Skip to main content

The Mixed-Bag Impact of Online Proctoring Software in Undergraduate Courses Cover

The Mixed-Bag Impact of Online Proctoring Software in Undergraduate Courses

Volume 16 (2024): Issue 1

By: Jill Oeding , Theresa Gunn and Jamie Seitz

Open Access

|Feb 2024

Abstract

This quantitative study is designed to help educational institutions and instructors make informed decisions regarding the use of online proctoring software. The researchers studied the impact of proctoring software in online courses by comparing the final grades of two groups of online, undergraduate students who took the same online course with the same professor who administered virtually the same content, with and without proctoring software. The overall sample included 252 students in six different undergraduate courses. When regressing all six courses together, the data did not show that the addition of proctoring software created a significantly lower course grade. The researchers then regressed the data of each individual undergraduate course, with the addition of independent variables, which had a mixed-bag of results. Interestingly, an undergraduate business course showed that the use of proctoring software reduced course grades while other courses produced interesting significant findings relative to gender and attendance status.

References

Alessio, H. M., Malay, N. J., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores. Online Learning, 21(1). DOI: 10.24059/olj.v21i1.885
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Alessio, H. M., Malay, N. J., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2018). Interaction of proctoring and student major on online test performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3698
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Atoum, Y., Chen, L., Liu, A. X., Hsu, S. D. H., & Liu, X. (2017). Automated online exam proctoring. IEEE Publishing, 19(7), 1609–1624. DOI: 10.1109/TMM.2017.2656064
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beck, V. (2014). Testing a model to predict online cheating—Much ado about nothing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 65–75. DOI: 10.1177/1469787413514646
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bedford, D. W., Gregg, J. R., & Clinton, M. S. (2011). Preventing online cheating with technology: A pilot study of remote proctor and an update of its use. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11(2).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brothen, T., & Peterson, G. (2012). Online exam cheating: A natural experiment. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(2), 15–20.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Carstairs, J., & Myors, B. (2009). Internet testing: A natural experiment reveals test score inflation on a high-stakes, unproctored cognitive test. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 738–742. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.01.011
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 203–211. 293.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Christie, B. (2003, November). Designing online courses to discourage dishonesty. Educause Quarterly, 24(4), 54–58.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clesham, R. (2010, March). Changing assessment practices resulting from the shift towards on-screen assessment in schools. University of Hertfordshire Research Archive. (Doctoral dissertation) https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/5014/Rose%20Clesham%20-%20final%20EdD%20submission.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cluskey, G. R., Elhen, C. R., & Raiborn, M. H. (2011). Thwarting online exam cheating without proctor supervision. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2020). Good proctor or ‘Big Brother’? AI Ethics and Online Exam Supervision Technologies. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100033. DOI: 10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Foster, D. (2013, March 26). Security Issues in Technology-Based Testing. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203664803
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hobbs, T. (2021, May). Cheating at school is easier than ever – and it’s rampant. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/cheating-at-school-is-easier-than-everand-its-rampant-11620828004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hosseini, M. M., Egodawatte, G., & Ruzgar, N. S. (2021). Online assessment in a business department during COVID-19: Challenges and practices. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100556
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hylton, K., Levy, Y., & Dringus, L. P. (2016). Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Computers & Education, 92–93, 53–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ilgaz, H., & Afacan Adanır, G. (2020). Providing online exams for online learners: Does it really matter for them? Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1255–1269. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-019-10020-6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
James, R. (2016). Tertiary student attitudes to invigilated, online summative examinations. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(19). DOI: 10.1186/s41239-016-0015-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Karim, M. N., Kaminsky, S. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and performance in remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4), 555–572. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-014-9343-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Khare, A., & Lam, H. (2008). Assessing student achievement and progress with online examinations: Some pedagogical and technical issues. International Journal on ELearning, 7(3), 383–402.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
King, C. G., Guyette, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students’ views. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). DOI: 10.9743/JEO.2009.1.5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kinney, N. E. (2001). A guide to design and testing in online psychology courses. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 1(1), 16–20. DOI: 10.2304/plat.2001.1.1.16
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2015). Post-graduate student performance in ‘supervised in-class’ vs. ‘unsupervised online’ multiple choice tests: implications for cheating and test security. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, [s. l.], 40(7), 883–897. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.956683
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, K., & Fanguy, M. (2022). Online exam proctoring technologies: Educational innovation or deterioration? 53(3), 475–490. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13182
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lieberman, M. (2018, October 10). Exam proctoring for online students hasn’t yet transformed. Insider Higher Ed. 1–15.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lieneck, C., & Esparza, S. (2018). Collaboration or collusion? The new era of commercial online resources for students in the digital age: An opinion piece. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 16(3), 7. DOI: 10.46743/1540-580X/2018.1729
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nigam, A., Pasricha, R., Singh, T., & Churi, P. (2021). A systematic review on AI-based proctoring systems: Past, present and future. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6421–6445. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-021-10597-x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oeding, J. (2022). The prevention and detection of academic dishonesty: Watch the online exam proctoring videos. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 23(1), 79–89.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prince, D. J., Fulton, R. A., & Garsombke, T. W. (2009). Comparisons of proctored versus non-proctored testing strategies in graduate distance education curriculum. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 6(7). DOI: 10.19030/tlc.v6i7.1125
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reisenwitz, T. H. (2020). Examining the necessity of proctoring online exams. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(1), 118–124. DOI: 10.33423/jhetp.v20i1.2782
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S. (2002). Improving student performance through computer-based assessment: insights from recent research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 475–479. DOI: 10.1080/0260293022000009348
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Selwyn, N., O’Neill, C., Smith, G., Andrejevic, M., & Gu, X. (2023). A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media International Australia, 186(1), 149–164. DOI: 10.1177/1329878X211005862
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Slusky, L. (2020). Cybersecurity of online proctoring systems. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 29(1), 56–83. DOI: 10.58729/1941-6679.1445
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3), 1–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tromblay, D. (2020, July 27). How online exam proctoring and remote exams work. WebCE.com
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Volpe, R., Davidson, L., & Bell, M. C. (2008). Faculty attitudes and behaviors concerning student cheating. College Student Journal, 42, 164–175.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1), 1–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weiner, J. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2017). A comparative study of online remote proctored versus onsite proctored high-stakes exams. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 18(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2019). 21st Century assessment: Online proctoring, test anxiety, and student performance, International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 34(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2021). Video surveillance of online exam proctoring: Exam anxiety and student performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 36(1), 1–26.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yates, R., & Beaudrie, B. (2009). The impact of online assessment on grades in community college distance education mathematics courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 62–70. DOI: 10.1080/08923640902850601
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Figures & tables

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.585 | Journal eISSN: 2304-070X

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 82 - 93

Submitted on: Aug 5, 2023

|

Accepted on: Nov 26, 2023

|

Published on: Feb 2, 2024

Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Online proctoring,

proctoring software,

impact of proctoring software,

online courses,

academic dishonesty

© 2024 Jill Oeding, Theresa Gunn, Jamie Seitz, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 16 (2024): Issue 1

Previous article