Skip to main content

Monitoring Electronic Exams

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Runtime Verification

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9333))

Abstract

Universities and other educational organizations are adopting computer-based assessment tools (herein called e-exams) to reach larger and ubiquitous audiences. While this makes examination tests more accessible, it exposes them to unprecedented threats not only from candidates but also from authorities, which organize exams and deliver marks. Thus, e-exams must be checked to detect potential irregularities. In this paper, we propose several monitors, expressed as Quantified Event Automata (QEA), to monitor the main properties of e-exams. Then, we implement the monitors using MarQ, a recent Java tool designed to support QEAs. Finally, we apply our monitors to logged data from real e-exams conducted by Université Joseph Fourier at pharmacy faculty, as a part of Epreuves Classantes Nationales informatisées, a pioneering project which aims to realize all french medicine exams electronically by 2016. Our monitors found discrepancies between the specification and the implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    www.coursera.org.

  2. 2.

    www.edx.org.

  3. 3.

    The project is called Épreuves Classantes Nationales informatisées, see www.side-sante.org.

  4. 4.

    www.etsglobal.org.

  5. 5.

    www.cisco.com.

  6. 6.

    www.microsoft.com/learning/en-us/default.aspx.

  7. 7.

    www.proctoru.com.

  8. 8.

    www.github.com/selig/qea.

  9. 9.

    www.theia.fr.

  10. 10.

    https://github.com/selig/qea.

  11. 11.

    We have also designed an event-based behavioral model of the e-exam phases that is not reported in this paper for space reasons. The description was obtained and validated through discussions with the engineers at THEIA.

  12. 12.

    http://rv2014.imag.fr/monitoring-competition/results.

References

  1. Le Figaro: Etudiants: les examens sur tablettes numériques appellés à se multiplier. Press release (2015). http://goo.gl/ahxQJD

  2. Copeland, L.: School cheating scandal shakes up atlanta. USA TODAY (2013). http://goo.gl/wGr40s

  3. Watson, R.: Student visa system fraud exposed in BBC investigation (2014). http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26024375

  4. Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Havelund, K., Reger, G., Rydeheard, D.: Quantified event automata: towards expressive and efficient runtime monitors. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Reger, G.: Automata based monitoring and mining of execution traces. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reger, G., Cruz, H.C., Rydeheard, D.E.: MarQ: monitoring at runtime with QEA. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) ETAPS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 596–610. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kassem, A., Falcone, Y., Lafourcade, P.: Monitoring electronic exams. Technical report TR-2015-4, Verimag, Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble Research Report (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dreier, J., Giustolisi, R., Kassem, A., Lafourcade, P., Lenzini, G.: A framework for analyzing verifiability in traditional and electronic exams. In: Lopez, J., Wu, Y. (eds.) ISPEC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9065, pp. 514–529. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Abadi, M., Fournet, C.: Mobile values, new names, and secure communication. In: POPL 2001. ACM, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blanchet, B.: An efficient cryptographic protocol verifier based on prolog rules. In: CSFW, Cape Breton, Canada, pp. 82–96. IEEE Computer Society (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dreier, J., Jonker, H., Lafourcade, P.: Defining verifiability in e-auction protocols. In: 8th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, ASIA CCS 2013, pp. 547–552, Hangzhou, China (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kremer, S., Ryan, M., Smyth, B.: Election verifiability in electronic voting protocols. In: Gritzalis, D., Preneel, B., Theoharidou, M. (eds.) ESORICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6345, pp. 389–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Backes, M., Hritcu, C., Maffei, M.: Automated verification of remote electronic voting protocols in the applied pi-calculus. In: CSF, pp. 195–209 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dreier, J., Giustolisi, R., Kassem, A., Lafourcade, P., Lenzini, G., Ryan, P.Y.A.: Formal analysis of electronic exams. In: SECRYPT 2014 - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Security and Cryptography, pp. 101–112, Vienna, Austria (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bartocci, E., Bonakdarpour, B., Falcone, Y.: First international competition on software for runtime verification. In: [19], pp. 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  16. Colombo, C., Pace, G.J.: Fast-forward runtime monitoring — an industrial case study. In: Qadeer, S., Tasiran, S. (eds.) RV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7687, pp. 214–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Basin, D.A., Caronni, G., Ereth, S., Harvan, M., Klaedtke, F., Mantel, H.: Scalable offline monitoring. In: [19], pp. 31–47

    Google Scholar 

  18. Falcone, Y.: You should better enforce than verify. In: Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Finkbeiner, B., Havelund, K., Lee, I., Pace, G., Roşu, G., Sokolsky, O., Tillmann, N. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.): RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank François Géronimi from THEIA, Daniel Pagonis from TIMC-IMAG, and Olivier Palombi from LJK for providing us with a description of e-exam software system, for sharing with us the logs of some real french e-exams, and for validating and discussing the properties presented in this paper. The authors also thank Giles Reger for providing us with help on using MarQ. The authors also would like to thank the “Digital trust” Chair from the University of Auvergne Foundation for the support provided to conduct this research. This work has been partly done in the context of the ICT COST Action IC1402 Runtime Verification beyond Monitoring (ARVI).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Kassem .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kassem, A., Falcone, Y., Lafourcade, P. (2015). Monitoring Electronic Exams. In: Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds) Runtime Verification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9333. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23819-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23820-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics