Search News


Browse Archives

News

Proctor 2.0

June 2, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It’s time for final exams. You’re a student in Tokyo and your professor works in Alabama. It’s after midnight and you’re ready to take the test from your bedroom. No problem. Flip open your laptop, plug in special hardware, take a fingerprint, answer the questions and you’re good to go.

Just know this: Your professor can watch your every move ... and see the pile of laundry building up in the corner of the room.

Distance learning programs – no matter their structure or locations – have always wrestled with the issue of student authentication. How do you verify that the person who signed up for a class is the one taking the test if that student is hundreds, often thousands, of miles away?

Human oversight, in the form of proctors who administer exams from a variety of places, has long been the solution. But for some of the larger distance education programs -- such as Troy University, with about 17,000 eCampus students in 13 time zones -- finding willing proctors and centralized testing locations has become cumbersome.

New hardware being developed for Troy would allow faculty members to monitor online test takers and give students the freedom to take the exam anywhere and at any time. In principle, it is intended to defend against cheating. But some say the technology is going overboard.

Sallie Johnson, director of instructional design and education technologies for Troy’s eCampus, approached Cambridge, Mass.-based Software Secure Inc. less than two years ago to develop a unit that would eliminate the need for a human proctor. Johnson said the hardware is the university’s response to the urgings of both Congress and regional accrediting boards to make authentication a priority.

The product, called Securexam Remote Proctor, would likely cost students about $200. The unit hooks into a USB port and does not contain the student’s personal information, allowing people to share the product. The authentication is done through a server, so once a student is in the database, he or she can take an exam from any computer that is hardware compatible.

A fingerprint sensor is built into the base of the remote proctor, and professors can choose when and how often they want students to identify themselves during the test, Johnson said. In the prototype, a small camera with 360-degree-view capabilities is attached to the base of the unit. Real-time audio and video is taken from the test taker's room, and any unusual activity -- another person walking into the room, an unfamiliar voice speaking -- leads to a red-flag message that something might be awry.

Professors need not watch students taking the test live; they can view the streaming audio or video at any time.

“We can see them and hear them, periodically do a thumb print and have voice verification,” Johnson said. “This allows faculty members to have total control over their exams.”

Douglas Winneg, president of Software Secure, said the new hardware is the first the company has developed with the distance learning market in mind. It has developed software tools that filter material so that students taking tests can’t access any unauthorized material.

Winneg, whose company works with a range of colleges, said authentication is “a painful issue for institutions, both traditional brick-and-mortar schools and distance learning programs.”

Troy is conducting beta tests of the product at its home campus. Johnson said by next spring, the Securexam Remote Proctor could commonly be used in distance learning classes at the university, with the eventual expectation that it will be mandatory for students enrolled in eCampus classes.

When Troy unveiled the unit last winter at the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools meeting in Atlanta, dozens of college officials expressed an interest in participating in beta testing. (Johnson said she has also received calls from interested parties who would like to use the software to help disabled students).

Susan Aldridge, president of University of Maryland University College, said she would like her college to be one of the first testing sites. Aldridge has first-hand knowledge of the technology -- she was vice chancellor of Troy's University College and eCampus, before coming to UMUC.  (Both UMUC and Troy have extensive distance programs all over the world, growing out of their work with students in the military). She said she brought up the idea of a device that hooks into a computer a few years back, but that the cost of fingerprinting hardware was too high.

Aldridge said this technology would go a long way in solving what she calls “a logistical nightmare” involving students, faculty and human proctors. 

“The concept is revolutionary for the industry,” Aldridge said. “Authentication is a huge issue in this sector. Coming up with a way to preserve academic integrity is critical. It will continue to be a challenge for any university conducting classes at a distance.”

Brian Douglas, chief technology officer for UMass Online, said the issue of online cheating is overstated. "In my opinion, it doesn’t occur in any greater frequency than in the traditional classroom. This solution seems like quite an intrusion into a student’s life, and you are introducing a technological challenge into an already nerve-wracking testing situation."

Douglas said UMass Online is not considering such a device and has not heard of other colleges proposing a similar product. He said the university relies on the honor code and tries to structure online exams so that it is difficult to cheat.

Rebecca Jeschke, a spokeswoman for Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group concerned with privacy and digital freedom, said she doesn't see a problem with the use of the technology. “It seems like it’s pretty containable. It might feel a little creepy, but at least it's transparent. People make privacy bargains every day; you give up privacy in exchange for convenience."

Johnson said some students at Troy were hesitant about the hardware at first but have warmed up to the idea. For those who say the Securexam Remote Proctor sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel, Johnson has this response: “You don’t have to take an online class. You can always come to our campus. It’s your choice.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Proctor 2.0

  • remote proctor
  • Posted by veronica Kelly on October 12, 2008 at 5:10pm EDT
  • Not a bad idea, however after I downloaded necessary files I am still unable to use the device I have a test on Monday which was announced on thursady I have been working with IT from remote proctor for the past three days, needless to say I should be studying, and still it is not working. So what about my test, do I get a zero. Did I mention it is Sunday and still I have a non working remote proctor unit. Stressed, irritated, and dissapointed. As far as going to campus....whatever I live in a different state hence the reason they call it distance learning.

  • Proctor cost
  • Posted by Veronica at Drexel University on March 6, 2009 at 12:30pm EST
  • I don't mind the whole idea of test taking via remote proctor but my University initiated this camera just before my last semester, so my last final just cost me 250.00 I will never use this proctor again after this final and it goes in the garbage. Pretty steep if you ask me.

  • False sense of security?
  • Posted by Steve Foerster , Ed Tech Grad Student at George Washington University on June 2, 2006 at 8:20am EDT
  • I wonder if this device simply provides instructors and administrators with a false sense of security. Given the description of the device in the article, I immediately started considering ways dishonest students could defeat it. For example, it requires the student to be the one at the keyboard, and listens for other sound in the testing environment, and that's great, but is there any reason a student couldn't also use a projecting monitor and have a quiet accomplice write answers onto a whiteboard?

    Or, for the less criminally minded, what about students who must take their exam in a computer lab or other public environment? Not everyone can afford his or her own PC.

  • Recognizing our limits
  • Posted by Lew Kaye-Skinner , Lecturer in English at University of Nebraska-Lincoln on June 2, 2006 at 9:20am EDT
  • As I was reading about this new device by which Big Brother might watch a bit more of our private lives, I was reminded of a simple though often overlooked fact of human existence. Any and every security system can be circumvented. The first respondent to the thread started thinking of ways to circumvent this system. The elaborateness of it almost begs for our more creative students to find ways around it... whether or not they are inclined to academic dishonesty.

    In Orwell's classic tale, Big Brother was an impersonal personfication of the government in power. We should not let our presumed status as not being government officials, bureaucrats, or lackeys blind us to our power status in the classroom. Were I offered this option for the online class I am teaching at the moment, I would decline.

  • Test Taking Authenticity
  • Posted by Dora Finamore , Associate Professor at Northcentral University on June 2, 2006 at 9:20am EDT
  • It seems to me with all of the available technology and years of experience, we could come up with an assessment that is a more accurate and a reliable measure of knowledge. For example, I use a variety of media to assess students on knowledge, critical thinking, depth, analysis, etc. For one, rote learning which is one way of learning, may be appropriate for students early in their academic career. But graduate students need a broader and deeper way to demonstrate their knowledge, experience and abilities in a subject. The online environment has come a long way and in some ways has surpassed on-ground classes in their design, rigor, and assessment strategies. The institution where I am priveldged to have worked for the past 5+ years has certainly been at the forefront of helping learners and mentors work more collaboratively so that the experience is both rich and practical.If we remember that higher learning is a different experience when courses and syllabi are structured to include learners/students embedded in their cultures, we will have progressed from rote learning to more scholarly objectives. Let's think outside the box instead of trying to police our students/learners.
    Thanks, Dr. Dora Finamore

  • Just one question...?
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A Retired business Professor on June 2, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • When final Exams are given in F2F ("face-to-face" for the uninitiated) classrooms and lecture halls, how does one know that the person taking the exams are the persons who are registered for the course?

    Hmmmm?

  • Lap-Happy Cat = Something Is Awry
  • Posted by Peter Campbell , Lead Instructional Designer at Montclair State University on June 2, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • Here's an excerpt from a story on a new proctoring system designed to thwart efforts to cheat on on-line exams:
    (full story at http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/02/proctor)

    --snip--

    A fingerprint sensor is built into the base of the remote proctor, and professors can choose when and how often they want students to identify themselves during the test, Johnson said. In the prototype, a small camera with 360-degree-view capabilities is attached to the base of the unit. Real-time audio and video is taken from the test taker’s room, and any unusual activity — another person walking into the room, an unfamiliar voice speaking — leads to a red-flag message that something might be awry.

    Professors need not watch students taking the test live; they can view the streaming audio or video at any time.

    “We can see them and hear them, periodically do a thumb print and have voice verification,” Johnson said. “This allows faculty members to have total control over their exams.”

    --end snip--

    Question: how many faculty members are going to watch hours and hours of video or listen to hours and hours of audio of students after they have taken a test with the possibility in mind that the students might have cheated? I can only imagine how scintillating it would be to watch hundreds of students, one at a time, sitting in front of their computers, staring at their displays. It would almost certainly rival the cinematic quality of security tapes at ATM's, banks, or after-hours parking lots.

    I'm curious to know how a "red-flag message that something might be awry" actually works. If the student decides to play music while taking the test (perhaps to relax), would this be considered "an unfamiliar voice speaking"? And if the student's cat suddenly jumps up on the student's lap, would this be considered "another person walking into the room"?

    While the idea sounds appealing to me, I'd bet there's a tipping point with something like this. After you've been alerted for the 17th time that "something might be awry" is actually yet another lap-happy cat (or some variation of this), you'd likely disregard these cries of wolf and get back to good ol' fashioned face-to-face proctoring.

    I have some other thoughts on the whole notion of on-line assessment and cheating at

    http://tinyurl.com/8gg2n

    Note - it's about 55 minutes long, and it's optimized for use on a Windows machine using Internet Explorer, but it will work with a Mac or a Windows machine with any web browser.

  • "...we call it Voigt-Kampff."
  • Posted by Joe Clark on June 2, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • Made me think of this machine. But on further reflection, maybe this one is a better fit.

    But seriously, I'm with those who suggest alternative assessments rather than fallible security for (often) invalid psychometric instruments.

  • Posted by Jennifer , IT Tech on June 2, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • Why would they try to market that to students? I don't mind the idea of having proctor hardware, but it's a new pandora's box for the five students that will "accept your challenge."

    Why are they considering charging students another $200 for a product with limited use? Don't you think that campuses and other training centers, libraries, etc. would be able to fund these things a little easier? Do you think it is fair to charge a student because you don't trust them?

    After taking many classes online I have found that the best way to keep people from cheating is to create a more engaging online classroom environment. You know that people are doing the work if they are discussing things, and it gives you a better feel for your student. If you put up a syllabus and a weekly sheet of things to do for the next 4 months, you are leaving the critical thinking component out of the classroom. Students will respond by equally not caring about the ethics of the classroom (Only my experience tells me this... there are other factors involved for other students).

    I think they should be marketing to these places that they consider "cumbersome" to find to proctor tests. Public libraries and campuses internationally would be the best place to provide these little proctor things. It would be easier for library personnel (for example) to just install the hardware once, and then if a student or students need to use the device, it would be available. If not, the computer is still available. Maybe it can even be used for local security (without all the proctor exam bells and whistles). I know, I know, there is a better revenue stream from students and student turnover sales than they would get from one-time campus and library sales.

  • Posted by Larry on June 2, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • Not to mention that there are numerous entities around the world that will proctor exams for just about anyone. If institutions are serious about distance education, they can make arrangements with these entities.

  • Times are changing
  • Posted by JD on June 2, 2006 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Proctors, live or otherwise, never do anything but keep honest or uncreative people honest. There will always be people who can circumvent any system. How does one make sure that no one cheats in a auditorium with 300 students?

    As to why someone would do this, there are many people who work irregular hours in remote locations. There are also many people who prefer working on their own computers in the privacy of their own dwellings. Some might even perform better there. This is an alternative to traditional (i.e., one size fits all) education. It probably won’t work for everyone, but our current system does work for everyone either.

  • Bring em on
  • Posted by Kevin Mitnick on June 2, 2006 at 12:05pm EDT
  • I'm sure nothing could go wrong with this plan.

  • Spot on target
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on June 2, 2006 at 12:05pm EDT
  • Larry comes closest to the mark on this discussion IMHO, but reciprocity is generally the problem issue with that fix. Institution A is asked to proctor 50 distance exams for institution B, while institution B proctors only 10 distance exams in return.

    The 360 degree camera should defeat projections and an instructor should only need to monitor a given test-taker 2-3 times during an exam to see if what is being typed in matches sounds and action on the monitor.

    From my experience and observations, most instructors probably wouldn't bother to monitor most students; just those whose regular discussion and projects don't seem to match up with the first or second exam; e.g.: a usually vapid student becomes expert in answering exam questions and choses spot on target examples to illustrate points.

    As in f2f classes, some professors just don't care either way unless academic dishonesty starts chewing on his or her posterior cheeks.

  • Posted by Kevin on June 5, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT
  • “You don’t have to take an online class. You can always come to our campus. It’s your choice.”

    Actually I don't have to do either. I can and will find an institution that treats a 50 year old student as if I have some semblance of personal integrity. Having completed one DL graduate degree with proctored exams for the entire program I looked for a different methodology for my current program.

    I find that most professors are quite capable of designing exams to meet any test situation, whether in class, take home and unproctored, or timed, or some variation.

    Identity verification is very straight forward in any computer based environment via login. Adding extra peripherals, in my opinion, can create some potential problems. Everything from administrator rights for adding the peripheral to what to do in the event of a malfunction all seem like additional worries that a student shouldn't need to address because of a few (anyone know how many or what percentage) folks cheat.

    Additionally, since many students are military, government, corporate, etc... having a live view of a room may necessitate having to sanitize the room or find another location, adding additional logistical issues.

    In my opinion time would be better spent policing the campus based population.

  • online verification
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on June 14, 2006 at 6:20pm EDT
  • Kevin, Sorry. No idea what is your point.

    I just logged onto my Inside Higher Education account and now my monkey is typing this response.

    Classroom (f2f) AND distance education share some verification concerns - that the student who paid for the class and receives the degree is who they say they are.

    Employers and other students are demanding it; maybe they know something you don't?

    I'm sure you're quite honest, but many of your friends are NOT above paying someone else to take tests and write papers for them. Don't you have any athletes as friends?