119 Research Article 2023 41(1): 119-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Published by the UFS http://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/pie © Creative Commons With Attribution (CC-BY) Technology-driven proctoring: Validity, social justice and ethics in higher education Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has led to rapid change, unprecedented in higher education. One such change has been the almost complete shift to online assessment. The simultaneous employment of online assessment and proctoring has not enjoyed the rigorous academic debate and research traditionally associated with such shifts in academia. This engagement is essential and this article aims to discuss aspects of social justice, ethics and the validity of digital proctoring to the burgeoning debate. Digital proctoring is a lucrative industry (Coghlan Miller & Paterson, 2021), notwithstanding the admitted opportunities for cheating, irrespective of the intensity of overwatch. Digital proctoring is marketed and has become entangled with issues of institutional reputation and the legitimacy of qualifications. The student seems to be a secondary consideration compared to the technocratic digital proctoring arena. However, the introduction of online assessment, specifically with digital proctoring, impacts the assessment’s validity by introducing intervening variables into the process. The drive to detect and prevent online cheating has led to algorithmic proliferation. This technologically driven approach has embedded social injustice and questionable ethics and validity into the assessment systems. This article examines the social justice, ethical and validity issues around technological proctoring under the grouped themes: Emotional factors; Racial and/or skin colour; Digital literacy and Technology; and Disability. However, the COVID-19 pandemic- driven shifts have provided the unprecedented opportunity to elevate assessment from recall to critical thinking and application- based assessment. An opportunity to ensure that our assessment is valid, assesses higher-order learning, and truly evaluates the concepts we wish to assess. Keywords: Digital proctoring; cheating; ethics; social justice; validity AUTHOR: Prof Elizabeth Archer1 AFFILIATION: 1University of the Western Cape, South Africa DOI: https://doi.org/10.38140/ pie.v41i1.6666 e-ISSN 2519-593X Perspectives in Education 2023 41(1): 119-136 PUBLISHED: 31 March 2023 RECEIVED: 15 August 2022 ACCEPTED: 3 March 2022 Research Article https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=11341 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/Overcoming-Poverty-and-Inequality-in-South-Africa-An-Assessment-of-Drivers-Constraints-and-Opportunities http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/Overcoming-Poverty-and-Inequality-in-South-Africa-An-Assessment-of-Drivers-Constraints-and-Opportunities http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/Overcoming-Poverty-and-Inequality-in-South-Africa-An-Assessment-of-Drivers-Constraints-and-Opportunities https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7537-4259 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1202023 41(1): 120-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Those who oppose equality, compassion and social justice have been on the wrong side of history time and time again. Laurence Overmire 1. Introduction Change is inevitable, as is crisis. However, if we do not engage and plan for the future, the change will not be directed, but will take place without sufficient forethought and guidance. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided us with the opportunity and impetus of crisis to consider our assessment practices. This paper does not aim to explore the validity of assessment instruments, but rather digital proctoring during assessment and the impact on performance. The shift to online assessment, specifically digital proctoring, has moved assessment from somewhat similar environmental assessment conditions to highly differential environmental factors in the assessment process (Barry & Finney, 2009). Digital proctoring provides an avenue for attempting to prevent and detect cheating during test taking, but is not unbiased or cheat-proof. The introduction of digital proctoring has led to a highly differential impact on students’ performance. These challenges and unfair discrimination have often been humorously shared through memes (all public domain or under fair usage) (Scialabba, 2020). Some of these will be shared to provide the student perspective. The focus is on the challenges of digital proctoring, as the benefits of digital proctoring are already highly publicised and pushed by proprietary proctoring companies. The article aims to provide a voice and contextualisation for the challenges that digital proctoring introduces. This is framed by Walter’s (2016) 5D conceptualisation of data: disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction, and difference. Within this framework, the paper addresses four issues around current digital proctoring: Emotional factors; Racial and/or skin colour; Digital literacy; Technology; and Disability. This is discussed in the methodology section. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic-driven shifts have provided the unprecedented opportunity to re-elevate assessment practices, particularly online, from recall to critical thinking and application; an opportunity to ensure that our assessment performance is a valid reflection and truly evaluate the concepts we wish to, without introducing social justice, ethical and validity issues. Digital proctoring is likely to be a part of this new assessment landscape, but must be applied and developed with forethought, contextualisation and deep conceptual engagement. 2. Conceptualisation As this study focuses on the social justice, and ethical and validity aspects of digital proctoring, Walters’ (2016) 5D conceptualisation of data: disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction and difference was employed. The development of big data and algorithms has served to amplify and embed the 5D concept, thus increasing the likelihood of social injustice (Bounegru & Gray, 2021). This paper focuses on the complexity of utilising digital proctoring and the possibilities of structurally embedding these social injustices. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1212023 41(1): 121-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring Many aspects of social justice, ethics and validity share significant commonality, which is open for examination. Based on the most prominent of these as related to digital proctoring and 5D data, the paper focuses on race and/or skin colour; digital literacy and technology; and disability. These factors will be discussed in some detail after the presentation of the study’s methodology, as well as the background and literature review to frame the discussion. It is important to note that while this is a South African publication, the challenges are global and often not only experienced by current or previously disadvantaged groups. There is a great dearth of research on digital proctoring on the African continent. Prinsloo and Kaliisa (2022) note that higher education in Africa is seen as a new data frontier with great commercial interest acting as a driver for digital tool providers to penetrate and saturate the market. 3. Methodology The research question for this study is: What are the complexities surrounding digital proctoring with regards to social justice, ethics and validity? Scholarly publications, grey literature and memes were utilised in this study to provide a comprehensive view from multiple stakeholders. An investigation of the social media constructs in the form of memes often shows disturbing resonance to what is represented in scholarly works. “At first glance, memes may seem inane and meaningless; however, they actually serve as an important form of cultural currency, allowing people to share ideas, jokes, critiques, and commentary on a variety of topics.” (Scialabba, 2020: 352).1 Identified articles were reviewed for relevance and recency. The arguments presented in the literature were supplemented by resources focusing on the specific aspects of digital proctoring being examined. 4. Background and literature review The article is to be read against the backdrop of an understanding of digital proctoring and its influence on assessment’s social justice, ethics and validity elements. These aspects are introduced in the sub-sections below. Digital proctoring Digital proctoring is often interpreted as leading to decreased cheating. In response to these perceptions, institutions may focus more on increased surveillance and punitive practices to maintain the institutional reputation and intervene in, or discourage perceived cheating (Sutherland-Smith, 2016). With these pressures on institutions, digital proctoring has become more pervasive and is a lucrative industry (Hussein et al., 2020). This has not gone unnoticed by students (see Figure 1). 1 The following search term was applied employing Boolean logic: (digital* OR online* OR web* OR remote*) AND (proctor* OR invigi* OR monitor* OR super*) AND (education* OR universit* OR college*); meme And (digital* OR online* OR web* OR remote*) AND (proctor* OR invigi* OR monitor* OR super*). https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1222023 41(1): 122-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Figure 1: Meme: Proctor U be like (Proctor U be like ... [Online]. Meme-arsenal.com) However, digital proctoring can increase the digital divide (Hussein et al., 2020; Silverman et al., 2021). It may reduce the assessment’s validity, as students require additional digital literacy to employ more advanced proctoring tools and additional technological infrastructure requirements (Hussein et al., 2020). At the same time, any additional proctoring modules and tools mean additional income to the proprietary proctoring company. Some institutions have turned to developing their own proctoring systems. In both cases, resources that could be utilised to improve teaching, learning and assessment, are diverted to digital proctoring measures (Flaherty, 2020; Arnò et al., 2021; Kimmons & Velestsianos, 2021; Silverman et al., 2021). Digital proctoring includes recorded, live and automated proctoring with or without human intervention (Hussein et al., 2020; Labayen et al., 2021). The main features of such systems are (i) authentication (whether it is the correct student), (ii) browsing tolerance (can the student print the screen or use a browser), (iii) remote authorising and control, automated, live or a combination (flagging, pausing or ending the examination if it seems questionable), and (iv) report generation (Hussein et al., 2020; Coghlan et al., 2021). While proctoring’s technological aspects receive much attention, the social justice, ethical and validity aspects have not enjoyed as much scrutiny (Coghlan et al., 2021). Digital proctoring often evokes images of the most intense proctoring activities, although there are various levels of intrusion and application (Slusky, 2020; Coghlan et al., 2021). It is vital to note these technologies’ levels of intrusiveness. Figure 2 below reflects the author’s perception of the intrusiveness of various digital proctoring technologies, moving from the least intrusive at the bottom to the most intrusive at the top. There is no standard digital proctoring battery, but it may include various mechanisms and additional, less common tools, which are not explicitly mentioned here. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1232023 41(1): 123-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring Figure 2: Levels of intrusiveness of digital proctoring tools (Author) The stricter the protocols and measures, the higher the socioeconomic, psychosocial and environmental demands on students (Ngqondi, Maoneke & Mauwa, 2021). The more intrusive the proctoring process is, the more social justice, ethical and validity issues are raised. Validity and technology-driven assessment The aim of assessment (particularly summative assessment) is to determine aspects such as students’ knowledge, critical thinking, application, and skills in the particular study area. This requires instrument validity and appropriate assessment conditions. Validity is a matter of degree and no assessment is completely valid or invalid within any context (Knight, 2002; Hattie, 2009; Gyll & Ragland, 2018). The debate on cheating is a “very complex, interdisciplinary field of research requiring contributions from linguists, psychologists, social scientists, anthropologists, teaching and learning specialists, mathematicians, accountants, medical doctors, lawyers, and philosophers, to name just a few” (Bretag, 2016: v). The intellectual debate about cheating has not been able to keep pace with the rapid shifts to online assessment and digital proctoring during and post the COVID-19 pandemic (Coghlan et al., 2021). The existing debate focuses on students’ cheating but largely neglects environmental and contextual factors in administration, which influence the degree of validity of the assessment process and the results of the assessments. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1242023 41(1): 124-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Digital proctoring to prevent online cheating is becoming the red herring in the opportunities provided by new online assessment modes. Assessment conditions’ validity and ethics are mainly disregarded in favour of the debate on detecting and preventing student cheating during assessment (Coghlan et al., 2021). Research on cheating is widely disparate when examining the challenges of digital proctoring vs traditional proctoring (Coghlan et al., 2021). Some research shows that while students view it easier to cheat online, they are less likely to do so than in a traditional class environment (Miller & Young-Jones, 2012; Astuti, Arso & Wigati, 2020). Other research illustrates no difference in cheating between different assessment environments (Heberling & Flint, 2002; Felea et al., 2020). Finally, some research shows that cheating is more prevalent online than in traditional face-to-face approaches (Lanier, 2006; Weimer, 2015). In all cases, ensuring that the cheating of students is the focus. However, it is relevant that online cheating is viewed as easier to detect with digital proctoring (Akaaboune et al., 2022). Three aspects are important concerning proctoring, be it online or traditional; firstly, the invasiveness of proctoring; secondly, whether the purpose of the assessment is achieved or negatively influenced by the choice of approach; and thirdly, the environmental factors during assessment which may impact performance. Assessment environment and performance Research on environmental quality’s effect on assessment performance is an established field. This includes research on both outdoor and indoor factors. There are many factors to consider: air quality, thermal factors, acoustics, lighting conditions, humidity (Bell & Provins, 1962; Palacios Temprano et al., 2020; Brink et al., 2021), and airflow rate (Wargocki & Wyon, 2007). These factors are relatively consistent across the assessed group in an assessment venue within a face-to-face environment. Thus, the environmental factors should similarly influence the whole group’s performance. However, when online, digitally proctored assessment takes place, the environmental quality is different for each student being assessed. These preconditions may exclude some students, or require extraordinary measures on the part of the student to achieve (Coghlan et al., 2021; Ngqondi et al., 2021). For instance, low-income students may be flagged as suspicious due to aspects in their environments that they cannot control, such as noise in a crowded one-room house or connectivity issues (Barrett, 2021). The impact of such differences in online assessment and digital proctoring on performance is not necessarily random. The digitally proctored environment often systematically discriminates against certain groups of students, artificially increasing performance gaps. These performance differences are not purely determined by knowledge or skills but by various additional factors that cannot be controlled for, or even attained by many students. Some of these are discussed below. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1252023 41(1): 125-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring 5. Unpacking the threats to social justice, ethics and validity in digitally proctored assessment In this section, the author explores some of the threats to validity, social justice and ethics in assessment performance as introduced by digital proctoring. The following discussion is not exhaustive, but covers some grouped threats to validity and ethics: emotional factors, race and/or skin colour, digital literacy, technology, and disability, as per the 5D framework. These threats differentially influence students in different categories, reinforcing social injustices. Emotional factors Emotions such as anxiety and the associated behavioural changes are modified by digital proctoring’s intrusiveness, adversely influencing performance (Chin, 2020; Swauger, 2020a; Visser-Knijff, 2020). The quasi-experimental design by Dendir and Maxwell (2020) found that students consistently performed lower in online, digitally proctored courses and assessments than in traditional assessments, even when controlling for confounding factors in a regression framework. According to Langenfeld (2020), digital proctoring has increased assessment anxiety and student withdrawal (Barrett, 2021). Any behaviour deemed slightly out of the ordinary by the proctoring tool, such as slight movements of the eyes, head or body, glancing off to the side of the computer, leaving a seat, or requests for bathroom breaks, may be tagged as suspicious activity (Hussein et al., 2020; Zhu, 2021). There are multiple examples, such as a student with allergies being flagged repeatedly for sneezing and the tissue paper identified as illicit scraps of paper (Barrett, 2021). Such restrictive digital proctoring measures result in students trying to control and change movements and behaviours, redirecting cognitive resources from the assessment and increasing anxiety (Coghlan et al., 2021). Anxiety is also a self-sustaining feedback loop, decreasing performance, self-esteem and confidence (Goonan, 2003). As a student faced with explaining this flagged behaviour, or without the flagged behaviour investigated by the academic, the student will likely spend more mental and emotional resources to prevent being flagged. A quote from a university newspaper (Adams, 2020) relates one student’s experience, “I do worse on my exams [with digital proctoring] rather than when I don’t use them because of my heightened anxiety.” This self-sustaining feedback loop amplifies stereotype threat. Research on stereotype threat shows that when a group is stigmatised and expected to perform poorly, such as African students or female students (Pennington et al., 2016), performance is adversely influenced. The person from this group may be so anxious about trying not to conform to the stereotype that it adversely influences performance and decreases working memory, which may already be strained within the digitally proctored environment. Race and/or skin colour An exhaustive study published in 2019 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology examined 189 facial recognition algorithms made by 99 companies (Grother, Ngan & Hanaoka, 2019). The study only focused on whether the algorithm could identify a photo accurately and match the correct two presented images. The study found a consistently higher rate of false- negative results for African and Asian people than for white people, with many producing a rate of 10 to 100 times higher false positives for these groups (Grother et al., 2019). Even with a basic assessment of algorithms’ ability to identify a person correctly, it seems biased towards people of colour. Similarly, different genders and age groups found higher false positive and https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1262023 41(1): 126-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) negative rates. For example, women and young or older people were more likely to be falsely identified (Grother et al., 2019). These findings are supplemented by the notorious racial and gender-based machine bias in automated job applications, parole applications and policing distribution (Coghlan et al., 2021). When applied to the digital proctoring environment, it is a common complaint that proctoring systems have difficulty identifying and tracking students of colour or people with darker complexions (Coghlan et al., 2021). This is particularly concerning in countries such as South Africa, where nearly 90% of the population is not classified as white. Racial bias is one of the core ethical concerns against digital proctoring (Coghlan et al., 2021). The software often prompts darker-complexion students for more lighting, as seen in Figure 4. Figure 4: Prompting for more lighting for darker complexion people (Surveillance Killjoy, 2020) https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1272023 41(1): 127-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring Any difficulty the digital proctoring tool has in tracking students and movements is a possible point for flagging and an increased risk of being placed in a group of students seen as highly probable of cheating (Barrett, 2021). An exam may even be terminated if a student cannot be tracked (Coghlan et al., 2021). The termination of examination is not just an international practice; South African examples include the University of South Africa (Unisa, n.d.) and the University of Cape Town, which utilises ProctorU (The University of Cape Town, n.d.) Algorithms also learn; therefore, previous misidentification and flagging of tracking issues reinforce the algorithm’s sensitivity in flagging students of colour (Barrett, 2021). As these algorithms are often proprietary, institutions that employ these digital proctoring tools have no insight into whether there is any human intervention and supervision (Coghlan et al., 2021). Thus, institutions cannot interrogate this algorithmic learning (Barrett, 2021). This issue with digital proctoring and darker complexions also means that any movement is more likely to be flagged as problematic. Every day for a week, a student of colour attempted to register for the practice version of the California state bar exam. “Every time, the software’s facial recognition system told me the lighting is too poor to recognize my face. It just seems to me that this mock exam is reading the poor lighting as my skin color,” he told Motherboard (Feathers & Rose, 2020). This student is not alone. At the time of the publication, multiple emergency petitions had been made to the US supreme court, with four states scrapping the digitally proctored bar exam (Feathers & Rose, 2020). By November 2020, more than 60 000 students had signed petitions in the USA to end digital proctoring (Barrett, 2021; Silverman et al., 2021). A blog (Swauger, 2020b) claimed that an estimation at two USA universities had identified some 30 000 cases of racial discrimination by Proctorio over only two higher education institutions in a year. These petitions and litigation are not limited to the USA. Digital literacy and technology The concept of digital proctoring raises many technological challenges. Firstly, having digital devices that meet the needs for digital proctoring (Langenfeld, 2020); secondly, the access to the internet at the required speeds and stability (Langenfeld, 2020) (these are extensively documented and requires little further discussion); thirdly, invasion of digital systems (Chin, 2020; Flaherty, 2020; Visser-Knijff, 2020); and fourthly, the digital literacy of the students (Visser-Knijff, 2020). Notwithstanding the technology, digital proctoring is not cheat- or hack-proof (Dendir & Maxwell, 2020). The automated systems have also been disappointing in identifying possible misconduct, compared to the human examination of identified video clips (Arnò et al., 2021). It could be argued that digital proctoring and the overt emphasis on preventing cheating may encourage students to find new ways of cheating (Slusky, 2020; Coghlan et al., 2021). The proliferation of social media and internet postings on how to conduct online cheating in a proctored environment is a testament to this (Slusky, 2020). The proctoring system often treats students as criminals, encouraging them to game the system (Flaherty, 2020). As reported in one university newspaper, social media and YouTube are rife with tricks and tips to cheat in an online exam (Geiger, 2021) (see Figure 5). https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1282023 41(1): 128-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Figure 5: About to break the law … (When the Test Proctor Says … [Online]. Meme on ME.ME ) In addition, automated proctoring algorithms are prone to reinforcing structural inequality, particularly socioeconomic bias, sexism, racism and non-binary phobia (Swauger, 2020a). Digital proctoring seems to reinforce inequality and suppress efforts towards social justice (Langenfeld, 2020; Coghlan et al., 2021). Digital proctoring demands a different and additional data literacy of students and requires specific infrastructure such as a stable internet connection (Yates & Beaudrie, 2009). These aspects reinforce and increase the digital divide. Visser-Knijff (2020) highlights the need for different digital literacies for students. The digital literacy and skills required are broader than initially perceived (Visser-Knijff, 2020). For instance, the student requires the literacy to be able to install software and set up the system; literacy to be able to use the software once installed; the ability to read on-screen; the ability to type at a specific minimum speed (without looking at the keyboard and not too loudly); and the ability to access technical support (Unisa, n.d.). https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1292023 41(1): 129-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring This closely relates to the additional digital infrastructure, resources and literacies required to participate in a digitally proctored assessment. Some students noted that they spent more time setting up and troubleshoot the online digitally proctored exam than studying (Adams, 2020). The University of South Africa introduced digital proctoring, employing three different proctoring systems. The system employed depends on the module being studied as well as the types of assessment (thus a student may have to employ more than one type of invigilation tool for various modules) (Unisa, n.d.). These invigilation tools included Moodle Proctoring, the Invigilator App and IRIS. Each tool has specific technical requirements with extensive guidelines for setup and use. Their requirements and preparation decrease the time available to students to study. It is also worth noting that the technology removes specific tools usually available to students, such as writing or drawing mind maps to support and organise thinking, amongst other strategies employed during assessment. There is also a significant issue in respect of protecting personal information. In many cases, students have launched class-action suits based on the lack of protection of their personal information (Bilyk, n.d.; Errick, 2021). Students are pushing back through multiple means, from hacking digital proctoring companies and publishing code to a multitude of petitions (Kelley, 2020). Security breaches are not uncommon with digital proctoring systems (Slusky, 2020; Goveas, 2021). By October 2020, some 440 0000 records were stolen and leaked by ProctorU (Adams, 2020). ICT experts describe the lock-screen software that needs to be installed for digital proctoring as “malware or academic stalkerware” (Adams, 2020) (see Figure 6 below). Figure 6: Spyware (I assure you fellow students [Online]. Imgflip) A haunting thought is that digital proctoring does not prevent cheating, nor is it hack-proof. “There’s no perfect system out there.” (Goveas, 2021: 6). This sentiment is echoed by multiple institutions (The Stuyvesan Spectator, n.d.; Flaherty, 2020). https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1302023 41(1): 130-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Disability The discussion around digital proctoring and disability seems to have faded into the background. A digital proctoring tool has a proprietary algorithm designed for the “normal student” and “normal assessment environment”. This constitutes a white, preferably male, middle-class and neurotypical person (Coghlan et al., 2021). It is designed for the able-bodied, sitting still and holding in bodily functions for extended periods. The “normal” for a proctoring system is far removed from most students’ lived realities and demographics. It is even further removed from the reality of differently-abled students. This undifferentiated approach to digital proctoring reinforces social injustice, ignoring diversity and opting for a one-size-fits-all approach, with the “normal student” being the one size (Smith & Chestnutt, 2021). Lockdown browsers prevent students from employing digital accessibility tools (Adams, 2020; Feathers & Rose, 2020). Equal treatment does not equate to equity for differently-abled students and places them at a disadvantage (Quapp & Holschemacher, 2021). Yet standard treatment is the basis of digital proctoring. The quest for reasonable accommodation is far more complex in the digitally proctored environment than in face-to-face arrangements (Barrett, 2021). Even when approved, basic requests for an extension of time are often not observed (Gin et al., 2021). One example is a student with type 1 diabetes who requested accommodation to use the bathroom during the exam. Eventually, she was allowed two breaks of one minute each. As a result, the student had to relieve herself in water bottles for the duration of the examination (Zhu, 2021). The indignity imposed on such students is unacceptable. Different eye movements, behaviour and communication are common for differently- abled persons (Barrett, 2021). These would immediately be flagged as suspicious by digital proctoring systems (Coghlan et al., 2021). Assistive technologies such as text-to-speech engines may cause differently-abled students to be flagged as displaying suspicious behaviour (Barrett, 2021). The digital proctoring guidelines force students to disclose medical information to an external proctoring company in an attempt to receive accommodations (many of which cannot be accommodated by the system). Even neurotypical students may have physical disabilities that require accommodation, such as chronic pain sufferers with hand-cramping, which requires hand exercises and additional time (Feathers & Rose, 2020). “[Digital] Exam proctoring, timed assessments, and required attendance are often framed as ways to increase integrity and accountability, yet all of these decisions could be considered ableist and exclusionary for students with disabilities” (Gin et al., 2021: 13). 6. Alternative approaches Currently, digital proctoring focuses on behavioural control instead of providing an additional development tool (Stephens, 2016: 1001). It is possible to move from costly digital proctoring systems to a people-centred approach instead of a technocratic-solutionist approach (Silverman et al., 2021). It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully engage in alternatives to digital proctoring. It is, however, important to show that there are viable alternatives (Ngqondi et al., 2021; Silverman et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has given us an unprecedented opportunity to elevate assessment from recall to critical thinking and application. An opportunity to ensure that our https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1312023 41(1): 131-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring assessment is valid and truly evaluates the concepts we wish to; a shift to assessing the higher levels of learning taxonomies, be it Bloom, Revised Bloom, Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO), Finks, or others (O’Neill & Murphy, 2010). Along with the opportunity for more student-centred, constructivist approaches to assessment (Reyneke, Shuttleworth & Visagie, 2021). Differentiation in educational practices (and assessment) is required to promote social justice and prevent the reproduction of traditional power divides in higher education (Smith & Chestnutt, 2021). Compassion and trust may bear more fruit than surveillance, and an expensive, dubious sense of control is likely to increase inequality. This does not mean that there are no avenues to provide oversight in online assessment. There are multiple means of using unproctored means to limit student cheating and show due diligence (Silverman et al., 2021). These means are less intrusive, less prone to bias and may provide opportunities for improved assessment practices (Dendir & Maxwell, 2020). These are illustrated in Figure 7 below. These unproctored measures do not require proprietary software with unknown algorithms assessing students’ level of suspiciousness.2 Figure 7: Level of intrusion of proctored vs unproctored online assessment (Author) 2 Level of suspicion is terminology often employed by digital online proctoring systems when referring to how students are flagged. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1322023 41(1): 132-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Statements opposed to digital proctoring by faculty and institutions have not gone unnoticed by proprietary digital proctoring companies. These statements have been met with litigation at every corner or the more sedate warning letters from legal representatives (Bilyk, n.d.; The Stuyvesan Spectator, n.d.; Feathers and Rose, 2020; Long, 2021; Pelletier et al., 2021). ProctorU attorneys threatened to sue one faculty association for defamation. The accusation (as reported in the university newspaper) specifically described the action as “directly impacting efforts to mitigate civil disruption across the United States by interfering with education during a national emergency” and stated they were sending his complaint to the state’s Attorney General (Feathers & Rose, 2020: 11). It is vital that our ethics and integrity not be swayed by threats and litigation but people-centred social justice, ethics and validity considerations. 7. Conclusion Digital proctoring is not the panacea to prevent student cheating while striving for social justice, ethical standards and valid assessments. It is costly to purchase from an economic perspective and is prone to litigation. From an equity and social justice perspective, it is intrusive. It introduces structural inequalities ranging from racial factors to student socioeconomic status to being impractical and biased against students who have disabilities or do not fit a neurotypical picture. Equality with a white, male, upper-middle-class student template does not equate to social justice or equity (Espinoza, 2007). Digital proctoring increases anxiety and stress and may encourage students to find ways to bypass and game the system, all in the pursuit of the perception of preventing and identifying student cheating (Langenfeld, 2020). Online assessment and digital proctoring are part of the evolution of assessment. However, we must be cautious in how it is applied and how we can mediate its effects on the validity of the assessment process and performance. This requires academic engagement and not technocratic approaches with immediate problem-solving in mind. Online assessment and digital proctoring will be part of the higher education landscape, but must be approached with caution and forethought. References Adams, M. 2020. Lockdown browsers: Protecting integrity or invading privacy? The Tower. Available at https://bit.ly/41B8SPX [Accessed 30 March 2021]. Akaaboune, O., Blix, L. H., Carrington, L. G., & Henderson, C. D. (2022). Accountability in Distance Learning: The Effect of Remote Proctoring on Performance in Online Accounting Courses. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 19(1), 121–131. https://doi. org/10.2308/JETA-2020-040 Arnò, S., Galassi, A.,Tommasi, M., Saggino, A. & Vittorini, P. 2021. State-of-the-art of commercial proctoring systems and their use in academic online exams. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(2): 41-62. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.20210401. oa3 Astuti, S.I., Arso, S.P. & Wigati, P.A. 2020. Snooping where we sleep. STOP. Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, 103-111. Barrett, L. 2021. Rejecting test surveillance in higher education. SSRN Electronic Journal: 1-83. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3871423 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1332023 41(1): 133-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring Barry, C.L. & Finney, S.J. 2009. ‘Does it matter how data are collected ? A comparison of testing conditions and the implications for validity. Research and Practice in Assessment, 3(1): 1-15. Bell, C.R. & Provins, K.A. 1962. Effects of high temperature environmental conditions on human performance. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 4(4): 202-211. Bilyk, J. n.d. DePaul University targeted by class action over facial recognition tech used in online exam proctoring | Cook County Record. Available at https://bit.ly/3GN3dOM [Accessed 30 March 2021]. Bounegru, L. and J. Gray (eds.), The Data Journalism Handbook: Towards a Critical Data Practice. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1qr6smr Bretag, T. (ed.). 2016. Handbook of cheating. Singapore: Springer Singapore. Brink, H.W., Loomans, M.G.L.C., Mobach, M.P. & Kort, H.S.M. 2021. Classrooms’ indoor environmental conditions affecting academic achievement of students and teachers in higher education: A systematic literature review. Indoor Air, 31: 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ina.12745 Chin, M. 2020. Exam anxiety: how remote test-proctoring is creeping students out. The Verge. Available at https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21232777/examity-remote-test-proctoring- online-class-education [Accessed 26 January 2021]. Coghlan, S., Miller, T. & Paterson, J. 2021. Good Proctor or “Big Brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies. Philosophy and Technology, 34(4): 1581-1606. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1 Dendir, S. & Maxwell, R.S. 2020. Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2(July): 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chbr.2020.100033 Errick, K. 2021. Students sue online exam proctoring service proctoru for biometrics violations following data breach – tech, tech cybersecurity. Available at https://bit.ly/3MLV4Oc [Accessed 30 March 2021]. Espinoza, O. 2007. Solving the equity-equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4): 343-363. https://doi. org/10.1080/00131880701717198 Feathers, T. & Rose, J. 2020. Students are rebelling against eye-tracking exam surveillance tools. Motherboard. Available at https://bit.ly/43EVP1N [Accessed 30 March 2021]. Felea, C., Lanier, M.M., Hussein, M.J., Yusuf, J., Deb, A.S., Fong, L., Naidu, S., Gurukkal, R., Felea, C., Heberling, M., Flint, M., Busby, D.R., Lambert, S.F. & Ialongo, N.S. 2020. ‘Online on a dime’ – reactions, challenges and potential benefits for teaching English for specific academic purposes in higher education CRISTINA. In: R. Nistor, C. Teglaș, R. Mihele, & R. Zglobiu-Sandu (eds.), Limbajele specializate în contextul noilor medii de învățare: Provocări și oportunități: Vol. V. Presa Universitară Clujeană. Flaherty, C. 2020. Big Proctor, inside higher education. Available at https://www.insidehighered. com/news/2020/05/11/online-proctoring-surging-during-covid-19 [Accessed 30 March 2021]. Geiger, G. 2021. Students are easily cheating ‘state-of-the-art’ test proctoring tech. Motherboard. Available at https://bit.ly/43FAvJA [Accessed 30 March 2021]. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1342023 41(1): 134-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Gin, L.E., Guerrero, F.A., Brownell, S.E. & Cooper, K.M. 2021. Covid-19 and undergraduates with disabilities: Challenges resulting from the rapid transition to online course delivery for students with disabilities in undergraduate stem at large-enrollment institutions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 20(3): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-02-0028 Goonan, B. 2003. Measuring up: Assessment issues for teachers, counselors, and administrators. In Measuring Up: Assessment Issues for Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators. US Department of Education, 257-272. Goveas, A. 2021. Western reviewing alternative programs to Proctortrack, Western Gazette. Available at https://bit.ly/40spatz [Accessed 30 March 2021]. Grother, P., Ngan, M. & Hanaoka, K. 2019. Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 3 : Demographic Effects. Nistir 8280, December: 1-79. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8280 Gyll, S. & Ragland, S. 2018. Improving the validity of objective assessment in higher education: Steps for building a best-in-class competency-based assessment program. The Journal of Competency-Based Education, 3(1): e01058. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1058 Hattie, J. 2009. The black box of tertiary assessment: An independent revolution. Tertiary Assessment & Higher Education Student Outcomes: Policy, Practice & Research: 259-275. Heberling, M. & Flint, M. 2002. Maintaining cheating in online education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, V(1): 1-6. Hussein, M.J., Yusuf, J., Deb, A.S., Fong, L. & Naidu, S. 2020. An evaluation of online proctoring tools. Open Praxis, 12(4): 509. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.12.4.1113 I assure you fellow students [online]. Imgflip. Available at https://imgflip.com/i/50d9al [Accessed 17 November 2021]. Kelley, J. 2020. Students are pushing back against proctoring surveillance apps. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Available at https://bit.ly/3mG0i3C [Accessed 17 November 2021]. Kimmons, R. & Velestsianos, G. 2021 Proctoring software in higher education: Prevalence and patterns, Educause Review. Available at https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/2/proctoring- software-in-higher-ed-prevalence-and-patterns [Accessed 30 March 2021]. Knight, P.T. 2002. Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3): 275-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220000662 Labayen, M., Vea, R., Florez, J., Aginako, N. & Sierra, B. 2021 Online student authentication and proctoring system based on multimodal biometrics technology. IEEE Access: 72398-72411. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3079375 Langenfeld, T. 2020. Internet-based proctored assessment: Security and fairness issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3): 24-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ emip.12359 Lanier, M.M. 2006. Cheating and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2): 244-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250600866166 Long, W. 2021. NU faces lawsuit for storing students’ biometric data, The Daily Northwestern. Available at https://bit.ly/41OQa7F [Accessed 30 March 2021). Miller, A. & Young-Jones, A. 2012. Cheating: Online classes compared to face-to-face classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39: 138-145. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1352023 41(1): 135-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Archer Technology-driven proctoring Ngqondi, T., Maoneke, P.B. & Mauwa, H. 2021. A secure online exams conceptual framework for South African universities. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1): 100132. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100132 O’Neill, G. & Murphy, F. 2010. Guide to taxonomies of learning, UCD Teaching and Learning/ Resources. Available at http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLA0034.pdf [Accessed 18 January 2021]. Palacios Temprano, J., Eichholtz, P., Willeboordse, M. & Kok, N. 2020. Indoor environmental quality and learning outcomes: Protocol on large-scale sensor deployment in schools. BMJ Open, 10(3): 1-10. Pelletier, K., Brown, M., Brooks, D.C., Mccormack, M., Reeves, J., Bozkurt, A., Crawfurd, S., Czerniewicz, L., Gibson, R., Linder, K., Mason, J. & Mondelli, V. 2021. 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report. Teaching and Learning Edition, Educause. Available at https://bit.ly/3mI023R [Accessed 18 November 2021]. Pennington, C. R., Heim, D., Levy, A. R., & Larkin, D. T. (2016). Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1-25. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146487 Prinsloo, P., & Kaliisa, R. (2022). Data privacy on the African continent: Opportunities, challenges and implications for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 894-913. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13226 Proctor U be like ... [online]. Meme-arsenal.com. Available at https://bit.ly/41clGfM [Accessed 12 July 2021]. Quapp, U. & Holschemacher, K. 2021.University examination issues of disabled students while the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of International Scientific Publications: Educational Alternatives, 19(October): 67-73. Reyneke, Y., Shuttleworth, C.C. & Visagie, R.G. 2021. Pivot to online in a post-COVID-19 world: critically applying BSCS 5E to enhance plagiarism awareness of accounting students. Accounting Education: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1867875 Scialabba, E. E. (2020). A Copy of a Copy of a Copy: Internet Mimesis and the Copyrightability of Memes. Duke Law & Technology Review, 18(1), 332-350. Silverman, S., Caines, A., Casey, C., Garcia de Hurtado, B., Riviere, J., Sintjago, A. & Vecchiola, C. 2021. What happens when you close the door on remote proctoring? Moving toward authentic assessments with a people-centered approach. To Improve the Academy, 39(3): 115-132. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0039.308 Slusky, L. 2020. Cybersecurity of online proctoring systems. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 29(1): 56-83. Available at https://scholarworks.lib. csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1445&context=jitim [Accessed 18 November 2021]. https://doi.org/10.58729/1941-6679.1445 Smith, A. & Chestnutt, C. 2021. Differentiation for equity. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(6): 232-241. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v21i6.4390 Stephens, J.M. 2016. Creating cultures of integrity: A multilevel intervention model for promoting academic honesty. In Bretag, T. (ed.), Handbook of Cheating. Singapore: Springer, 995-1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_13 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 1362023 41(1): 136-136 https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666 Perspectives in Education 2023: 41(1) Surveillance Killjoy. 2020. [Online]. Twitter. Available at https://twitter.com/hypervisible/ status/1311065599049715712 [Accessed 11 February 2020]. Sutherland-Smith, W. 2016. Cheating in the Digital Age: Introduction. In Bretag, T. (ed.), Handbook of cheating. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 571-574. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_82 Swauger, S. 2020a. Software that monitors students during tests perpetuates inequality and violates their privacy. MIT Technology Review. Available at https://www.technologyreview. com/2020/08/07/1006132/software-algorithms-proctoring-online-tests-ai-ethics/ [Accessed 26 January 2021]. Swauger, S. 2020b. The calculus of harm. Available at https://www.sheaswauger.com/post/ the-calculus-of-harm [Accessed 30 March 2021). The Stuyvesan Spectator. n.d. Essentially malware: Experts raise concerns about Stuyvesant’s Lockdown CONCERNS ABOUT STUYVESANT’S, Quaranzine. Available at https://issuu. com/stuyspectator/docs/mag/s/11191630 [Accessed 28 October 2021]. Unisa. (n.d.). Essential tips for online examinations. Available at https://www.unisa.ac.za/ sites/myunisa/default/Assignments-&-Examination/Examinations/Essential-tips-for-online- examinations. [Accessed 20 October 2022] Visser-Knijff, P. 2020. Proctoring: how in times of crisis, student surveillance becomes a real option, dataethics. Available at https://dataethics.eu/proctoring-how-in-times-of-crisis-student- surveillance-becomes-a-real-option/ [Accessed 26 January 2021]. Walter, M. (2016). Data politics and Indigenous representation in Australian statistics. In T. Kukutai & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty (Issue April). Australian National University Press, 79-97. https://doi.org/10.22459/caepr38.11.2016.05 Wargocki, P. & Wyon, D.P. 2007. The effects of moderately raised classroom temperatures and classroom ventilation rate on the performance of schoolwork by children (RP-1257). HVAC and R Research, 13(2): 193-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2007.10390951 Weimer, M. 2015. Do online students cheat more on tests? Faculty Focus. Available at https:// www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-assessment-grading-and-feedback/ do-online-students-cheat-more-on-tests/ [Accessed 26 January 2021]. When the Test Proctor Says … [Online]. Meme on ME.ME. Available at https://bit.ly/3mDBU2s [Accessed 17 November 2021]. Yates, R.W. & Beaudrie, B. 2009. The impact of online assessment on grades in community college distance education mathematics courses. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1): 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640902850601 Zhu, E. 2021. ‘Foolproof’ exam software creating barriers for students with disabilities – Healthy Debate, Healthy debate. Available at https://healthydebate.ca/2021/03/topic/exam- software-disabilities/ [Accessed 30 March 2021]. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v41i1.6666