Students pinned by anti-cheat software for absurd reasons (like crying during the exam)

⇧ [VIDÉO] You might also like this partner content (after ad)

A University of Kentucky professor has taken to a TikTok video to show his disapproval of colleagues who use remote proctoring software for exams. His intervention of a few seconds triggered a wave of testimonies on the malfunctions of this type of system.

It wasn’t even just a detailed video. I just said ‘As a teacher, if one of my colleagues tells me that he made his student use one of these software, I will never look at it the same way again’. And it seems to have broken the dam of all those traumatic surveillance experiences. “, underlines Joseph Fruehwald, professor at the University of Kentucky, in a Twitter thread that he published following his brief TikTok video.

This denunciation is part of a context where the proportion of courses and exams taken remotely has drastically increased, in particular with the period of health crisis. The use of anti-cheating software therefore seems to have become widespread in schools and universities in the United States. “ As demand for remote monitoring has grown, we have expanded our presence to 16 offices in 8 countries, staffed with the largest certified monitoring and support staff in the world “, can we read on the website of ProctorU, a flagship monitoring software.

Regarding France, the National Commission for Computing and Liberties (CNIL) published in 2020 recommendations for schools to enforce the rules dedicated to data privacy and student freedoms. The organization has particular reservations about the use of eye tracking, often better known as “eye tracking”. ” Furthermore, when the remote monitoring system is ‘likely to create a high risk for the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned’, an impact analysis relating to data protection (AIPD) must be carried out by the person responsible for treatment. In particular, the use of innovative technologies (examples: use of eye tracking, algorithms and artificial intelligence) must be the subject of such an analysis. “.

abusive reporting

A legitimate mistrust, if we are to believe the testimonies of students who have flocked following the publications of Joseph Fruehwald. This software is criticized in particular for triggering on sometimes surprising criteria, in particular at the level of eye tracking, to determine whether there is cheating or not. “ One of my French exams was flagged for cheating because I was crying all the time and my French teacher had to watch me sob quietly for 45 minutes “, Explains a student in the comments of the Twitter thread in question.

I was flagged for resting my head in my palm while working. The software expects you to sit, both hands on the keyboard/test, with your face directly in front of your camera without rotation “says another.

Beyond the eye tracking system, testimonials relate to the work environment, which must be neutral: ” Since the arrival of COVID, LSAT has been using a monitoring system. I got yelled at for having a framed quote from my grandmother on the wall “says a student.

One can imagine that most institutions perform manual checks when reporting, but these alerts seem to generate a lot of stress among students. Some even claim to have been rejected for false alarms. ” My husband has two more classes for his BFA and one of them is a math class that requires an assessment test before enrolling. He should have graduated two years ago, but he couldn’t take the math class because THE SOUND OF HIS LAPTOP FAN TRIGGED THE PROCTOR SOFTWARE “, is indignant thus a surfer.

We wish to give thanks to the writer of this post for this outstanding content

Students pinned by anti-cheat software for absurd reasons (like crying during the exam)

Our social media profiles here as well as additional related pages here.