Introduction
In the age of online learning, assessment proctoring software such as Honorlock and Proctorio were created to deter academic dishonesty for remote, online testing (Hill, 2022). Schools and universities quickly adopted this new technology to ensure cheating was not occurring on online assessments. When taking an online test outside of a classroom setting, instructors require that a browser extension be downloaded and installed on a student’s personal or school-issued computer. Software like this has raised many student concerns about the data collected, privacy infringement, and discrimination by artificial intelligence. The acceptance of this technology correlates with the substantial changes in social behavior, such as individuals giving up their liberties and privacy to stop the spread of disease during the COVID-19 pandemic (O’Brien, 2021).
Honorlock, the most popular of the online exam proctoring systems, was created in 2021 by students who believed their friends were taking online exams with unapproved assistance (Hill, 2022). Honorlock stands on a noble platform, stating that verifying the student's identity, eliminating the requirement for administrators to certify exams, and offering a lightweight browser extension as an alternative to resource-intensive application solutions are the company's main pillars for establishing a fair online testing environment (Stike, 2022). When installed on an application like Chrome, the browser extension works with the test-taking platform by blocking the commencement of the assessment until all requirements are met. First, the student must accept the terms of use and privacy policy. Then, the student must grant access to the computer’s web camera and allow permission to record the entire screen. The student is prompted to show a school-issued or government-issued picture identification card and take a picture of his or her face. These checks verify that the individual taking the test is the student in the identification and that the name on the identification card is cross-referenced with the student assigned the test on the platform. Then, the student must maneuver his or her device to take a 360-degree ‘scan’ or recording of the surrounding room and desk. The scan ensures that no other individuals are in the room and that the desk is free of notes or other unapproved aids. The extension also can read internet history. After the test is complete, the software determines a likelihood score of cheating, and the instructor is prompted to review the recordings and flags of suspicious behavior (Chen, 2022).
Honorlock has been widely used as online test-proctoring software, which has increased the number of rivals in the market. According to Chen (2022), businesses have formed that each provides distinctive detection strategies and payment mechanisms, including Respondus, Examity, and Proctorio. The development of these new competitors has given the discussion about using online proctoring technologies in educational settings a new angle. However, it is essential to point out that Honorlock continues to be the most often used service for online test-proctoring despite the development of new rivals. A testimonial to its perceived usefulness and dependability in preserving academic integrity during online exams is that educational institutions worldwide have adopted it widely. To keep this paper concise, Honorlock will be referenced when determining the ethical implications, as it is the most popular service for this cause.
Cheating Detection Methods
There are many data points used for cheating detection. A webcam recording allows for AI-facial recognition to determine that the student always remains in front of the device. If the student cannot be detected within the webcam frame, the test will be blocked, and an instructor will be called upon for later review. Eye-tracking technologies can follow if the student continuously looks too far off-screen, signaling a potential nearby note sheet. The audio recording will log if there is too much excessive noise in the room or if another individual is reading out answers off-camera. A screen recording ensures that no other tabs are open on the device and that the test taker is not opening another program. The cursor is bound to the browser window's edges before setting off a warning. Further, the window may not be resized, and the student may not wear a hat or headphones, drink water, or have a busy background, so there are no false positives in the cheating detection algorithm (Chen, 2022).
Honorlock asserts that its technology learns from and adapts to how students take tests (Stike, 2022). The company has followed through on promises to improve the software by increasing accessibility, loosening the sensitivity to decrease the number of false positives, and providing live resources to test takers. For instance, 24/7 live support is available to students experiencing technical difficulties, and a live proctor can intervene if a student is having trouble during the testing period. The algorithm has been fine-tuned to ignore irrelevant noises in a recording, such as stomping and coughing, and instead focus on voices. The software can be directly integrated with various online classroom management platforms, such as Canvas, Brightspace, Blackboard Learn, and Intellum (Remote Proctoring: Detect cell phones & prevent cheating 2023). For students with accommodations allowed by their respective office of disability services, extra time can be automatically applied to their tests (Stike, 2022). This evolution has made online proctoring more palatable for students and instructors.
Arguments for the Software
Students will be dishonest in any test-taking environment, and it is unfair to honest students that one or more of their peers have the upper hand (Purpura, 2021). Taking a test online increases the probability of cheating (Chen, 2022). In classes with a curve, cheaters improve the class average but hurt students who took the test without assistance, leading to more people succumbing to the temptation of cheating (Selwyn, 2021). Moreover, a false test score for a placement test can be permanently detrimental to a student’s learning, where a student is artificially placed in higher-level classes they have not met the prerequisites for (Purpura, 2021).
This collection of ethical issues has manifested in the advent of online learning since the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic. With the sudden changes resulting in unanticipated state-wide and nationwide lockdowns, institutions had no choice but to implement remote proctoring technology (Selwyn, 2021). As it is naive to trust everyone in a large group of students’ test-taking integrity, educators must find a way to keep online assessments fair. It was simply not possible for students to take tests in a shared classroom space where an administrator could deter cheating due to health concerns, nor is it feasible to employ live proctors that can watch students’ webcams as they take a test. Automation is the only available solution to the remote proctoring dilemma.
However, after students returned to in-person instruction, many education providers realized that the ability for students to take assessments online allows the school to provide enrollment to more students (Purpura, 2021). In-person classes require a physical infrastructure, such as classrooms and computer labs, which can be costly and limiting in terms of the number of students who can be accommodated. Remote proctoring allows students to take assessments from their own devices, eliminating the need for physical space and infrastructure. With remote proctoring, education providers can also reach students who cannot attend in-person classes, such as those who live far away or have scheduling conflicts.
Furthermore, schools can dedicate their time to other issues aside from cheating detection when it is automated (Selwyn, 2021). Manually reviewing individual recordings of students taking a test would be time-consuming, but automating these tasks enables educators to redirect their time and resources to improve instruction quality, develop new curricula, or provide additional resources to their students. Schools can operate with greater efficiency and efficacy using remote proctoring. As a result, schools have reduced costs and personnel needs, which may be especially helpful for institutions with limited budgets or those struggling with the pandemic's consequences (Purpura, 2021).
The benefits of online learning and remote proctoring extend beyond cost savings and increased efficiency. Online learning has opened education to a wider variety of students by enabling them to take tests at their own speed and on their own time. This is very advantageous for people who face challenges attending conventional in-person sessions, such as those with impairments, those with responsibilities to their jobs or families, or those who reside in remote places (Purpura, 2021). Remote proctoring software has helped to facilitate this increased access to education by providing a secure and reliable way for students to take exams online. As a result, remote proctoring has become an increasingly important tool for educators and institutions looking to expand access to education and ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to succeed (Selwyn, 2021). These revelations have further enshrined remote proctoring software’s place in education.
Concerns Raised About the Software
There have been a plethora of ethical concerns voiced by protesting students. The issue of remote proctoring technology has been debated in the courtroom. One main issue is the requirement to examine a person's personal space (Young, 2022). A proctoring platform instructed an unsuspecting student at Cleveland State University to perform a 360-degree scan of his room. He responded quickly in order to start the exam on time. He filed a lawsuit against his institution, claiming that his Fourth Amendment protection against unjustified search and seizure had been violated. According to a federal judge, Cleveland State's interests in scanning Mr. Ogletree's room are outweighed by his right to privacy in his house (Young, 2022).
Another argument is that the proctoring extensions use similar technologies that are employed by stalkers, hackers, and the government (Wendermann, 2022). Opponents of Honorlock attribute the acceptance of the software to be permitted by the companies categorizing their product as educational technology, or ‘edtech’ when a more appropriate designation would be ‘spyware’ (Wendermann, 2022). If the technology is indeed spyware, then there is more controversy in the fact that students must consent to the Terms of Service of a private company to take a course (O’Brien, 2021).
Many students find it unethical that to earn a diploma or degree, they must accept the terms of a company they have no affiliation with, especially when their university or school provided their own proctoring services in the past. In addition, a student must accept and acknowledge the risks associated with data collection. A third-party company collecting swaths of information from students, their devices, and their living space across the globe is undoubtedly a large target for hackers attempting to breach data (Wendermann, 2022). This vulnerability is amplified if the company’s data security methods are not adequately stress-tested (Wendermann, 2022). A large remote proctoring service like Honorlock or Proctorio announcing a data breach would not only ignite a fierce debate about the tradeoff between students’ privacy and cheating detection but also may have dangerous implications for students.
The issue of discriminatory AI algorithms has become a growing concern in recent years, with bias in facial recognition software being reported in various industries. In the case of the AI face detection algorithm used in schools, it is clear that the technology is not yet advanced enough to accurately identify all students, particularly those with dark skin complexions (McKenna, 2022). A student in Michigan was identified as a cheating suspect after AI determined that she was not the student assigned the test and that her skin tone was lighter on her student ID than it was on her webcam (McKenna, 2022).
An issue that has arisen with all integrations of technology, there are also instances of overreliance on technology. The extensions mistakenly interpret typical test-taking habits as cheating. A Flordia University student was given a zero for gazing down at her hands during an exam (Hill, 2022). As seen in the case of the Florida University student, some of these extensions may flag normal test-taking behaviors as suspicious, leading to unjust consequences for students. In such cases, educators fail to look critically at the technology they are using, assuming its results are infallible and unfairly penalizing students for innocent actions (Hill, 2022).
Allusions to Government Surveillance
The use of proctoring technologies during the pandemic has sparked concerns about the potential erosion of civil liberties and privacy. While these technologies were implemented with the aim of limiting the spread of the virus, some argue that they represent a slippery slope toward government overreach and authoritarianism. Surveillance technologies were implemented at varying levels of severity in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands to curb the spread of the Coronavirus (Vetch, 2022). The epidemic caused governments in many nations to adopt diverse degrees of oversight and control. Some contend that proctoring shares similarities with China's contentious increase in the surveillance of its citizens (Vetch, 2022). Critics have labeled Honorlock and comparable software as "authoritarian technology" and "spyware," a description also applied to goods produced by Chinese firms Alibaba, Huawei, and Cloudwalk that are alleged to have helped their government monitor the Muslim Uyghur population (Vetch, 2022).
The balance between individual freedoms and the public good has come under considerable scrutiny due to proctoring technology. While some contend that these steps were required to stop the virus from spreading, others are concerned that they might result in a normalizing of monitoring and control that will have long-term repercussions. The parallel to China's surveillance state is particularly alarming, highlighting the dangers of an uncontrolled government authority.
Possible Permanent Legacy of the Software
The potential for proctoring technologies to become a permanent feature of higher education has raised concerns about the long-term impact on student privacy. This may become the status quo permanently, and students will forever have to sacrifice their privacy to get a degree (O’Brien, 2021). If this trend continues, it is possible that the level of surveillance considered socially acceptable in academic settings will eventually reflect that found in more authoritarian nations such as China. (Vetch, 2022).
The normalization of surveillance and the erosion of privacy could have far-reaching implications for society as a whole, affecting not only students but also employees, citizens, and consumers. As Vetch (2022) notes, there is a risk that the current level of surveillance may become the new normal, blurring the line between legitimate measures to improve collective well-being and unjustifiable infringements on individual rights.
Concluding Remarks
As someone who is increasingly concerned with the degradation of individual freedoms for the sake of improving the social good, I am an opponent of remote proctoring technologies. While I understand the merit of cheating prevention, overwhelming surveillance on my personal computer is an invasion of privacy. As a student, I am further upset that for many classes that I have taken, accepting the terms of use from a third-party company that collects and stores identifiable and sensitive data, including my name, photo, information from my identification, my browser history, and images of my living space was required to satisfy the course requirements. It is an additional nuisance to close other applications and all open tabs on my browser to take a test.
The purpose of education is to prepare students for their careers. Students have traditionally been administered examinations on the curriculum taught to gauge learning and are assigned a grade. Tests may measure what a student memorizes, but they struggle to ensure that the student can apply their knowledge in their careers. In the workforce, employees are not faced with tests based on facts from a textbook or a lecture; rather, they work in groups and conduct research to apply their expertise to their job. I think that with the accessibility of research using the internet and collaboration using video conferencing, education as a whole should move away from the test assessment model and transition to project-based assessments. After all, these can be showcased on a student’s resume or portfolio and are less susceptible to cheating tendencies, eliminating the need for remote proctoring software.
The subject matter at hand presents a significant challenge in terms of sourcing high-quality and reliable materials due to the recency and ongoing evolution of the technology involved. As the majority of the literature reviewed was published only recently, comprehensive and diverse research on this topic remains largely unavailable. Consequently, the thorough evaluation and examination of the bias of the sources is often difficult. Nevertheless, the references collected provide valuable insights into the emerging field, despite the limitations of the available research. Further studies are necessary to understand this technology's implications more fully and develop more comprehensive frameworks for its ethical implementation. As this technology continues to evolve, it is imperative that researchers remain vigilant in their efforts to assess its ethics and potential applications critically and for instructors to assess whether student privacy issues are outweighed by their intent to curb cheating.
References
Chen, C., Jones, K. T., Lawrence, M., & Simpson, J. M. (2022). Can Educators Prevent a “Wild
West” Scenario in Giving Online Exams? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 23(2), 43–48.
Hill, K. (2022, May 27). Accused of cheating by an algorithm, and a professor she had never
met. The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/technology/college-students-cheating-software-honorlock.html
James E. Purpura, Mashad Davoodifard & Erik Voss. (2021). Conversion to Remote Proctoring
of the Community English Language Program Online Placement Exam at Teachers College, Columbia University. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18:1, 42-50.
McKenna, S. (2022, September 13). Universities shouldn't use software to monitor online exams: Here's why. The Conversation. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://theconversation.com/universities-shouldnt-use-software-to-monitor-online-exams-heres-why-188327
O'Brien, C. (2021). International Studies 602, Section 1 (Spring 2021) Capitalism in the Age of
Divided Government. Institute for Regional and International Studies.
Remote Proctoring: Detect cell phones & prevent cheating. Honorlock Online Proctoring | Honorlock On-Demand Online Proctoring Services. (2023, March 23). Retrieved April
20, 2023, from https://honorlock.com/exclusive-b/
Selwyn, N., O’Neill, C., Smith, G., Andrejevic, M., & Gu, X. (2023). A necessary evil? The rise
of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media International Australia,
186(1), 149–164.
Stike, T. (2022, June 23). Top 10 benefits of online proctoring: Online exam benefits. Honorlock Online Proctoring | Honorlock On-Demand Online Proctoring Services. Retrieved
January 30, 2023, from https://honorlock.com/blog/top-10-benefits-of-online-proctoring/
Vetch, F. (2022, August 30). China invests in US universities to build its surveillance state. Coda Story. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://www.codastory.com/newsletters/china-surveillance-us/
Wedermannn, D., & Stillig, V. (2022, June 15). Automated Proctoring Software: A threat to
students' privacy and IT security. Digital Freedom Fund. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://digitalfreedomfund.org/automated-proctoring-software-a-threat-to-students-privacy-and-it-security/
Young, J. R. (2022, August 28). College's use of exam-proctoring software to 'scan' rooms
violated privacy rights, judge finds. EdSurge. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2022-08-25-college-s-use-of-exam-proctoring-software-to-scan-rooms-violated-privacy-rights-judge-finds
留言