Can a humble personal computer become the world’s most powerful exam invigilator? Some colleges in the US are trialling technology that turns student devices into cheat-detection machines with new software and technology – but it could be bad news for learners who have dyslexia and ADHD.
Digital proctoring software enables students to sit their exams remotely whilst maintaining the exam’s integrity – essentially, monitoring a number of environmental factors to ensure that student’s aren’t cheating. It does this by using a webcam to monitor eye and head movements as well as movements in the room behind, and microphones are hooked up to a remote reporting system where they detect any noises deemed abnormal in the room that could indicate somebody speaking, or using other devices. Specially developed algorithms log the biometric patterning and frequency with which a user moves their cursor, scrolls on the page and makes an input using the keyboard. The software them combines these three forms of surveillance and uses a separate algorithm to detect whether an event- like picking up a book, taking a phonecall, getting up to go to the bathroom- is suspicious, and flags the feedback for the class instructor or exam invigilator to investigate.
It’s not a bad idea in theory – the advent of remote monitoring software has meant that examinations could take place even during the Covid-19 pandemic, and enabled education to be kept on track when it comes to assessments and qualifications. It’s also been highlighted on social media that some people who are neurodiverse or have physical disabilities prefer remote exams – somebody with social anxiety might well prefer to take an exam from their own room than in a crowded exam hall, as might somebody with joint or mobility issues that mean they can’t sit comfortably for long and need to recline.
However there are some students that feel like the remote proctoring experience is actually contributing to feelings of anxiety and surveillance. Another form of remote proctoring requires an exam invigilator to link with a student via video to observe them as they take the exam, and it’s raised a lot of issues about privacy, security and student safety – you can read about one student’s less than ideal experience with it here*. But when it comes to accessibility and making sure that everybody’s exam experience is as fair and as easy for them to demonstrate their knowledge in as possible, some digital proctoring software falls fairly short of accessibility standards.
Although the need to maintain standards and protect the viability of examinations in the age of social distancing is important, is it unfairly disadvantaging students who learn and think differently? Issues have also been raised on social media about the viability of these systems when it comes to students who are used to using text-to-speech scanning devices: although screen readers are compatible with some proctoring systems, it’s a case as to what the student is used to and whether changing up their assistive technology at a late stage in the game could have an unfair impact on their exam results.
The eye tracking technology and monitoring system that underpins a lot of digital proctoring tech kits could cause problems for some students who are neurodiverse: many students who have dyslexia need to re-read or revisit pieces of text as they work though an examination, and some research even indicates that the general eye tracking of people who have dyslexia can differ from that of their neurotypical counterparts. Students who have ADHD often find maintaining focus can prove difficult in some scenarios, and this too could cause the algorithm to flag their actions as potential cheating events – a few minutes spent focusing on something that isn’t the exam page wouldn’t be flagged at all in a written exam sat in an exam hall, but in a digitally proctored one, it could potentially be raised as an indication of cheating.
Across the board, the newest set of exam surveillance tools aren’t well-liked by students – even for those with neurotypical minds, many people are of the opinion that they’re too intrusive and can make anxiety levels spike, meaning that exams sat aren’t a true reflection of their skills or their subject knowledge. It’s a conundrum - although cheating is an issue of fairness when it comes to assessments, digital proctoring might not actually be preventing some students from gaining an unfair advantage over others – although people are less likely to cheat, people who learn and think differently could be being disadvantaged in their place. It’s part of a wider discussion about how we examine students across the board, and whether time-honoured methods of testing need to be re-examined to make sure that they’re accessible for everybody, and alternatives found if it turns out that it isn’t the case.
One thing that’s certain is that the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have catalysed developments in remote learning and remote working technology. But as well as celebrating this progress, we need to make sure that we’re working together with neurodiverse people with disabilities to make sure that our world is getting more accessible, as well as more technologically advanced – progress needs to be progress for everybody, and now more than ever technology needs to make sure it’s being used to connect and not divide.
Articles marked with an asterisk (*) contain expletives.