An official website of the United States government
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, educational institutions quickly transitioned to remote learning. The problem of how to perform student assessment in an online environment has become increasingly relevant, leading many institutions and educators to turn to online proctoring services to administer remote exams. These services employ various student monitoring methods to curb cheating, including restricted ("lockdown") browser modes, video/screen monitoring, local network traffic analysis, and eye tracking. In this paper, we explore the security and privacy perceptions of the student test-takers being proctored. We analyze user reviews of proctoring services' browser extensions and subsequently perform an online survey (n=102). Our findings indicate that participants are concerned about both the amount and the personal nature of the information shared with the exam proctoring companies. However, many participants also recognize a trade-off between pandemic safety concerns and the arguably invasive means by which proctoring services ensure exam integrity. Our findings also suggest that institutional power dynamics and students' trust in their institutions may dissuade students' opposition to remote proctoring.
more »
« less
Educators' Perspectives of Using (or Not Using) Online Exam Proctoring
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of education and led to increased usage of remote proctoring tools that are designed to monitor students when they take assessments outside the classroom. While prior work has explored students' privacy and security concerns regarding online proctoring tools, the perspective of educators is under explored. Notably, educators are the decision makers in the classrooms and choose which remote proctoring services and the level of observations they deem appropriate. To explore how educators balance the security and privacy of their students with the requirements of remote exams, we sent survey requests to over 3,400 instructors at a large private university that taught online classes during the 2020/21 academic year. We had n=125 responses: 21% of the educators surveyed used online exam proctoring services during the remote learning period, and of those, 35% plan to continue using the tools even when there is a full return to in-person learning. Educators who use exam proctoring services are often comfortable with their monitoring capabilities. However, educators are concerned about students sharing certain types of information with exam proctoring companies, particularly when proctoring services collect identifiable information to validate students' identities. Our results suggest that many educators developed alternative assessments that did not require online proctoring and that those who did use online proctoring services often considered the tradeoffs between the potential risks to student privacy and the utility or necessity of exam proctoring services.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2138078
- PAR ID:
- 10497436
- Publisher / Repository:
- 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- USENIX Security
- ISBN:
- 978-1-939133-37-3
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Anaheim, CA
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Battestilli, Lina; Rebelsky, Samuel A; Shoop, Libby (Ed.)We compare the exam security of three proctoring regimens of Bring-Your-Own-Device, synchronous, computer-based exams in a computer science class: online un-proctored, online proctored via Zoom, and in-person proctored. We performed two randomized crossover experiments to compare these proctoring regimens. The first study measured the score advantage students receive while taking un-proctored online exams over Zoom-proctored online exams. The second study measured the score advantage of students taking Zoom-proctored online exams over in-person proctored exams. In both studies, students took six 50-minute exams using their own devices, which included two coding questions and 8–10 non-coding questions. We find that students score 2.3% higher on non-coding questions when taking exams in the un-proctored format compared to Zoom proctoring. No statistically significant advantage was found for the coding questions. While most of the non-coding questions had randomization such that students got different versions, for the few questions where all students received the same exact version, the score advantage escalated to 5.2%. From the second study, we find no statistically significant difference between students’ performance on Zoom-proctored vs. in-person proctored exams. With this, we recommend educators incorporate some form of proctoring along with question randomization to mitigate cheating concerns in BYOD exams.more » « less
-
Abstract Efforts to discourage academic misconduct in online learning environments frequently include the use of remote proctoring services. While these services are relatively commonplace in undergraduate science courses, there are open questions about students’ remote assessment environments and their concerns related to remote proctoring services. Using a survey distributed to 11 undergraduate science courses engaging in remote instruction at three American, public, research-focused institutions during the spring of 2021, we found that the majority of undergraduate students reported testing in suboptimal environments. Students’ concerns about remote proctoring services were closely tied to technological difficulties, fear of being wrongfully accused of cheating, and negative impacts on mental health. Our results suggest that remote proctoring services can create and perpetuate inequitable assessment environments for students, and additional research is required to understand the efficacy of their intended purpose to prevent cheating. We also advocate for continued conversations about the broader social and institutional conditions that can pressure students into cheating. While changes to academic culture are difficult, these conversations are necessary for higher education to remain relevant in an increasingly technological world.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)In the spring of 2020, universities across America, and the world, abruptly transitioned to online learning. The online transition required faculty to find novel ways to administer assessments and in some cases, for students to utilize novel ways of cheating in their classes. The purpose of this paper is to provide a retrospective on cheating during online exams in the spring of 2020. It specifically looks at honor code violations in a sophomore level engineering course that enrolled more than 200 students. In this particular course, four pre-COVID assessments were given in class and six mid-COVID assessments were given online. This paper examines the increasing rate of cheating on these assessments and the profiles of the students who were engaged in cheating. It compares students who were engaged in violations of the honor code by uploading exam questions vs. those who those who looked at solutions to uploaded questions. This paper also looks at the abuse of Chegg during exams and the responsiveness of Chegg’s honor code team. It discusses the effectiveness of Chegg’s user account data in pursuing academic integrity cases. Information is also provided on the question response times for Chegg tutors in answering exam questions and the actual efficacy of cheating in this fashion.more » « less
-
Most of today’s educators are in no shortage of digital and online learning technologies available at their fingertips, ranging from Learning Management Systems such as Canvas, Blackboard, or Moodle, online meeting tools, online homework, and tutoring systems, exam proctoring platforms, computer simulations, and even virtual reality/augmented reality technologies. Furthermore, with the rapid development and wide availability of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) services such as ChatGPT, we are just at the beginning of harnessing their potential to transform higher education. Yet, facing the large number of available options provided by cutting-edge technology, an imminent question on the mind of most educators is the following: how should I choose the technologies and integrate them into my teaching process so that they would best support student learning? We contemplate over these types of important and timely questions and share our reflections on evidence-based approaches to harnessing digital learning tools using a Self-regulated Engaged Learning Framework we have employed in our research in physics education that can be valuable for educators in other disciplines.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
