Difference between revisions of "Exam Proctoring Technologies"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
=== Privacy === | === Privacy === | ||
| − | Perhaps one of the most important and relevant concerns for exam proctoring technologies is privacy. During the COVID-19 Pandemic, students typically took exams from inside their homes as access to libraries and other areas was restricted. Due to this, “room scans” were being recorded inside students’ homes often in their bedrooms. According to NPR, a student at the Cleveland State University was in a similar situation and sued his school after he had taken the scan. The student, Aaron Ogletree, claimed that the scan was an “unreasonable search and seizure” of his home and the court ultimately sided with him. The defense claimed that Ogletree had control of what he displayed in the room and could have refused to do the scan, giving him a zero on the exam. The judge, however, ruled that these searches “go where people otherwise would not” and that the school would not have access to Ogletree’s room in the first place without the proctoring system | + | Perhaps one of the most important and relevant concerns for exam proctoring technologies is privacy. During the COVID-19 Pandemic, students typically took exams from inside their homes as access to libraries and other areas was restricted. Due to this, “room scans” were being recorded inside students’ homes often in their bedrooms. According to NPR, a student at the Cleveland State University was in a similar situation and sued his school after he had taken the scan. The student, Aaron Ogletree, claimed that the scan was an “unreasonable search and seizure” of his home and the court ultimately sided with him. The defense claimed that Ogletree had control of what he displayed in the room and could have refused to do the scan, giving him a zero on the exam. The judge, however, ruled that these searches “go where people otherwise would not” and that the school would not have access to Ogletree’s room in the first place without the proctoring system <ref> Bowman, Emma. “Scanning Students' Rooms during Remote Tests Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules.” NPR, NPR, 26 Aug. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119337956/test-proctoring-room-scans-unconstitutional-cleveland-state-university. |
| + | </ref>. | ||
Additionally, exam proctoring companies hold sensitive information such as video, audio, and personal information in their databases, which may be vulnerable to attack. In 2020, ProctorU, one of the leaders in exam surveillance technology, suffered a data breach where 444,000 records were leaked. These records included names, emails, phone numbers, passwords, addresses, and affiliated organizations [8]. | Additionally, exam proctoring companies hold sensitive information such as video, audio, and personal information in their databases, which may be vulnerable to attack. In 2020, ProctorU, one of the leaders in exam surveillance technology, suffered a data breach where 444,000 records were leaked. These records included names, emails, phone numbers, passwords, addresses, and affiliated organizations [8]. | ||
Revision as of 21:22, 27 January 2023
While exam proctoring technologies have been around since 2008, they have reached peak popularity during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The systems provided a solution many schools, including high schools and universities, needed to deter cheating in their online testing environments. These technologies typically demand access to a student’s desktop, camera, and microphone. Some of the technologies also track a student’s eye movements during the exam, making sure they are only looking at the screen[1]. Several ethical concerns have been raised in regards to this technology such as privacy and accessibility.
Contents
Data Collection
There are several different types of proctoring technologies and companies that collect a wide variety of different data. The most common data collected is a user’s webcam, keyboard strokes, microphone, and browser information [2]. Often, this data is stored in a database for a given amount of time until it is deleted. Most exam proctoring companies such as ProctorU state that they will not store data for longer than a year before it is deleted [3]. These basic features are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the technology used to track students. Students can also be asked to give a 360 degree view of their working environment prior to the start of the exam. These checks are known as “room scans” [1].
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence algorithms are also being used to further collect data on students. These algorithms can be used to verify the identity of students taking an exam. Facial detection scans are one of the applications of these algorithms where students are required to participate in the scan before an exam [4]. Other verification techniques include presenting an identification card or government document through the camera [2]. The most extensive use of artificial intelligence is done during the exam by tracking eye and head movements to determine whether students are cheating off screen. With machine learning, developers can train a model with thousands of examples of people who are taking the exam fairly and cheaters. This model can then be used in practice to detect suspicious head and eye movements typically seen in cheaters. When suspicious activity is detected, a human reviews the footage and makes a final determination on whether the student was cheating or not [5].
Ethical Concerns
Privacy
Perhaps one of the most important and relevant concerns for exam proctoring technologies is privacy. During the COVID-19 Pandemic, students typically took exams from inside their homes as access to libraries and other areas was restricted. Due to this, “room scans” were being recorded inside students’ homes often in their bedrooms. According to NPR, a student at the Cleveland State University was in a similar situation and sued his school after he had taken the scan. The student, Aaron Ogletree, claimed that the scan was an “unreasonable search and seizure” of his home and the court ultimately sided with him. The defense claimed that Ogletree had control of what he displayed in the room and could have refused to do the scan, giving him a zero on the exam. The judge, however, ruled that these searches “go where people otherwise would not” and that the school would not have access to Ogletree’s room in the first place without the proctoring system [6].
Additionally, exam proctoring companies hold sensitive information such as video, audio, and personal information in their databases, which may be vulnerable to attack. In 2020, ProctorU, one of the leaders in exam surveillance technology, suffered a data breach where 444,000 records were leaked. These records included names, emails, phone numbers, passwords, addresses, and affiliated organizations [8].
Discrimination
Exam proctoring algorithms have been shown to be unable to identify students with darker skin tones. This puts them at a disadvantage in stressful testing environments because they spend a large amount of time getting the technology to work instead of working on the exam. The experience of Ameya Ross, an African American student at Ohio State University, is one example of these issues at play. According to The Guardian, Ross took precautions prior to the exam to ensure she was in a well lit area. Even after taking these precautions beforehand, it took her 45 minutes to properly scan her face while students of lighter skin tones could begin immediately. The system finally recognized her face after she used a bright light directly over her head, which was a very uncomfortable environment [9]. Ameya’s situation is not uncommon. Lucy Satheesan, a software researcher, has done studies on facial recognition of Proctorio, a popular online proctoring company, and claims that the technology fails to identify black faces over 50% of the time [11]. Satheesan’s study included over 11,000 faces of different races and ethnicities. Her raw data showed only a 42.99% pass rate for black people and only a 59.39% pass rate for Middle Eastern people [12].
Accessibility
In order to implement online proctoring for students, providing a system everyone can access is vital. There are many different issues to consider including students with unstable homes, no access to internet connection, no access to a device, and more. Often, institutions work with software proctoring companies to help provide access and services for students when needed. They provide extra time, extra breaks, speech to text options, magnifying glasses, human assistance during exams, device access, and more to students who need it. [13]. Even with a wide array of services some students still faced a hard time adjusting to online exams. Internet inaccessibility is one of the most difficult problems to solve, especially during the pandemic. Students without access to consistent, high speed internet face more interruptions and disadvantages while taking exams. This inequality directly affects a student’s success (their grade point average) and confidence in navigating online assessments [14].
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Lee, Kyungmee, and Mik Fanguy. “Online Exam Proctoring Technologies: Educational Innovation or Deterioration?” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 53, no. 3, 2022, pp. 475–490., https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13182.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Kelley, Jason. “Federal Judge: Invasive Online Proctoring ‘Room Scans’ Are Unconstitutional.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 26 Aug. 2022, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/federal-judge-invasive-online-proctoring-room-scans-are-also-unconstitutional.
- ↑ Walley, Matt. “Data Retention FAQ – Proctoru.” ProctorU, Dec. 2022, https://support.proctoru.com/hc/en-us/articles/4405016171405-Data-Retention-FAQ.
- ↑ Indi, Chirag S, et al. “Detection of Malpractice in e-Exams by Head Pose and Gaze Estimation.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), vol. 16, no. 08, 2021, p. 47., https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i08.15995.
- ↑ Coghlan, Simon, et al. “Good Proctor or ‘Big Brother’? Ethics of Online Exam Supervision Technologies.” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 34, no. 4, 2021, pp. 1581–1606., https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1.
- ↑ Bowman, Emma. “Scanning Students' Rooms during Remote Tests Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules.” NPR, NPR, 26 Aug. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119337956/test-proctoring-room-scans-unconstitutional-cleveland-state-university.
