Alarming story about proctoring services

[Caracal]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/technology/college-students-cheating-software-honorlock.html

I'd be curious to hear from people who have used systems like this. Is this normal? The expectation that a student stare at their screen the entire time they are taking an exam seems ridiculous. When I took exams, I'm pretty sure I stared off into space, looked up at the ceiling, looked down at my desk. Certainly, I see lots of my students in class do that sort of thing. In person, nobody would ever think this was evidence of cheating unless you noticed a student looking at something in particular. These are really normal unremarkable mannerisms and it seems bizarre to view them as evidence of cheating in a remote exam.

[clean]

I wasnt able to go to the link as it said I had reached my limit for the month (which must be set at 0!)

SO without reading the article, I can say that it is not unusual for students to stare into space.  It IS more likely that they are cheating IF their eyes are moving back and forth and they are looking back to the same location!

I caught one with the service that had a phone leaning against the laptop screen.  The service had the do a room check and the reflection of phone in a TV as she panned the room.


Similarly, the last cheater I caught was IN Class, but leaning back and staring at his lap.  He was so enthralled with his lap that he didnt notice me walk to him and he was busted! 

So, even in face to face classes, looking at one location (away from the test) IS a give away!

Personally, IF I suspect that the student was cheating on an online, even proctored exam, my syllabus has an 'audit' notation, that would require the student to take the exam again within a few days in a face to face environment.  (Though in the days of Covid and the massive shift to online classes and students spread out of the area, this would be more difficult to enforce).

[OneMoreYear]

I wasnt able to go to the link as it said I had reached my limit for the month (which must be set at 0!)

Clean, that happened to me when I clicked on the link, but when I did a search for the article in google (New York Times cheating), I was able to access. Just in case you want to read it.

I haven't used an automatic detection system like this; when possible, I transitioned away from exams that were intended to be closed book when we went virtual. I would be surprised that a short period of looking down would be accepted as evidence of anything without other indicators, particularly since it appears the students did not answer any questions during that minute. The 0 on the exam would likely not have been held up on appeal here.

[Chemystery]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/technology/college-students-cheating-software-honorlock.html

I'd be curious to hear from people who have used systems like this. Is this normal? The expectation that a student stare at their screen the entire time they are taking an exam seems ridiculous. When I took exams, I'm pretty sure I stared off into space, looked up at the ceiling, looked down at my desk. Certainly, I see lots of my students in class do that sort of thing. In person, nobody would ever think this was evidence of cheating unless you noticed a student looking at something in particular. These are really normal unremarkable mannerisms and it seems bizarre to view them as evidence of cheating in a remote exam.

It's normal in the sense that it is what Honorlock is programmed to do.  I used Honorlock while teaching online during COVID.  It was not a good experience.  This was one of a number of frustrations.  My students needed to do calculations.  Honorlock provides a checklist for things students are allowed to have on the exam.  I could indicate that they were allowed to have a calculator and scratch paper to write on, but they still flagged the students, many times in the exam period, for looking down too much.  Apparently I could allow them to have these things, but not to use them.  Worse, if the students looked at their paper for too long, Honorlock would actually interrupt the exam to demand the students make sure their faces were clearly visible.  It also flagged students who had a picture behind them with faces. 

On the other hand, I watched videos where students clearly had conversations with someone and were not flagged.  It prevented one student from opening the link to the periodic table I provided.  That student happened to have a print out with her, so she got out her bag, pulled it out, showed it to the camera so I could see it was the same table with no writing, and continued.  No flag.  I didn't consider this cheating, but I felt strongly that it was an incident that should have been flagged for review.  I also watched one video where Honorlock kept opening a web browser open to google.  Opening other windows shouldn't have even been possible.  As far as I could tell, the student was not doing anything to cause this, and rushed to close it every time it happened.

The upside, I guess, is that I had iron clad proof when two of my students sat side by side and discussed every question while passing a notebook full of course notes back and forth during the final exam.  They knew they were being recorded.  I guess they were betting that I wouldn't actually have time to watch.  A better upside is that Honorlock convinced me that one student I suspected was cheating wasn't.

[mythbuster]

We also had Honorlock during COVID and it was a nightmare. If the student had a poster on the wall behind you of a person, Honorlock would flag the student for not being in the room alone. If the dog barked in another room, the student could also get flagged. The system was way too sensitive.
   What I don't get from this article is the discretion of the instructor. Did the instructor actually watch the video? Or just fail everyone who got flagged?

I will be teaching a hybrid course this Fall, and issues like these are why I insisted on in person exams. It easier and better for everyone, all around.

[apl68]

Honorlock sounds like an even bigger pain to deal with than Respondus.  It also sounds kind of Orwellian.

[marshwiggle]

We also had Honorlock during COVID and it was a nightmare. If the student had a poster on the wall behind you of a person, Honorlock would flag the student for not being in the room alone. If the dog barked in another room, the student could also get flagged. The system was way too sensitive.
   What I don't get from this article is the discretion of the instructor. Did the instructor actually watch the video? Or just fail everyone who got flagged?

This is the social problem of "automation"; laziness makes people want to rely on the system for everything, rather than appreciating it for reducing their workload by 90%. (Like the accidents that happen with self-driving cars; "drivers" were totally tuned out, asleep, etc. instead of just using the system to allow them to stretch their arms and legs while still paying attention during long boring stretches of highway in good weather.)

[Katrina Gulliver]

I experienced one of these proctoring systems (not Honorlock, but similar) during covid, as a student (I was enrolled in a degree program at the time).
The setup was a major pain, in terms of ID verification, waving around your laptop to show your space, etc. In the end, the university abandoned using it - midway through the exams - as it was glitching too much, students couldn't log in, etc (and apparently cheating was epidemic anyway).

I'm skeptical of how they can really be a useful tool - beyond perhaps facial recognition that the enrolled student is the person sitting in front of the screen.

Intriguingly some of the NYT commenters seemed to think the student cheated anyway, and was just annoyed she got caught.

I also read this piece recently, by an exasperated prof, detailing the cheating he discovered in his class - he'd joined the student whatsapp group.

Students have always found ways to cheat, if they really wanted to: and online culture does seem to have changed students perception of "plagiarism" etc.

[kiana]

FWIW, we used those during covid for math classes. We found that it was not very effective in reducing cheating, although it was somewhat helpful in providing evidence after someone had cheated.

Our rates of REPORTED cheating more than tripled, and that doesn't include the people where we felt strongly that they had cheated but could not find evidence. Some of us also did not report students who were already epic failing the class just because of the time and energy commitment required when we were working massive amounts of overtime already.

For most of our math classes, we no longer allow online exams because of this.

But NONE of us went with "well honorlock flagged you so you must have cheated". That's appalling.

[Caracal]

Intriguingly some of the NYT commenters seemed to think the student cheated anyway, and was just annoyed she got caught.

I guess there are unbalanced people out there, but it's one thing to cheat, its another to fight it even when you know you did it. It would be an entirely different level to agree to be the center of a NYT story about how you were unfairly accused of cheating when you actually did. It wasn't like this person was kicked out of school, so it would be hard to understand what the motivation would be for someone to do this if they weren't unfairly accused.

[Caracal]

But NONE of us went with "well honorlock flagged you so you must have cheated". That's appalling.

Yeah, I would like to think this is just a bizarre case of a terrible instructor with no sense fairness or decency. You can't accuse someone of something as serious as cheating without actual proof. Even setting aside the moral issue, I find it hard to understand. I've been lucky enough to not have to go through honor code/disciplinary hearings involving cheating, but whenever I start the process, I'm aware that its always a possibility. Who would want to risk going through all that and standing up before some committee with a half baked case of cheating against a student that makes you look a huge jerk and a fool.