12 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
  2. Apr 2021
    1. This article is ostensibly a response to the use of proctoring software in higher education.

      But in order to do that properly the author has also delved into learning and assessment.

      It's a well-written piece that questions some of our taken-for-granted assumptions around assessment.

  3. Dec 2020
    1. Therefore, it could be argued that belief regarding the usefulness of technologies could lead to change and ultimately the actual use of digital technologies in teaching and learning.

      This goes both ways. A teacher who believes that their job is to control access to specialised information, and to control assessment may use technology to close down learning opportunities (e.g. by banning the use of Wikipedia, YouTube, etc.) and even insisting on the installation of surveillance (proctoring) software on students' personal computers.

      Again, you can argue that technology in itself doesn't make the difference.

  4. Nov 2020
    1. Online Exams & Proctoring (In Addition to Guidance Listed Above) Requiring students to turn on their camera to be watched or recorded at home during an exam poses significant privacy concerns and should not be undertaken lightly. Several proctoring services use machine learning, AI, eye-tracking, key-logging, and other technologies to detect potential cheating; these should be used only when no feasible alternatives exist. If instructors are using a proctoring service during the COVID-19 measures, they must provide explicit notice to the students before the exam. Instructors are encouraged to work with the Digital Learning Hub in the Commons and the Academic Integrity Office to consider privacy-protective options, including how to use question banks (in Canvas), that will uphold integrity and good assessment design. Proctors and instructors are strongly discouraged from requiring students to show their surroundings on camera. Computers are available in labs for students who do not have a computer to take their final exams. Finals CANNOT be held in a lab, that is, instructors cannot be present nor can students from a specific class be asked to gather there for a final. This is only for those students who need a computer to drop in and complete their exam.
  5. Oct 2020
    1. When I asked Alessio whether her work addressed the possibility that proctoring itself could affect scores, she said it’d make for an interesting study.

      Given all the iGen research about the growing amount of anxiety among students, this seems very interesting indeed.

    2. To make matters worse, her proctor kept calling her “sweetheart.”

      I'd like to see more reporting on this - who exactly are these proctors we're outsourcing our teaching to? How are they screened? What's their code of conduct? How is a complaint registered?

    3. “They can see you, but you can’t see them, which I didn’t feel good about,”
  6. Apr 2019
    1. Ashley Norris is the Chief Academic Officer at ProctorU, an organization that provides online exam proctoring for schools. This article has an interesting overview of the negative side of technology advancements and what that has meant for student's ability to cheat. While the article does culminate as an ad, of sorts, for ProctorU, it is an interesting read and sparks thoughts on ProctorU's use of both human monitors for testing but also their integration of Artificial Intelligence into the process.

      Rating: 9/10.

  7. Jul 2017
  8. Jul 2016