Written by Jamie Franchesca Lopez
Photo by Alex Miguel Tacderas
Shifting to an online school called for changes in the overall learning environment, affecting students and educators alike. Academic integrity, an essential part of the classroom, was kept intact through the use of anti-cheating software. These are third-party entities that use artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor test-takers’ movements, and upon detecting any activities presumed to be cheating, a report shall be sent to the teacher. Depending on the facilitator, they may ask to open the students’ camera. Although relatively new to be considered reliable, due to the lack of surveillance under the online setup, institutions see this as the best option to minimize any violations against academic honesty.
But multiple issues have begun to emerge upon the use of such software. One can agree that its implementation is effective in instilling academic integrity, but it is definitely not a foolproof solution. Considering the arising problem of individual privacy, delay in system activities of gadgets, and the increase of the internet data requirement, does the intention really outweigh the obstructive effects?
Initially, the compulsory use of webcams may be invasive to some students. Even if that is not the case, not every student has an available area in their household fit to be an ideal study setup with good lighting and a stable internet connection. So, such factors can affect their overall experience with these programs. Additionally, the AI-based facial recognition feature of the software flags even the smallest body and eye movements if recognized as cheating, too stringent, since during face-to-face classes, people tend to shift to a comfortable position while taking a test, which does not necessarily equate to cheating.
Furthermore, the use of cameras during exams creates more stress for students as it causes unstable internet connection to some. Due to such requirements, more problems may arise during the test, such as completely disconnecting from the course site, leading to the inability to take the exam. This is a major problem since some facilitators do not allow makeup tests, putting the students in a predicament.
From a technical point of view, these software can bring operational difficulty to the students' gadgets as these are recognized as malware by antivirus applications. Professionals at Microsoft have vouched for the negative effects caused by installing the Respondus Lockdown Browser, which is used by the university as the main proctoring software during exams. It is coded to streamline the device’s basic tasks, allowing it to block the user from opening additional tabs and overlay your screen to maximize its tracking processes. After its operation, it abandons the blocked paths, which means that your computer has additional barriers to go through, slowing down its initial productivity. Naturally, the continuous usage of this software will pile up the scattered jams, making your device completely unusable in the future. Since gadgets and the internet are the lifelines of online learning, losing it, even at the stake of preserving academic honesty, would be detrimental to one’s education.
Finally, since tightened surveillance is aimed by these software, students might develop a performance freight. A study has proven that test anxiety negatively affects student performance in an exam. In a study conducted by Alemu and Feyssa (2020), students who had a test anxiety score of 65 to 74, which is considered severe, were more prone to having lower scores in exams. Looking into the possible complications that may arise during the exam, test-takers are prone to experiencing anxiety, creating tension among students who may not be able to focus and exert their best with the elevated presence of these emotional factors.
All these cons aside, the use of such software is able to achieve its goal. Most of their developers promise and deliver a 90% above accuracy in detecting any malpractice. But requiring cameras and using destructive software is seen more as a problem than a solution by the majority of its audience. It has been proven that students cheat due to the lack of surveillance in exams (Starovoytova & Namango, 2016; Wade & Stinson, 1993), which are done for two things: to gauge the students’ understanding and the instructor’s effectiveness. Thus, resorting to cheating is caused by the shortcomings of either or both.
With this increase in technical requirements, the gap caused by online learning becomes wider and bigger, almost unreachable. Education becomes more exclusive than it already is. More importantly, we see a systemic flaw in the continuous failure of imposing academic integrity. Using anti-cheating software does not offer a long-term solution. Yes, it minimizes cheating, but to what extent? Students are incessantly cheating, and this tells more about the defects of the current education system and how it only focuses on numerical results, not on individual growth or improving its overall quality. Although the act of cheating must not be condoned, educators and curriculum authors should revisit their approach during this time of distressful survival.
Given the sudden adjustment demanded by online classes, educators were forced to employ the use of anti-cheating software during exams to minimize cheating. As it consistently carries out the necessary processes to support its cause, I concur with its implementation. However, it should be in the institution’s best interest to find a software that is non-invasive, does not degrade the gadget’s performance, does not require additional data, nor turning on one's camera. A better teacher-student relationship must be developed to establish effective communication to address issues properly and transparently. Respecting one another builds a better dynamic in the online classroom, maximizing class’ productivity and academic integrity.Most importantly, empathizing with everyone’s individual circumstances creates a safe space that fosters and prioritizes learning and growth in all aspects.
Comentarios