P
eople say you don’t know what
you’ve got until it’s gone. However,
when it comes to technology, the
opposite holds true: You don’t know what
you’ve got until you’re stuck with it.
Over the course of the pandemic, technol-
ogy has creeped further into our lives, educa-
tion being no exception. All of my classes this
semester have been conducted online, as have
my club meetings and social events. Practical-
ly every interaction I have with the University
of Michigan happens through a webcam.
However, there is one new technology that
has seen particularly rapid adoption since the
beginning of the pandemic: exam proctoring
software.
T
here are a number of companies
competing in the remote proc-
toring space, including ProctorU,
Respondus, ExamSoft, HonorLock and Proc-
torio.
ProctorU, for example, offers four levels of
online proctoring: record, record+, review+
and live+. The most basic service available is
“record,” which offers identity verification
and end-to-end recordings of the students’
camera and screen. During the exam, the ar-
tificial intelligence records instances of pos-
sible suspicious behavior — anything from
eye movement to background noise. The ser-
vice then produces a report including flagged
events that may require further review by an
instructor.
In comparison, “live+” offers more deter-
rence features designed for high-stakes ex-
ams. Along with monitoring exam-takers via
artificial intelligence, this service includes a
proctor who supervises students and inter-
venes when they suspect cheating.
With the breakneck transition to virtual
learning, there has been a documented in-
crease in cheating, and exam proctoring ser-
vices have stepped in to address this issue.
In an email to me, Scott McFarland, CEO of
ProctorU, touted the advantages of software
solutions to deter academic dishonesty.
“Changes in assessment design can miti-
gate some risks of misconduct,” wrote Mc-
Farland. “But so long as there are remote tests
that require demonstrated knowledge in the
form of a test, proctoring will be necessary. As
of now, the only alternative to remote proctor-
ing is not proctoring, which increases the risk
of academic misconduct.”
H
owever, all of this increased busi-
ness for remote proctoring has
coincided with a backlash over
privacy and accessibility concerns.
Without the backing of their schools, some
students have taken matters into their own
hands. Daniel Farzannekou, a student at the
University of California, Los Angeles, was fea-
tured in The New York Times for his act of
resistance against the Respondus proctoring
software. Before the exam could begin, Far-
zannekou replied to directions to scan his face,
room and ID by holding a profane slip of paper
up to his webcam and uninstalling the soft-
ware. He called the software “dystopian,” com-
paring his peers’ numbness to its dangers to the
placating tactics of authoritarian regimes.
When I reached out to Respondus via email
to comment on criticisms of this kind, they ac-
tually addressed the issue of privacy head-on
and sent a list of industry-standard protections.
“With online proctoring, students often
have the misconception that Respondus views
and uses the webcam videos for its own pur-
poses,” wrote Jodi Feeney, Vice President of
Operations at Respondus. “The data is owned
and controlled by the university. Respondus
doesn’t have human proctors reviewing the
videos; the proctoring is done by an automated
system.”
According to Sowers, Respondus also does
not watch students while they take exams,
sell or share data with third parties or access
files on students’ computers. Sowers wrote
that the software “exceeds the requirements”
outlined in data protection legislation such as
FERPA, GDPR, CCPA and frameworks like
Privacy Shield and SOC 2 certification.
Nevertheless, the use of exam software
has still resulted in legal controversies over
privacy. When the Faculty Association of the
University of Santa Barbara expressed its
concerns and advocated a policy of refusal
towards ProctorU in a letter to the Chancel-
lor, ProctorU’s legal counsel levelled spurious
allegations of trademark infringement, copy-
right infringement and defamation.
Finally, artificial intelligence implemented
in these services tends to perpetuate discrimi-
nation. The behavior of students suffering
from chronic illnesses, anxiety or other condi-
tions are singled out by the algorithm. The fa-
cial recognition technology also discriminates
against people of color. The fact that facial
recognition systematically fails to recognize
non-white faces is well-documented, so it
should not come as a surprise that this phe-
nomenon is being reproduced in the sphere of
remote assessment.
When I asked if there has been criticism of
their services, none of the software providers
I reached out to for this story addressed dis-
crimination or algorithmic bias in their email
responses.
T
hough this national conversation
has been brewing since the begin-
ning of the pandemic, it was only
after a few of my friends finished the Law
School Admission Test in the first week of Oc-
tober that I began to take notice of the invasive
nature of proctoring software. Hearing about
their experiences — such as showing proctors
their rooms or allowing proctors to control
their laptop’s function — was pretty unsettling,
and I was curious to know whether automated
remote proctoring had penetrated into regular
college courses as well.
The college of Literature, Science and the
Arts has staked out a clear position on remote
proctoring technologies. On the LSA Technol-
ogy Services website, the college specifically
recommends against the Respondus Lock-
down Browser, which prevents students from
navigating away from a webpage, and other
third party services. They enjoin faculty to
“Avoid the Temptation for Invasive Technol-
ogy Solutions to Address Issues of Academic
Integrity.”
And indeed, the LSA students that I spoke
with had not experienced remote proctoring
software in their college courses.
When I spoke over the phone with LSA se-
nior Teresa Clark, she indicated her gratitude
for the way professors were handling assess-
ments.
“To accommodate people’s schedules, pro-
fessors will give you the entire day to complete
the exam,” Stark said. “They’ll release it at the
beginning of the day and give you the entire
day to work on it so they have been definitely
less stressful and less high stakes than in-per-
son exams.”
Stark also took the LSAT earlier this month,
and the easygoing nature of her professors
stood in sharp contrast to the ProctorU em-
ployee who kept an eye on her during the LSAT.
“You have to record your entire room,” Stark
said with a laugh. “Which did cause some con-
fusion because my room was pretty messy and
they apparently prefer that they don’t see any-
thing in the video.”
When I asked Stark how she would have re-
acted if she had been accused of cheating, she
explained that the business about her cluttered
room might have weighed against her.
“My room had like a bunch of random stuff
in it,” Stark continued. “And I would have found
it difficult to prove that I didn’t have some ex-
tra material around me.”
Outside of LSA, some colleges have em-
ployed different methods to deter cheating.
During our phone conversation, Business and
Engineering junior Vikas Chanduri explained
how exams work in those two colleges.
“In the entire engineering department, the
engineering honor code works in a way where,
even when we have in-person exams, there
actually isn’t a proctor in the room,” Chanduri
said. Instead, in pre-pandemic times, the honor
code allowed engineering students to walk into
an auditorium and take exams surrounded only
by other students, with professors or Graduate
Student Instructors waiting outside the exam
room in case anyone had any questions.
The College of Engineering simply places
trust in its students — what a concept! That
attitude, however, differs quite a bit from the
Machiavellian world of the Ross School of
Business.
“In all my (pre-COVID) Ross classes there
were always (GSIs) walking around and my
professors were at the front of the classroom
for questions,” Chanduri explained. “So I guess
in a way that has been transferred into a virtual
environment, exactly the same way that it was
before.”
Chanduri then talked about his experience
using the Respondus Lockdown Browser dur-
ing one of his Business School classes last se-
mester.
“It was kinda weird at first having the cam-
era on the whole time,” Chanduri explained.
“But I guess it’s the same idea as if you had a
proctor watching everyone in an exam room …
so I didn’t think it was that big of a deal.”
I
n my view, however, the problem with
exam proctoring technologies is that
they are not really helping us to adapt.
Rather, they are providing a vulnerable techno-
logical crutch we will be stuck with long after
the pandemic ends.
Consider the fact that most of these services
require students to have access to a computer
and a good wireless connection. In Michigan,
the rift between those who have internet con-
nectivity and those who do not, known as the
“digital divide,” poses a huge challenge for on-
line education. Research conducted by The
Education Trust shows that the percent of stu-
dents without digital access in some counties
in Michigan is around 30-40%, and a recent
report from The Brookings Institution stated
that 70 out of 83 Michigan counties have in-
ternet connectivity rates below the national
average.
To the extent that adaptation is happen-
ing, it is actually students and faculty adapting
to technology, not the other way around. For
students to even be able to take exams, they
have to download software or Chrome exten-
sions, subject themselves to invasive security
procedures and allow artificial intelligence to
gather extensive data on their behavior. I sup-
pose that for many of us who have become
accustomed to pervasive online surveillance,
this does not seem like too much to ask.
Here is the thing about erecting digital
fences around university exams: Clever com-
puter science majors will always find ways to
hop over them. Some of them have even posted
lists of possible circumvention methods online
for everyone to see. The Virtual Machine, for
instance, lets people run computer programs
on software embedded within their physical
computers. Even something as simple as Post-
it Notes on one’s screen can work around the
most basic software solutions.
The result will not be the ultimate victory
of proctoring technologies, but an intermi-
nable arms race between software providers
and cheaters. As the methods of security and
prevention advance, so too will methods of
circumvention. We might even see a revolving
door between the makers of remote proctoring
software and a growing suite of circumvention
services.
Ultimately, educational institutions need
to understand that any technological “solu-
tion” comes with its own host of problems.
There are not side effects or unintended con-
sequences; they are latent in the design of the
technology itself. That is why many professors
have turned to alternative methods of exami-
nation that require students to demonstrate
their thought process and engagement with
class material: some examples include ditching
multiple choice exams for in-class essays, or
having students present material in a presenta-
tion or project.
Remote proctoring technologies have
some utility, especially when professors need
to deliver high-stakes exams to hundreds of
students. But where a relationship of trust
already exists between student and teacher,
this is what should be relied upon rather than
technology.
Perhaps we should also turn our attention
to the education system in which an over-
whelming number of students believe they
must cheat to get ahead. If only indirectly,
proctoring software companies benefit from
institutions that believe themselves to be full
of tricksters and thieves. Therefore, they do
not really want to solve the problem of aca-
demic dishonesty, even if such a thing could
be done. What really matters is whether uni-
versities suspect their students of cheating
and can think of no better way to stop them.
D
espite his reputation for advising
deceit, Machiavelli himself recog-
nized that the ways of treachery
could win a prince, “power, but not glory (im-
perio, ma non gloria).” Deep down, I think we
all share this intuition that fraud impedes true
greatness. And, therefore, that aspiring musi-
cians, athletes and artists should avoid fraud
as much as aspiring accountants, lawyers and
engineers.
In the end, no matter how well exam
proctoring technologies can deter cheating
through surveillance and fear of punishment,
they never will be able to convey its real cost;
that in developing the skill of cheating, one
neglects the virtue of learning.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
1— Wednesday, October 21, 2020
statement
The hard truth about
exam software
BY ALEXANDER SATOLA, STATEMENT CORRESPONDENT
ILLUSTRATION BY EILEEN KELLY