skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Comparing the Security of Three Proctoring Regimens for Bring-Your-Own-Device Exams
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
Award ID(s):
2013334
PAR ID:
10514655
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Editor(s):
Battestilli, Lina; Rebelsky, Samuel A; Shoop, Libby
Publisher / Repository:
ACM
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1
ISBN:
9798400704239
Page Range / eLocation ID:
429 to 435
Format(s):
Medium: X
Location:
Portland OR USA
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale)
    null (Ed.)
    Proctoring educational assessments (e.g., quizzes and exams) has a cost, be it in faculty (and/or course staff) time or in money to pay for proctoring services. Previous estimates of the utility of proctoring (generally by estimating the score advantage of taking an exam without proctoring) vary widely and have mostly been implemented using an across subjects experimental designs and sometimes with low statistical power. We investigated the score advantage of unproctored exams versus proctored exams using a within-subjects design for N = 510 students in an on-campus introductory programming course with 5 proctored exams and 4 unproctored exams. We found that students scored 3.32 percentage points higher on questions on unproctored exams than on proctored exams (p < 0.001). More interestingly, however, we discovered that this score advantage on unproctored exams grew steadily as the semester progressed, from around 0 percentage points at the start of semester to around 7 percentage points by the end. As the most obvious explanation for this advantage is cheating, we refer to this behavior as the student population "learning to cheat". The data suggests that both more individuals are cheating and the average benefit of cheating is increasing over the course of the semester. Furthermore, we observed that studying for unproctored exams decreased over the course of the semester while studying for proctored exams stayed constant. Lastly, we estimated the score advantage by question type and found that our long-form programming questions had the highest score advantage on unproctored exams, but there are multiple possible explanations for this finding. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security)
    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
  3. (, 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference)
    null (Ed.)
    Student perceptions of the complete online transition of two CS courses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, universities across the globe switched from traditional Face-to-Face (F2F) course delivery to completely online. Our university declared during our Spring break that students would not return to campus, and that all courses must be delivered fully online starting two weeks later. This was challenging to both students and instructors. In this evidence-based practice paper, we present results of end-of-semester student surveys from two Spring 2020 CS courses: a programming intensive CS2 course, and a senior theory course in Formal Languages and Automata (FLA). Students indicated course components they perceived as most beneficial to their learning, before and then after the online transition, and preferences for each regarding online vs. F2F. By comparing student reactions across courses, we gain insights on which components are easily adapted to online delivery, and which require further innovation. COVID was unfortunate, but gave a rare opportunity to compare students’ reflections on F2F instruction with online instructional materials for half a semester vs. entirely online delivery of the same course during the second half. The circumstances are unique, but we were able to acquire insights for future instruction. Some course components were perceived to be more useful either before or after the transition, and preferences were not the same in the two courses, possibly due to differences in the courses. Students in both courses found prerecorded asynchronous lectures significantly less useful than in-person lectures. For CS2, online office hours were significantly less useful than in-person office hours, but we found no significant difference in FLA. CS2 students felt less supported by their instructor after the online transition, but no significant difference was indicated by FLA students. FLA students found unproctored online exams offered through Canvas more stressful than in-person proctored exams, but the opposite was indicated by CS2 students. CS2 students indicated that visual materials from an eTextbook were more useful to them after going online than before, but FLA students indicated no significant difference. Overall, students in FLA significantly preferred the traditional F2F version of the course, while no significant difference was detected for CS2 students. We did not find significant effects from gender on the preference of one mode over the other. A serendipitous outcome was learning that some changes forced by circumstance should be considered for long term adoption. Offering online lab sessions and online exams where the questions are primarily multiple choice are possible candidates. However, we found that students need to feel the presence of their instructor to feel properly supported. To determine what course components need further improvement before transitioning to fully online mode, we computed a logistic regression model. The dependent variable is the student's preference for F2F or fully online. The independent variables are the course components before and after the online transition. For both courses, in-person lectures were a significant factor negatively affecting students' preferences of the fully online mode. Similarly, for CS2, in-person labs and in-person office hours were significant factors pushing students’ preferences toward F2F mode. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education)
    ABSTRACT The article documents students’ experiences with the shift online at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and provides informed recommendations to STEM instructors regarding academic integrity and student stress. Over 500 students were surveyed on these topics, including an open-ended question. Students experienced more stress and perceived a greater workload in online courses and therefore preferred in-person courses overall. Personal awareness of cheating during online exams is positively correlated with the proportion of cheating a student perceives. Fear of getting caught is the best cheating deterrent while getting a better grade makes cheating most enticing. Randomization of questions and answer choices is perceived as a highly effective tool to reduce cheating and is reported as the least stress-inducing method. Inability to backtrack and time limits cause students the most stress. Students report that multiple choice questions are the least effective question type to discourage cheating and oral exam questions cause the most stress. Use of camera and lockdown browser or being video- and audio- recorded caused the majority of student stress. Yet, nearly 60% agree that the combination of camera and lockdown browser is an effective deterrent. Recommendations: (i) Be transparent regarding academic dishonesty detection methods and penalties. (ii) Use online invigilating tools. (iii) Synchronize exams and (iv) randomize exam questions. (v) Allow backtracking. (vi) Avoid converting in-person exams to online exams; instead, explore new ways of designing exams for the online environment. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; (, USENIX Security)
    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
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email