“Out of my control”: science undergraduates report mental health concerns and inconsistent conditions when using remote proctoring software

• Published in: International Journal for Educational Integrity Vol. 19; no. 1; p. 22
• Main Authors: Pokorny, Annika, Ballen, Cissy J., Drake, Abby Grace, Driessen, Emily P., Fagbodun, Sheritta, Gibbens, Brian, Henning, Jeremiah A., McCoy, Sophie J., Thompson, Seth K., Willis, Charles G., Lane, A. Kelly
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Singapore Springer Nature Singapore 01.12.2023; BioMed Central, Ltd; Springer Nature B.V; BMC
• Subjects: Academic integrity; Anxiety; Cheating; College Science; Distance Education; Education; Educational Technology; Electronic Learning; Ethics; Higher Education; International and Comparative Education; Mental Health; Online Courses; Online learning; Original Article; Science Curriculum; Science Education; Science Tests; Student Attitudes; Students; Supervision; Testing environments; Undergraduate Students; Undergraduates; Academic integrity; Testing environments; Undergraduates; Online learning; Mental health
• ISSN: 1833-2595; 1833-2595
• DOI: 10.1007/s40979-023-00141-4

Efforts to discourage academic misconduct in online learning environments frequently include the use of remote proctoring services. While these services are relatively commonplace in undergraduate science courses, there are open questions about students’ remote assessment environments and their concerns related to remote proctoring services. Using a survey distributed to 11 undergraduate science courses engaging in remote instruction at three American, public, research-focused institutions during the spring of 2021, we found that the majority of undergraduate students reported testing in suboptimal environments. Students’ concerns about remote proctoring services were closely tied to technological difficulties, fear of being wrongfully accused of cheating, and negative impacts on mental health. Our results suggest that remote proctoring services can create and perpetuate inequitable assessment environments for students, and additional research is required to understand the efficacy of their intended purpose to prevent cheating. We also advocate for continued conversations about the broader social and institutional conditions that can pressure students into cheating. While changes to academic culture are difficult, these conversations are necessary for higher education to remain relevant in an increasingly technological world.