Cheating in online exams and Proctorio

[apl68]

And besides being invasive, these sorts of systems evidently have way too many false positives.  False negatives too, no doubt, for those who know how to work around the system.

Just imagine what these surveillance systems are being used for in countries where there's no rule of law or political pushback for those who use them.  Or even in well-intentioned, but increasingly meddlesome, social democracies.

[clean]

My Preference is for In  Person Exams!  However, we offer online classes to students anywhere on the planet. 
The students claim that they can not find a place to take a live, proctored exam.
Also, there is a belief out there that "Online" means "Easy".    Worse, some students dont believe that using a cell phone to search the internet for answers on a take home exam IS cheating! 

So we are at an impasse.  IF a degree is to have meaning, then the exams need to be valid.  "Trust but Verify" were Ronald Reagan's words. 

Take a look at what is out there before you offer an unproctored test.  I write my own questions, but I regularly  search the internet for my questions, and regularly send Chegg a copyright violation notification to have them take my questions back down. 

IF you use a test bank, grab half a dozen questions at random and copy and paste them with a google search.  Either Chegg, Course Hero or some Flash Card place will have the questions up there. 

Personally, I start with test bank questions and then change them.  Fortunately, as I teach Finance, it is easy enough to change one number and generate different test questions.  (I leave the original correct answer as a choice though, and get plenty of students to pick it, even after I post announcements NOT to memorize answers they find online as I know that they are there and I have changed all of the questions! 

In a prior post, I offered suggestions to 'audit the test/quiz' if the software indicates a problem, and throw out the scores of students that ignored the software instructions by not being in the frame.  (The program we use (Respondus Monitor) sends repeated warnings that they are not in the frame.  I have watched the students turn off the warning and stay out of frame!  Well, they get a zero!

You may not need or even want to bring cheating charges, but you CAN certify that the exam was properly taken.  IF that means that the student needs to take the exam again, then DO IT! 
Someone will need to show me where students have a right to cheat, OR a right to take unproctored exams.   

[theteacher]

Thanks everyone for the valuable discussion!

I described things to Olivia (more like a summary of the comments mentioned here). I also said I wouldn't endorse any request for a formal investigation, so it'll be Olivia's business to pursue this any further.

In terms of the current allegations, I would consult with your student conduct board as to the strength of the evidence that you have. They should be able to give you a good sense of if this is really worth pursuing.

Olivia chatted with the chair of the student conduct board and was told a "confession of cheating is required" for an approved misconduct case!

Can Olivia require the students to retake the test in a proctored location?

IF that means that the student needs to take the exam again, then DO IT!

Our university has policies for almost everything. We need good reasons to ask students to retake an exam.

[clean]

Well,  that is it then. The administration does not care about the value of the degree they are 'giving away'. 

I would put in my syllabus a set of rules, and make sure that those rules are at the start of each exam, requiring the student to "agree" (make it a pass/fail questions if necessary... violate the rules, fail the test, and as you need a good reason to retake the test.... well then dont violate the rules!  Retests can work both ways!!).

Violating the rules of the test would be a violation of the syllabus and the terms of the test.  IF THAT is not sufficient to allow a retest, then Olivia has several choices.  Among those choices are to use exams that use a lock down browser, meaning that they would need another device to do the searching.  Cut the exam time so that there is no time to search for the answers on another device and type in the answers.

Something I have done is create individual final exams for my Intermediate Finance course final exam. The students have 10 days to 2 weeks to work them, but each one has different numbers.  I have warned them repeatedly that I search the internet frequently and that their numbers are unique and should I find an exam online it will not take 5 minutes to track down whose exam it was.  The recommended penalty will be expulsion.  (I doubt that would happen, but I would absolutely prosecute a finding of the exam online fully!)  (Their Student Number is used to create the numbers, so within a few minutes, I would have their student ID number). 

Moving forward I would not be giving unproctored exams at this place.  There are other ways to evaluate students and I would start exploring what options work best in that discipline. 

IF Olivia is a full time faculty, my next course of action might include exploring the rules of the accreditation agencies to see if the college is following all of their rules to ensure that the degree has value (that the students are honest).

[Langue_doc]

How should I address Olivia's integrity concerns?

Unless the concerns are supported by tangible evidence of cheating, I would not discuss them with the students. Olivia could discuss her concerns with the chair or the admin who oversees plagiarism/cheating reports. Accusing students of cheating sounds rather unprofessional and can also have repercussions on you and Olivia.

[Caracal]

Olivia chatted with the chair of the student conduct board and was told a "confession of cheating is required" for an approved misconduct case!

That's so bizarre that I wonder if this person is just saying that to try to keep Olivia from filing any charges. I only have experience with plagiarism cases, but I can only recall one time I've had a student deny the charges. That's because most students who cheat aren't evil geniuses who set out with a clever plan to get good grades without putting in the work. Mostly, it's people who get desperate and and make a dumb decision. The one time I've had a student just flat out deny doing anything wrong, the evidence was completely clear, there were long passages taken directly from various internet sources, the way it was done made it very obvious that the student knew what they were doing and the student just claimed that they hadn't used the internet sources at all. They just stared me in the eyes and lied. It was deeply unsetting to   Only time that's happened to me, but I've heard similar (and worse stories) from colleagues and friends over the years. If you really only pursued cases where there was a confession, you would just be punishing the desperate, confused and incompetent and allowing the sociopaths to continue on their merry way.

[Kron3007]

My Preference is for In  Person Exams!  However, we offer online classes to students anywhere on the planet. 
The students claim that they can not find a place to take a live, proctored exam.
Also, there is a belief out there that "Online" means "Easy".    Worse, some students dont believe that using a cell phone to search the internet for answers on a take home exam IS cheating! 

So we are at an impasse.  IF a degree is to have meaning, then the exams need to be valid.  "Trust but Verify" were Ronald Reagan's words. 

Take a look at what is out there before you offer an unproctored test.  I write my own questions, but I regularly  search the internet for my questions, and regularly send Chegg a copyright violation notification to have them take my questions back down. 

IF you use a test bank, grab half a dozen questions at random and copy and paste them with a google search.  Either Chegg, Course Hero or some Flash Card place will have the questions up there. 

Personally, I start with test bank questions and then change them.  Fortunately, as I teach Finance, it is easy enough to change one number and generate different test questions.  (I leave the original correct answer as a choice though, and get plenty of students to pick it, even after I post announcements NOT to memorize answers they find online as I know that they are there and I have changed all of the questions! 

In a prior post, I offered suggestions to 'audit the test/quiz' if the software indicates a problem, and throw out the scores of students that ignored the software instructions by not being in the frame.  (The program we use (Respondus Monitor) sends repeated warnings that they are not in the frame.  I have watched the students turn off the warning and stay out of frame!  Well, they get a zero!

You may not need or even want to bring cheating charges, but you CAN certify that the exam was properly taken.  IF that means that the student needs to take the exam again, then DO IT! 
Someone will need to show me where students have a right to cheat, OR a right to take unproctored exams.

The issue is that cheating is always one step ahead of us.  I would be surprised if students have not found ways around these systems by now, so it really only imposes draconian measures that punish the honest students that happen to have anxiety issues (very common these days).  I have spoke with many students who claim the presence of such a system hurts their performance, and I can understand it.

I think the better solution if we are to embrace online learning is a combination of scaffolded assignments (as another poster suggested) and open book tests/quizzes that are harder to cheat on.  In mine, I often include images and ask questions about them that I feel would be difficult to google.  This, combined with time limits, makes cheating difficult without the need for these measures.  Likewise, I sometimes present a situation and ask them questions about it that would likewise be difficult to google or answer without understanding the princi[ples we discussed in class.

Overall, in person is best, but if we want to embrace online I dont think we can just transfer our existing structures designed for in person learning, we need to re-assess how we are teaching and evaluating.

[arcturus]

The issue is that cheating is always one step ahead of us.  I would be surprised if students have not found ways around these systems by now, so it really only imposes draconian measures that punish the honest students that happen to have anxiety issues (very common these days).  I have spoke with many students who claim the presence of such a system hurts their performance, and I can understand it.

I think the better solution if we are to embrace online learning is a combination of scaffolded assignments (as another poster suggested) and open book tests/quizzes that are harder to cheat on.  In mine, I often include images and ask questions about them that I feel would be difficult to google.  This, combined with time limits, makes cheating difficult without the need for these measures.  Likewise, I sometimes present a situation and ask them questions about it that would likewise be difficult to google or answer without understanding the princi[ples we discussed in class.

Overall, in person is best, but if we want to embrace online I dont think we can just transfer our existing structures designed for in person learning, we need to re-assess how we are teaching and evaluating.

I agree. I teach an online asynchronous GenEd STEM course. I get the usual cheating and plagiarism on the weekly work (and, yes, it annoys the *** out of me, and I do report all incidences that I can document....), but I have no problems with my multiple choice timed exams. For the latter, I scramble the questions and answers as a baseline anti-cheating measure. However, the most significant anti-cheating measure is to *allow* use of the internet, notes, etc. It is a different test, evaluating different skills, than an in person exam. However, since I am teaching a GenEd course, one of my desired learning outcomes is for students to be able to research science-y things from credible sources. Thus, while it would be *better* if they actually learned the material for themselves, I am ok with the concept of them using a search engine to find information related to my course. Most of my questions also require application of class material (that part is similar to an in person exam), so does not really lend itself to an internet search.

[Caracal]

Someone will need to show me where students have a right to cheat, OR a right to take unproctored exams.

Obviously, they don't. But I think students do have the right to take an exam without disruptive and undue suspicion. In an in person exam, a proctor can monitor students without bothering them. If they see something that looks a little suspicious, they can wander over in that direction and make sure nothing is going on. Unless they see something that looks like cheating, they don't need to distract or bother students. If they see someone who seems to be staring down at the floor and they walk up the aisle and can see that there's nothing on the ground or in the student's lap, they can just conclude this is just a thing the student does. The online monitoring basically seems like the equivalent of a proctor in the same situation, instead leaning directly over a student's shoulder, questioning them about why they are looking down or at the ceiling or off into space, or demanding they allow their bag or other possessions on the floor to be searched.

[ciao_yall]

The issue is that cheating is always one step ahead of us.  I would be surprised if students have not found ways around these systems by now, so it really only imposes draconian measures that punish the honest students that happen to have anxiety issues (very common these days).  I have spoke with many students who claim the presence of such a system hurts their performance, and I can understand it.

I think the better solution if we are to embrace online learning is a combination of scaffolded assignments (as another poster suggested) and open book tests/quizzes that are harder to cheat on.  In mine, I often include images and ask questions about them that I feel would be difficult to google.  This, combined with time limits, makes cheating difficult without the need for these measures.  Likewise, I sometimes present a situation and ask them questions about it that would likewise be difficult to google or answer without understanding the princi[ples we discussed in class.

Overall, in person is best, but if we want to embrace online I dont think we can just transfer our existing structures designed for in person learning, we need to re-assess how we are teaching and evaluating.

I agree. I teach an online asynchronous GenEd STEM course. I get the usual cheating and plagiarism on the weekly work (and, yes, it annoys the *** out of me, and I do report all incidences that I can document....), but I have no problems with my multiple choice timed exams. For the latter, I scramble the questions and answers as a baseline anti-cheating measure. However, the most significant anti-cheating measure is to *allow* use of the internet, notes, etc. It is a different test, evaluating different skills, than an in person exam. However, since I am teaching a GenEd course, one of my desired learning outcomes is for students to be able to research science-y things from credible sources. Thus, while it would be *better* if they actually learned the material for themselves, I am ok with the concept of them using a search engine to find information related to my course. Most of my questions also require application of class material (that part is similar to an in person exam), so does not really lend itself to an internet search.

Agreed. Making a student upload a bunch of factoids into short-term memory isn't the same as making sure they can apply what they learned.

My exams were always open book, open note, but often it was just there for the students' confidence, or to double-check a concept.

[clean]

I think that one of the lessons for faculty to learn is that publisher provided test banks are useless.  You can use them as a starting point, but you must modify every question one way or another.
To get around some of the 'group testing' activities, give the exams to everyone at the same time.  (Easy to do if the course is synchronous, but it can be done in blocks).   I have moved to 3 exam slots over 36 hours.  Noon to 3, 7 to 10pm and 5 to 8 am.  Each group gets a slightly different set of problems.  MC questions are modified publisher questions and they are in a pool of 10 questions per section/chapter and the test pulls 3 or 4 per chapter. 

But Im not ready to embrace the idea that students are free to surf the internet while testing, or using Group Me or some form of 'phone a friend'.

As I indicated, I use Respondus Lock Down Monitor for frequent, low value quizzes.  There are close to 24 quizzes in the semester and the top 18 count.  IF the AI indicates a problem, I inform the student of the problem (they probably already know) and tell them that that one will be dropped. 
Exams are live proctored by Examity.  I have no problem, and encourage the proctors to interrupt the students on a wide sort of actions that the students know.  They see the instructions when they register with Examity for a time slot, and the proctor reads them the instructions before it starts. 
When I get a Red Flag notice (which can be any number of things from the student could not find their ID, or the name on their ID was not the name they used when they registered with Examity, to finding a cell phone or where the student substituted a blank sheet of paper for calculations for another page of notes.   
I give probably 200 Examity proctored tests per term, and I have probably 5 Red Flag notices a term.  Students complain about being interrupted but the review of the tape usually finds that I would have interrupted them too! 

Even with In person testing, there are problems!  One of the worst, I had students take an exam in the computer lab.  I asked 2 faculty to walk by when they had a chance and just look at the monitors from behind.  It is easy to see when one monitor 'does not look like the others' (just like Sesame Street!)  and even while I was in the room they were surfing the net for answers! 

Some students will cheat. These cheaters cheapen the degree for the honest students.  I am NOT sorry that defending the value of the degree for the honest students comes at the cost of disrupting the exams of someone that is acting oddly during an exam. 

[Antiphon1]

For those of you relying on remote proctoring:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119337956/test-proctoring-room-scans-unconstitutional-cleveland-state-university

This may be the OP's unstated concern.  So, this ruling is why I'm back to in person proctored exams.  I have enough Excedrin inducing interactions without borrowing trouble.  My online classes have a note attached to the class schedule listing stating the requirement for in person testing along with a link to the testing center.  I'm not saying everyone should require in person proctoring.  On a balance, my job is to ensure the legitimacy of the student's grade and/or the ability of the recorded grade to accurately reflect the student's performance in the class.   Erring on the side of caution hardly ever means having to justify students' poor choices.  Online cheaters rarely try to cheat in person.  Or rather, they might if someone forgets to collect phones.

[Kron3007]

I think that one of the lessons for faculty to learn is that publisher provided test banks are useless.  You can use them as a starting point, but you must modify every question one way or another.
To get around some of the 'group testing' activities, give the exams to everyone at the same time.  (Easy to do if the course is synchronous, but it can be done in blocks).   I have moved to 3 exam slots over 36 hours.  Noon to 3, 7 to 10pm and 5 to 8 am.  Each group gets a slightly different set of problems.  MC questions are modified publisher questions and they are in a pool of 10 questions per section/chapter and the test pulls 3 or 4 per chapter. 

But Im not ready to embrace the idea that students are free to surf the internet while testing, or using Group Me or some form of 'phone a friend'.

As I indicated, I use Respondus Lock Down Monitor for frequent, low value quizzes.  There are close to 24 quizzes in the semester and the top 18 count.  IF the AI indicates a problem, I inform the student of the problem (they probably already know) and tell them that that one will be dropped. 
Exams are live proctored by Examity.  I have no problem, and encourage the proctors to interrupt the students on a wide sort of actions that the students know.  They see the instructions when they register with Examity for a time slot, and the proctor reads them the instructions before it starts. 
When I get a Red Flag notice (which can be any number of things from the student could not find their ID, or the name on their ID was not the name they used when they registered with Examity, to finding a cell phone or where the student substituted a blank sheet of paper for calculations for another page of notes.   
I give probably 200 Examity proctored tests per term, and I have probably 5 Red Flag notices a term.  Students complain about being interrupted but the review of the tape usually finds that I would have interrupted them too! 

Even with In person testing, there are problems!  One of the worst, I had students take an exam in the computer lab.  I asked 2 faculty to walk by when they had a chance and just look at the monitors from behind.  It is easy to see when one monitor 'does not look like the others' (just like Sesame Street!)  and even while I was in the room they were surfing the net for answers! 

Some students will cheat. These cheaters cheapen the degree for the honest students.  I am NOT sorry that defending the value of the degree for the honest students comes at the cost of disrupting the exams of someone that is acting oddly during an exam.

Seems there are plenty of  work around a trick responds.  A quick google shows a pile of hacks.  The kids are more savvy than us ...

https://myhomeworkdone.com/blog/how-to-cheat-with-respondus-lockdown-browser/

[marshwiggle]

Some students will cheat. These cheaters cheapen the degree for the honest students.  I am NOT sorry that defending the value of the degree for the honest students comes at the cost of disrupting the exams of someone that is acting oddly during an exam.

Seems there are plenty of  work around a trick responds.  A quick google shows a pile of hacks.  The kids are more savvy than us ...

https://myhomeworkdone.com/blog/how-to-cheat-with-respondus-lockdown-browser/

Probably the greatest danger in tools like this is that they give a false sense of security. An absence of any detected cheating doesn't mean an absence of cheating, no matter how it is monitored.

[clean]

Seems there are plenty of  work around a trick responds.  A quick google shows a pile of hacks.  The kids are more savvy than us ...

https://myhomeworkdone.com/blog/how-to-cheat-with-respondus-lockdown-browser/

which is why I use the REspondus Lock Down Monitor ONLY for low value quizzes.  For exams, I use live proctoring with Examity. 

IF I could require in person testing, I would, but we teach classes across the planet!