Experiences of conditing online exam proctoring in low-resource settings: a Sri Lankan case study

The main cause of most of the issues faced by the students is the secondary proctoring device (mobile phone). Setting up a secondary device provides some useful information but the impediments of having to set up a secondary device exceed the advantages. The twodevice setup doubles the network data consumption and doubles the work of the invigilators because they must review two videos per candidate. The main issue reported regarding the devices is the battery drainage of the mobile phones. The candidates say that they had to give extra attention to ensuring the mobile phone is properly connected. Therefore, an ideal solution should eliminate the need for the two-way camera setup.

Difficulties candidates face because of unstable internet connection are the next important problem that should be addressed when designing online proctoring solutions. A solution should minimally depend on the internet connectivity. Trying to identify the performance constraints of a proposed solution to determine whether on-device proctoring can be facilitated in common devices is another step that should be taken. Such facilitation will enable offline mode where the internet will be required at the start and the end for submission purposes only. Once the candidate is authenticated, the system should run offline and should submit a behaviour report as soon as the exam is over instead of sending a bulky video, which will reduce the time for video uploading. Moreover, an ideal solution should include reports about internet connectivity if achieving offline mode is not possible. If disconnected, the timestamps of the disconnected duration should be obtained so that the student can continue answering when the connection becomes stable again without losing writing time. If the behavior report is sent instead of uploading the video, the video must be saved on the device until an examiner request it upon inspection of the behavior report. Another possible feature which could lessen the gap of access to e-learning would be expanding a solution functionality to include mobile phones and tablets, since it is reported that many students in Sri Lanka use mobile devices to engage in online learning activities [4].

References

1. K. A. A. Gamage, E. K. de Silva, and N. Gunawardhana, “Online delivery and assessment during COVID_19: Safeguarding academic integrity,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1-24, 2020, doi: 10.3390/educsci10110301.

2. edX Inc., “Schools and Partners | edX,” edXInc., 2019. https://www.edx.org/schools_partners (accessed Jun. 06, 2021).

3. “Global Freshman Academy Start Earning College Credit | edX.” https://www.edx.org/gfa?track=gfa_banner (accessed Jun. 06, 2021).

4. R. Hayashi, M. Garcia, A. Maddawin, and K. P. Hewagamage, “Online Learning in Sri Lanka's Higher Education Institutions during the COVID-19 Pandemich,” vol. 5, no. 151, p. 12, 2020.

5. M. Amzalag, N. Shapira, and N. Dolev, “Two Sides of the Coin: Lack of Academic Integrity in Exams During the Corona Pandemic, Students^, and Lecturers' Perceptions,” J Acad Ethics, pp. 1-21, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10805_021_09413_5.

6. A. Siddhpura and M. Siddhpura, “Plagiarism, Contract Cheating And Other Academic Misconducts In Online Engineering Education: Analysis, Detection And Prevention Strategies,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning foi^ Engineering (TALE), Dec. 2020, pp. 112-119. doi: 10.1109/TALE48869.2020.9368311.

7. “Academic Misconduct for Online Exams | Office of Teaching, Learning & Technology.” https://teach.uiowa.edu/academic_misconduct_online_exams (accessed Jul. 13, 2021).

8. “Ten Clever Ways Students Cheat In Online Proctored Exams and How To Prevent Them.” https://blog.mettl.com/cheating_in_online_exams/ (accessed Jul. 15, 2021).

9. S. Arno, A. Galassi, M. Tommasi, A. Saggino, and P. Vittorini, “State_of_the_art of commercial proctoring systems and their use in academic online exams,” International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 41-62, 2021, doi: 10.4018/IJDET.20210401.oa3.

10. M. J. Hussein, J. Yusuf, A. S. Deb, L. Fong, and S. Naidu, “An Evaluation of Online Proctoring Tools,” Open Praxis, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 509, 2020, doi: 10.5944/openpraxis.12.4.1113.

11. Y. Atoum, L. Chen, A. X. Liu, S. D. H. Hsu, and X. Liu, “Automated Online Exam Proctoring,” IEEE Trans Multimedia, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1609-1624, 2017, doi: 10.1109/TMM.2017.2656064.

12. M. Labayen, R. Vea, J. Florez, N. Aginako, and B. Sierra, “Online Student Authentication and Proctoring System Based on Multimodal Biometrics Technology,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 72398-72411, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3079375.

13. S. Idemudia, “A Smart Approach of E_Exam Assessment Method Using Face Recognition to Address Identity Theft and Cheating,” vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 515-522, 2016.

14. H. S. G. Asep and Y. Bandung, “A Design of Continuous User Verification for Online Exam Proctoring on M_ Learning,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 2019_ July, no. July, pp. 284-289, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ICEEI47359.2019.8988786.

15. Y. Khlifi and H. A. El_Sabagh, “A novel authentication scheme for E_assessments based on student behavior over E_learning platform,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 6289, 2017, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v12i04.6478.

16. H. Li, M. Xu, Y. Wang, H. Wei, and H. Qu, “A Visual Analytics Approach to Facilitate the Proctoring of Online Exams,” vol. 17, no. 21, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3411764.3445294.

17. M. Cote, F. Jean, A. B. Albu, and D. Capson, “Video summarization for remote invigilation of online exams,” in 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2016, May 2016. doi: 10.1109/WACV.2016.7477704.

18. A. W. Muza^ar, M. Tahir, M. W. Anwar, Q. Chaudry, S. R. Mir, and Y. Rasheed, “A systematic review of online exams solutions in e_learning: Techniques, tools, and global adoption,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 3268932712, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3060192.

19. N. Chotikakamthorn and S. Tassanaprasert, “Affordable Proctoring Method for Ad_hoc Off_campus Exams,” in SIGITE 2020 - Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, Oct. pp. 266-272. doi: 10.1145/3368308.3415421.

20. “Proctoring a Closed_Book Exam in Zoom | Department of Government.” https://gov.harvard.edu/proctoring_ closed_book_exam_zoom (accessed Jun. 06, 2021).

21. “Proctoring a Live Online Exam with Zoom _ NIU _ Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning.” https://www.niu.edu/citl/resources/guides/proctoring_with_zoom.shtml (accessed Jun. 06, 2021).

22. S. Manoharan and X. Ye, “On Upholding Academic Integrity in Online Examinations,” in 2020 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e), Nov. 2020, pp. 33-37. doi: 10.1109/IC3e50159.2020.9288468.

23. E. Bilen and A. Matros, “Online cheating amid COVID_19,” JEcon Behav Organ, vol. 182, pp. 196-211, Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.004.

24. A. Reedy, D. Pfitzner, L. Rook, and L. Ellis, “Responding to the COVID-19 emergency: student and academic staff perceptions of academic integrity in the transition to online exams at three Australian universities,” International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-32, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40979-02100075-9.

Размещено на Allbest.ru