Exams and Proctoring

The Academic Honor Policy for Undergraduate Students in the Arts and Sciences includes the following statement: "Instructors have discretion, within the limits of the principles defined above, to articulate in their syllabi and their assignments the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable work and collaboration, what tools they allow for use in the classroom and for submitted academic work, and how they administer examinations." 

This statement represents a change in policy (as of June 18, 2024) that allows Dartmouth instructors to proctor exams (i.e., monitor students during an examination). Simultaneously, the proliferation of generative AI tools has led some instructors to institute in-person, hand-written exams in an attempt to prevent students' misuse of these tools for academic purposes. Both proctoring and in-person exams, while in some ways educationally valid, introduce new challenges for students and instructors in the learning environment. Instructors deciding whether to hold proctored exams should weigh the following considerations.

Student attitudes and behavior relating to academic dishonesty vary with context. Both survey studies (e.g., Dyer et al., 2020) and field experiments (e.g., Vazquez et al., 2021) have reported that "students are more likely to engage in cheating behavior in an unproctored environment" and that students find cheating more acceptable in such contexts (Dyer et al., 2020, p. 14). 

Current literature establishes that students respond to the efforts of faculty and institutions to communicate the importance of academic honesty. Further, students perceive that the responsibility for mitigating cheating attitudes and behavior lies with instructors and the institution. For these reasons, "It is imperative to establish a culture and expectation…around the purpose of testing and assessment that incorporates the impact of academic dishonesty" (Dyer et al., 2020, p. 22). Instructors can contribute to such a culture and expectation of academic honesty, regardless of whether they hold proctored exams, by communicating directly with students about the purpose and value of testing in the context of their course(s).

Research consistently shows that student-faculty rapport has positive effects on student engagement, deep learning, motivation, and achievement (e.g., Broom et al., 2024; Burke-Smalley et al., 2024; Komarraju et al., 2010; Mattanah et al., 2024; Micari & Pazos, 2012). Further, positive rapport between faculty and students is necessary to support a culture of academic honor. Dartmouth's institution-wide Academic Honor Principle maintains that "[a]ll members of the Dartmouth community—faculty, staff, and students—are responsible for maintaining a culture of integrity, honesty, and respect."  While the Academic Honor Policy for Undergraduate Students in the Arts and Sciences no longer explicitly prohibits proctoring, it is worth considering the effects proctoring may have on faculty-student rapport and an institutional culture of integrity, honesty, and respect. 

There is a tension between assuming a culture of honesty and mutual respect and distrusting that students will maintain academic integrity in an unproctored exam. Similarly, there is a tension between upholding honesty and respect toward instructors and engaging in academic dishonesty unless closely monitored. Some suggest that proctoring strips students of the opportunity to embody academic honor, arguing that maintaining academic integrity in a monitored environment is simply an act of compliance (e.g., Dawson, 2023, p. 1521). Others argue that proctoring promotes a culture of surveillance and control, leading to adversarial relationships between students and faculty.

These inherent tensions of proctored environments can erode the trust between students and faculty on which a culture of academic honor depends, and counteract the positive effects of student-faculty rapport.
 

Exams, where proctoring typically takes place, are considered high-stakes assessments and high-stress experiences for many students. 

Exams are often summative in nature and relatively infrequent within a single course, representing the few opportunities students may have to demonstrate their learning or perform their aptitude with requisite skills and knowledge in that course. As a result, exams often carry significant weight in the calculation of a student's overall grade, making them high-stakes components of a course. As such, use of exams is at odds with fostering a growth mindset, a recommended teaching practice that has been shown to positively influence student learning and sense of belonging in academic environments.

Exams (and proctoring, by extension) introduce elements of stress that are not experienced equitably among students. Test anxiety, experienced by an estimated 15-22% of students, is negatively related to a number of educational performance outcomes as well as negative behavioral, physical,  psychological, or emotional responses (Thomas et al., 2017; von der Embse et al., 2018; Woldeab & Brothen, 2021; Zunhammer et al., 2013). For students of marginalized or underrepresented identities in the classroom, stereotype threat, ableism, disability stigma, and other implicit biases of instructors are significant sources of additional stress.

The proctoring environment can often be a barrier in its own right for students with disabilities and medical conditions which impact their mobility and motor skills. Proctored exams may be particularly difficult for "students with certain medical conditions such as neuromuscular disorder or spinal injuries that prohibit them from sitting for long periods" (Swauger, 2020). Increased scrutiny of student eye movements and gaze as well as an expectation of stillness may impact "students with visual impairments such as blindness or nystagmus or students who identify as autistic or neuro-atypical" as well as neurodivergent students who manage their attention and focus by "reading [questions] out loud, listening to music," and fidgeting or stimming (Swauger, 2020).

Timed, high-stakes exams may also assess––and penalize students for failing to demonstrate––knowledge, skills, and abilities (or constructs) which are not relevant to the learning outcome that the assessment is intended to measure (CAST, n.d.). For example, assigning a timed, handwritten essay as a class midterm to assess a student's literary analysis skills will also measure for handwriting skills, time-management, recall, and fine motor control. Such construct irrelevant features are likely to have a significant (negative) impact on students of marginalized or underrepresented identities (Rose et. al, 2008).

Instructors are encouraged to clarify their purpose(s) for proctoring and discuss proctoring approaches and expectations with students in advance. Traditional proctoring involves supervising or monitoring test takers for adherence to rules and procedures, but there may be other reasons for an instructor or other individual to be present during an exam. These might include providing instructions, tracking time, verifying students' identities, or addressing questions that arise. While proctoring with an intention of surveillance introduces the challenges discussed above, maintaining presence during an exam for other purposes can minimize or counteract those challenges.

In some cases, it might be important for the instructor, TA, or other course-related person to act as proctor. In others, proctoring tasks can be accomplished by a neutral third party (i.e. someone unrelated to the class and the students). Proctoring by a neutral third party is a common practice and often considered a way to minimize potential bias and favoritism in the testing environment, thereby ensuring a more equitable opportunity for students. 

There are a few practical considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether to hold a proctored exam.

Proctored in-person exams require clear proctoring policies and expectations, including:

• What devices and materials are students permitted to bring into the exam? What will happen if a student is found using prohibited devices or materials?
• Where will students leave belongings (devices, materials, bags, etc.) during the exam if they are prohibited from having them at their seats?
• How will seating be arranged and spaced in the exam room?
• Will students be permitted to leave the exam room and return (for bathroom breaks, etc.)?
• What happens if a student becomes ill and needs to leave the exam before finishing? Will they have the opportunity to complete the exam at a later time?
• Will you be present during the exam? If not, how will a proctor contact you with questions or issues that arise?
• What are proctors expected to do during the exam? Where will they position themselves? Will they circulate?
• What should proctors do if they suspect a violation of academic integrity during the exam? Should they intervene? How and when should they notify you?
• How will you provide accommodations for students requiring extra time, reduced-distraction environments, breaks, and use of devices not otherwise permitted in the exam?

For technology-based exams (e.g. exams administered via Canvas):

• Remote proctoring tools and technologies are not available or supported at Dartmouth, and Dartmouth does not alter or suspend its IT infrastructure (e.g., wireless network), for certain locations or time periods related to exam administration. How will a proctor monitor the device-based testing behavior of students?
• How will you address technological issues students experience during the exam?

Instructors who wish to hold unproctored exams might consider designing exams that promote academic integrity. Strategies that promote integrity include:

• Use questions that ask students to apply concepts rather than simply reproduce memorized information.
• Encourage students to show their work or document their thought process as part of the exam.
• Create different versions of exams–either with different questions or questions in different orders.
• Change exam questions frequently from term to term.
• Provide clear policies and expectations to guide take-home or online exams.

Using alternative assessment types can help students demonstrate their learning effectively without the hazards of high-stakes exams. Instructors who wish to consider alternatives to traditional exams might:

• Intermix assessment types and formats throughout the term. 
• Employ frequent, low-stakes assessments like quizzes.
• Mix group and individual assignments.
• Incorporate iterative or design-based projects.
• Follow Universal Design for Learning principles to offer students options for how to convey and demonstrate what they've learned.
• Consider authentic assessments like demonstrations, oral presentations, case studies, performances, and experiments.

Academic Honor Policy for Undergraduate Students in the Arts and Sciences | Policies. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://policies.dartmouth.edu/policy/academic-honor-policy-undergraduate-students-arts-and-sciences

Academic Honor Principle. (2022, July 19). Policies. https://policies.dartmouth.edu/policy/academic-honor-principle

Accurate for All: Universal Design for Learning and the Assessment of Students with Learning Disabilities—ProQuest. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://www.proquest.com/docview/200239312?accountid=10422&parentSessionId=5nXPSBEqcWagyXWRcpTKGS9wwxxC8jFoceZwmEkcQT0%3D&pq-origsite=primo&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

Alternatives to High-Stakes Assignments—CTLO. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://ctlo.caltech.edu/universityteaching/resources/courses/alternatives-to-high-stakes-assignments

Andreou, V., Peters, S., Eggermont, J., Wens, J., & Schoenmakers, B. (2021). Remote versus on-site proctored exam: Comparing student results in a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 624. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-03068-x

Barrett, L. (2023). Rejecting Test Surveillance in Higher Education (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3871423). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3871423

Broom, T. W., Dunbar, N., & Demir, M. (2024). Two Dimensions of Professor-Student Rapport Differentially Predict Student Success Outcomes: A Replication of Wilson and Ryan (2013). Teaching of Psychology, 51(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283221079681

Burke-Smalley, L., Neely, A. R., & Bryant, E. (2024). Building professor-student rapport: A model, survey findings, and implications for practicing professors. Business Horizons, 67(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2023.11.003

Creating & Proctoring Exams. (2022, February 28). Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Innovation, University of Pennsylvania. https://cetli.upenn.edu/resources/academic-integrity/promoting-integrity/creating-exams/

Desombre, C., Anegmar, S., & Delelis, G. (2018). Stereotype threat among students with disabilities: The importance of the evaluative context on their cognitive performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0327-4

Dunn, D. S., & read, P. 4 min. (n.d.). Understanding ableism and negative reactions to disability. Https://Www.Apa.Org. Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psychology-teacher-network/introductory-psychology/ableism-negative-reactions-disability

Dyer, J. M. (n.d.). Academic Dishonesty and Testing: How Student Beliefs and Test Settings Impact Decisions to Cheat.

Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of Student–Faculty Interactions in Developing College Students' Academic Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 332–342.

Mattanah, J., Holt, L., Feinn, R., Bowley, O., Marszalek, K., Albert, E., Abduljalil, M., Daramola, D., Gim, J., Visalli, T., Boarman, R., & Katzenberg, C. (2024). Faculty-student rapport, student engagement, and approaches to collegiate learning: Exploring a mediational model. Current Psychology, 43(28), 23505–23516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06096-0

Micari, M., & and Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the Professor: Impact of the Student–Faculty Relationship in a Highly Challenging Course. College Teaching, 60(2), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.627576

Milone, A. S., Cortese, A. M., Balestrieri, R. L., & Pittenger, A. L. (2017). The impact of proctored online exams on the educational experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.037

O'Brien, L. T., & Crandall, C. S. (2003). Stereotype Threat and Arousal: Effects on Women's Math Performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 782–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006010

Online exam proctoring technologies: Educational innovation or deterioration? - Lee—2022—British Journal of Educational Technology—Wiley Online Library. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13182

Our Bodies Encoded: Algorithmic Test Proctoring in Higher Education. (2020, April 2). Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/our-bodies-encoded-algorithmic-test-proctoring-in-higher-education/

Putwain, D., & and Daly, A. L. (2014). Test anxiety prevalence and gender differences in a sample of English secondary school students. Educational Studies, 40(5), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.953914

Remote Proctoring: Understanding the Debate | SpringerLink. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_150-1

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care—Patrick W. Corrigan, Benjamin G. Druss, Deborah A. Perlick, 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100614531398

The Threat of Living Up to Expectations—Bryan A. Rodríguez, 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1538192714531292

Thomas, C. L., Cassady, J. C., & Finch, W. H. (2018). Identifying Severity Standards on the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale: Cut Score Determination Using Latent Class and Cluster Analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(5), 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916686004

UDL On Campus: UDL and Assessment. (n.d.). CAST. Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://udloncampus.cast.org/page/assessment_udl#l11

Understanding the Experience of Disability—Dana S. Dunn—Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2025, from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/understanding-the-experience-of-disability-9780190848088?cc=us&lang=en&

Vazquez, J. J., Chiang, E. P., & Sarmiento-Barbieri, I. (2021). Can we stay one step ahead of cheaters? A field experiment in proctoring online open book exams. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 90, 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101653

von der Embse, N., Jester, D., Roy, D., & Post, J. (2018). Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: A 30-year meta-analytic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.048

Weiner, J. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2017). A Comparative Study of Online Remote Proctored Versus Onsite Proctored High-stakes Exams. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 13–20.

Woldeab, D., & Brothen, T. (2021). Video Surveillance of Online Exam Proctoring: Exam Anxiety and Student Performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue Internationale Du e-Learning et La Formation à Distance, 36(1), Article 1. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1204

Zunhammer, M., Eberle, H., Eichhammer, P., & Busch, V. (2013). Somatic Symptoms Evoked by Exam Stress in University Students: The Role of Alexithymia, Neuroticism, Anxiety and Depression. PLOS ONE, 8(12), e84911. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084911