Talk:Exam Proctoring Technologies
Length
This article is over 1000 words (including headings and references). You have met the word count requirement of 1000 words.
The current length is appropriate, with minimal repetition and a good level of detail overall.
Structure
The article is well organized and includes all 3 major components of a good article:
- an opening paragraph that summarizes the issue
- the body of the article in one or more sections
- statements are backed up by references to reliable sources
Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph provides a good amount of information about the rise in popularity of exam proctoring software (COVID-19) and some monitoring mechanisms. While these provide a reader with ample background on use cases of exam proctoring software, a reader who isn't familiar with such software may be confused. A description of the purpose and mechanisms of online proctoring software would be very helpful here, see Online Proctoring on Wikipedia for an example. I'd also recommend making a distinction between human-proctored exams (where a remote human proctor watches the webcam and screen capture) and AI-monitored exams (like Respondus LockDown Browser with camera), as the technology and concerns behind them are a bit different.
Body
The "Ethical Concerns" section, and the three ethical issues presented, are objective, on-point and fairly detailed. You covered the main ethical concerns of proctoring software very well (privacy/data collection, accessibility, discrimination), with sufficient detail and citations.
However, as I mentioned above, I recommend adding a section on how proctoring software works for both students and instructors. Your readers might not be familiar with exam proctoring software, so a general description would be very helpful. You may want to include a description of how a student can start an exam, what software is installed, what information the software requests, etc. Also, you may want to look into how potential "cheating" events are communicated to an instructor.
Clarity
Besides some missing background information (such as how proctoring software works), all parts of the article is very clear and easy to follow. The issue at stake (proctoring software) and main ethical concerns are clear and well-explained. Furthermore, all ethical concerns include a brief but clear explanation of why it's important, which is awesome.
Objective reporting
Overall, there's minimal bias in the article, as there's no personal opinions or arguments for anything. In addition, all statements in the article are backed by references from credible sources.
However, the article has a strong focus on students who use proctoring software, with minimal information on instructors or schools that required such software. I'd recommend considering the issue from their (instructors or schools) perspective. For example, you may research the benefits or drawbacks of the technology from an instructor's perspective, and why a school or an instructor require the use of proctoring software.
