Cited by 47Academic integrity and plagiarismEducation during COVID-19 pandemicOnline Learning and Analytics

In the nexus of integrity and surveillance: Proctoring (re)considered

Open access
Khalil, Mohammad, Prinsloo, Paul, Slade, Sharon·2022·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Background: The Covid‐19 pandemic disrupted higher education in many ways, such as the move to Emergency Remote Online Teaching and Learning (EROTL), often including a move to online assessments and examinations. With evidence of increased academic dishonesty in unproctored online assessment, institutions sought ways to ensure academic and institutional integrity and reputation. In doing this, many institutions selected and implemented online proctoring solutions. Objectives: This article maps considerations of online proctoring solutions in the nexus between ensuring academic and institutional integrity and reputation, and addressing stakeholder concerns regarding invasive surveillance and the impacts on student privacy. Methods: The study involved a PRISMA‐informed systematic review of three digital libraries, namely Clarivate's Web of Science, Elsevier's Scopus, and Springer's SpringerLink, for peer‐reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings. After screening, a final corpus of 27 articles was analysed. Results and Conclusions: The findings include evidence that, in the midst of the Covid‐19 pandemic, higher education institutions were largely influenced by cost, usability and efficiency in choosing online proctoring solutions to ensure academic and institutional integrity. Student privacy was either considered in terms of data protection and transparency, or not at all. This article aims to provide valuable insight into the criteria used to select online proctoring solutions to ensure academic and institutional integrity in online examination environments. Student privacy appears not to have the consideration it warrants.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.12713

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • As online education grows increasingly popular, the issues of AI plagiarism and detecting academic misconduct with the use of artificial intelligence have become more pressing.

    “As online education is growing increasingly popular, an environment where the use of chatbots is particularly easy, the issues of (a) AI plagiarism and (b) detecting academic misconduct with the use of artificial intelligence [24,43] have become more pressing [96,97].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khalil, M., Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • University of South Africa (ZA)
  • Earth Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Khalil, Mohammad
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-07-11
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
1589-1602
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W4285042456
Cited by
47
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 2
FWCI
10.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
online proctoring, academic integrity, institutional integrity, surveillance, student privacy, online examinations, online assessment, academic dishonesty, COVID-19 pandemic, emergency remote teaching, data protection, higher education institutions

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