Abstract
Remote proctored exams are one of the most contentious topics in academic integrity and even in the broader field of education. There are many claims made about the benefits of remote proctoring, as well as its harms, but the evidence behind them can be elusive. This chapter begins by precisely defining remote proctoring and then explores the pros and cons of remote proctoring. It finds that there is strong evidence in support of a deterrent effect for remote proctoring, and that the limited evidence about remote proctoring’s ability to detect cheating suggests it may be ineffective. The critiques of remote proctoring are largely rooted in argumentation rather than evidence; however, there was some evidence in support of negative consequences for test-takers with trait test anxiety or dark skin. The argument is made that the burden of proof for the efficacy of remote proctoring, and its compatibility with equity and inclusion, should fall on remote proctoring providers and not on the scholarly community. The chapter argues that ultimately it is the perspectives that are brought to the choice to use remote proctoring or not that shape how the evidence is interpreted. Seven perspectives are explored to illustrate this point. In terms of remote proctoring’s compatibility with particular perspectives, there was the potential for criminology, assessment security, and cybersecurity perspectives to support remote proctoring, with some provisos. Academic integrity and artificial intelligence ethics perspectives were possibly less supportive. The most incompatible perspectives with remote proctoring were critical sociotechnical and critical pedagogy.
References
Akaaboune, O., Blix, L. H., Carrington, L., & Henderson, C. (2021). Accountability in distance learning: The effect of remote proctoring on performance in online accounting courses. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting. https://doi.org/10.2308/JETA-2020-040
Alessio, H. M., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning, 21(1), 146–161.
Andreou, V., Peters, S., Eggermont, J., Wens, J., & Schoenmakers, B. (2021). Remote versus on-site proctored exam: Comparing student results in a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 624. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-03068-x
Balash, D. G., Kim, D., Shaibekova, D., Fainchtein, R. A., Sherr, M., & Aviv, A. J. (2021). Examining the examiners: Students’ privacy and security perceptions of online proctoring services. In Proceedings of the seventeenth symposium on usable privacy and security (pp. 633–652) Virtual Conference: USENIX Association.
Bayne, S., Sinclair, C., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., et al. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. MIT Press.
Bergmans, L., Bouali, N., Luttikhuis, M., & Rensink, A. (2021). On the efficacy of online proctoring using Proctorio. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer supported education (CSEDU 2021) – volume 1 (pp. 279–290) SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda.
Burgess, B., Ginsberg, A., Felten, E. W., & Cohney, S. (2022). Watching the watchers: Bias and vulnerability in remote proctoring software. In 31st USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 22) (pp. 571–588). USENIX Association.
Butler-Henderson, K., & Crawford, J. (2020). A systematic review of online examinations: A pedagogical innovation for scalable authentication and integrity. Computers & Education, 159, 104024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104024
Carless, D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895786
Carstairs, J., & Myors, B. (2009). Internet testing: A natural experiment reveals test score inflation on a high-stakes, unproctored cognitive test. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 738–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.01.011
Clare, J., Walker, S., & Hobson, J. (2017). Can we detect contract cheating using existing assessment data? Applying crime prevention theory to an academic integrity issue. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0015-4
Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2020). Good proctor or “Big Brother”? AI ethics and online exam supervision technologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.07647.
Colonna, L. (2021). Legal implications of using AI as an exam invigilator. Faculty of Law, Stockholm University Research Paper, 91. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3839287
Davis, A. B., Rand, R., & Seay, R. (2016). Remote proctoring: The effect of proctoring on grades. In Advances in accounting education: Teaching and curriculum innovations (Vol. 18, pp. 23–50). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world. Routledge.
Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033
e-Assessment Association. (2022). Remote proctoring SIG. Retrieved from https://www.e-assessment.com/remote-proctoring-sig/
Fishman, T. (2014). The fundamental values of academic integrity (2nd ed.). International Center for Academic Integrity, Clemson University.
Goedl, P. A., & Malla, G. B. (2020). A study of grade equivalency between proctored and unproctored exams in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(4), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1796376
Hall, E. A., Spivey, C., Kendrex, H., & Havrda, D. E. (2021). Effects of remote proctoring on composite exam performance among student pharmacists. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 8410. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8410
Harmon, O. R., & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are online exams an invitation to cheat? The Journal of Economic Education, 39(2), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.39.2.116-125
Hoepman, J.-H., & Jacobs, B. (2007). Increased security through open source. Communications of the ACM, 50(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/1188913.1188921
Hylton, K., Levy, Y., & Dringus, L. P. (2016). Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Computers & Education, 92-93, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002
Karim, M. N., Kaminsky, S. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and performance in remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4), 555–572.
Kelley, J., & Oliver, L. (2020). Proctoring apps subject students to unnecessary surveillance. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/proctoring-apps-subject-students-unnecessary-surveillance
Langenfeld, T. (2020). Internet-based proctored assessment: Security and fairness issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12359
Logan, C. (2020). Refusal, partnership, and countering educational technology’s harms. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://hybridpedagogy.org/refusal-partnership-countering-harms/
Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity.
Mallory, J. R. (2001). Adequate testing and evaluation of on-line learners. Paper presented at the Instructional Technology and Education of the Deaf Symposium Proceedings [Online Journal].
Milone, A. S., Cortese, A. M., Balestrieri, R. L., & Pittenger, A. L. (2017). The impact of proctored online exams on the educational experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.037
Moro, J. (2020). Against cop shit. Retrieved from https://jeffreymoro.com/blog/2020-02-13-against-cop-shit/.
Mulkey, J. R., & Fremer, J. (2005). Securing and proctoring online assessments. In Online assessment and measurement: Foundations and challenges (pp. 280–299). IGI Global.
Nagy, V., & Groves, A. (2021). Rational choice or strain? A criminological examination of contract cheating. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(3), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2021.1874603
Reisenwitz, T. H. (2020). Examining the necessity of proctoring online exams. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(1), 118–124.
Rios, J. A., & Liu, O. L. (2017). Online proctored versus unproctored low-stakes internet test administration: Is there differential test-taking behavior and performance? American Journal of Distance Education, 31(4), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1258628
Schneier, B. (2018). Click here to kill everybody: Security and survival in a hyper-connected world. WW Norton & Company.
Seeber, K. P. (2016). The failed pedagogy of punishment: Moving discussions of plagiarism beyond detection and discipline. Critical Library Pedagogy Handbook, 1, 131–138.
Sefcik, L., Veeran-Colton, T., Baird, M., Price, C., & Steyn, S. (2022). An examination of student user experience (UX) and perceptions of remote invigilation during online assessment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6871
Selwyn, N., O’Neill, C., Smith, G., Andrejevic, M., & Gu, X. (2021). A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media International Australia, 1329878X211005862. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X211005862.
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).
Snowden, E., & MacAskill, E. (2013, June 17). Edward Snowden: the truth about US surveillance will emerge. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-us-fair-trial
Stapleton, P., & Blanchard, J. (2021). Remote proctoring: Expanding reliability and trust. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Virtual Event. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3439671.
Swauger, S. (2020). Our bodies encoded: Algorithmic test proctoring in higher education. Critical Digital Pedagogy.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M., Boud, D., Dawson, P., de St, J., & Jorre, T. (2022). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2057451
Theoharidou, M., Kokolakis, S., Karyda, M., & Kiountouzis, E. (2005). The insider threat to information systems and the effectiveness of ISO17799. Computers & Security, 24(6), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2005.05.002
Willison, R. (2004). Understanding the offender/environment dynamic for computer crimes: Assessing the feasibility of applying criminological theory to the IS security context. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.
Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2019). 21st century assessment: Online proctoring, test anxiety, and student performance.
Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2021). Video surveillance of online exam proctoring: Exam anxiety and student performance. [Surveillance vidéo d’examens en ligne: anxiété liée à l’examen et performance des étudiants]. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 36(1), 1–26. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/video-surveillance-online-exam-proctoring-anxiety/docview/2572618998/se-2?accountid=10445, https://library.deakin.edu.au/resserv?genre=article&issn=&title=International+Journal+of+E-Learning+%26+Distance+Education&volume=36&issue=1&date=2021-01-01&atitle=Video+Surveillance+of+Online+Exam+Proctoring%3A+Exam+Anxiety+and+Student+Performance&spage=1&aulast=Woldeab&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Aeducation&isbn=&jtitle=International+Journal+of+E-Learning+%26+Distance+Education&btitle=&id=
Zhao, A., Brown, G. T. L., & Meissel, K. (2020). Manipulating the consequences of tests: How Shanghai teens react to different consequences. Educational Research and Evaluation, 26(5–6), 221–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1963938
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Dawson, P. (2023). Remote Proctoring: Understanding the Debate. In: Eaton, S.E. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_150-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_150-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education