Interaction of Proctoring and Student Major on Online Test Performance

Abstract

Traditional and online university courses share expectations for quality content and rigor. Student and faculty concerns about compromised academic integrity and actual instances of academic dishonesty in assessments, especially with online testing, are increasingly troublesome. Recent research suggests that in the absence of proctoring, the time taken to complete an exam increases significantly and online test results are inflated. This study uses a randomized design in seven sections of an online course to examine test scores from 97 students and time taken to complete online tests with and without proctoring software, controlling for exam difficulty, course design, instructor effects, and student majors. Results from fixed effects estimated from a fitted statistical model showed a significant advantage in quiz performance (7-9 points on a 100 point quiz) when students were not proctored, with all other variables statistically accounted for. Larger grade disparities and longer testing times were observed on the most difficult quizzes, and with factors that reflected the perception of high stakes of the quiz grades. Overall, use of proctoring software resulted in lower quiz scores, shorter quiz taking times, and less variation in quiz performance across exams, implying greater compliance with academic integrity compared with when quizzes were taken without proctoring software.

Examining Online Cheating in Higher Education Using Traditional Classroom Cheating as a Guide

“…A related study by Alessio et al (2018) used a randomized design in six sections of an online medical terminology course to examine students' quiz scores and the time taken to complete them. To investigate the impact of proctoring software on student performance, students were assigned a sequence of four proctored and unproctored online quizzes.…”

The effects of implementation barriers in virtually proctored examination: A randomised field experiment in Dutch higher education

“…Students tend to be opportunistic and cheat when given the opportunity (Authors). Virtual proctoring technology is increasingly effective in preventing such cheating behaviour (Alessio et al, 2018;Davis, Rand, & Seay, 2016; aard en de timing van implementatiebarrières voor surveillance software te evalueren. De resultaten laten zien dat de deelname in de traditionele examensetting zes keer hoger was dan de deelname in het virtueel gesurveilleerde examen vanwege technische hindernissen die studenten ervaarden met de surveillance software.…”

“…Cramp and colleagues (2019) provide an overview of the recent literature on virtual proctoring technology as well as a classification of recent literature based on the different levels of invigilation, location and format. Common methods of virtual proctoring a couple years ago such as online video communication (Hylton, Levy, & Dringus, 2016;Weiner & Hurtz, 2017) are being replaced with more sophisticated software (Alessio et al, 2018;Daffin Jr & Jones, 2018).…”

“…Students tend to be opportunistic and cheat when given the opportunity (Authors). Virtual proctoring technology is increasingly effective in preventing such cheating behaviour (Alessio et al, 2018; Davis, Rand, & Seay, 2016; Hylton, Levy, & Dringus, 2016; Karim, Kaminsky, & Behrend, 2014; Weiner & Hurtz, 2017). Cramp and colleagues (2019) provide an overview of the recent literature on virtual proctoring technology as well as a classification of recent literature based on the different levels of invigilation, location and format.…”

“…Cramp and colleagues (2019) provide an overview of the recent literature on virtual proctoring technology as well as a classification of recent literature based on the different levels of invigilation, location and format. Common methods of virtual proctoring a couple years ago such as online video communication (Hylton, Levy, & Dringus, 2016; Weiner & Hurtz, 2017) are being replaced with more sophisticated software (Alessio et al, 2018; Daffin Jr & Jones, 2018). Still, avenues for further innovation have not been exhausted in the field of massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Li et al, 2015), heuristic‐based automatic virtual proctoring systems (Raj, Narayanan, & Bijlani, 2015), multi‐biometric systems (Fenu, Marras, & Boratto, 2018) and autonomous articulating desktop robots for proctoring (Rosen & Carr, 2013).…”