Experiences of conducting 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].

CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Along with the rise of online education, online examination is becoming more popular. However, it is obscure how to use technology to proctor online tests simply and efficiently with limited resources. Our findings strongly suggest that online exam proctoring solutions should be developed after carefully examining the constraints of the environment that it is intended to be operationalized. Based on the outcomes of this study, future research could look at a variety of topics on e-exam proctoring such as offline test proctoring, livetransmission of action detection records or saving behavior report securely until the exam is completed. Integration of the functions into a full online test system would aid in the seamless operation of online education in contexts where internet connectivity and infrastructure are unreliable. To scale the availability of trustworthy online exam processes, a possible future work is to develop e-proctoring solutions that may well operate in various devices such mobile phones, and tablets which would be highly beneficial in facilitating online education in low-income counterparts of the society.

REFERENCES (TRANSLATED AND TRANSLITERATED)

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 for 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 MLearning,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 2019July, 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. Muzaffar, 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/proctoringclosed-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