Maplesoft is teaming up with online proctoring company Examity to bring their online proctoring tools and services to Maple T.A. The goal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of proctoring online STEM exams and tests.
Additionally, both Examity and Maple T.A. are compatible with various commercial course management systems for integration into a university’s existing online education infrastructure.
The Perception of Online Education’s Testing Abilities
“Due to the rapid growth of online education, there are still some concerns among instructors about the validity of online learning assessments,” said Michael London, president of Examity. “With this combined solution, professors get technology-assisted services, including highly-qualified and technically-trained proctors who monitor online exams in real time. With Examity, faculty will get the lowest level of student-to-proctor ratio in the industry, and the flexibility to make choices of security levels that are appropriate for each exam.”
The concern of online education testing isn’t just limited to instructors but to the students as well. Online education offers working professionals the flexibility they need to complete a master’s degree, for instance, but many potential students might wonder if the online testing processes are up to snuff with on-campus proctoring systems. Including proctoring systems like Examity into Maple T.A. can go a long way to alleviate the concerns students have about their online master’s credibility.
“Our customers have expressed interest in online proctoring services that ensure that test integrity is not compromised during the assessment process,” said Darren McIntyre, vice president of academic sales at Maplesoft. “By introducing the option to connect seamlessly with Examity, Maple T.A. has further expanded the options available to instructors, and strengthened the credibility of the online testing and assessment system.”
Digital Solutions to Proctoring Online Education Are Not Enough
One problem with online proctoring and testing systems is that education outlets might place too much confidence in the systems, particularly the automated systems. Though these systems are a step in the right direction, some education outlets might take a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to when the system detects an infraction, despite the possibility of false positives. Alternatively, a professor might take a relaxed approach to reviewing test answers, missing the system’s false negative detection of infractions.
For instance, an infraction detection system detects two students accessing a test at the same time from the same IP address, which could be explained by two housemates working off the same router or VPN. However, some systems could flag such activity as suspicious.
Just as an alleged on-campus infraction will come under review, the same must be the case for alleged online infractions. However, this could create a scaling issue for large online testing programs like MOOCs and popular online master’s degrees.
For students to be fully confident taking online programs, they will need to see that the proctoring systems put in place are not only fair, but also transparent. For instance, Purdue University offers a proctor nomination program, in which students suggest a local proctor for their exams, which are then vetted by the school. Similarly, Johns Hopkins University offers the ability to find a local proctor for a student who is taking an exam from a distance, whereas the majority of other schools will often substitute the tests performed on campus with projects and assignments that cover the same content.
What are your thoughts of automated proctoring tools? Have you experienced a guilty until innocent incident in an online course? What makes an online testing systems fair and transparent? Comment below.