CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 222Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Education and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Good Proctor or “Big Brother”? Ethics of Online Exam Supervision Technologies

Open access
Coghlan, Simon, Miller, Tim, Paterson, Jeannie·2021·Philosophy & Technology
DOI 10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1PMC PMC8407138
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Online exam supervision technologies have recently generated significant controversy and concern. Their use is now booming due to growing demand for online courses and for off-campus assessment options amid COVID-19 lockdowns. Online proctoring technologies purport to effectively oversee students sitting online exams by using artificial intelligence (AI) systems supplemented by human invigilators. Such technologies have alarmed some students who see them as a "Big Brother-like" threat to liberty and privacy, and as potentially unfair and discriminatory. However, some universities and educators defend their judicious use. Critical ethical appraisal of online proctoring technologies is overdue. This essay provides one of the first sustained moral philosophical analyses of these technologies, focusing on ethical notions of academic integrity, fairness, non-maleficence, transparency, privacy, autonomy, liberty, and trust. Most of these concepts are prominent in the new field of AI ethics, and all are relevant to education. The essay discusses these ethical issues. It also offers suggestions for educational institutions and educators interested in the technologies about the kinds of inquiries they need to make and the governance and review processes they might need to adopt to justify and remain accountable for using online proctoring technologies. The rapid and contentious rise of proctoring software provides a fruitful ethical case study of how AI is infiltrating all areas of life. The social impacts and moral consequences of this digital technology warrant ongoing scrutiny and study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 79 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Feldstein, S. (2019). The global expansion of AI surveillance (Vol. 17). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–222 of 222

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Coghlan, Simon
ORCID
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-08-31
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
1581-1606
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
DOI
10.1007/s13347-021-00476-1
PMC
PMC8407138
OpenAlex
W3197804775
Cited by
219
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 8
FWCI
44.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
online proctoring, AI ethics, academic integrity, privacy, student independence, fairness, non-maleficence, transparency, trust, surveillance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review