I read a report today from a test taker who has alleged that the proctor of her at-home test used her personal information to find her Instagram account. He then, allegedly, sent inappropriate DMs. This sort of allegation is more common than you might think.
I’ve never liked live human proctoring, but I have begrudgingly tolerated it. In cases where it absolutely must be maintained I’ve advocated for an in-house system. One of the many benefits of this approach is that it gives test makers more control over who can access the personal information of test takers.
That said, if your formula for “in-house” is (proprietary tech) + (a whole bunch of dudes brought in by an outsourcing company) you might as well just stick with one of the big proctoring firms. They’ll probably do a better job.
In any case, the days of live proctoring (in-house or otherwise) are likely numbered. It seems obvious to me that asynchronous proctoring (AI-based security during the test combined with a human review after the test) is the future of at-home testing. This is Duolingo’s current approach. ITEP uses it too. It appears that Pearson will follow suit when they launch their new “Pearson English Express” Test later this year. I assume that many other test makers are currently trying to figure out how to implement their own async systems. A decade from now, I don’t think any at-home English tests will utilize live proctors.
How much security is being provided by someone who is simultaneously watching a dozen tests? Could the same level of security be provided by someone who checks after the test?
Some test makers might protest that their customers prefer to have help with the check-in process. That may be true if your check-in process is clunky with cumbersome elements. But those elements can be ironed out of the process.
I’ve taken quite a lot of at-home tests over the years. I’m always happy when I can take a test without a live proctor, as the process is much more comfortable that doing so with a proctor. Indeed, I took the ITEP today and the process was pure bliss.
Test makers who eat their own dogfood and, uh, other people’s dogfood know this already.
The incident I mentioned above is bad enough, but a few other stories I’ve heard over the past few years come to mind. Like:
- Proctors insisting that test takers click the “cancel test” button after they have finished the test, causing the results to be cancelled.
- Proctors working from public transit.
- Proctors extending a room scan to the hallways outside of a test taker’s flat. And even insisting on a peek inside their building’s elevator.
- Proctors mistakenly allowing rules to be broken, resulting in score cancellations.
- Proctors forgetting to turn their microphones off. To hilarious effect.
I could continue, but I think you get my point.