Cheaters Will Get Caught… Right?
Adjusting to online learning hasn’t been easy for many students to become accustomed to. Not only do students retain information better when attending in-person classes, but they also are more susceptible to skipping when attendance is on their own accord. Additionally, many students have found it easier to share answers, refer to note sheets, and use banned internet sources due to the lack of accountability from online tests. This has created problems in providing students with online tests, as there haven’t been many ways to prevent cheating. However, the introduction of online proctoring technologies discourages students from participating in these activities and is an innovative way to ensure fair testing for all. While these platforms are extremely beneficial for their multitude of attributes, critics have questioned the morality of some of these invasion features. Although proctoring sites have many functions that can be deemed as an invasion of privacy, the benefits of these platforms’ ability to harness an environment most similar to that of one in person and to eliminate academic dishonesty outweigh these concerns.
The growing online presence in the workplace and school is changing the way that bigger corporations function. With platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet, mimicking office spaces has never been easier. Many schools have also resorted to these meeting technologies to recreate lecture halls, discussion sections, and club meetings. At the University of Michigan, teachers have taken advantage of technology to record lectures or offer remote joining options for students that may not feel comfortable attending in person. According to research done by Mckinsey, leading up to the pandemic “hybrid and distance-only students at traditional universities increased by 36%, while the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 rapidly accelerated that growth by an additional 92%.” (Diaz-Infante). This study shows that students are increasingly demanding online classes. With this increase in demand, schools must take drastic measures to adapt and deliver on these wishes.
An increase in online schooling demand has ultimately raised many challenges for academies. With the increase in online presence students have higher standards of learning for online schooling; they are expecting in-person quality classes and resources through a screen (Diaz-Infante). Many universities need to maintain the costs of running Zoom or other platforms and pay for any other technology involved in simulating in-person realities through a computer. One of the biggest challenges that has arisen from the movement online was testing credibility. The handbook for teaching & learning from the University of Illinois provides evidence that teachers would have a hard time simulating testing environments online. The handbook states that exams should be given out strategically so that no student is next to each other and can’t see over the row in front of them, there should be one proctor per approximately 40 students, students shouldn’t be left alone during exams, students must be identified prior to entering the classroom, and proctors should be engaged in monitoring students (“Dealing With Cheating.”). Unfortunately for teachers, these environments are hard to simulate online without the assistance of monitoring platforms.
Proctoring platforms were widely introduced during the pandemic when many students began taking exams at home or in other locations. Some teachers require students to be on a zoom call with their cameras on while others had students install software to monitor their use of technology while recording them. A few of the most common modes of this include online proctoring, subsequent proctoring, live proctoring, and automated proctoring (Sergey Cujba). There are also a variety of companies that offer similar monetizing services to purchase like ProctorU, ExamSoft, Examity, Respondus Lockdown, and Honorlock. However, most of these brands can be generalized as they use similar strategies. One way that the proctoring apps monitor students is through “recorded patterns of keystrokes and facial recognition” (Oliver). Additionally, the use of “gaze monitoring” or “eye tracking” is implemented to see if the student is looking elsewhere during the exam, and microphones and cameras are used to make sure the student is alone (Oliver). Despite the pushback on these features, these are all things that proctors would have access to if these exams were in person.
The use of these proctoring platforms made it seem as if teachers had no faith in their students to complete their exams to university standards — was this for a valid reason?
From personal experience, many students have taken advantage of online testing as a way to bump up their grades. With increasing pressure from external sources to do well, cheating is almost incentivized. There are many ways in which students can take advantage of prohibited resources during online exams such as working with additional monitors, using calculators instead of arithmetic, researching questions on the internet during exams, and communicating with other students through messaging platforms (Subin). Students have also found ways to incorporate these techniques even after the use of mild proctoring efforts. ProctorU, one of the many technologies implemented, witnessed an increase from 1% to over 8% of students cheating on exams during and after the pandemic (Newton). Despite the high number of exams being monitored on the platform, ProctorU’s CEO stated “We can only imagine what the rate of inappropriate testing activity is when no one is watching” (Newton). Hence the requirement for this technology is to discourage and give teachers a chance to punish such behavior. Additionally, there are many posted resources students can access to learn how to privately search. For example, “choosing a separate browser with hardened privacy settings” is one way to avoid your data being tracked (Barnett). Also, there are burner apps or other communication apps that cannot be tracked to communicate freely during exams (Barnett). It is also possible to delete data from a device to ensure there are no online footprints (Barnett). Due to all of these readily available tricks, there are many ways to get around proctoring apps and watching in general. Students have definitely taken advantage of the fact that teachers have relaxed testing conditions since the pandemic began. Many students see proctoring services and think they got the short end of the stick when in reality, these proctoring services are most similar to the monitorization they would face in a normal school setting. As academic dishonesty persists, teachers must look into these services in order to maintain order and fairness throughout the classroom.
At the University of Michigan, these technologies are implemented on exams even as they begin the move back to in-person schooling. A student in the nursing department described her testing experience as “very similar throughout my three years of college despite the changes in environments throughout” (James). The Michigan Nursing Department uses Respondus Lockdown, which ensures that students can’t switch between tabs or browsers during exams given through Canvas even as proctors monitor the room. “It is a very fair experience,” explained James, “I think that there is only so much that teachers can do to monitor 200 students’ screens in the same room- the lockdown browser is very effective.”
Get Reyna Bhens’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
As cheating is a growing aspect of many students’ college experiences, the lack of learning could have detrimental effects on other parts of their lives. Students who choose not to study the material well will never absorb the information which could be critical for their post-graduation careers. Additionally, adopting good study habits will set you up for success later in life. Learning organizational skills, time management, and analytical thinking will be useful in any career path one chooses to go into. Being curious to learn is something that is highly valued; having lazy dishonest tendencies will be sure to catch up with you later in life. Furthermore, the short-term satisfaction of a good grade may not be worth it in the grand scheme of things. The added stress of not knowing if you are going to get caught could also adversely affect one’s performance on close deadlines. For these reasons, cheating should be of utmost concern for teachers as they are tasked with more long-term responsibility than just preparing students for exams.
Critics of proctoring websites say that proctoring services are an invasion of privacy. As mentioned previously, many proctoring services require cameras on and some will go as far as to observe your surroundings to ensure proper test-taking environments. The technology used in proctoring services is often compared to “spyware” and is deemed an invasion of privacy (Oliver). However, it is hard to distinguish between using technology for educational purposes versus invading privacy. Many of the features that these services can offer are things that proctors would be able to notice in a classroom setting. For example, teachers are able to recognize wandering eyes, note sheets, and the use of unpermitted technology. So, what is the difference between this and using technology to recreate this online? One tangible reason that many believe this is different is that the setting of online tests is taken in people’s homes. Yet, ExamSoft, one of the many proctoring services, ensured the government that it only monitors students’ faces and bodies and doesn’t collect data on their surroundings (Kelley). Feeling like your personal surroundings are being inspected could be uncomfortable for some, however, this is the best and easiest way to simulate a real test experience virtually and students must recognize the similarities between in-person testing and online testing before feeling violated.
Much of the population argues that when it comes to privacy is that they have “nothing to hide.” When looking at where your information goes, there are many companies and corporations that obtain personal information that you may not think of right away. For example, a person writing a book about someone who makes meth may have to worry about government surveillance on his research and ending up on the “suspicious persons watch list” due to their online searches (Solove). This “nothing to hide argument” is particularly interesting as it applies to testing measures. Solove states, “The nothing to hide argument focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems — the disclosure of personal information or surveillance– while ignoring the others” (Solove). If students aren’t hiding anything, they should have no reason to sacrifice surveillance of exams for the potential to be punished for misconduct on no particular fact basis.
There are also measures that teachers can take to ensure that the proctoring platforms are being used properly and to their full effect. Going back and reviewing each student taking an exam can be tedious and inefficient. Human reviewers may miss some of the flags marked by the platforms. ExamSoft’s work with the California Bar Exam is an example of some of these concerns. Over 3,000 students were flagged, however, only 47 students were pursued to have conducted academic dishonesty (Kelley). The students getting off the hook, in this case, is largely accredited to human reviewers overlooking flags and not reviewing other students’ work (Kelley). In order for these services to remain beneficial, examiners must view these technologies as helpful tools rather than expecting them to catch misconduct for them (Kelley). Here, there is room for improvement for teachers and reviewers to be better equipped to work with the technology. Such training can be implemented within schools for teachers that have fully adopted online learning and don’t plan on switching back in the near future.
When it comes down to it, there has to be a compromise between what is deemed reasonable in terms of testing surveillance. On one hand, teachers would like full control over monitoring students while taking exams while students feel they can be more independent during this time. Studies show that there is an achievable balance of the tradeoff between invasiveness and general well-being. One study done on the Ebola outbreak outlines where it was helpful for researchers to obtain information about individuals’ names, addresses, and photographs to track down the virus and the point at which threat diminishes and privacy concerns rise (Latornero).
This idea is directly applicable to testing services — as teachers are able to monitor students they maintain fairness within the classroom, however, there does come a point where surveillance can overpower the beneficial effects of proctoring services. For this reason, proctoring services should find this medium. This could include eliminating room surveillance but mimicking conditions teachers would be able to measure if the exam was in-person such as talking, eyesight, and unpermitted technology use.
Overall, it is evident that proctoring services serve more positive effects than negative ones. It is unfair for the students that upheld academic standards to perform poorly compared to those who found back loops around the systems. Proctoring technologies are necessary as the online presence of schools continues to grow. Teachers should continue working with the technologies to make better use of them and ensure a positive testing environment. As the future of moving back fully in person is unclear, schools must take advantage of these services that have proven to work effectively. If you were given the opportunity to cheat with no repercussions, would you take it?
