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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For example, automated online proctoring has unfairly penalized people with disabilities through algorithms that flag some gestures and eye movements as “abnormal” or “unacceptable” exam behavior”
From Algorithmic harms and digital ageism in the use of surveillance technologies in nursing homes (2022) · cites this paper as Coghlan et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Disability studies scholars and activists have demonstrated how the introduction of automated algorithmic decision making in education, employment, and insurance promotes discrimination against embodied difference in ways of communicating, interacting, and being.”
From Algorithmic harms and digital ageism in the use of surveillance technologies in nursing homes (2022) · cites this paper as Coghlan et al., 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · cited 4×
“Some of these ethical notions are prominent in the new field of AI ethics (Jobin et al., 2019), which is burgeoning as AI penetrates increasingly into various facets of our lives, including education.”
BackgroundInfluentialA Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3457607 · Cited by 5,812
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., et al. (2018) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 · Cited by 4,774 · cited 1×
“In another recent study, Floridi et al. highlight the ideas of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, explicability, and accountability (Floridi et al., 2018).”
BackgroundWarren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890) · University of Washington Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780295803661-014 · Cited by 4,092
(2018) · Cited by 3,510
Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization
Zuboff, S. (2015) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.5 · Cited by 3,205 · cited 1×
“Finally, the values of liberty and trust are increasingly important to public concerns about fast-moving technologies, data gathering, surveillance, and the like (Zuboff, 2015).”
BackgroundAmerican Philosophical Quarterly
(2024) · American Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.5406/21521123.61.4.08 · Cited by 2,341
(2016) · Cited by 2,334
Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life
Nissenbaum, H. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9780804772891 · Cited by 2,129
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Feldstein, S. (2019). The global expansion of AI surveillance (Vol. 17). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370
“Thus, AI text detection techniques that are fine-tuned for one generation of LLMs are likely to become obsolete as new models emerge and proliferate.”
Ali, O., Murray, P. A., Momin, M., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Malik, T. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123076 · Cited by 317
A Systematic Review on AI-based Proctoring Systems: Past, Present and Future
Nigam, A., Pasricha, R., Singh, T., & Churi, P. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10597-x · Cited by 267
Zhao, L., Wu, X., & Luo, H. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142114549 · Cited by 239
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Sušnjak, T., & McIntosh, T. R. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060656 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Coghlan, Simon
- Venue
- Philosophy & Technology
- Published
- 2021-08-31
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1581-1606
- ISSN
- 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
- 2210-5441
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
