Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, many Canadian universities have leaned heavily on the use of remote learning and the online writing of exams. And while the latter has traditionally been an in-person activity, with human proctors present to prevent cheating, the ongoing health crisis has had many institutions turn to private companies that implement remote proctoring.
This growth of remote exam surveillance and artificial intelligence (AI) proctoring has sparked controversy. Students have railed against the practice, arguing it violates their privacy and discriminates against some students. Some have protested; some have launched petitions, while at least one other group sought an injunction to prevent the use of AI-enabled proctoring by their university.
On March 8, Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Policy at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, gave an online talk on remote proctoring and AI-enabled exam surveillance for the University of Manitoba’s Robson Hall law school as part of its Distinguished Visitors Lecture Series.
Teresa Scassa, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law
Scassa pointed to the capabilities of some AI proctoring systems — technology that can red-flag as possible cheating things such as briefly looking away from the computer screen, unusual eye movements, irregular keystrokes or stepping away to use the washroom.
Following her presentation, Scassa told The Lawyer’s Daily that the companies implementing the technology “acknowledge that there has to be a review of the flags.”
“I don’t think any of the companies maintain that anything that’s flagged is cheating — it’s just possible cheating — and there needs to be some sort of review of the flags,” Scassa said. “That review part, I think, is underexplored. … Who is going to do that review? And how is that going to be integrated with the universities’ disciplinary procedures and policies, and so on, and what implications does that review have for the students and the students’ relationship with the professor? … I think that part is underexplored with these technologies. So, they do depend on a second step, but I think there are a lot of question marks about that second step before you get to a conclusion that there has been possible cheating.”
During her presentation, Scassa noted four types of remote proctoring: the passive monitoring of software used on students’ computers; the active restriction of their software; passive video surveillance of students via webcam; and active video surveillance, where a human proctor is monitoring the test taker.
Scassa said a balance needs to be struck between a university’s need to prevent cheating versus students’ right to privacy and freedom from discrimination.
In terms of privacy, Scassa pointed out that remote proctoring places students under constant direct surveillance — either by a human or through video recording. As a result, test takers can experience enhanced anxiety due to AI technology flagging the aforementioned common physical movements as possible cheating.
Remote proctoring can also lead to discrimination. Women who wear head and face coverings could run into difficulties due to having to physically identify themselves. Also, there are some students with disabilities or medical conditions causing movements or behaviours that could be red flagged by the technology as potential cheating.
Also, Scassa pointed out that some Black students have in the past been asked to change the lighting in their room or changes testing locations due to facial recognition technology not properly detecting them.
There is also the possibility that students of low socioeconomic means, or those in remote locations or close quarter living, could also face problems.
“The significant uptake of remote proctoring during the pandemic brought the issues it raises to the fore, and I think this is also the period in which we see more forms of remote proctoring that rely on artificial intelligence, and I think that’s part of the pushback as well, so we see during this period some significant resistance that manifested itself in a range of different ways,” Scassa told the group.
Student pushback has come in varied forms.
Scassa noted an attempt at a court injunction by students at the University of Amsterdam to stop their university from using remote proctoring. (The attempt ultimately failed.)
Students have also voiced their concerns through petitions. One currently listed on change.org involves British Columbia’s Thompson Rivers University (TRU). Those behind it are calling for the university to end its use of the ProctorU remote proctoring service.
“Using ProctorU’s system implies a range of risks for students, particularly regarding student’s privacy,” the petitioners state. “By engaging with ProctorU’s software, students will be required to give remote access to Proctors, which in turn gives a third party the ability to view personal files, reboot/shutdown the system, and even run scripts which students cannot see.”
They go on to call it an unacceptable method of monitoring test takers — pandemic or no pandemic.
“TRU students believe that, regardless of the current situation, it is not acceptable for any student to be examined with ProctorU’s software and hence we oppose the use of ProctorU for our examination. Instead, we believe that there are many alternatives to this, such as open-book [Moodle] exams or alternative assignments.” (Moodle is describe online as an open-source learning management system.)
Online proctoring has also made headlines in the form of a lawsuit brought against a former University of British Columbia faculty member by Proctorio, Inc., a company that sells remote proctoring services.
Proctorio launched the lawsuit in response to the defendant, Ian Linkletter, a critic of Proctorio, logging into the company’s website and posting online several links to videos that teach instructors and administrators how the software works.
Scassa was asked if she sees future legal action over alleged discrimination.
“I’m not sure if it will come to that,” she said. “Some of the student petitions and complaints have had pretty good traction. There have been universities that have either scaled back their use of remote proctoring significantly or have simply decided not to use it anymore. … So, quite of few of the student petitions have gained the attention of the universities that are rethinking how they use remote proctoring. And, of course, with the end of the pandemic, the dynamics may shift. It’ll be interesting to see what universities do post-pandemic, whether they go back to having exams in person and have the in-person proctoring or what the situation will be.”
Still, Scassa during her presentation acknowledged the need for the effective monitoring of test takers, and the negative impact cheating can have both on universities and society as a whole.
She pointed to a study from 2020 that found 62 per cent of student respondents admitted to cheating at least occasionally. (Although, Scassa notes that this statistic is based on self-reporting, and that the study focused on cheating in general, as opposed to only cheating on exams.)
Scassa also found in her research that cheating is particularly prevalent in online settings — especially if there is nothing in place to detect or deter it.
In related news, the Law Society of Ontario recently made headlines after having to initially cancel its most recent set of bar exams due to test content being improperly accessed by some candidates. The regulator has since rescheduled the tests, which will be done in person, in April.
Scassa was asked for comment.
“It underlines this concern about cheating. And so, again, it is something that can support the necessity part of that argument [for remote proctoring]; that this is a live concern; it’s not just paranoia, but a real and genuine concern, and so obviously something needs to be done to address it. But whatever solution is adopted has to be one that doesn’t cross the line.”
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for The Lawyer’s Daily, please contact Terry Davidson at t.davidson@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5899.