Our Campfire Session on 2 March, titled ‘Proctoring: Panacea or Problem?’, gave some interesting insights into the use of remote invigilation services, and the issues it can cause for students and institutions alike. 

The proctoring of exams may be considered a necessary evil by some, whereas others may see such initiatives as a new enabler in the distance learning toolkit of higher education. This issue was the subject of our most recent Campfire Session. The session began with our three panellists, Steve Rowett, University College London (UCL), Shoshi Ish-Horowitz, Queen Mary University, and Jon Strømme, SIKT, introducing themselves and providing the audience with their personal perspectives on, and experiences with, online proctoring.

Dr. Rowett cited Jeremy Bentham – the spiritual father of UCL – in his opening remarks. The rationale behind proctoring comes from Bentham’s ‘panopticon’ theory – people work better when they think they are under constant supervision. They are not aware of whether or not they are being monitored at any given time, but the knowledge that they could be is enough to prevent cheating. Dr. Rowett went on to state that whilst traditional forms of proctoring, in an exam hall environment, have never been considered controversial – the practices are controlled, and checks and balances remain in place – online proctoring ‘isn’t a single practice’ – and this makes controlling it far more difficult. 

Next, Ms. Ish-Horowitz next discussed her personal experiences with online proctored examinations. She recently sat project management examinations that were remote invigilated and found them ‘very stressful.’ The onus is now on students, rather than institutions, to prepare the exam environment, which naturally causes a far bigger burden. Furthermore, Ms. Ish-Horowitz expressed misgivings over the hardware requirements to sit the exam, and the very real possibility that students may not have the correct technology to take part in their assessments comfortably – another contributor to exam stress. Ms. Ish-Horowitz then remarked that she sat a follow-up exam which was again proctored online, but this time by an actual person – this meant that ‘they were more human’ about various issues, which she found alleviated a lot of stress when it came to being assessed. Despite this, she still found the overall experience ‘absolutely horrible.’ 

Mr. Strømme then provided a different perspective on the use of online proctoring. Working for an organisation that provides services to universities, his approach offered alternative insights which were not directly rooted in higher education. He detailed how SIKT created a survey for universities to gauge their views on proctoring, and that the findings showed both a distrust for it and a belief that it was not even a legal practice. He then went on to outline that ‘the lawyers in Norway, at the universities, were unanimous – you cannot [proctor] effectively in a home environment.’ This interpretation of EU law and the resulting inability for a university to proctor offered an interesting viewpoint and raised further questions over differences in approaches based on national rules and frameworks. 

Following further discussion and some interesting questions from the audience, the session concluded with an overarching summary: the issue of online proctoring is extremely sensitive, creating more questions than answers for both students and institutions alike.  

There are a multitude of reasons why online proctoring is such a delicate and problematic topic, one such being the invasion of privacy that is felt through remote invigilation. Traditional invigilation in an exam-hall setting works within a controlled environment, with an institutional responsibility to ensure fairness, and with checks and balances on personal invasion. Working from their homes, students now have what is often a ‘black box algorithm,’ an unknown AI assessing the suitability of their own living spaces. This not only causes stress but also crosses a boundary in terms of privacy which in-person exams could never do. Furthermore, as online proctoring often is not done by a human, more issues arise over how invigilation is carried out, and what may or may not be considered cheating in a digital context. Ms. Ish-Horowitz expressed her worry that speaking out loud when repeating exam questions to herself might not conform to proctored assessment regulations, which sent her ‘into a bit of a mental tail-spin.’ 

Differences in national approaches and questions of legality also contribute to the sensitive nature of online proctoring. Mr. Strømme cited the issue of ‘interpretation’ – lawyers across Europe may not regard remote invigilation in the same manner as those in Norway. Ms. Ish-Horowitz built on this concept, questioning what would happen if a student had to sit an exam at a UK university, which considered online proctoring legal, but was working remotely in a country such as Norway, where huge legal implications would arise through the use of any invigilation software. Clashes such as these contribute further to the sensitive nature of online proctoring. 

Another issue raised which further reinforced the sensitive nature of online proctoring was the need to be compliant with the expectations of professional bodies. Ms. Ish-Horowitz stated that ‘awarding bodies are a major issue’ for students ‘seeking to become doctors or accountants at the end of their courses’, because strict proctoring may be an essential examination requirement. Mr. Strømme built on this: ‘we want a surgeon to know exactly what they are doing, and the same for a pilot – these people cannot cheat, and candidates must know what they’re doing.’ Much like the issue of legal interpretation, different professional bodies may have varying rules and regulations. Navigating these may add to the problematic nature of remote invigilation.  

Our panellists drew several conclusions based on the problematic nature of remote invigilation. One outcome they expect to observe is that universities will begin to consider alternative forms of assessment that enable a move away from the perceived need to online proctor. Ms. Ish-Horowitz expects to see ‘lots more different and imaginative approaches to assessment’ beyond lockdown exams, with Dr. Rowett believing there will be a move to ‘a different balance of assessment types.’ 

Beyond simply alternative forms of assessment, our panellists also commented that a return to in-person examinations is likely, especially for those which require careful invigilation. Mr. Strømme has already seen a continuation of traditional practices in Norway for certain types of assessment and expects to see ‘old-fashioned methods when it comes to these types of high-level exams,’ where invigilation is considered essential. Ms. Ish-Horowitz agreed, but presented the view that ‘it’s very hard to roll back the clock.’ The opportunities for inclusion that remote examinations have created could continue to open doors for groups of students, such as those with long-term illnesses, and for international students who may never be on campus.  

The final take-away from the session was that students want ‘transparency.’ Ms. Ish-Horowitz commented that ‘if you don’t tell students what is being monitored, and how the monitoring is being carried out, it will make students more stressed’ – and Dr. Rowett supported this point of view: ‘We must think of the kindest way to invigilate exams remotely.’ When examinations are proctored online, it is important that we inform students of all the necessary processes, adequately prepare them, and in some cases co-opt them into the process, to create an assessment environment that is free from external stresses.  

This most recent Campfire will have sparked many thoughts and debates for those that partook, and we’re sure this won’t be the last word on this challenging topic. 

We want to thank our panellists and all those who joined us for such an engaging session.