Rethinking Remote Proctored Exams

Rethinking Remote Proctored Exams
By Jose Mari Almoradie Carpena
June 2022

One of the major concerns of those who professionally practice in the domain of online classes, may it be in the form of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), a course in a Distance Education (DE) program, or even in a class in an Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, is the ever-looming presence of uncertainty if students are academically honest. In line with We Advocate Time Consciousness and Honesty Month, here we discuss Remote Proctored Exams, which has been suggested to decrease the likelihood of cheating, plagiarism, and the like. We likewise discuss the issues surrounding it, and how we can possibly overcome them to effectively and efficiently use them.

Remote Proctored Exams

At its simplest level, Remote Proctored Exams, or “RPEs”, are setups which aim to strengthen the integrity of an assessment answered remotely by having the student be surveilled by a remote individual. Since traditional face-to-face teachers are used to seeing students answer exams and quizzes in-person, many teachers and students have experienced this in the context of ERT. The most common example of this in the digital age would be a teacher requiring a student to open their camera and share their screen in Zoom or Google Meet to be able to “see” the student taking the assessment. Others also require students to set another camera via another gadget facing another angle so that the proctor has a better view of the student’s surroundings, such as the back of their monitor, their desk, the peripherals, etc. A more “high-tech” version of this setup would be software which authenticates the identity of the student taking the examination using Artificial Intelligence, such as that of Penteado and Marana (2009), and some other software likewise lock the users’ browsers so that they may not use other tabs or windows.

A major issue surrounding the use of these software programs is the issue of the increasing use of AI-assisted surveillance in our online classes, which Bayne et al. (2020) argue could decrease trust and negatively affect the pedagogical process. Indeed, the usage of such programs and technology can promote a culture of “surveillance over trust” (Fawns & Schaepkens, 2022, p. 4). Such an effect has already been observed in the study of Gudiño Paredes et al., 2021), wherein a student participant claimed “I feel that I am not trusted as a person of integrity at the moment of taking exams” (p. 211). This can create problems down the road, as in the words of Tschannen-Moran (2022)

When teachers trust their students, when they believe that their students are respectful, honest, reliable, open, and competent, they are more likely to create learning environments that facilitate student academic success. When they don’t trust their students, it is likely to be evident to students in the guarded tone and generally negative affect that teachers display in the classroom as well as in informal interactions. It may also show up as a lack of warmth or empathy for students and the propensity for teachers to blame students for poor performance or behavior. (p. 62)

Looking at the two sides of the argument, it is easy to see why there is such a great deal of discussion about the use of arguably invasive tools to supposedly lessen academic dishonesty. Given these, how can we move forward? Fawns & Schaepkens (2022) did not say that we should totally abandon these technologies, but called for a critical review of these technologies with consideration to fairness and trust. On the other hand, Gudiño Paredes et al. (2021) suggested that institutions should be transparent about their usage of such technologies, and should likewise be upfront with the policies overseeing RPEs. They furthermore suggest faculty members provide alternative methods of assessments if students do not prefer being surveilled while they take an examination. On the other side of the fence, faculty and administrators at the  University of Michigan–Dearborn opted not to utilize RPEs, citing issues including inequity (students may not have access to powerful enough hardware) (Silverman et al., 2021). Instead, they focused on promoting the usage of constructivist, authentic assessments, which are much more difficult to mark and check, but are arguably more effective at showing the students’ understanding and learning, and likewise harder to commit academic dishonesty on. Similarly, De La Salle University – Manila is by the same token making a move towards alternative assessment.

Conclusion

Now that you are aware of the issues surrounding Remote Proctored Exams, what are your thoughts about them? Do you feel that using RPEs is still justified, even if there are some detrimental effects? Or do you think we should already veer away from such practices and tech-centric solutions? Leave your comments down below, or email us at [email protected]. We’d love to hear from you!

Helpful Links for Canvas:

To help you create authentic assessments you may want to view this guide on how to create rubrics in Canvas. Alternatively, you may use this guide as well. You may also want to add rubrics to a graded discussion.

References

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., & Lamb, J. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. MIT Press.

Fawns, T., & Schaepkens, S. (2022). A matter of trust: Online proctored exams and the integration of technologies of assessment in medical education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 1-10.

Gudiño Paredes, S., Jasso Peña, F. D. J., & de La Fuente Alcazar, J. M. (2021). Remote proctored exams: Integrity assurance in online education? Distance Education, 42(2), 200-218.

Penteado, B. E., & Marana, A. N. (2009, May). A video-based biometric authentication for e-Learning web applications [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://bit.ly/3xYMAu2

Silverman, S., Caines, A., Casey, C., Garcia de Hurtado, B., Riviere, J., Sintjago, A., & Vecchiola, C. (2021). What happens when you close the door on remote proctoring? Moving toward authentic assessments with a people-centered approach. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 39(3), 115-131.