323 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
    1. supporting educators at more than 175 institutions to set up

      I'm thinking about Autumm's point about the ways companies find loopholes around institutional policies by going directly to teachers.

    2. Top Hat has received a surge of inquiries

      Evidence?

    3. A powerful

      How is "power" being conceived here? Because for me, online proctoring reinforces asymetric power relationships in which students, particularly students from historically marginalized communities, are punished/policed more.

    4. seamless

      When might we want our seams to be showing? What's a learning experience like when it's been smoothed down and down?

    5. active

      What is the company's definition of "active" learning? How are they selling a specific vision of active learning?

    6. Hello! Welcome to an #AnnotateEdTech conversation. During our open and ongoing conversations, we’ll engage in close, critical reading of the claims made by educational technology companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can act as counternarratives and living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website.

      If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions:

      • What do you notice? What do you wonder?
      • What narratives do the companies tell about education? About being a student? A teacher?
      • What assumptions do the companies make about students and teachers? About learning and teaching?
      • What claims do the companies make about their technology? What evidence exists to support or oppose those claims?

      Thank you for joining the conversation!

  2. Jan 2021
    1. ProctorU does not use test-taker data to train its machine learning algorithms

      Where does the data used to train the machine learning come from, then?

    2. use or share any of the data it collect

      Is now the right time to discuss your data breach?

    3. ProctorU has found no evidence of bias in the facial comparison process it use

      Glad that's cleared up...except there's plenty of evidence facial recognition is biased.

    4. satisfied or very satisfied”

      "'Overall, [ProctorU] added more stress than it needed to, because it was intimidating to have something watching you the whole time; it’s very anxiety-inducing,' Abrevaya said. 'I would say because of that my focus was interrupted, so my test performance probably wasn’t as good as it could have been because half my attention also was questioning whether or not the Wi-Fi would go out, and I wouldn’t be able to leave the room to fix it.'"

    5. fewer than fifteen

      But do students (and others) even know to ask about facial recognition?

    6. 92%

      Where are these numbers from? What was the sample size? And what of the many students who've signed petitions to ban ProctorU and other proctoring companies?

    7. test-takers who use ProctorU are very satisfied with the experience.

    8. institutions and experts

      Good thing institutions and experts are always ethical. Have the policies been approved by students? Because people have thoughts and questions about your public relations-friendly Students Bill of Rights.

    9. learning institutions

      This strikes me as an odd way to say "school" or "institution of higher education." I keep coming back to how damaging online proctoring is to students and their learning, and by emphasizing the "learning" in their answer, I feel as if ProctorU is attempting to further the bogus narrative that their technology and business model aids students' learning rather than harms it.

    10. Proctors themselves are knowingly monitored and recorded

      Doubling down on the surveillance, I see.

    11. the proctoring floor

      There's a proctoring floor?!?

    12. thics

    13. accounts

      What happens to this data?

    14. nsures

      That three uses of "ensures" in the span of two paragraphs. Me thinks ProctorU isn't so sure about its ability to ensure.

    15. “problems with testing software”

    16. favorable

      Do students need to be watched by a stranger in order to realize the benefits of remote learning?

    17. found

      Based on what evidence? And what disabilities?

    18. more students to achieve their learning goals

      Pushing that narrative about helping students achieve when in fact surveillance actively impedes their success.

    19. nsure they are delivered as intended

      The onus again is placed on the student to prove the materials are in fact allowed.

    20. can distinguish

      How? Do they ask? Do they require a person to disclose their disability to a stranger to prove they're trustworthy?

    21. oversight of our technology and software systems

      Do they read, say, Ruha Benjamin's Race After Technology as part of their training?

    22. ur proctors themselves are diverse

      That solves the problem!

    23. .

      I see you've decided to not answer the question, ProctorU, but retreat to the refrain of placing all our trust in your magical unbiased human beings.

    24. industry-standard technologies

      But then that industry-standard tech is surveillance...the standard is not a metric to praise.

    25. nbiased services

      This is impossible.

    26. such as using unpermitted resources

      I'm imagining a scenario where a student has to explain the notes on a piece of paper (or, increasingly, notes in an electronic document) are in fact permitted. How does having to prove yourself to be honest affect a student's ability to focus? What happens to their anxiety levels at the very outset of an exam?

    27. a simple reminder

      If it's so simple, why need a human proctor at all?

    28. solely

      But a determination is made by the technology, and that determination defaults to suspicious. The student has to prove they weren't cheating, again reinforcing they're adversaries to be policed.

    29. human judgment

      Is the suggestion, then, that these "software tools" use non-human judgement? Because humans developed the tools and encoded their biases into them. Also, "software tools" is a tidy euphemism for surveillance tools.

    30. traits

      Yikes. I read the use of "trait" here as assigning a person a fixed identity - one of dishonesty - which reinforces the technology's built-in assumptions about students as adversaries to be caught and punished.

    31. software tools

      Such as?

    32. ssist

      I'm not sure students would agree with this characterization.

    33. ǡ iden–if› po••ible chea–ingǡ and o–her™i•e

      I've been reflecting on the senators' questions, and one very important missed opportunity is asking the companies to describe what they believe to be the impact their technology, and in this case live proctors, has on students' attention and other things, like their emotional/psychology state.

    34. the accomplishments

      Our academic surveillance is really in the best interests of students, we swear!

    35. agents

      Proctorio also describes their employees as "agents." What does this decision suggest about how they view their work - and how they view students?

    36. set by the test provider, the school, or the instructor administering the test.

      Another common theme from online proctoring companies: we don't decide if a student chated...we just watch them for any indication that they might've.

    37. the needs of test-takers

      Such as not being surveilled?

    38. prevent barriers

      Can ProctorU prevent digital redlining and its ongoing impacts?

    39. Ensuring the integrity and value of online testing and credentialing programs is essential to the success of online learning.

      And what of ensuring a student's psychological and emotional well-being?

    40. Academic misconduct has risen dramatically during the pandemic.

      The article ProctorU refers to focuses on a single case at Texas A&M. Now seems like a good time to consider alternatives to assessments that might lead a teacher to use ProctorU. See, for example, the show notes from this Tea for Teaching podcast episode on remote proctoring for more on moving away - far away! - from assessments that lend themselves to online proctoring.

    41. integrity

      Ah yes! Here we go again with "integrity," a word that appears eight times in the letter.

    42. Access to higher education and learning credentials and ensuring the quality and integrity of tests and assessments is not just essential on its own

      Access to higher education does not and should not depend on online proctoring. Again and again these companies construct a narrative focused on their role in expanding education. The institutions - not the companies - create and sustain these programs.

    43. the education sector

      This business jargon exposes ProctorU's lack of care for students.

    44. ontinue to support students

      Harmful academic surveillance is an odd way to support students.

    45. the nee

      Whose need?

    46. equity

      These online proctoring companies repeatedly push their surveillance by claiming it improves equity.

    47. privacy
    48. to assist in creating policies

      I think students should assist in creating these policies.

    49. ndustry best practices

      What of practices that affect students' well-being?

    50. your recent letter
    51. interest

      Is it interest - or is it deep concern for students?

    52. Visit the Against Online Proctoring library for an open, growing collection of journalism; peer-reviewed articles; examples of student, staff, and teacher resistance; and various blog posts and Twitter threads addressing online proctoring.

    1. biometrics

      According to the authors of Facial Recognition Technologies: A Primer, "Face recognition is a biometric technology."

    2. upon the customer’s request

      Does the customer include students in this usage?

    3. gracious enoug

      That's one way to think about it. Or you might say the student had no other choice but to be watched by a group of Proctorio staff just to a test using their harmful tech.

    4. millions of the exam takers who have used our technology arelocated in predominantly non-white countries,

      Also known as the "But I Have Black Friends" defense.

    5. We believe all of these cases were due to issues relating to lighting, webcam position, orwebcam quality, not race.

    6. the complaining party that they experienced a face detection or gazedetection issue due to race, and none in which there was any suggestion that it had to do with genderidentification.

      Yeah, but do students even know to ask about race and gender expression in these cases? You can't complain about what you don't know about, so a seemingly generic complaint about the tech not working could very well be because the tech is racist and its racism is obscured by the way the tech is framed as objective.

    7. our customer
    8. override any face detection feature as needed

      I'm thinking again of the student who, after this harmful technology fails to recognize their face, must somehow prove to a total stranger they are who they say they are - and then take a test. The technology, the pedagogy: it's demeaning through and through.

    9. our official socialmedia accounts

      Is this the same social media account that immediately inserted itself into any negative comment about Proctorio on Twitter that ultimately led Mike Olsen telling a scholar she should "include both sides" in an upcoming keynote - and then Mike deleted all the tweets? That one?

    10. Proctorio can accept inquiries or complaints from students and test takers

      Proctorio is not good at accepting complaints or criticism.

    11. the individual was looking at something other than the device they were using to take theexam

    12. another individualwho was helping them

      Or asking for a snack or, or, or...

    13. who they are or what they are looking at

      Like a pet or a child or a roommate who enters the room and turns an otherwise innocuous glance into suspicious behavior.

    14. “gaze detection” technology

      One example of their ableist technology.

    15. so we do not use this type of technology

      And yet: Proctorio has repeatedly stated it uses facial recognition technology, and when Ian Linkletter caught their deceptiveness, Proctorio deleted the tweet stating they use facial recognition technology. Elsewhere, a company they partner with - McGraw-Hill - states Proctorio uses facial recognition. Then there's Proctorio's contract with California State University, in which they refer to their facial recognition technology on five occasions, including, "Proctorio implements its facial recognition technology in a way that is more functional toward the proctoring process." But please, tell the senators you don't use facial recognition technology.

    16. stakeholder

      Who does "stakeholder" refer to?

    17. Proctorio is committed to transparency and providing information to its users about the privacy andsecurity of its products

      Then why are you suing someone for helping people understand how your technology discriminates?

    18. Proctorio engaged a leading informationsecurity consulting company to perform a month-long security assessment of our software and cloudenvironment in mid 2020
    19. Although it isnot necessary to do so

      Hard disagree.

    20. keep test-taker data private and secure in compliance
    21. or disabling Proctorio entirely

      More of this, please!

    22. training on best practices

      And in these sessions, do you explore the underlying pedagogy of your carceral technology? Rhetorical question, I know.

    23. best practices

      Is one these best practices suing a person when he shared unlisted YouTube video links about your academic surveillance technology?

    24. the most supportive and comfortable

      Academic surveillance can never be supportive. Academic surveillance can never be comfortable.

    25. Test takers should not be forced

      Ian Linkletter noted Proctorio changed its terms of service from explicitly stating institutions could not mandate students use Proctorio to stating institutions should use Proctorio in an ethical manner. The move aligns with their broader strategy of creating an unethical technology and then blaming institutions when they use that technology in ways students and others find harmful. Righteous indignation as PR strategy.

    26. no additional stress

      I have read many student statements that contradict this assertion.

    27. asily access

      The process you just described does not sound easy.

    28. hiring new employees, initiating new partnerships, and recruiting the help ofthird parties to make Proctorio a more equitable and user-friendly software.

      How does any of this improve equity?

    29. partner institutions (customers)

      So far I count customers referring to teachers, students, and now institutions/admin at institutions.

    30. Building moreinclusive technology

      Again, Proctorio positioning itself as a beacon of inclusivity.

    31. look forward to receiving the findings

      And I look forward to reading those findings!

    32. has protected exams

      I'm glad the exams feel protected. Have you spoken to the student with actual emotions?

    33. but deeply respect

    34. so too has awarenes

      What about awareness regarding how the technology flags disability as suspicious?

    35. deplo

      Can't escape the militarism of this invasive technology.

    36. working groups and interviews with Proctorio employees,

      What about speaking with students? How does talking with only employees improve the ethical use of an unethical technology, which, to be clear, can't be made more ethical?

    37. to help identify which settingscould present risk for falsely flagging students

      The answer: all of them. Now please pay me lots of $$$ for my incredible consulting.

    38. before taking action against the student

      Ah, so the student is forced to disclose their disability to their teacher to prove they're being honest. Much better. :(

    39. it could be overridden during thepre-check process by Proctorio support personnel

      How would this work? So a student has to share their disability with a stranger to prove they're not cheating? As Chris Gilliard likes to say, throw this garbage into the sun.

    40. accuracy

      But accuracy really isn't the issue. By automatically producing a suspicion level score for every student based on normative definitions of acceptable behavior, Proctorio shows itself to be ableist. The exam's outcome should not be a cover for the student's experience of being labeled abnormal, a label they then have to disprove to a teacher because the so-called objective proctoring tech flagged their behavior.

    41. This is a great question

    42. ABL AI will providerecommendations

      And what, pray tell, do you intend to do with these recommendations?

    43. ace detection algorithms.

      Are these the same opaque algorithms you referred to earlier?

    44. mpact assessment

      Will this information be made public?

    45. BABL

      Ah yes, the well-known story of a group of people working together in order to accomplish a goal definitely not out of hubris. I too read the Tower of Babel like this.

    46. he absence of evidence

      I know y'all have read the many articles published about the very real evidence that your tech presents several harmful issues because Mike Olsen declared that these damning articles only bolster sales.

    47. We do not believe we would have attained our level of success

      We, who are in a position of power, have not heard from institutions and their leaders, who are also in a position of power, that our technology harms anyone who doesn't occupy the same position of power we and institutional administators enjoy; therefore, we're doing great!

    48. Our technology has protected exams

      But what about students???

    49. within three

      Imagine being a student who's studied for hours (or not, it doesn't matter) and you sit down to take an exam and three times in a row the technology you've been forced to use tell you it cannot detect your face and then you have to prove to some stranger you are in fact you only to have to prove you are in fact you before you start a test. This is a pedagogy of distrust and it's awful.

    50. with face detection issues or any other concern, ensuring easyentry and completion of their exam.

      Student: Hello, yes, am I speaking to one of Proctorio's famous expert proctors?

      Expert proctor: You're in luck, bro, because, as you clearly already know, I am an expert proctor, having completed a five-week training in the art of proctoring.

      Student: Whew! Ok, expert proctor, can you tell me why your surveillance technology isn't detecting my face?

      Expert proctor: Are you a white person?

      Student: No.

      Expert proctor: Oh, ugh, ok...let me check my expert proctoring manual...hold on...

      Student: I only have twenty more minutes to finish my exam.

      Expert proctor: Be cool, bro. Seriously. Because Mike? He might post this chat to Reddit and neither of us want that.

      Student: Mike?

      Expert proctor: Nevermind. Have you tried shining a lamp directly into your face? Like a really bright lamp? Or several flashlights? Or do you own a torch? I can walk you through how to make one. How much kerosene do you have?

      Student: Your tech is just racist, isn't it?

      Expert proctor: Let me check my expert proctoring manual...one sec...ah! No, our technology is definitely 100% not racist. Can I help you with anything else? Hello? Hello?

    51. the internetbrowser

      Aside: I noticed Proctorio is no longer in the Chrome web store. I wonder if it's because they consistently received scathing reviews from students? (I have receipts, BTW.)

    52. For these features to operate

      Perhaps these features shouldn't operate since they're discriminatory?

    53. Our software does not makeinaccurate determinations about violations of exam integrity because our software does not make ​anydeterminations about breaches of exam integrity.

      Yeeeeahhh...but your software does attempt to quantify suspicion levels and produce a suspicion score, so sure, you don't ultimately decide whether or not that precious exam integrity has been breached, but you sell your surveillance tech as an objective means for doing just that.

    54. for free

      So generous!

    55. the test taker’s access tofunctionality on their device

      Now seems like a good time to consider alternatives to assessments that might lead a teacher to use Proctorio. See, for example, the show notes from this Tea for Teaching podcast episode on remote proctoring for more on moving away - far away! - from assessments that lend themselves to online proctoring.

    56. transparent

      Is it? What datasets have been used to reinscribe the normative behaviors that constitute actions that don't get flagged?

    57. merely

      Mmmhhhmmmmm...

    58. expert proctors

      What are the qualifications to be an expert proctor? What does expert proctoring look like?

    59. then “pop in” to the test to intervene during a test taker’s examsession to uphold integrity and prevent academic dishonesty in real time

      And what of the effects of this neighborly act upon a student?

    60. Pop-In

      How friendly!

    61. customer’s instructions, which vary by customer

      More confusion about how "customer" is being used.

    62. If suspicious behavior is detected, the live proctors

      Are these live proctors also mythical objective, unbiased humans?

    63. This is a premium add-on featureused by a small percentage of customers

      And I'm pretty sure this same feature is one Proctorio sought to "disrupt" before adopting it.

    64. an extension

      I think you mean "tentacle."

    65. Verify Identity

      As Shea Swauger noted in his Twitter thread responding to this letter, verifying identity in this way can out trans people.

    66. Test takersare more likely to abide by the agreement if there is a signature required

      Based on what evidence?

    67. an environment that could mask audio-based breaches of examintegrity

      Good thing children are notoriously quiet! Or if you're using public wifi, people in the coffee shop will respect your need for silence.

    68. the lighting is suitable

      The technology's racism means that dark-skinned students may need a lot of suitable lighting.

    69. This option intermittently asks the test taker to show a 360-degree viewof their exam environment.

      Ah yes, because when I'm taking an exam, I do my best when I have to show my room throughout the exam. Read more on the science of learning versus proctoring software.

    70. or any reason

      Like going to the bathroom? Like helping a family member?

    71. Head movement that may indicate that the test taker is reviewing informationoutside the device

      Again, this default is ableist.

    72. the product

      Note Proctorio uses "product" here. And how is the product trained? And what is "product" hiding?

    73. raw evidence

      What's with the insistence on "raw"?

    74. our customer (usually via their exam administrator) selects

      I'm confused as to how Proctorio is using "customer." Are students the customer? Because I'm not sure too many students will agree to that description, nor would they choose this invasive tech if given the option to say, "No."

    75. We share the concerns you raise in your letter

    76. raw, underlying data

      Data isn't raw if it's being flagged; it's cooked, if you will, by the algorithms.

    77. interacting with otherindividuals during the course of an exam

      Like their children? Or a roommate? Because if that's the case, then students are, by default, designed to be suspicious by Proctorio.

    78. administrators employed by ourcustomers

      Again, Proctorio wiping its hands of any responsibility.

    79. objective, human-reviewable evidence —not on the basis of opaque algorithms

      So much to unpack in this statement. Note, for example, the tell of their defensive tone. Proctorio would like the senators to believe data are objective; they are not. Proctorio would like the senators to believe humans are unbiased; they are not. The senators and their staff might like to read the Snooping Where We Sleep report from the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project for more.

    80. customers’​​instructors and administrators (not Proctorio)

      A few things. One, students are not customers. And two, Proctorio clearly wants the senators to understand they are not to blame for how their harmful technology is used. We just make this stuff, they're literally boldly saying, and responsibility for our terrible tech rests solely on teachers and administrators. Teachers, admin, and staff do bear responsibility, but responsibility for the harm done to students begins with Proctorio (yes, Proctorio).

    81. partner

      I wonder if students feel like partners...

    82. limitlessly scalable and cost-efficient

      Your neoliberalism is showing.

    83. andwritten exams, and inaccessible testingcenters.

      Proctorio does not like the analog world.

    84. elied on intrusive proctors,

      So Proctorio isn't intrusive?

    85. disrupt

      As Shea Swauger noted in his Twitter thread...yuck.

    86. Indian School
    87. Thank you

      Thanks to Shea Swauger for this methodical Twitter thread refuting Proctorio's claims in this letter. Come for the careful analysis, stay for Shea's A+ gif game.

    88. expand educational acces

      Here's the expanding access trope again!

    89. brands

      Schools as brands further reveals how Proctorio views education.

    90. 2​

      Ugh, did Mike and his lawyers read the article they're citing here? Because it ends with: "Big tech’s impending march into higher ed will bring more learning to more humans, and erode our humanity."

    91. parents
    92. As higher education undergoesmass transformation

      Another part of the narrative, one that's common from edtech companies: everything is changing so quickly and we, a benevolent tech company, are positioned to lead the way into our brave new world.

    93. aspiring

      All people are learners. Proctorio's use of "aspiring" is part of a larger narrative I've seen elsewhere that frames their surveillance technology as enabling people who otherwise wouldn't be able to complete their education to do so. It's a bogus story of uplift.

    94. access

      Also seeing "access" repeated early in the letter. I count 51 matches for "access" in the letter. Now seems like a good time to raise how digital redlining affects students' access to high-speed internet.

    95. high-integrity

      Not just integrity, but high-integrity!

    96. distance learning

      Well, not really. The increase in online proctoring has less to do with distance learning and more to do with teachers' reliance on narrow, often inauthentic assessments.

    97. trustworthy,

      Will Olsen tell the senators he posted a student's chat log to Reddit?

    98. Integrity,

      One of Proctorio's favorite words. Note that "integrity" appears 28 times in this letter. The company often frame integrity in terms of a student's degree; that is, the company promises a degree's integrity, or value, is what's most important. What (and who) does this vision of education as driven by the marketplace leave out? How does an obsession with integrity harm students?

    99. inclusive

      In what ways will Proctorio defend its technology as "inclusive" when many students have experienced acute exclusion from its technology?

    100. quality

      How does Proctorio define "quality"? In what ways does focusing on "quality" fit into the company's larger vision of education?

    101. provide information
    102. Visit the Against Online Proctoring library for an open, growing collection of journalism; peer-reviewed articles; examples of student, staff, and teacher resistance; and various blog posts and Twitter threads addressing online proctoring.

  3. Nov 2020
    1. "Proctorio is the best proctoring service in the market. Easy, simple, it just works."

      I notice the quote is attributed to the university rather than an individual person. I wonder: why attribute the quote to the university rather than an individual person?

    2. unblinking

      I’m struck by the image of the software constantly watching students that’s conjured by “unblinking”. I also can’t help but think of HAL 9000.

    3. Instant

      The word “Instant” suggests immediate access for all students. However, digital redlining and a lack of high-speed internet means that, for many, “Instant” is not possible.

    4. bias

      I’d like to know what evidence Proctorio can offer to support this claim. The company often says it’s up to the teacher (or in my experience, a staff member) to review a student’s video and then decide if the behavior flagged by the algorithm as suspicious constitutes cheating. But the teacher or staff member cannot help but hold implicit biases in addition to any explicit biases they may possess. So how can Proctorio prove their software eliminates bias? And what other forms and sources of bias are built into the software?

    5. Hi! Welcome to Ethical EdTech’s first #AnnotateEdTech conversation. During our open and ongoing conversations, we’ll engage in close, critical reading of the claims made by educational technology companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about online proctoring.

      If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions:

      • What do you notice? What do you wonder?
      • What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching?
      • What assumptions does the company make about students and teachers? About learning and teaching?
      • What claims does the company make about its technology? What evidence exists to support or oppose those claims?

      Thank you for joining the conversation!

    1. value of your program

      Online proctoring and its defenders often argue the software protects the value of a student’s degree (or an institution’s degrees). I agree with a recent tweet from Ben Williamson, a professor at the University of Edinburgh: We need to “Reclaim the idea that a higher education is for the social and public good, and define the public good of HE for persons and society. This is about stating the purpose of HE beyond employability and measurability.”

    2. continuous monitoring

      What are the cognitive, psychological, and emotional effects on students from “continuous monitoring”?

    3. Crushes

      I think “Crushes” is a problematic word. First, it’s a violent image. And second, those brick and mortar test centers employ people, so by “crushing” them, ProctorU is putting people out of work.

    4. Hi! Welcome to Ethical EdTech’s first #AnnotateEdTech conversation. During our open and ongoing conversations, we’ll engage in close, critical reading of the claims made by educational technology companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about online proctoring.

      If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions:

      • What do you notice? What do you wonder?
      • What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching?
      • What assumptions does the company make about students and teachers? About learning and teaching?
      • What claims does the company make about its technology? What evidence exists to support or oppose those claims?

      Thank you for joining the conversation!

    1. Bar

      From a student profiled in a September 29, 2020, article titled "ExamSoft’s remote bar exam sparks privacy and facial recognition concerns": “It feels like we’re being treated like we’re expendable, like our rights and our data and privacy are expendable, and so I think that’s where we’re at right now.”

    2. save time

      I’m skeptical of this claim. If teachers or staff must review video of students the algorithm flags, in addition to all their other responsibilities, how does that save time? I believe teachers should spend their time building stronger relationships with their students and developing their teaching practices instead of honing their policing skills.

    3. We

      Who is “We” and what alternatives were considered? Because one of the problems with online proctoring is, in the words of Professor Joshua Eyler, "when you use proctoring software, you are measuring a student’s ability to manage cognitive load and to regulate negative emotions just as much (maybe more?) as their knowledge/understanding/ideas." Trust students, understand why students might cheat, and develop better assessments.

    4. Hi! Welcome to Ethical EdTech’s first #AnnotateEdTech conversation. During our open and ongoing conversations, we’ll engage in close, critical reading of the claims made by educational technology companies about their technology, how it works, and to what ends. The annotations we leave behind can also act as living resources for others to visit and build upon; to that end, you can use the affordances of social annotation, such as hyperlinking, to connect your observations with texts beyond each company’s website. You can also draw upon and contribute to a growing library of journalism, peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and other texts about online proctoring.

      If you decide to annotate, you might consider addressing some of the following questions:

      • What do you notice? What do you wonder?
      • What narratives does the company tell about education? About being a student? A teacher? An administrator? About teaching?
      • What assumptions does the company make about students and teachers? About learning and teaching?
      • What claims does the company make about its technology? What evidence exists to support or oppose those claims?

      Thank you for joining the conversation!

  4. Sep 2020
    1. the tool itself

      As I've noted elsewhere, this information about the tool lacks critical engagement with the tool's assumptions and processes. Often, the information reads like ad copy rather than stating how Proctorio really works and how its very design damages students.

    2. I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service, and to the Privacy Policy

      I wonder how we can make those terms present in clear, decipherable language.

    3. recording of audio and video

      Again, please include students. It's the students' audio and video that's being captured.

    4. Due to the nature of Proctorio

      Here's an opportunity to be explicit about the nature of Proctorio. It's an invasive technology built on flawed technology. It's snake oil. It's cop shit.

    5. the tool has limitations in its accessibility for students

      If that's the case, then why keep giving Proctorio money?

    6. To consent to use Proctorio

      I mean, do we really want to be using technology that requires consent forms?

    7. take their exams at the time and in the location of their choosing

      Perhaps. But not when access to high-speed internet is an ongoing problem for many students due to digital redlining. Or if a student is sharing a computer - or a room - with family members. So "choice" is misleading.

    8. it is at the discretion of the instructor

      Just go ahead and say it: "We do not believe Proctorio is an ethical tool."

    9. Instructors should note

      This warning is indicative of the way Proctorio - and other harmful technologies like Turnitin - are framed to teachers. The resources' authors hedge. They hem and haw. Yes, I'm glad the warning is present, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to explain why Proctorio can't do what it purports to do - and why teachers shouldn't use the surveillance technology in the first place.

    10. Check exam recordings

      Proctorio claims it weeds out bias. It doesn't. The algorithms are biased and so is anyone who reviews the exam recordings.

    11. efficiently

      The influence of neoliberalism in higher ed. Let's get away from celebrating efficiency at the cost of our students' well-being.

    12. Leverage algorithms

      The algorithms are bullshit. Racist, ableist bullshit. The equally bullshit facial recognition technology trained on the bullshit algorithms is a dire threat to students. I know Ohio State and Michigan have some history, but it's vital to heed a recent study from researchers at Michigan and their conclusion: "We strongly recommend that [facial recognition] technology be banned from use in schools."

    13. webcam recording

      Now is a good time to at least mention that student behavior is flagged as "abnormal," which should raise questions about what we mean by "normal" and how such language reveals the ableism inherent to Proctorio.

    14. Record exam audio

      What - who - is erased in this statement? The exam doesn't produce audio. A student sighs. A student's hungry child cries. A student blows her nose because she's sick. We must not erase students and how technology harms them.

    15. solution

      A good place to ask, "A solution to what?" If the answer is cheating, then let's include reasons why students might cheat and link to ways teachers can design authentic assessments.

    16. Getting Started

      The page assumes teachers should use Proctorio. What if the site was titled something else? I'd like to revise the title to Why You Shouldn't Use Proctorio. Too often these resource pages assume a neutral stance towards technology, and I think that's a mistake. Objectivity upholds the status quo, and maintaining the status quo means maintaining white supremacy.

  5. Aug 2020
    1. the tool itself

      As I've noted elsewhere, this information about the tool lacks critical engagement with the tool's assumptions and processes. Often, the information reads like ad copy rather than stating how Proctorio really works and how its very design damages students.

    2. I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service, and to the Privacy Policy

      I wonder how we can make those terms present in clear, decipherable language.

    3. recording of audio and video

      Again, please include students. It's the students' audio and video that's being captured.

    4. Due to the nature of Proctorio

      Here's an opportunity to be explicit about the nature of Proctorio. It's an invasive technology built on flawed technology. It's snake oil. It's cop shit.

    5. the tool has limitations in its accessibility for students reliant upon screen readers and keyboard navigation

      If that's the case, then why keep giving Proctorio money?

    6. To consent

      I mean, do we really want to be using technology that requires consent forms?

    7. the time and in the location of their choosing

      Perhaps. But not when access to high-speed internet is an ongoing problem for many students due to digital redlining. Or if a student is sharing a computer - or a room - with family members. So "choice" is misleading.

    8. it is at the discretion of the instructor if the tool will be utilized

      Just go ahead and say it: "We do not believe Proctorio is an ethical tool."

    9. Instructors should note

      This warning is indicative of the way Proctorio - and other harmful technologies like Turnitin - are framed to teachers. The resources' authors hedge. They hem and haw. Yes, I'm glad the warning is present, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to explain why Proctorio can't do what it purports to do - and why teachers shouldn't use the surveillance technology in the first place.

    10. Check exam recordings

      Proctorio claims it weeds out bias. It doesn't. The algorithms are biased and so is anyone who reviews the exam recordings.

    11. efficiently

      The influence of neoliberalism in higher ed. Let's get away from celebrating efficiency at the cost of our students' well-being.