Online Proctoring: Intensity of Verification
Distance learning, especially education for children and education where you receive some kind of a certificate or a degree based on a test result, relies heavily on online proctoring. There are many issues, problems, and questions that relate to online proctoring. Indeed, the topic itself is too broad to cover in just one article. So in a series of articles, I would like to go through two crucial dimensions to consider in practice with online proctoring: the intensity of verification and the instruments used.
Here I discuss the first of the dimensions – the level of verification applied to classes. The degree of checks that are applied in the process of online proctoring varies broadly. There are three main approaches here.
No proctoring
Virtually no proctoring or checks at all is the most used approach. Mainly it is applied to self-studying courses or classes. But even for many online courses taught in person the professor or teacher just doesn’t check if the students present are listening attentively or paying enough attention.
Basically, this is the same problem that exists in the offline – the real-world – classes. However, with distance learning, it is somewhat more acute. And in either offline or online studies, it is especially dire for self-studied courses, like homework. There is virtually no understanding if the student reads the material or watches the videos, how much time he or she spends on it. Most online learning courses as well as regular schools just rely on the self-control and the ability to combat procrastination of their students.
Why does the education process put up with such a fickle approach that lacks any control? The answer to this question would require a separate discussion but in short, there are three major reasons:
- lack of efficient instruments of control;
- the necessity for teaching students self-discipline and self-education;
- result-oriented (vs. process-oriented) approach.
Selective or random checks
The second approach is to check or to proctor the courses via a representative sample. In other words, not all the classes or tests are checked but just some of them.
In the remote education process employing this approach requires some processing power and data storage space in order to record all the videos and audio of the students going through the courses. Then according to some algorithm, a sample of videos (some percentage of the courses) is chosen. In general, this is the standard sampling method of probabilities theory. So you just decide on what percentage is convenient and acceptable to be checked. And then the required quantity of classes is controlled by a professor or a proctor going through the videos of the students.
Total control
The final approach revised here is a complete or total verification. This is mostly applied to tests, certificates, or some major courses that need to be passed. Usually, these are the classes that can influence future decisions in a competitive environment: results are demanded by potential employers, universities, or some other entities.
With this method, all videos or audio recordings are proctored either in real-time or later. Normally, it is done after the test. A human proctor looks through the videos to make sure if the student aligns to the rules and there is no cheating.
In conclusion, the three control approaches differ in the level or intensity of verification applied. In practice it is usually the combination of the three methods that are used. Accordingly, the main question for the educational program creators or managers is the proportion of each method used.