Read on Twitter
Since Proctorio is a key sponsor of the Online Teaching Conference this year, my colleague and friend @AlohaSargent and I are boycotting it. Below are the equity concerns of minoritized students...
First, this technology, based on artificial intelligence and biometrics, has been found to be:
1. Racist: Facial detection and recognition technology is calibrated for white skin as the norm. It has a consistent inability to identify Black, Brown, and Asian people,
1. Racist: Facial detection and recognition technology is calibrated for white skin as the norm. It has a consistent inability to identify Black, Brown, and Asian people,
placing students of color at a disproportionate disadvantage. See articles: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/20/79/ai-face-recognition-racist-us-government-nist-study/
Also, students from certain cultural backgrounds are not permitted to be on camera, which makes them unable to take a test with proctoring software.
2. Genderist/Transphobic: Transgender or non-binary students may not be identifiable using facial detection and recognition
2. Genderist/Transphobic: Transgender or non-binary students may not be identifiable using facial detection and recognition
if they are in the gender transitioning process. See article: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2019/10/08/facial-recognition-software-has-gender-problem
3. Ableist: Students with disabilities, such as ADHD, rapid eye movement, or neuromuscular disabilities are at a disadvantage when the software is flagging head, body, and eye movements as suspicious behaviors. See article: https://hybridpedagogy.org/our-bodies-encoded-algorithmic-test-proctoring-in-higher-education/
There are also the potential emotional, mental, and educational consequences:
1. It is stressful and anxiety-provoking: Students at our college are expressing difficulty focusing on the content of the exam while being recorded because they are so concerned about keeping their
1. It is stressful and anxiety-provoking: Students at our college are expressing difficulty focusing on the content of the exam while being recorded because they are so concerned about keeping their
bodies and eyes still and not appearing to be cheating. It can alter studentsâ performance if theyâre feeling anxious or frustrated and if itâs not recognizing their face. See this article for more on the student voice: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/students-are-pushing-back-against-proctoring-surveillance-apps
2. Invades studentâs privacy: The CCCCOâs Legal Opinion Cameras-On Requirements states, âDistricts should adopt policies strictly limiting or prohibiting faculty from instituting cameras-on requirements in order to protect against violations of...Californiaâs student privacy lawâ
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/style/testing-schools-proctorio.html?referringSource=articleShare
3. Places students living with others (parents, for example) at a disadvantage to finding uninterrupted blocks of time and a private room to take online proctored exams. If anyone approaches them during an exam, the proctoring software could flag this as âsuspiciousâ behavior.
4. Views students as guilty and promotes a culture of suspicion & surveillance. It uses AI to flag studentsâ âsuspiciousâ behaviors. Normalizing the experience of being monitored by proctoring software could trigger deep-seated traumas related to policing & surveillance.
Additional sources: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c1bfc7eee175995a4ceb638/t/5fa5a6089dac8b491dfeabe9/1604691464606/Snooping+Where+We+Sleep.pdf
@SFSU âs Academic Senate resolution is a model for colleges to follow. https://senate.sfsu.edu/resolution/resolution-third-party-proctoring
