An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education’s July 25th issue references language in the HEA reauthorization bill that “could lead distance-education institutions to require spy cameras in their students’ homes.” The article profiles a few technologies that institutions are piloting to confirm that the student taking the exam/quiz is the individual who registered for the course. Some of these technologies can invade the individuals’ privacy, even collecting fingerprints.
Many institutions, including ours, utilize proctors for critical exams, randomize questions on quizzes so students in the same class get different questions, and require proctors for capstone classes. With even some of these strategies deployed, it would be extremely difficult for a student to cheat. Additionally, one of the individuals interviewed asks how “professors [in a traditional classroom setting] know that a student enrolled in a large lecture class is the same one handing in an assignment or test?”
I agree with the comments delivered by faculty and staff who think the language is over-reaching and believe that proctoring and other activities can manage the situation. I deplore the fact that someone in Congress found it necessary to single out distance education as having the potential for cheating. If I were a legislator and found it necessary to write a provision like this into law, I would remove the reference to distance education. After all, cheating occurs in residential classes as well. Just last night, however, House and Senate conferees agreed to the language and approved the bill.
