Remote Proctoring: Understanding the Debate

Abstract

Remote proctored exams are one of the most contentious topics in academic integrity and even in the broader field of education. There are many claims made about the benefits of remote proctoring, as well as its harms, but the evidence behind them can be elusive. This chapter begins by precisely defining remote proctoring and then explores the pros and cons of remote proctoring. It finds that there is strong evidence in support of a deterrent effect for remote proctoring, and that the limited evidence about remote proctoring’s ability to detect cheating suggests it may be ineffective. The critiques of remote proctoring are largely rooted in argumentation rather than evidence; however, there was some evidence in support of negative consequences for test-takers with trait test anxiety or dark skin. The argument is made that the burden of proof for the efficacy of remote proctoring, and its compatibility with equity and inclusion, should fall on remote proctoring providers and not on the scholarly community. The chapter argues that ultimately it is the perspectives that are brought to the choice to use remote proctoring or not that shape how the evidence is interpreted. Seven perspectives are explored to illustrate this point. In terms of remote proctoring’s compatibility with particular perspectives, there was the potential for criminology, assessment security, and cybersecurity perspectives to support remote proctoring, with some provisos. Academic integrity and artificial intelligence ethics perspectives were possibly less supportive. The most incompatible perspectives with remote proctoring were critical sociotechnical and critical pedagogy.