More Like this

1. Examining the Examiners: Students' Privacy and Security Perceptions of Online Proctoring Services

   Balash, David G.; Kim, Dongkun; Shaibekova, Darika; Fainchtein, Rahel A.; Sherr, Micah; Aviv, Adam J. (August 2021, 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
2. Educators' Perspectives of Using (or Not Using) Online Exam Proctoring

   Balash, David G.; Korkes, Elena; Grant, Miles; Aviv, Adam J.; Fainchtein, Rahel A. (August 2023, 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
3. Oral exams for large-enrollment engineering courses to promote academic integrity and student engagement during remote instruction

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637124  

   Lubarda, M.; Delson, N.; Schurgers, C.; Ghazinejad, M.; Baghdadchi, S.; Phan, A.; Minnes, M.; Relaford-Doyle, J.; Klement, L.; Sandoval, C; et al (October 2021, 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE))

   This work-in-progress paper presents an innovative practice of using oral exams to maintain academic integrity and promote student engagement in large-enrollment engineering courses during remote instruction. With the abrupt and widespread transition to distance learning and assessment brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a registered upsurge in academic integrity violations globally. To address the challenge of compromised integrity, in the winter quarter of 2021 we have implemented oral exams across six mostly high-enrollment mechanical and electrical engineering undergraduate courses. We present our oral exam design parameters in each of the courses and discuss how oral exams relate to academic integrity, student engagement, stress, and implicit bias. We also address the challenge of scalability, as most of our oral exams were implemented in large classes, where academic integrity and student-instructor disconnection have generally gotten disproportionately worse during remote learning. Our survey results indicate that oral exams have positively contributed to academic integrity in our courses. Based on our preliminary study and experiences, we expect oral exams can be effectively leveraged to hinder cheating and foster academic honesty in students, even when in-person instruction and assessment resumes. 

   more » « less
4. Preparing students for the quantum information revolution: interdisciplinary teaching, curriculum development, and advising in quantum information science and engineering

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ae0200  

   Seifollahi, Fargol; Singh, Chandralekha (September 2025, European Journal of Physics)

   Abstract As the field of quantum information science and engineering (QISE) continues its rapid growth, there are increasing concerns about the workforce demands and the necessity of preparing students for quantum-related careers. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the field, it is necessary to offer diverse educational opportunities to ensure that students are well-prepared for careers emerging from the second quantum revolution. In this paper, we present our findings from a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with university QISE educators, who have taken on the challenges and opportunities in developing QISE courses and curricula for undergraduate and graduate students from different academic backgrounds. Our findings focus on common themes across undergraduate and graduate QISE education, as well as advising and mentoring students to prepare them for research in the field. The interviewees discussed the various strategies they had implemented, such as incorporating hands-on lab activities, integration of Python coding with Qiskit, and including project-based learning experiences. Furthermore, their reflections on mentorship and advising students emphasized the importance of recognizing students’ prior preparation, providing targeted resources, and supportive learning environments. Our findings are meant to provide guidance for educators looking to implement effective QISE educational strategies that address the changing landscape of quantum information revolution. 

   more » « less
5. Comparing the Security of Three Proctoring Regimens for Bring-Your-Own-Device Exams

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630809  

   Gulati, Rishi; West, Matthew; Zilles, Craig; Silva, Mariana (March 2024, Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1)

   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