1

Exploring the Effectiveness of Proctoring Systems in Cheating Prevention in Higher

Education Institutions

Authors: Karima Bismeldinova, Kuanysh Kambarov, Yernur Nurlanov, Angsat Ydrys

Astana IT University

Academic Writing

Instructor of the Discipline: Aruzhan Olzhabayeva

Submission Date: 04.06.2024

 1

Abstract
During the Spring 2024 semester, 23 University students from Astana from different

majors answered survey questions and a focus group of 4 people participated in the interview.

This project used mixed methods, mostly qualitative, consisting of a survey and an interview

with both closed-ended and open-ended questions.

Survey and interview answers revealed that almost all participants acknowledged the

importance of proctoring systems in maintaining educational integrity, but more than half

expressed concerns about reliability of mentioned systems and risks that may occur.

In conclusion, this study suggests that the question of advantages and disadvantages of

online proctoring systems stays ambiguous since they lead to both fair graduation and possibly

worse performance because of the stress. As the research shows, University students believe that

quality proctoring will improve students' knowledge. However, current proctoring platforms

have some flaws that allow cheating of some forms and, at this point, make the process of

examination more stressful and uncomfortable.

Introduction

Background

Cheating is an issue that could lead to unfair graduation of students and therefore poor

quality of education. The decreasing amount of cheating is a high priority to increase

effectiveness of academic grading system (McCabe, Treviño & Butterfield, 2001). According to

a study that was conducted among 9 universities, about 75% of students engaged in or witnessed

acts of academic dishonesty (Bowers, 1964). 30 years later study was conducted in the same

universities again. Statistics showed that the overall count of cheating behaviors did not increase
 1

significantly but the way of cheating became more advanced. The amount of collective cheating

increased remarkedly (McCabe & Treviño, 1997).

Problem Statement

As cheating develops and improves, proctoring and preventing mechanisms face new

demands which are getting more and more challenging to satisfy as the time goes by. To address

the existing problem, a system that can assist in analyzing unfair tactics used by students is

required (Maniar et al., 2021). Sarthak Maniar et al. (2021) propose a system that includes a

variety of features that students may exploit throughout the test, such as eye gaze tracking,

mouth open or close detection, object identification, head posture estimate using facial

landmarks and face detection, can also transform the student's voice into a text format, which

might be useful for keeping track of the words said by the student. Various proctoring models,

such as fully automated systems, use advanced machine learning algorithms and facial

recognition technologies to ensure the integrity and fairness of online examinations (Fatima et

al., 2022).

Research Objectives

 To examine the existing research on the field of academic integrity;

 To conduct a survey to evaluate the current opinion of students in regards of

implementing online proctoring systems;

 To make an interview on a focus group;

 To analyze gathered data.

Research Question
 1

How important is it to integrate online proctoring systems in examinations in higher

education institutions for cheating elimination?

Significance

This work aims to raise awareness about the importance of proctoring systems for the

quality of education and fairness of assessment, at the same time, it illustrates how such changes

in evaluation affects students who must deal with them. The importance of this work consists in

taking the opinion of randomly sampled students into account and it is hoped to help them adapt

to the university system and to all software and platforms needed for proctoring.

Extended Definition

Atoum et al. (2017) defines online exam proctoring (OEP) as a multimedia analytics

system that maintains academic integrity of exams, by providing real-time proctoring for

detecting the majority of cheating behaviors of the test taker. To achieve such goals, audio-visual

observations about the test takers are required to be able to detect any cheat behavior (Atoum et

al., 2017, p. 1609).

In the same vein, Taskeen et al. (2022) specifies various solutions covering different

characteristics of online exam proctoring (OEP) such as industrial-based or commercial based

(p. 1). The motivation behind this paper is the lack of work in literature that compiles approaches

or techniques of fully automated OEP.

Methods

The survey was conducted in a google form, participants of which are a randomly

selected group of students from different majors in Astana university aged between 18 and 21.
 1

There were multiple-choice questions and scale ones. Open-ended questions could allow students

to elaborate on their experiences with cheating, their motivations for cheating, or their

perceptions of the consequences of cheating. The survey helped to understand the prevalence of

cheating among university students and to identify the factors that contribute to student cheating.

Also, the survey had a consent form, to which participants had to agree or disagree to

continue. This consent had some warnings about questions that could make a participant feel

uncomfortable, so that they were aware of possible risks in advance and response fairly. Survey

results gave some valuable data both for future quantitive and qualitative analysis like the major

of the participant, how often has a participant witnessed cheating, and what is their opinion on

different situations. As for the focus group interviews, they were conducted to gain qualitative

insights into students' perceptions and experiences with proctoring systems. The interviews were

facilitated by moderators, note-takers and technicians. The main topics include proctoring

systems and their benefits and drawbacks. Participants of the focus group were 4 students of the

university of Astana, whose answers were divided by themes for further analysis. They were

interpreted and compared to the results of the survey to draw a conclusion.

Results

Survey Results

The survey results highlight significant trends and regularities regarding the perception

and impact of proctoring systems on academic performance and stress. According to Daffin and

Jones (2018), students' performance tends to decline when proctoring systems are in place, and
 1

our findings corroborate this. Over two-thirds of the respondents reported that proctoring

systems significantly increase their stress levels during exams. Additionally, privacy concerns

were identified as a major contributor to this stress, with many participants expressing

discomfort about being monitored through their computer and webcam.

McCabe's research from 1960 suggested that an academic integrity codex is effective in

combating academic dishonesty. However, our data indicates a shift in this perception over time,

likely due to cultural changes within the student community. The current study's findings suggest

that the integrity codex may no longer be as effective as it once was, with students relying more

on technological measures like proctoring systems.

These quantitative results underscore the complex relationship between academic

performance, stress, and privacy concerns in the context of proctoring systems. They reveal that

while such systems are implemented to uphold academic integrity, they also introduce significant

stress and privacy issues for students, which can, in turn, negatively affect their exam

performance.

Focus Group Findings

The focus group discussions provided deeper insights into students' perceptions and

experiences with proctoring systems. Participants unanimously acknowledged the importance of

these systems in maintaining educational integrity and preventing cheating. They recognized that

tools like SEB, which lock down the browser to prevent access to unauthorized websites, and

systems that monitor student activities via webcam, are crucial in ensuring a controlled exam

environment.
 1

Despite this recognition, several concerns were raised. The reliability of proctoring

systems was a major issue, with participants noting that not all systems function properly.

Technical glitches can disrupt exams and increase stress levels, posing a significant drawback.

Privacy and comfort concerns were also emphasized, with students expressing discomfort about

being monitored, which they believe detracts from their performance.

In summary, the focus group discussions reveal a complex view: students recognize and

value the role of proctoring systems in maintaining academic integrity, yet they also face

considerable stress and discomfort due to technical issues and privacy concerns. These findings

highlight the importance of enhancing the reliability and user experience of proctoring systems

to better support students' well-being and academic performance.

Discussion

The survey and focus group results show the various effects that proctoring systems have

on students in higher education. Due to privacy concerns and the strain of continuous

observation, a considerable percentage of students reported feeling more stressed during

proctored exams, according to the survey. Consistent with the findings of Duffin and Jones

(2018) who similarly reported a decrease in student performance in the control condition this rise

in stress seems to have a detrimental effect on academic performance.

The findings from the focus groups support these observations: although participants

express genuine worries about the privacy invasion and dependability of proctoring systems,

they also recognize their significance in upholding academic integrity. These findings imply that

while proctoring systems are useful in lowering academic dishonesty, they also bring up new
 1

issues that must be resolved to support the success and well-being of students. Both parallels and

differences can be seen when comparing our findings with those of another research. The

usefulness of academic integrity codes in discouraging cheating was emphasized by McCabe's

1960 study, however our research indicates that these codes may no longer be as effective today.

This transition is explained by the growing dependence on technology and cultural shifts within

the student body. Our results align with recent studies that draw attention to the stress and

privacy concerns related to proctoring systems. For instance, a study conducted in 2021 by

Harman and colleagues found that online proctoring raised student anxiety, consistent with our

survey results. Our research offers a fresh perspective demonstrating that although students

acknowledge the importance of integrity testing, they also want more privacy protection and

system dependability.

Several limitations with this study could affect the findings.

 The sample size might not be typical of all students, and demographic variables like age

major and level of tech familiarity were not considered.

 The fact that participants in focus groups and surveys may overstate or understate their

experiences and perceptions the use of self-reported data can introduce bias.

Longitudinal research can shed light on how opinions about supervisory systems and

their efficacy evolve over time. It will be easier to comprehend the wider relevance of the results

if the study is expanded to include a more diverse student population from various institutions

and nations. advancements in technology. The negative effects found in this study might be

lessened by looking into methods to enhance the proctoring systems dependability and user

experience such as lowering technical errors and enhancing data security. A more thorough

knowledge of proctoring systems' effects on students can be attained by closely examining their
 1

psychological effects which include stress anxiety and general mental health. To sum up,

proctoring systems are essential for upholding academic integrity, but their implementation

needs to be closely watched to reduce anxiety and privacy issues which will benefit both

academic integrity and student wellbeing.

 1

References

Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of

Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

Fatima, T., Azam, F., & Muzaffar, A. W. (2022, October 21). A Systematic Review on Fully

Automated Online Exam Proctoring Approaches. 2022 24th International Multitopic

Conference (INMIC), Islamabad, Pakistan.

https://doi.org/10.1109/inmic56986.2022.9972964

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic

Dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396.

https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024954224675

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions:

A Decade of Research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1103_2

Maniar, S., Sukhani, K., Shah, K., & Dhage, S. (2021). Automated Proctoring System using

Computer Vision Techniques. 2021 International Conference on System, Computation,

Automation and Networking (ICSCAN).

https://doi.org/10.1109/icscan53069.2021.9526411

Yousef Atoum; Liping Chen, Alex X. Liu, Stephen D. H. Hsu, Xiaoming Liu. (2017).

Automated Online Exam Proctoring. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia ( Volume: 19,

Issue: 7). DOI: 10.1109/TMM.2017.2656064