“Out of my control”: science undergraduates report mental health concerns and inconsistent conditions when using remote proctoring software

Efforts to discourage academic misconduct in online learning environments frequently include the use of remote proctoring services. While these services are relatively commonplace in undergraduate science courses, there are open questions about students’ remote assessment environments and their conc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International Journal for Educational Integrity 2023-12, Vol.19 (1), p.22-22, Article 22
Main Authors: Pokorny, Annika, Ballen, Cissy J., Drake, Abby Grace, Driessen, Emily P., Fagbodun, Sheritta, Gibbens, Brian, Henning, Jeremiah A., McCoy, Sophie J., Thompson, Seth K., Willis, Charles G., Lane, A. Kelly
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic integrity
Anxiety
Cheating
College Science
Distance Education
Education
Educational Technology
Electronic Learning
Ethics
Higher Education
International and Comparative Education
Mental Health
Online Courses
Online learning
Original Article
Science Curriculum
Science Education
Science Tests
Student Attitudes
Students
Supervision
Testing environments
Undergraduate Students
Undergraduates
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Efforts to discourage academic misconduct in online learning environments frequently include the use of remote proctoring services. While these services are relatively commonplace in undergraduate science courses, there are open questions about students’ remote assessment environments and their concerns related to remote proctoring services. Using a survey distributed to 11 undergraduate science courses engaging in remote instruction at three American, public, research-focused institutions during the spring of 2021, we found that the majority of undergraduate students reported testing in suboptimal environments. Students’ concerns about remote proctoring services were closely tied to technological difficulties, fear of being wrongfully accused of cheating, and negative impacts on mental health. Our results suggest that remote proctoring services can create and perpetuate inequitable assessment environments for students, and additional research is required to understand the efficacy of their intended purpose to prevent cheating. We also advocate for continued conversations about the broader social and institutional conditions that can pressure students into cheating. While changes to academic culture are difficult, these conversations are necessary for higher education to remain relevant in an increasingly technological world.
ISSN:1833-2595
1833-2595
DOI:10.1007/s40979-023-00141-4