University of Illinois Bounces Remote Proctor Provider

Accessibility concerns spark change. Plus, a UK paper takes a long look at assessment design and anti-cheating proctoring.

Issue 3, February 1, 2021

University of Illinois to Drop Proctorio

Leaders at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign are dropping Proctorio, the automated remote proctoring service. It’s not clear what will replace it. The announcement only says they are, “investigating longer-term remote proctoring options.”

The reason for the change appears to be questions about the company’s accessibility. The school says:  

Significant accessibility concerns are associated with Proctorio. 

The notice also says:

Some of these concerns are specific to Proctorio, while others seem to arise to a more general philosophical opposition to remote exam administration and/or proctoring. 

Philosophy aside, with cheating increasingly common, especially online, going without a proctoring solution seems recklessly dangerous. Accordingly, it does look like the university will replace Proctorio with something.  

This pending change may highlight the distinctions between automated, record and review services such as Proctorio and live proctoring solutions offered elsewhere. Both have proven effective at deterring cheating, though live proctoring is more likely to prevent it. And while live solutions are generally more expensive, it’s also sure to be more effective in addressing accessibility issues.

Times Higher Ed Examines Remote Exam Proctoring

Times Higher Ed (UK) has a lengthy, well-reported piece (January 28) on remote exam proctoring and what it’s calling “authentic” assessments. A subscription or sign-up may be required, but it’s one of the best, most objective looks at the issues related to remote exam monitoring and cheating.

It starts by acknowledging that distance education and assessment are here to stay:

the surge in cheating cases reported by universities since the switch to online examinations makes the need for a solution urgent.

Online “closed-book” exams have proved comparatively easy to cheat on, while open-book exams with a time limit do not fix the problem because contract cheating websites, which write student essays or answer questions for a fee, now operate around the clock.

Of note, the article cites a survey by the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) regarding the use of proctoring solutions for remote exams. It found that about half of responding schools used some type of online proctoring but few used the most advanced options.

This was likely because of the high cost for the more advanced software, and the resources needed for Zoom invigilation, for example, [the QAA] explained.

The article also cites the repeated concerns of privacy raised by some students and teachers related to online proctoring but mostly centers on whether revisions to assessments themselves would be better, are necessary, or even possible.