Proctorio in the News

The COVID-19 pandemic made traditionally proctored in-person exams impossible. This article provides a summary of the arguments against institutional adoption of remote proctoring services with a focus on equity, an account of the decision to avoid remote proctoring on the University of Michigan–Dearborn campus, and conclusions and suggestions for other teaching and learning professionals who would like to take a similar approach. Remote proctoring services require access to technology that not all students are guaranteed to have, can constitute an invasion of privacy for students, and can discriminate against students of color and disabled students. Administrators and teaching and learning staff at the University of Michigan–Dearborn made the decision to avoid adopting remote proctoring technologies and to instead invest in instructional design staff and faculty development programming to help faculty transition to authentic assessments. Lessons learned and recommendations are provided for other educational developers or institutions who want to resist remote proctoring on their campuses.

Source: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tia/17063888.0039.308?view=text;rgn=main

Not only have professors graded more harshly this semester while teaching online, some have also begun to implement the use of Proctorio. Proctorio is a Google Chrome browser extension that monitors screens to make sure no other tabs are opened during tests. It also requires the computer webcam be turned on so the ‘proctor’ can make sure test takers don’t cheat.

Some professors have decided to opt out of using Proctorio and instead use their own set of standards to adapt in the online environment. Erica Alexis is a nursing student currently taking Physiology at SMC. “My professor told us that she has created the exams to be incredibly difficult and open-book to avoid the use of proctorio,” said Alexis.

Students also believe Proctorio has become a major invasion of privacy and are mainly concerned with the webcam and who is really watching them.

SMC recently released a statement on their website saying, “Through the Fall 2020 term, any student who objects to the use of Proctorio or other video-based online proctoring set ups must be granted an exception.”

Many SMC students are still unaware of this new information regarding Proctorio, “I had no idea about that,” said Gibson “I wish I had known that sooner and the administration had made teachers aware of that as well.”

Academic stress and online school go hand in hand. With little face to face interaction and in person resources, this semester has not been a walk in the park for many students.

Source: https://www.thecorsaironline.com/corsair/online-classes-and-academic-stres?rq=proctorio

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a complaint with the DC Attorney General’s office against five online test-proctoring services: Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, and Honorlock. EPIC claims that the firms violate the privacy rights of students.

The five companies sell software designed to prevent cheating in online tests and exams. Some are designed to track applications that are running on test-takers’ computers or restrict access to certain programs during the testing period. Others track students’ activity during the test via their webcams and microphones and flag potentially suspicious behavior to their instructor, using either algorithms or live monitoring. In some cases, test-takers need to show a proctor their surroundings and verify their identity with personal information before the test can begin.

These methods — the collection of personal information and the use of “secret algorithms” — amount to “unfair and deceptive trade practices,” EPIC argues.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/9/22166023/epic-proctorio-examity-privacy-online-testing-school-lawsuit-proctoring

Universities sometimes shell out thousands of dollars per exam for Proctorio, which helps at least give the impression that academic integrity is being maintained during remote learning. But for some students using Proctorio and other online proctoring services is invasive and anxiety-inducing, subjecting them and their surroundings to unwarranted surveillance that is difficult to refuse without their studies being negatively affected.

Yet, despite the fact that popular online proctoring platforms like Proctorio claim that they use “state-of-the-art technology” and “ensure the total learning integrity of every assessment, every time,” students are cheating on their exams anyways.

While Proctorio and other proctoring companies often present their software as a necessary evil in the context of a pandemic, instructors have argued there are other, (more effective ways of preventing academic fraud. This can be through designing test environments which prevent cheating without using surveillance, or through adjusting course structures to base final grades on other forms of assessment, such as an average of a few interim assignments or an open-book exam. Online proctoring software is certainly the easy way, but that doesn’t mean it is always the right way.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an98j/students-are-easily-cheating-state-of-the-art-test-proctoring-tech

Aloha Sargent had been aware of the exam surveillance company Proctorio for years. It was a frequent presence at the Online Teaching Conference (OTC), the premiere event for remote learning educators in California. Many of the state’s community colleges, including Cabrillo College, where Sargent is the co-director of the library, had also begun using the tool to proctor tests during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But this year, when she received an email from OTC organizers in early February that listed Proctorio as a diamond sponsor of the conference, she was shocked. The conference is put on in part by the California Community College system and several of the member schools, including Cabrillo College, decided not to renew their Proctorio software license in December.

The decisioz came amid a nationwide barrage of complaints from students arguing that the software—which surveils test takers through their computer cameras and microphones, then uses artificial intelligence to measure their “abnormalities”—is discriminatory and a gross invasion of privacy.

Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k9ag4/schools-are-abandoning-invasive-proctoring-software-after-student-backlash

Duke relies on an honor code as outlined by the Duke Community standard. When thinking about proctoring, keep in mind how implementing such policies and technologies might affect our ability to create student-centered learning experiences. Several issues of student well-being and technological constraints you might want to keep in mind include:

• Student privacy: Proctoring services essentially bring strangers into students’ homes or dorm rooms — in places students may not be comfortable exposing. These violations of privacy perpetuate inequity through the use of surveillance technologies. Additionally, it is often the case that these services record and store actions of students on non-Duke servers and infrastructure.

• Technology access: Not all students may have the same access to technology (e.g., external webcams) for makeshift proctoring.

• Accessibility: Proctoring software can create more barriers for students who need accommodations.

• Proctoring reinforces a surveillance aspect to learning, which impacts student performance. We suggest that you instead design assessments to be authentic and learner-centered.

Source: https://flexteaching.li.duke.edu/a-guide-to-course-delivery/how-can-i-encourage-academic-integrity/

After much discussion, Senate ultimately restricted the use of invigilation tools “that involve automated recording and algorithmic analysis of data” in a 55–6 vote.

Joanne Fox, chair of the Teaching and Learning committee, said the concerns of racial discrimination, specifically with regards to Proctorio, were “grave” enough that remote invigilation tools should be restricted immediately with the exception of externally accredited programs that require them.

Fox also outlined alternatives to video invigilation, such as providing more funding for TAs to invigilate exams and delaying assessments.

Source: https://www.ubyssey.ca/news/senate-summed-up-march-17/

Whereas:

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift to remote instruction and assessment during the Spring 2020 semester. This included a greater use of and concern with third-party remote proctoring services . Remote proctoring is the process of monitoring students while they take an exam in a virtual setting. This may include a person (i.e., proctor) synchronously viewing students, video recordings of students taking an exam, and the use of artificial intelligence to notify proctors or instructors to scrutinize a students’ synchronous video or a portion of an asynchronous recording. Students are expected to identify themselves through a variety of methods, reveal their physical environment to the observer, and have access to a computer, peripheral accessories, and reliable internet. This resolution is specifically concerned with the use of third-party services, normally provided by for-profit corporations, to facilitate online proctoring.

Whereas:

third-party remote online proctoring undermines the university’s role to “stimulate (students’) intellectual and personal development.” When instructors proctor face-to-face examinations, they not only discourage cheating, but also often provide additional student support (e.g., providing additional clarification, supplying paper or other material support, informing students about the time remaining in the exam period). Third-party remote proctoring is expressly designed to minimize cheating and rarely provides any student support. This casts faculty in the role of police catching cheaters, rather faculty acting as mentors to facilitate student success; and

Whereas:

third-party remote proctoring runs counter to San Francisco State’s mission to “promote equity”; and Inequity: This includes disparate impacts due to socio-economic inequity and racial bias; and Socioeconomic inequity: Third-party remote proctoring assumes students have access to secure housing and a private work space. Given the pervasiveness of housing insecurity and cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area, this assumption of private workspace is often not reality. Online proctoring requires high-bandwidth, reliable internet access. Without such internet access, students may be forced to prematurely terminate their exam if their connection is interrupted. Third-party remote proctoring requires a minimum level of computer hardware (e.g., laptop or desktop computer, webcam, speakers, microphone). Moreover, students’ technology may not support the software they are required to download on their computer to enable third-party remote proctoring or they may not have the administrative rights to do so if they are borrowing a university-owned computer. Finally, third-party remote proctoring companies charge potentially onerous fees for their services that are directly or indirectly paid by students (2). Racial Bias: Third-party remote proctoring is often supported by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, which automatically detect “undesirable” actions (e.g., student looking away from the screen) or incidences (e.g., another person walking into the room). The AI cues the proctor or instructor to review synchronous or asynchronous video when “aberrations” from programmed norms are detected (3). Facial recognition software, and other AI in this category, have consistently been found to fail to recognize people with darker skin (4). Therefore, it may be more likely for Black and brown students to be flagged by the AI, and thus be more closely surveilled due to the color of their skin. Such increased scrutiny may lead to poorer test performance due to stereotype threat coupled with traumatic histories of surveillance (5).

Whereas:

third-party remote proctoring raises a number of accessibility concerns since it assumes students are neurotypical and able-bodied; and Neurotypical: Third-party remote proctoring may hinder the use of software that supports students with learning disabilities. Moreover, it violates students with disabilities rights to privacy since they may be required to disclose their disability to a stranger and have that disclosure recorded. Furthermore, students who demonstrate tics or use body movement to promote relaxation or focus may be flagged as suspicious. Able-Bodied: As part of the self-identification and security clearance processes, students are required to use fine motor skills to show their ID and large motor skills to show the space around their workstation. Further, the verification and proctoring process relies heavily on visual and auditory cues, which present barriers for students with visual or hearing impairments.

Whereas:

third-party remote proctoring raises a number of privacy concerns that disproportionately impact the personal security of marginalized students and threaten the security of SF State; and Surveillance & Policing: Third-party remote proctoring supports the norm of surveillance and diminishes the norm of a right to privacy. This erosion of privacy may be especially harmful to the academic performance of students from communities that regularly experience enhanced surveillance and policing (e.g., Black, Muslim, and trans students) and may further add to stereotype threat (6). Furthermore, this practice indirectly threatens privacy by providing video recordings of our students’ faces to companies further developing surveillance AI algorithms. Academic Freedom: The development of relationship with companies conducting third-party remote proctoring may threaten academic freedom. When faculty at UC Santa Barbara expressed their concerns to administration about third-party remote proctoring, they were legally harassed by the remote proctoring company (7). Information Security: There is concern that the introduction of third-party remote proctoring software may make students’ computers more vulnerable to malware (8). The introduction of such malware could threaten students’ privacy and potentially their economic well-being. Furthermore, it erodes the security of university systems that students are directly connected to (e.g., student email) and may lead to further security failures via “phishing” or other nefarious actions. Personal Safety: Students are often required to submit private information (e.g., full name, email, phone number, photo ID) to the company conducting third-party remote proctoring. Such outside entities may record students’ biometric information, such as their keystroke patterns or retina scans. Third-party remote proctoring may also require students to allow instructors, and potentially strangers, to video record them in their residential space and record information on students’ computer. This violation of privacy may be especially concerning for students that are undocumented or share their residential space with any other people that are undocumented, students that have been sexually harassed or could potentially be sexually harassed, or students that are actively supporting causes that could potentially make them more vulnerable to harassment or other forms of persecution by state or non-state actors. This concern is even more acute when a video recording is kept on technology not directly owned by or controlled by San Francisco State (e.g., remote proctor’s server).

Whereas:

if an exam format is used, there are a number of actions that may be used to discourage cheating without using third-party remote proctoring . Given that academic dishonesty may include an array of behaviors that students and faculty may not consistently perceive as “cheating”, instructors should not only discuss what behaviors are not allowed, but also why those behaviors are not allowed and further emphasize examinations as a step towards the intrinsic goal of learning . Student self-efficacy may be increased and academic honesty supported by helping students to focus on the exam content and help them become comfortable with the testing format. Further technological steps may be taken, such as the randomization of test questions order or the presentation of equivalent questions. Moreover, rather than using closed-ended questions (e.g., multiple-choice) that facilitate cheating, an exam may require students to analyze quantitative or qualitative information that varies across students. Furthermore, open-note or collaborative exam formats discourage cheating and may be more authentic examples of the challenges they face outside of academia. There are alternatives to high-stakes exams that decrease the incentives and opportunity to cheat. Such options include a series of lower-stakes academic activities rather than fewer high-stakes academic activities. Portfolios could be used to promote comparison and synthesis of student work. Student learning could also be assessed using essays, videos, or performance in simulation exercises. Therefore, be it

Resolved:

that third-party remote proctoring which includes synchronous or asynchronous video recording, recording of biometric data, or collecting any other private data by third-party providers should be restricted or banned in SF State courses starting the Fall 2020 semester.

Resolved:

that this resolution should be shared with ASCSU and the Chancellor’s office.

Source: https://senate.sfsu.edu/resolution/resolution-third-party-proctoring

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign said last week that it does not plan to renew its emergency contract with Proctorio, one of several online proctoring programs whose client bases have expanded during the pandemic but which remain controversial among students and professors alike.

The university began using Proctorio last spring, in response to the rapid shift to online instruction. It will not renew the contract past this summer. In a memo to faculty members announcing the decision, university administrators cited the “significant accessibility concerns” associated with Proctorio, along with other worries about privacy, data security and equity.

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/02/01/u-illinois-says-goodbye-proctorio

In an open letter, over 2000 parents are calling on textbook publisher McGraw-Hill to end it’s relationship with proctoring app Proctorio. Specifically, parents are demanding an end to pairing proctoring apps, which digital rights experts have characterized as ‘indistinguishable from spyware’, with course materials.

The letter argues that: "Automated proctoring is also a direct and abhorrent violation of our children’s privacy. Proctorio and other companies get access to personal data from our children, including their personal computers, private rooms in their homes, and other data. It is unacceptable that our children must surrender their civil rights, especially while attending a public institution, to complete their education"

Source: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2020-12-17-2000-parents-call-on-mcgraw-hill-publishing-to-end/