Last year, as universities transitioned to online learning, students found themselves navigating their education from their parents’ living rooms, bedrooms, shared spaces, and kitchens—essentially, the makeshift setups created during the pandemic. With five classes a semester, students faced a minimum of fifteen hours of Zoom meetings weekly, not counting additional meetings with professors, group projects, and essential social interactions. Sophie Adams, a sophomore at St. Mary’s University in California, shared with NPR, “When you’re in class and then need to attend office hours, that’s another Zoom meeting. If you need help at the writing center, that’s yet another Zoom call… Many people felt overwhelmed by the constant video calls and chose to disengage.” This led to widespread burnout, and for numerous students, as highlighted by an honor council member, resorting to cheating seemed simpler than seeking help.
Cheating has evolved significantly; it’s no longer limited to submitting a friend’s paper as one’s own. Cheating 2.0 has advanced far beyond the traditional paper-passing seen in college environments, and the methods of catching cheaters have also transformed. Professors are now employing proctoring software, many of which raise serious privacy concerns.
Rising Incidents of Cheating Nationwide
Many students are participating in what’s being referred to as a “cheating epidemic.” At institutions like USC Santa Barbara, unauthorized collaboration has become commonplace, with students utilizing apps like GroupMe to exchange exam questions and answers. GroupMe was also involved in several significant cheating incidents at the University of Missouri last year, affecting over 150 students. Missouri University spokesperson Liz Clune noted that students were “sharing screenshots and answers to tests.” Similarly, at California State University Los Angeles, students in a GroupMe chat “shared answers and took credit for others’ work,” according to The Golden Gate Express.
Then there’s Chegg. If you’re not familiar with Chegg, you might be out of the loop. It’s what Insider Higher Ed refers to as a “‘homework help website.’” Students pay a subscription fee to post questions, with Chegg claiming that responses come from experts in “as little as thirty minutes” (although the average time is about 46 minutes). Despite an honor code against cheating, a recent study revealed a staggering 196.25 percent increase in the number of posted questions in various STEM disciplines from April to August 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. Reports of cheating scandals have surfaced at Texas A&M, where students were found completing finance exam questions faster than they could read them using Chegg, and at Georgia Tech, where students were caught posting final exam queries on the platform. Notably, 200 out of 800 students in an NC State statistics course were found to have cheated using Chegg.
This issue isn’t limited to public universities; institutions such as the Air Force Academy, Boston University, and Ivy League University of Pennsylvania have also reported spikes in cheating incidents.
Enter E-Proctoring Solutions
In response, the private sector has introduced e-proctoring services like HonorLock and Proctorio, which allow remote access to students’ computers and monitor various behaviors—such as excessive eye movements and unusual copy-pasting—that may indicate academic dishonesty. As of October 2020, over 400 universities, including Harvard and Columbia, had adopted Proctorio, a tool that has become highly controversial.
Proctorio requires students to have a quality camera and microphone. They must verify their identity using a driver’s license and conduct a 360-degree scan of their surroundings. According to Erik Johnson, a security researcher, a Proctorio agent reviews this room scan and identity verification. Proctorio flags various behaviors as potential cheating indicators, including abnormal audio levels, excessive clicking, and unusual exam durations. Importantly, it compares students against their peers based on a range of metrics including copy/paste actions and eye movements.
Critically, Proctorio remains active once installed, raising concerns about how much data it collects and when. Students have voiced worries that Proctorio may access information from computers on the same Wi-Fi network, creating privacy issues for those in households with sensitive jobs.
Student Resistance to Surveillance
Students are understandably resistant to such surveillance. Many do not wish to cheat; they simply find the e-proctoring intrusive. Change.org petitions highlight that the software is inherently classist, assuming that all students have access to a quiet environment and functioning technology. Additionally, it raises ableism concerns. For instance, one student reported that Proctorio doesn’t accommodate screen enlargers, while another, Emma Carter, stated in her petition to Miami University, “As a student with ADHD, Proctorio exacerbates my condition. It’s distressing to sit still and focus for long periods. Proctorio treats my challenges as issues to be flagged and disciplined.” Students also suspect that the software could be monitoring more than just their exams.
The humor surrounding students’ fears of being watched during breakdowns on camera, while somewhat lighthearted, illustrates serious concerns.
Understanding the Root Causes of Cheating
Ken Harris, a chemistry professor at the University of Minnesota, remarked, “I can’t see Proctorio or similar tools disappearing from universities anytime soon. We recognize students’ concerns, but we must also maintain academic integrity. When giving exams remotely, our options are limited.”
This lack of options is a consequence of the current educational model, which often emphasizes rote memorization and regurgitation of facts. Educators impart information, and students are expected to recall it during tests. This “banking method,” as described by Paulo Freire, simplifies cheating. Instead of compromising students’ privacy through invasive monitoring, we should reevaluate our educational approach.
Why not promote genuine collaboration among students rather than relying on individual work? Why do exams even exist? What purpose do they serve? Shouldn’t students have opportunities to retake assessments? What innovative methods could we implement to connect education with real-world applications?
If students can cheat their way through courses yet still excel in their careers, we must question the value of these classes. What are they genuinely learning, aside from enhanced cheating techniques? As we transition back to in-person learning, these are critical questions for our educational system to address. Instead of invasive monitoring tactics, we should explore the reasons behind students’ resorting to cheating.
Leave a Reply