Student Monitoring and Remote Tests
Monitoring students in online tests may be necessary to stop them from cheating, but it can also affect their mental health. But instead of falling into this dilemma, why not focus on a broader question: how can we change testing to actually help students rather than to simply assess them?
Dominant Framing of the Problem
As online and remote learning options become more viable, so does the need to remotely assess students on their learning. However, exams and tests given remotely during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic saw a significant rise in cheating by students. Students employed a variety of means such as googling the answers, asking others in online forums and discussion boards, and hiding physical notes around them. This increase in cheating triggered a response by educational institutes in the form of proctoring and tracking tools which required students and screens to be continuously monitored as they gave their tests (Subin, 2021). These tools have been purported to catch several instances of cheating that would otherwise have gone unnoticed (Harwell, 2020).
However, such invasive monitoring can also be detrimental to students’ mental health and intrude on their privacy. Being continually watched—especially one may be wrongfully accused of cheating due to “unusual” eye and head movements—has heightened stress and anxiety in many students. Further, the extensive data collected by such tools could also be hacked, exposing students’ private data (Harwell, 2020). This situation raises an important question: “Is it worth invading students’ privacy to prevent cheating in remote tests?”
Invading student’s privacy to prevent them from cheating can be detrimental to their mental health
Concerns and Considerations
There are two key concerns with this framing: its dichotomization of the issue, and is its assumption that cheating is symptomatic of a problem with the student, rather than with the culture of assessment and education.
First, this framing of the problem makes it seem that the situation requires a trade-off between allowing cheating and invading privacy. Such dichotomization is problematic because it foregoes other possibilities, such as designing assessments where “cheating” has no meaning. For example, consider project-based assessments where students have to identify problems in their local environments and design approaches to them using the subject-matter learned in class. Such assignments cannot be “cheated” on as there is no “correct” answer to cheat for. The problem itself is ambiguous and evolves over time. Nor is it “cheating” to ask for help from others (parents, friends) because learning to ask for support and working with others is often necessary to resolve local problems. Such an approach is also advantageous as it encourages students to learn how to develop problems and apply what they have learned to them, which is more aligned with professional practice.
Second, this framing places the blame for cheating squarely on the students, ignoring how the design of the educational/assessment system itself can contribute to cheating, especially for struggling students who do not have adequate support. One of the primary reasons students cheat on tests is to avoid failure. This is partly the result of a flawed assessment culture that punishes failure on tests rather than using it as an opportunity for learning and growth. For example, failing a test often means repeating the class in its entirety, rather than getting support on those specific areas that one struggles with.
Instead of tests, the class as a whole could aim to solve a real community problem, such as local water or air pollution, with the teacher as their guide. This would leave little room for “cheating”
Reframing the Problem
Drawing on these concerns, there are several possible avenues for reframing the above problem. As discussed above, one could ask, “how can we design better ways of assessing students to support learning and growth?” This would foster exploration of assignments that use evaluation as an intermediary step towards learning, rather than as a way of categorizing students by skill or ability.
One could also question the inherent mistrust placed in the students implied in the original framing and instead focus on community building: “how can we develop a community of learning where teachers and students learn from each other?” Such a question explores the possibility of the class functioning as a team rather than as an aggregate of individuals. For example, the class as a whole can aim to solve a real community problem, such as local water or air pollution, with the teacher as their guide. This would leave little room for “cheating” as individual students are not judged for their skill, but rather on how they hone those skills to contribute towards resolving the class problem and are willing to support others.
Questions can also be asked of the broader educational/assessment culture: “how can we re-design educational environments to better support struggling students?” Such an approach shifts the conversation from catching and punishing struggling students who see no option but to cheat, to identifying and supporting struggling students early on without discrediting or mistrusting them. For example, shifting from a few high stakes tests to regular low stakes assignments that are iterative in nature can allow students to revise and learn from their mistakes. Particularly, it gives struggling multiple chances to improve their grade without being punished for not doing well.
