Read on Twitter
Quick thread on “Snooping Where We Sleep: The Invasiveness and Bias of Remote Proctoring Services” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c1bfc7eee175995a4ceb638/t/5fa5a6089dac8b491dfeabe9/1604691464606/Snooping+Where+We+Sleep.pdf
Presents a range of anti-proctoring arguments: it’s surveillance; unfair; spyware; worsens inequality; stigmatizes normal behaviours; places unreasonable demands on students; distrusting; violates privacy; exposes students to security risks
In my opinion they are all, to a degree correct. I’m a pragmatist though, so to me it’s a case of how big a problem they are and what we get for these transgressions in return.
I’m not sure about the best practices section though. The only actionable things are: don’t use proctoring; don’t use closed-book exams; use an honor code.
On the use of proctoring, I think in some circumstances it might be ok but in most it’s a bad choice. Also I want the proctoring vendors to open up to researchers to test if their anti-cheating approaches really work https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/strategies-for-using-online-invigilated-exams.pdf?v=1603758032
On closed-book exams, I think it’s about the learning outcomes being assessed. If you are assessing memorisation of low-level knowledge then you have the difficult task of having to set a secure closed type task. But that’s not what we should be assessing most of the time.
On honor codes, I’m a sceptic. Yes, there is some evidence of reductions in cheating rates but they are small reductions not enough to really address the problem. There’s also a bit of cultural cringe to them outside Northern America e.g. https://ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/762
We need a balance (not a dichotomy) between positive academic integrity and adversarial assessment security. And we need evidence. More in my book: https://www.routledge.com/Defending-Assessment-Security-in-a-Digital-World-Preventing-E-Cheating/Dawson/p/book/9780367341527
