On Friday, September 25th Provost Chilton sent out a statement about the University’s utilization of ProctorU to “monitor tests administrated remotely.” As a faculty member and librarian, this statement felt wholly insufficient to address real concerns held by students, parents, and other stakeholders. Not only did this statement insufficiently address issues of privacy and surveillance, but it directly ignored concerns surrounding the inequities that proctoring technologies uphold.
These concerns include, but are not limited to:
– Exacerbated mental distress during testing
– Utilization of racist, ableist, and transphobic technologies
– Inaccessibility based on technological needs and ability to have an adequate space free of noise, background movement, and distraction
Some of these concerns are inherent to the way that proctoring tech functions while others are a more intrinsic aspect to the coding and software that is employed during testing. President Chilton’s statement urged readers to review the ProctorU’s privacy policy. I have done so at length and find issue with how ProctorU values users (utilization of vague language that is institution/instructor focused instead of student focused) and in its extensive use of biometric technologies.
There is a lot more that can be said here, and I am prepared to discuss at further length if necessary. I am also able to provide relevant literature on the subject as needed.
Comments
I received an e-mail from a student offering their viewpoint on this topic. It’s not at all favorable toward ProctorU. An excerpt: “From information readily available on their website (https://www.proctoru.com/ca-privacy-policy and https://www.proctoru.com/privacy-policy) one can see the categories of information that ProctorU regularly collects and discloses to third parties which include: social security numbers; driver’s license and passport numbers; other personal identifiers and biometric information including genetic, physiological, behavioral, gender identity, and biological characteristics; activity patterns and identifying information unique to each user including fingerprints, faceprints, voiceprints, iris or retina scans; IP addresses or device identifiers; browsing history, search history, and information about students’ interactions with websites, applications, or advertisements; medical information including medical conditions, physical disability, and/or mental disability; photographs, video, and audio recordings; education and employment information including that related to citizenship. Moreover, in the event that ProctorU is involved in a bankruptcy, merger, acquisition, reorganization, or sale of assets, our students’ information may be sold or transferred as part of that transaction.”
As a follow-up to my previous comment, in spring term, faculty had a big increase in academic integrity violations as we moved to remote instruction. Most of these came from STEM courses. Faculty members tracked sites such as Chegg and saw – in real time – exam questions being posted and answered. This trend continued into fall and faculty ask the provost for options to ensure integrity with remote testing. Working with ITS, and AOI, ProctorU record+ was selected as an optional tool for faculty who needed to proctor exams.
Many of the concerns presented by students were not applicable to ProctorU’s record+ (ProctorU has three distinct offerings), a fully machine-based proctoring solution. No proctoring system is perfect and all tend to be stressful (in-person or remote), but academic integrity violations impact all of WSU and are particularly unfair on students who uphold WSU’s Community Standards when being tested.
To summarize, faculty members asked for a solution, which was provided as an option. All of these concerns were addressed in this statement
https://from.wsu.edu/provost/2020/ProctorU/166027-browser.html
Faculty senate continues to work with the provost’s office, ITS, and AOI to explore options as we move into spring semester.