The COVID-19 pandemic made traditionally proctored in-person exams impossible. This article provides a summary of the arguments against institutional adoption of remote proctoring services with a focus on equity, an account of the decision to avoid remote proctoring on the University of Michigan-Dearborn campus, and conclusions and suggestions for other teaching and learning professionals who would like to take a similar approach. Remote proctoring services require access to technology that not all students are guaranteed to have, can constitute an invasion of privacy for students, and can discriminate against students of color and disabled students. Administrators and teaching and learning staff at the University of Michigan-Dearborn made the decision to avoid adopting remote proctoring technologies and to instead invest in instructional design staff and faculty development programming to help faculty transition to authentic assessments. Lessons learned and recommendations are provided for other educational developers or institutions who want to resist remote proctoring on their campuses.

In this study, the authors examined juvenile offender experiences in Project Tech, a research-based educational pilot program to teach socially responsible serious game development at a major Midwest university’s Games Lab. Using open-ended interviews, learner feedback surveys, and learner journaling during the program, the researchers examined two questions pertaining to: (a) learner motivation, engagement, and meaning making; and (b) program feedback and critique to elicit program improvements as part of an iterative process. Responses were analyzed using inductive textual analysis and content analysis. Several learner themes emerged: game development as motivation, discovery learning (i.e., learning game development skills through trial and error) as engagement in game development, and meaning-making through designing games to teach a social issue. The authors link these findings to the research questions and implications, discuss discovery learning as it pertains to juvenile delinquency interventions, and identify new questions for the ongoing pilot program.

No abstract