Addressing the Integrity of Remote Testing and Grading

Brian K. Bergen-Aurand, PhD, Director of the Center for Instructional Technology and Online Learning at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore

In August of 2022, a Federal Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees students a right to privacy during specific remote testing procedures. According to the judgement, Cleveland State University’s (CSU) requirement that students undergo “room scans” before completing online examinations, resulting in an unreasonable search of a student’s residence. While CSU claimed such scans are just conventional means for securing academic integrity, the court found for the plaintiff, who argued that such video surveillance is a violation of a social expectation of privacy.

In deciding the case, the court cited flaws in CSU’s policies and called into question such of such means of preserving test integrity. In brief, the court found CSU’s scans intrusive, their practices inconsistent, and their arguments about the effectiveness of these procedural safeguards unpersuasive. There are other ways of ensuring academic integrity that are at least as effective, and CSU courses often rely upon these other means, the court said.

Although this ruling applies only to the immediate jurisdiction, many believe this case will serve as a precedent for future cases. In fact, according to several recent reports, this case is only the first of its kind, with more debate regarding the integrity of assessments and grades coming in response to increasing resistance to surveillance techniques from students and other concerned citizens, especially in California, Illinois, and Ohio.

Attending to the key objections, the judge raised may help more institutions avoid the difficulties the CSU arrangements created for students, faculty, and staff. The following recommendations are designed to help us all better address student rights and responsibilities as well as the integrity of assessments and grades. (Even though CSU had a written policy and published that policy, this case reminds us that so much depends upon how thoroughly we address the following protocols.)

Have clear policies and procedures regarding remote testing and grading

In his ruling, the judge refers to the CSU practices as “opaque,” “inconsistent,” “sporadic,” and “discretionary.” Even if an institution endorses as much instructor discretion as possible, the guidelines need to clearly articulate the circumstances where discretion should be exercised and the limits of it.

Publish your policies and procedures where people can easily access them

Institutions must ensure that everyone involved, or potentially involved, in remote testing and grading has ready access to approved practices. Again, the case cites gaps in institutional knowledge and communication that left students and proctors asking questions that could not be readily answered—especially on the day of the examination.

Enforce your policies and procedures consistently

Exceptions, modifications, and accommodations will occur over the course of an academic term. However, policies that do not account for change can lead to inconsistent practices such as ignoring requirements, editing syllabi without acknowledgment, invoking practices without sufficient warning, and improvising processes–all referenced in the CSU case.

Notify and train students, faculty, and staff on your testing and grading practices

When the student in the CSU case asked the proctor what would happen if they refused the room scan, the proctor replied that they did not know the policy for student non-compliance. With policies and procedures in place and readily accessible, institutions must make certain that everyone who might engage with them is thoroughly versed in them.

Offer alternative means of assessment

Although the judge’s decision in the CSU case did not hinge on the efficacy of room scanning and remote testing technologies for assessing teaching and learning, the verdict does state that the efficacy of such means for ensuring academic integrity is a factor in determining such privacy cases. To this end, the judge refers to the fact that CSU faculty often rely upon other procedural safeguards under other circumstances and that other means—such as requiring final projects or essays—might provide alternatively effective means of preserving academic integrity.

“We try to relocate documents that others cannot find and redesign websites that are not readily accessible. We offer workshops and facilitate presentations to faculty, staff, and students to promote consistency. We collaborate with other offices and with the Provost, Deans, and Chairs to keep our policies as efficacious as possible and we listen to our campus community to facilitate change whenever necessary.”

Since reading the CSU case, my office has participated in a system-wide meeting with a representative of the state’s Office of the Attorney General, discussed our university’s policies with our General Counsel, and continued to publicize our policies and procedures and train faculty, staff, and students in their implementation. As well, we have invested in continually supporting alternative, authentic assessment across disciplines. Some of our favorite alternatives these days include student presentations (synchronous or asynchronous), creations (posters and websites), and collaborations (letters to the editor or ombuds office).

Invite feedback

My office is always interested in revising policies, procedures, and processes that confuse others. We try to relocate documents that others cannot find and redesign websites that are not readily accessible. We offer workshops and facilitate presentations to faculty, staff, and students to promote consistency. We collaborate with other offices and with the Provost, Deans, and Chairs to keep our policies as efficacious as possible and we listen to our campus community to facilitate change whenever necessary.

While we all await the next status update on potential remedies in the Cleveland State University case (due 28 November) and watch how similar situations play out across other jurisdictions, it seems clear that working toward better addressing student rights and responsibilities while engaging with the integrity of assessments and grades requires dynamic and rigorous practices.

Biography

Brian Bergen-Aurand is the Director of the Center for Instructional Technology and Online Learning at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore.

Video Surveillance