Online Proctoring and Academic Integrity: Perceptions and Practices

Published Paper PDF: View PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63345/ijre.v14.i9.5

Dr. Lalit Kumar

IILM University

Knowledge Park II, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201306, India

Abstract
The rapid globalization of online education and its accelerated adoption—propelled by technological advances and unprecedented events such as the COVID‑19 pandemic—have compelled institutions to seek robust strategies for preserving academic integrity in remote assessment environments. Online proctoring, encompassing both live human oversight and sophisticated AI‑driven monitoring systems, has emerged as a primary mechanism to deter and detect cheating. However, questions remain regarding the efficacy, ethical implications, and stakeholder acceptance of these tools. This study employs a convergent mixed‑methods approach to explore in depth the perceptions and lived experiences of 450 students and 75 instructors from three universities offering fully online degree programs. Quantitative survey data assess dimensions of anxiety, perceived fairness, trust in proctoring technologies, and reported integrity outcomes; qualitative focus‑group discussions illuminate nuanced concerns around privacy, algorithmic bias, technical reliability, and policy transparency. Findings reveal that while 68% of students acknowledge a reduction in cheating opportunities under proctored conditions, a majority (55%) report elevated stress and distraction due to perceived surveillance. Instructors largely perceive a 72% decline in suspected misconduct, yet 64% express reservations about false positives and interpretive challenges. Thematic analysis uncovers four core themes: surveillance‑induced anxiety, technological barriers, algorithmic skepticism, and the critical role of stakeholder engagement. Drawing on these insights, the study offers a set of actionable recommendations—comprehensive orientation sessions for both students and faculty, iterative policy co‑design, continuous technical support, and transparent data‑use frameworks—to balance integrity objectives with ethical considerations and learner well‑being. By integrating empirical evidence with practitioner perspectives, this research advances a holistic model for implementing online proctoring systems that uphold academic standards while respecting individual rights and promoting trust.

Keywords
Online Proctoring, Academic Integrity, Student Perceptions, Instructor Perceptions, Remote Assessment

References

Cizek, G. J. (2020). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Routledge.
Dawson, P., & Sutherland, A. (2018). Can non-invigilated e-assessment represent a real threat to academic integrity? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 1029–1040.
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2014). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.
Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284.
King, C. G., Guyette, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students’ views. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1–11.
Lancaster, T., & Cotarlan, C. (2021). Contract cheating by STEM students through a file sharing website: A COVID-19 pandemic perspective. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–16.
Laufer, D., & Glick, S. (2020). Examining the impact of remote proctoring software on student test anxiety. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 5(2), 47–59.
Loveless, A. M., & Doup, D. (2019). Live remote proctoring: An exploratory study of student and faculty experiences. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 22(3).
Morris, N. P., Waine, B., & Walters, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence and academic integrity: Examining student attitudes towards automated proctoring systems. Computers & Education Open, 2, 100027.
Paterson, T., & Brown, K. (2011). Closing the curriculum–delivery gap. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 711–721.
Peled, Y. (2017). Cheating in online courses: Student and educator perspectives. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(3), 347–355.
Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2).
(2020). The state of academic integrity in higher education. Scantron Corporation.
Sena, A. N., & Ireland, M. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of remote proctoring in large-scale assessments. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(1), 42–59.
Shah, M. I., & Lam, S. (2020). Student privacy and online proctoring: A review of policies and best practices. Journal of Educational Policy, 35(4), 569–586.
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). A comparison of MBA student and faculty perceptions of online classes. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 160–166.
Timmerman, B. E., & Wray, M. (2007). Integrity matters: How faculty experience and perceive academic dishonesty. College Student Journal, 41(3), 610–620.
Urbach, N., & Tamburin, A. (2018). University guidelines on academic integrity and cheating: A comparative analysis. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 26(24), 1–25.
Wen, N., & Lan, Y.-J. (2018). A survey on remote proctoring technologies in higher education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(2), 207–219.
Zheng, L., & Han, Q. (2021). Student voice: Experiences of online proctoring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers & Education, 174, 104321.