Good Proctor or “Big Brother”? Ethics of Online Exam Supervision Technologies

Philosophy and Technology 34 (4):1581-1606 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Online exam supervision technologies have recently generated significant controversy and concern. Their use is now booming due to growing demand for online courses and for off-campus assessment options amid COVID-19 lockdowns. Online proctoring technologies purport to effectively oversee students sitting online exams by using artificial intelligence systems supplemented by human invigilators. Such technologies have alarmed some students who see them as a “Big Brother-like” threat to liberty and privacy, and as potentially unfair and discriminatory. However, some universities and educators defend their judicious use. Critical ethical appraisal of online proctoring technologies is overdue. This essay provides one of the first sustained moral philosophical analyses of these technologies, focusing on ethical notions of academic integrity, fairness, non-maleficence, transparency, privacy, autonomy, liberty, and trust. Most of these concepts are prominent in the new field of AI ethics, and all are relevant to education. The essay discusses these ethical issues. It also offers suggestions for educational institutions and educators interested in the technologies about the kinds of inquiries they need to make and the governance and review processes they might need to adopt to justify and remain accountable for using online proctoring technologies. The rapid and contentious rise of proctoring software provides a fruitful ethical case study of how AI is infiltrating all areas of life. The social impacts and moral consequences of this digital technology warrant ongoing scrutiny and study.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Phenomenology of Space in Writing Online.Max Van Manen & Catherine Adams - 2009 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 41 (1):10-21.
The goals and merits of a business ethics competency exam.Earl W. Spurgin - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 50 (3):279-288.
The phenomenology of space in writing online.Catherine Adams Max van Manen - 2009 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 41 (1):10-21.
The construction of personal identities online.Luciano Floridi - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (4):477-479.
Our moral condition in cyberspace.Diane P. Michelfelder - 2000 - Ethics and Information Technology 2 (3):147-152.
Synchronous Online Philosophy Courses: An Experiment in Progress.Fritz McDonald - 2018 - APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers 18 (1):37-40.
Autonomy and Online Manipulation.Michael Klenk & Jeff Hancock - 2019 - Internet Policy Review 1:1-11.
Consumers' Concerns with How They Are Researched Online.Caroline Moraes - 2017 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 36 (1):79-101.
The world is a big network. Pandemic, the Internet and institutions.Constantin Vica - 2020 - Revista de Filosofie Aplicata 3 (Supplementary Issue):136-161.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-08-31

Downloads
20 (#747,345)

6 months
6 (#504,917)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?