Following a CHEM 1AA3 midterm, students have expressed privacy and security-related concerns use of Respondus Lockdown Browser
C/O Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash
Due to restrictions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, many universities have had to adapt to online learning for the 2020-2021 school year. As a result, professors have faced unique challenges with respect to teaching and assessing students virtually.
One such challenge is ensuring academic integrity, which can be difficult in an online context because professors cannot monitor the test-taking process as easily. In response to this difficulty, many universities have relied on proctoring software to prevent cheating. At McMaster University, the most commonly used proctoring software is Respondus Lockdown Browser.
Though potentially valuable from an academic integrity standpoint, many people have raised privacy and security-related concerns about requiring students to download proctoring software. McMaster students appear to share these concerns, as many have voiced them on Reddit over the past few months.
Concerns about proctoring software have recently received a lot of attention from students, following the CHEM 1AA3 midterm on Feb. 6, 2021. The Silhouette discussed the CHEM 1AA3 midterm and the potential problems surrounding proctoring software with a student, who has been granted anonymity to ensure that they do not receive academic backlash for coming forward.
Concerns about proctoring software have recently received a lot of attention from students, following the CHEM 1AA3 midterm on Feb. 6, 2021.
This student reported that their laptop shut down directly after the CHEM 1AA3 midterm. They also said that they have been in contact with numerous other students who faced technical difficulties during and following the midterm, including computer lags, computer shutdowns, emails about compromised passwords and multiple contact attempts from unknown numbers.
The student added that, of the students who experienced technical difficulties of some kind, 16 have reached out to the chemistry department.
The student said that as the chemistry department was unable to solve the problem at all, their only response was telling students to report it to Avenue Support or to the Respondus company.
“It should have been [the chemistry department] taking responsibility,” the student added.
“It should have been [the chemistry department] taking responsibility,” the student added.
Jay Robb, manager of communications for the faculty of science, stated that the chemistry department took student concerns seriously.
“[The chemistry department] encouraged the students to reach out on technical issues and get answers around that,” Robb said.
According to Robb, the chemistry department plans to continue using Respondus Lockdown Browser and to give students an additional 30 minutes on exams, to account for any technical difficulties that might arise. Robb explained the chemistry department’s reasons for using proctoring software.
“We need to maintain the academic integrity and protect the value of every student’s credit,” Robb said.
CHEM 1AA3 students are not the only ones to have raised concerns about McMaster’s use of proctoring software over the past month. On Feb. 22, 2021, the Student Representative Assembly put out a statement in support of students’ concerns about McMaster’s use of Respondus Lockdown Browser.
In their statement, the Student Representative Assembly called on McMaster to respond to student concerns about privacy and security and to provide all students with alternative methods of assessment if they do not consent to the use of Respondus Lockdown Browser.
Christy Au-Yeung, a co-leader of the SRA’s science caucus, explained that it was a challenge to find information regarding the protection of student privacy on Respondus.
“The onus is on the university to do a better job of informing students [about Respondus] and giving them the option to protect their privacy,” said Simranjeet Singh, co-leader of the SRA’s science caucus.
According to Au-Yeung, the experiences that students had with the CHEM 1AA3 midterm were an integral factor in the SRA’s decision to release a statement.
“There were issues in that test, some caused by Respondus and some not, which caused the unfortunate scenario and motivated us to act,” Singh said.
“There were issues in that test, some caused by Respondus and some not, which caused the unfortunate scenario and motivated us to act.”
Simranjeet Singh
Singh noted that some unrelated technological issues faced by individual students may have been grouped together with concerns more directly related to Respondus.
However, he added, the additional pressure of Respondus on students’ internet may have been a factor, even for students who experienced difficulties unrelated to Respondus.
Au-Yeung and Singh both emphasized that the SRA wants student perspectives to be heard.
“Obviously [McMaster] can’t change what’s in the past, but moving forward [we hope that] students continue to be consulted,” Au-Yeung said.
Fall semester has been rough for students, yet it doesn’t look like Mac will be adjusting anything for the winter semester
It’s no surprise that lots of students are feeling the stress of an online semester. That’s because it’s not just an online semester — it’s an online semester during a pandemic.
A friend recently reached out to me to see how I was finding this semester. I told him that it has been challenging in more ways than one.
I have found it very difficult to focus on studying, work or even to do things that I enjoy doing, such as reading and drawing. As someone who has a disability that affects my ability to concentrate, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise for me. But with the pandemic, not only has my concentration gotten worse, but it has also been difficult for those without disabilities to focus as many are feeling heightened stress and anxiety due to COVID-19. This constant state of worry detracts from our ability to focus on tasks and as a result, shortens our attention span.
Furthermore, our homes have become the place that we now do everything. I attend doctor’s appointments, talk to my therapist, do my homework, attend work meetings, and partake in hobbies — all from my room. Not having a change of scenery can be difficult.
https://twitter.com/RGothoskar/status/1318197090456055809
My friend mentioned that he also found that many friends at school — specifically, ones taking a full course load — have found it incredibly difficult to study and focus during this semester. He told me that he wanted to gather information as to how different students feel about this online semester and what would help them for the winter semester if things were to change.
That’s when the metaphorical alarm went off in my head. Yes, we all know students have been struggling with school this semester — but is McMaster University going to do anything to help us?
I can tell you that both my friend and I realized that Mac probably isn’t going to change the way things are being run for next semester. Currently, many issues have been brought up by students regarding an online semester that have not been addressed.
For example, students at Mac and other Canadian universities have raised their concerns about proctoring software being used for testing. While proctoring software can put our privacy at risk, it also puts students who have concentration issues, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, at a disadvantage. Proctoring software can track your eye movement and many students with concentration issues cannot manage to look at a computer for several hours on end. In fact, I would argue that most students would have trouble doing that.
I don’t blame McMaster for the rocky start with the fall semester. They had to adapt quickly over the summer and I understand that must have been difficult. But if they keep running things the way that they currently are — despite many students struggling and complaining about the semester — then there’s an issue.
On a lighter note, a few ways that some of my courses have run have really improved online school for me. For one of my courses, we have unlimited time to complete a quiz, so long as it is completed within a timeframe of four days. In addition, this course has a take-home exam instead of a timed exam. These methods of testing help students spend as much time as they need to succeed without having to worry about not being able to concentrate or having wifi connectivity issues during the test.
However, I know that this is not the norm for many courses and definitely not standardized across courses. This is something that Mac could look into for the following semester, but I doubt anything will be done about it.
Another thing that has benefited me is that most of my instructors have been very lenient with providing extensions. It’s important to note that sometimes students may need an extension even if they don’t have proper medical documentation. Maybe they’re sick but are finding it difficult to get a doctor’s note due to the pandemic or maybe they’re just having a bad day.
Either way, it is important for instructors to be compassionate during this hardship we’re all experiencing. However, instructors are currently not mandated to provide extensions and I can tell you from experience that there are definitely professors out there who are less than willing to provide an extension.
But at the end of the day, is Mac going to listen to our concerns? Will the university listen to our feedback and adapt accordingly? I really want to say that they do care about us, but the more I think about it, the more I believe that Mac will run the next semester as business as usual.
With Proctortrack’s recent security breach, Mac should consider using alternative testing methods that don’t involve proctoring software
By: Juan Molina Calderon, Contributor
From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the proctoring industry has boomed due to the need to regulate online exams and other tests in order to prevent plagiarism. Proctorio, for example, has had an increase in business by 900 per cent. Due to the increase in usage, many people have raised questions of whether proctoring services such as Examity, Honorlock and Proctortrack should even be used in the first place.
Firstly, I believe there is a problem with trying to deliver tests and exams online. The main issue comes from trying to replicate in-person teaching and test-taking in an online format. A very captivating lecture in person might keep most of the class engaged and attentive, but when it is moved online, many students mention the trouble they have focusing, including myself.
Additionally, we study and learn in the same setting day-after-day, which creates a very monotonous routine and as a result, can make it hard to concentrate. This new COVID routine is very different from walking around campus to get to your next class or having a coffee with some of your friends.
Studies show that face-to-face social contact releases many neurotransmitters which help us regulate our response to things such as stress and anxiety. Now, these interactions are purely virtual and as a result, we miss out on all these benefits.
The environment in which students learn continues to adapt to the pandemic and so should the pedagogy and assessment methods. Instead of putting resources into creating a new form of teaching and assessing students’ knowledge, a lot of it has been put into resources such as proctoring software.
I believe that there are far more efficient ways to have students demonstrate their knowledge without the use of tests. For example, students could create online portfolios with all the work, assignments, notes and homework they have done throughout the semester which should be complemented with projects that apply the knowledge the students should grasp. As a student in the faculty of engineering, I have yet to see a real change in the way students are evaluated since the format for my classes and tests seems to look the same now as it did before the lockdown began in Ontario.
The environment in which students learn continues to adapt to the pandemic and so should the pedagogy and assessment methods. Instead of putting resources into creating a new form of teaching and assessing students’ knowledge, a lot of it has been put into resources such as proctoring software.
McMaster University, in this case, has given professors the ability to use these types of software including Examity which has what I believe to be an abusive policy. Examity, like other proctoring software, has the capacity to collect massive amounts of data since they have unrestricted access to your computer and its files.
Examity’s privacy policy states that the information they may collect the following: “[a] driver’s license number or state-issued identification card number, financial account number, credit card number or debit card number with or without any required security code, that would permit access to an individual’s financial account.”
If this is not worrying, I do not know what is. The extent of the information collected is unwarranted and poses a large security risk for students.
Additionally, they state that they cannot guarantee the security of their platform and that providing data to Examity is done at our own risk. Therefore, if there is ever a security breach, Examity is not held liable because we agreed to download this program.
Examity’s privacy policy states that the information they may collect the following: “[a] driver’s license number or state-issued identification card number, financial account number, credit card number or debit card number with or without any required security code, that would permit access to an individual’s financial account.”
Furthermore, they state that they may share your personal data with “trusted” third parties or affiliates that help Examity provide their service. Essentially, Examity is given free rein to share our data with a third party, which increases the risk for a potential data breach.
Clearly, this is not only invasive but a breach of ethics. This is because the data collected and stored by proctoring software is valued by third-parties who use this type of data to profile people online. Services such as Proctortrack can hold this data for up to 180 days which is unnecessary since the data should ideally be deleted after the student submits the test if no suspicious activity occurred.
Additionally, it raises concerns regarding inequality since universities cannot assume every student has a stable internet connection and that they are able to work on an exam at home without any disruptions. Therefore, the environment is not the same for everyone as it would be in a testing room.
This level of access shares a lot of parallels with spyware and malware. Even though these types of software are not meant for that purpose, they can definitely be exploited at the expense of our privacy.
One recent example is the security breach at Proctortrack which resulted in the temporary shutdown of its services. Although an independent audit by cybersecurity company Network Intelligence stated that no customer data was breached, this situation illustrates how companies like Proctortrack and Examity can never guarantee the data will be 100 per cent secure.
In conclusion, when using these programs, not only are we being watched and recorded in our homes by people who are not directly affiliated with the university, but a lot of our personal data is being collected. The need to prevent cheating does not outweigh privacy and security. This doesn’t even mention the anxiety and stress proctoring causes for many students. Even then, technology is not the solution for preventing cheating, as there will always be people who find ways around it.
Proctoring seen as a pro for some, but a con for others
As students and instructors find new ways to adapt to an online educational environment, methods of online assessment are something that also face major changes. The MacPherson Institute, McMaster University’s centre for teaching and learning, has shared many resources and suggestions for instructors to develop a remote teaching plan.
On the MacPherson website, there are also resources for assessment alternatives. A final exam can be a take-home exam and student presentations can be done online using Microsoft Teams or they can be recorded and posted on Avenue to Learn.
For instructors that wish to conduct final exams online through Avenue to Learn, MacPherson suggested different features, including presenting questions one-by-one or putting in time constraints for the exam.
Although not mentioned on the MacPherson website, many course outlines also state that professors have the option of using proctoring softwares for assessments. As noted on the Undergraduate Examinations Policy, instructors have the responsibility to specify the required electronic equipment and software at the beginning of the course.
Students have the responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary equipment and software required and any questions or considerations related to online examinations must be referred to an instructor no later than 10 days prior to an online examination.
For an online proctored exam, students must ensure they have equipment such as a webcam and additional software. Such software may require students to turn on their video camera, present identification, allow instructors to monitor and record the student's computer activities, as well as lock or restrict their web browser during assessments.
It has not been made clear to all students whether proctoring will be used for some of their courses.
https://www.facebook.com/spottedat.mac/posts/2075325055936821
Clean D’Souza, a third-year actuarial and financial mathematics student, is one of the students who is unsure if his course examinations will be remotely proctored or not. D’Souza said that he doesn’t mind if it is proctored and that he believes proctoring has many benefits. He believes proctoring can help to separate those who are actually putting in the work to get their grades and those who decide to cheat.
Another third-year actuarial and financial mathematics student, Rimsha Laeeq, finished her first proctored examination on Oct. 5. Laeeq said that she did not mind having her examination proctored as it encouraged her to have greater focus during the test and to study harder beforehand. However, Laeeq expressed that proctoring was uncomfortable at times, including the fact that she had to show all of her surroundings to the camera and ensure she does not look away from the computer for too long.
Kinesiology professor Trevor King has opted for online open-book assessments through Avenue to Learn.
“I'm hoping to not use [proctoring softwares] because I think that it adds a lot of stress to an already stressful situation for students, so I don't want to add that on,” said King.
“I'm hoping to not use [proctoring softwares] because I think that it adds a lot of stress to an already stressful situation for students, so I don't want to add that on,” said King.
King also added that although professors have to consider whether students are truly understanding the content, an open-book assessment doesn’t necessarily hinder students from learning.
“[M]y thought is that a test is not really applicable to the real world in most situations and if you go out and have a problem to solve, in the real world, you're going to be able to look things up. [The ability to] quickly and effectively look things up is a very important skill that I think that students should have when they come out of university. So I think that an open book test makes way more sense than just having to memorize things.”
Professor Jennifer Ostovich of the department of psychology, neuroscience and behavior, has also taken a different approach to assessments this year.
Ostovich has decided that rather than a traditional approach to grading, she will use specifications grading.
Specifications grading is an approach in which course assessments and assignments are broken down into pass or fail tasks. To achieve a certain grade, students would have to pass certain tasks, and for different grade levels, there will be a different combination of tasks to ensure students reach the appropriate level of understanding.
For example, weekly quizzes are divided into two different types and to achieve a higher grade, students would have to complete a higher ratio of one type of quiz versus another. In addition to weekly quizzes, there are also assignments students can complete and a greater number of completions is required for a higher grade.
Ostovich expressed hope that with this new approach, students can feel that they retained more of the material and stress less about achieving certain grades on their assignments.
When asked about potential student collaboration on assessments, Ostovich expressed that collaboration can be beneficial for student learning.
"Is it a bad thing for students to talk to one another and learn that way? I don’t think it is."
“With any of the online testing options, that’s been the concern: that no matter what we do, students will collaborate. . . We have to set up a system in which it doesn't matter if students are collaborating, because you can't stop it right?. . . Is it a bad thing for students to talk to one another and learn that way? I don’t think it is. But you have to set up your assessment strategy so that that's not a big deal if it happens and that's what I've tried to do.”
