Here are possible first steps toward a more customer-friendly and justice oriented approach to remote proctoring.
First: An individual in a leadership position outside of the office responsible for testing integrity might draw up a list of the most common reasons for test and score cancellation. Off the top of my head, they might be:
- Direct violation of rules by the test taker (looking away from the camera, speaking out loud during the test, etc).
- Detection of unauthorized software running on the test-taker’s computer.
- Suspected Plagiarism.
- Statistical anomalies (score increased too much since previous attempt, large score differences in different skills, etc).
- Inability to pass a pre-test system check.
Second: Request files for tests which were canceled for each of the above reasons. Start with ten instances of each. Ensure that the files are selected at random from all tests taken within the past year.
Third: Examine the evidence that justified the cancellation of each test. Look for tangible evidence rather than statistical likelihoods of malfeasance. This means that if a test was canceled due to suspected plagiarism, look at what was plagiarized. Likewise, if unauthorized software was detected, look at which software was detected.
Fourth: After examining each case, ask some questions. Perhaps:
- “Was the test-taker action that caused the cancellation malicious, or an accident? Should this make a difference in how we treat the test-taker?”
- “Does the test-taker action warrant a cancellation with no refund, or does it warrant a cancellation with an option for a free retake?”
- “Is it safe to share this evidence with the test-taker so that they can avoid committing the same violation in the future?”
- “Could a reasonable person find grounds for an appeal of our decision?”
- “Was our decision to cancel this score without an opportunity for a free retake compatible with our organization’s conception of justice and fairness?”