
Class book and validated communication with parents/relatives
3,27
Storing a behavioural grade at the end of the term
3,2
All interviewees n=144 / skipped 6 | Scale 7 = highly agree, 1 = do not agree
A brief extract from this survey shows that with a score above 4, two classic applications of blockchain are
mentioned: Payment (e.g. of tuition fees) and voting (e.g. of the school or university student representative).
Also mentioned, with a score just over 4, are the storage of diplomas, year-end transcripts and exams taken
from outside school or university (if there is a target-oriented solution for digital identity). Only minimally above
the average, are areas such as the behavioural grade, the recording of every (even the smallest) test
achievement or the class register.
Another part of this survey asked which steps are necessary for Blockchain technologies to gain a foothold in
the educational system:
All Interviewees together (multiple responses possible)
Weighted
Average
Basic information/education about blockchain-technologies for all people involved in the educational
sector
4,17
Sophisticated privacy-settings
4,17
Clear and transparent rules about who is responsible for payment of fees
4,17
In-depth education about blockchain-technologies for IT-professionals and administrative-officers in the
educational-sector
4,15
The ability to get a copy of my own data that can be stored on my own node, regardless of which
blockchain system was originally used.
3,82
The possibility to process information from various blockchain-systems
3,78
Everything has to be set up with open-source technologies
3,74
The ability to operate a full node and store an encrypted copy of the blockchain used to store credentials
3,48
424
Alexander Pfeiffer et al.
All Interviewees together (multiple responses possible)
Weighted
Average
Having a close look if and which patents are involved within the used technology
3,39
Involvement of Government, strict worldwide regulation
3,01
Involvement of Government, strict local regulation
2,86
Involving corporations in the process of setting up Blockchain-technologies in the educational sector
2,86
All interviewees n=144 / skipped 6 | 7 = highly agree, 1 = I do not agree with this step
With 4.17 clearly above the average, a basic training for all persons from the education sector, a well-defined
solution as to how and who pays the transaction fees (should a public blockchain be used) and a modern solution
in the area of privacy settings were ranked. Further relevant points are an in-depth training for the IT staff in the
education sector, a solution that includes different blockchain systems, the open-source idea and the possibility
to have your own data, or even to operate your own node. The interviewees are undecided in the area of
regulation and whether large companies should push the developments. Here the score is even below average
(2.86).
3. Aim of this research and methodology
The aim of this paper is to critically evaluate the role of blockchain technologies in e-learning and assessment,
by discussing the challenges, prospects and implications of implementation of this new technology to prevent
identity fraud in online (as well as traditional) learning contexts and securely and irrevocably store students’
data. This includes issues relating to students' records, transcripts, identity, and badges, but also the provision
of infrastructure security and smart contracts in online learning environments. Desk research, complemented
by a guided group discussion of the author team, was utilised to gain an understanding of existing literature and
shed light on potential ways forward. The results of the group discussion are presented in the next section.
4. Findings
In the near future, there might be a number of different educational credit systems similar to blockcerts, a
solution originally built at MIT using a 1-way hash function to store learning credentials on the Bitcoin Blockchain.
These educational credit systems are likely to be built upon a variety of different Blockchain systems, and
different institutions (such as universities, colleges and schools) will also use different credit systems. A possible
solution to this problem would be an independent mediator that collects and validates the credentials issued on
the various systems. Such a mediating system could serve as a “collection point”, compiling and validating the
results of the various credential systems and connecting them to the users digital ID (e.g. the “Handy-Signature”
(a citizenship card on the mobile phone issued by the Austrian government, or (within the EU) other digital
identity procedures within the EIDAS (Electronic Identification, Authentication and trust Services) regulation),
making it possible for users to access their own data and share it as proof of achievement (e.g. as a link in their
CV).
Another reason why such an independent mediating system might be useful or even necessary , is the possible
dependency on the provider of a Blockchain-based application. This is mainly due to these credential systems
not being based on open-source, public, permission-less Blockchains, but instead are developed to operate on
centralized, controlled Blockchains, owned by private companies, who intend to sell their systems to
governments and universities. For instance, Sony corporation has recently developed such a system, based on a
patent the company holds, and is currently marketing it to schools and universities. While this company might
successfully sell its system to an educational institution and might even provide an excellent service in handling
this institution’s processes regarding test results, credentials, admissions, etc., it is still possible that, for
whatever reasons, the company decides to shut down its centralized permissioned Blockchain at a later point.
Without an independent mediating system, the data would almost certainly be lost, defeating the purpose of
using a Blockchain-system altogether. If, on the other hand, the data was compiled at a universal “collection
point”, together with the data from all the other credential systems, a verified copy of the results would still
exist on a public permission-less Blockchain and could be stored on this (de-centralized) Blockchain, potentially
forever. Such a system would provide the security of a decentralized Blockchain even for centralized-Blockchain
applications, enabling anyone to run a full node at low costs that acts as a public ledger, and ensuring that the
Blockchain and its entries will exist unless everyone in the world including yourself is shutting down the node.
425
Alexander Pfeiffer et al.
Other potentially challenging issues (both technologically, as well as financially) include the number of
transactions that can be handled within a certain period, the respective transaction costs and who is responsible
in payment terms (because on a public Blockchain transactions usually cost a certain amount of money,
commonly paid in the native token of the specific Blockchain). As a university using blockcerts, one might only
have to issue the learning credentials twice a year to each student. In this case, the number of transactions is
still easily manageable, and the transaction fees (amounting to two times the number of students, multiplied by
the fees payable to the network), will be in the affordable range. However, using Blockchain-technologies, even
for basic E-Learning and E-Assessment applications, leads to a much higher number of transactions, as not only
the final grades would be entered in the Blockchain, but the results from each single test, and maybe even the
answers to specific questions.
The greatest number of transactions, however, occur when game-based assessments (and especially Integrated
Game-based Learning/Assessment (GBL/A) solutions - This means that the Serious Game continuously measures
the exam performance during the game process.) make use of Blockchain-systems. In addition to milestones
reached and badges awarded, every individual step learners take inside the game world, might be stored on the
blockchain. The aggregation of this data leads to a test result which is subsequently reflected in a final grade.
This enormous amount of transactions is necessary to reach the goal of immutability and consistency and the
possibility of learning credentials that do not only show the end results, but also record all steps in between,
leading to the final grade/s. Due to this considerable number of transactions, game-based learning assessment
calls for especially robust Blockchain systems, and as these transactions will need to be nearly instant as well as
cost effective, strategies that enable more efficient transaction management (using, for instance, mechanics like
bundling, pruning, proof-of-existence-secure timestamps using merkle-trees) will be in high demand. In all
aforementioned cases, it should also be possible to develop Blockchain-enabled learning and assessment
environments, without the player/learner having to hold tokens of the Blockchai n-system used by him/herself.
Moreover, the system has to offer an interface which can easily be used by third parties (e.g. educational
software providers), while still being immutable at the same time. Thus, future research projects in this regard
are of utmost importance.
A Blockchain-based system must therefore be extremely robust in order to handle the enormous amount of
transactions that occur using game-based assessments (and especially GBL/A) approach. Any system that is
strong enough to handle this volume of transactions will easily handle more simple demands like E-Learning
assessments or storing the final grading results at the end of each semester. Hence, by focusing on Blockchain
solutions for GBL/A as a long-term goal, one will also ensure that its findings will be applicable for less demanding
applications, making them highly relevant not only for the educational sector as a whole, but also for Blockchain-
developers who are interested in stable and sustainable Blockchain-applications.
Another important issue that differs, but cannot be dealt separately from technological problems, is the human
factor, or more specifically, the role humans play in the process of creating, storing and managing data on the
Blockchain. While safekeeping data on a Blockchain is primarily a technical process, the data itself (at least some
of the educational data, like grades) is often produced by human agents. Consequently, the following issues
must at least be kept in mind when developing future Blockchain-in-education scenarios:
(i) Humans as a source of error
In the educational sector, even the most sophisticated digital environments will not make human interaction
obsolete, as learning and education are inherently social processes. This also means that any application that
involves learning and assessment must deal with problems caused by human error. Some of these problems can
effectively be countered or excluded by Blockchain-based technologies. Especially in the case of retroactive
manipulation of data, non-Blockchain systems are prone to manipulation, as even the most advanced safeguards
cannot prohibit users with high enough access rights to manipulate existing data entries (this may be a mere
annoyance when a well-meaning teacher edits a favourite student’s attendance times, but it can quickly become
a large-scale problem when the recognition of diplomas is tampered with on an institutional level). As data
stored on the Blockchain cannot be altered retroactively, the problem of tampering with existing data could
easily be ruled out.
However, even when a Blockchain-system secures the storage and management of data, there are still humans
involved in the process. Especially when Blockchain is used only for the final storage of grades, there is still plenty
426
Alexander Pfeiffer et al.
of room for error: when a professor takes an exam, tells his assistant to note the grade, which is then dropped
off at a secretary’s desk, whom finally emails the grade to the Blockcert-department for secure entry in the
Blockchain. This process offers many opportunities for human error, ranging from unfair grading by the
professor, to the assistant mixing up U.S. and European grading scales, to the secretary mistyping when copying
the grade, to the Blockcert-clerk assigning the grade to the wrong student. This problem can be reduced when
a whole (basic, gamified combined or even integrated game-based) E-learning and Assessment system is based
on the Blockchain, as this allows the immediate storage of test results, and to ensure that grades are calculated
based on a grading fixed key and in real time. While the initial creation of the test (including how answers and
actions are evaluated, and determination of the grading key) is still subject to human error, it is the system that
provides transparent testing conditions for every student, saves the (intermediate and final) results immediately
and securely, and safeguards this data from retroactive manipulation.
(ii) Dealing with faulty entries
While Blockchain-based systems can ensure the immutability of data, this also creates problems when it turns
out that this data has been created based on faulty premises. The more obvious reason for faulty data entries
has already been described on the example of systems which only use Blockchain technologies to store final
grades, as there is a great number of reasons that can lead to a wrong grade being entered in the Blockchain.
And even when a sophisticated E-learning and Assessment system ensures that grades are always correctly
calculated in accordance with the grading key, mistakes in determining the grading key or in setting the correct
and incorrect answers in a test cannot be ruled out.
If it turns out that the wrong grades have been saved, or if the learner has improved his grade on a new attempt
of the test (or it has stayed the same, or even worse, but definitely with a new timestamp), they still cannot be
changed. Instead, additional entries must be made that contain not only the correct grade, but also the
information that the previous grade has been entered incorrectly into the system. This is because corrections
cannot be made as edits, but only as additions to existing entries. In this sense, Blockchain-based systems might
require a radical re-thinking of educational credentials, as these systems no longer highlight the learner’s
successes, but instead serve as a comprehensive learning biography, in which successes, stagnation and failures
are equally reflected.
5. Conclusion
The arguments put forward by Grech and Camilleri (2017), are still not only valid for todays’ contexts, by remain
highly relevant and deserve further examination. General understanding of blockchain technologies can still be
considered very low. Open source solutions are essential for a broad and real use of blockchain technology, but
these do not seem to be desirable by governments and large technology companies. Privacy settings, digital
identities such as SSI (Self Sovereign Identity), qualified signatures and the processing and ownership of personal
data have to be further investigated and thoroughly considered.
6. Future research
The team of authors, consisting of experts from various universities and governmental units in Europe and the
USA, is currently investigating the issues and problems presented in this research paper. Special attention is and
will be devoted to the points listed in the conclusion. However, one of the biggest hurdles is still the big dispute
between the fans / developers of the different blockchain systems.
References
Eixelsberger, W., Manfred W. und Walter, H.. (2019). Blockchain in der Verwaltung. Handbuch E-Government. Springer
Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 506-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21402-9_43
Giannopoulou, A. (2020). Algorithmic Systems: The Consent Is in the Detail? Internet Policy Review 9, no. 1 (March 23).
https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/algorithmic-systems-consent-detail.
Grech, A.; Camilleri, A. F. (2017) Blockchain in Education. Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union 2017,
132 S. - (JRC Science for Policy Report) - URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-150132
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Available at: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Pfeiffer, A., Bezzina, S., Wernbacher, T. & Kriglstein, S. (2020). THE ROLE OF BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES IN DIGITAL
ASSESSMENT. 10.13140/RG.2.2.35016.75522. (accepted for EDULEARN 2020, preprint from Researchgate.net)
Schmidt, N. (2019) Kryptowährungen und Blockchains, Technologie, Praxis, Recht, Steuern, Linde Verlag, Wien
Tobin, A., and Reed, D. (2016). The Inevitable Rise of Self-Sovereign Identity. The Sovrin Foundation
427
