Examining the Examiners: Students' Privacy and Security Perceptions of Online Proctoring Services
Open accessAbstract
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, educational institutions quickly transitioned to remote learning. The problem of how to perform student assessment in an online environment has become increasingly relevant, leading many institutions and educators to turn to online proctoring services to administer remote exams. These services employ various student monitoring methods to curb cheating, including restricted ("lockdown") browser modes, video/screen monitoring, local network traffic analysis, and eye tracking. In this paper, we explore the security and privacy perceptions of the student test-takers being proctored. We analyze user reviews of proctoring services' browser extensions and subsequently perform an online survey (n=102). Our findings indicate that participants are concerned about both the amount and the personal nature of the information shared with the exam proctoring companies. However, many participants also recognize a trade-off between pandemic safety concerns and the arguably invasive means by which proctoring services ensure exam integrity. Our findings also suggest that institutional power dynamics and students' trust in their institutions may dissuade students' opposition to remote proctoring.
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
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0032 · Cited by 3,173 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Participants also answered the Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC) questionnaire [20] to provide insights into their privacy concerns.”
BackgroundAcademic Honesty and Online Courses
Grijalva, T. C., Nowell, C., & Kerkvliet, J. R. (2006) · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Academic Integrity and Distance Learning
Lanier, M. M. (2006) · Journal of Criminal Justice Education · doi:10.1080/10511250600866166 · Cited by 210 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Lanier compared rates of academic dishonesty at a university that offered both online and in-person learning, finding more cheating in the online courses [18].”
BackgroundUtilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams
Hylton, K., Levy, Y. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002 · Cited by 204 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Hylton et al. examined whether webcam-based monitoring had a deterrent effect [14].”
BackgroundRedmiles, E. M., Kross, S., & Mazurek, M. L. (2019) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp.2019.00014 · Cited by 193 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Despite this limitation, prior work [28] suggests that online studies about privacy and Prefer not to answer security behavior can approximate behaviors of populations.”
BackgroundE-proctored exams during the COVID-19 pandemic: A close understanding
Kharbat, F. F., & Daabes, A. A. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10458-7 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Comparing Student Performance on Proctored and Non-Proctored Exams in Online Psychology Courses
Daffin, L. W., & Jones, A. A. (2018) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1079 · Cited by 99 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In contrast, Daffin and Jones found that student performance was generally 10-20% higher on online psychology exams that did not use online proctoring services [6].”
BackgroundRios, J. A., & Liu, O. L. (2017) · American Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.1080/08923647.2017.1258628 · Cited by 50 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Similarly, Rios and Liu also found little difference in exam performance on low-stakes exams, suggesting that rates of cheating are also similar between low-stakes proctored and non-proctored exams [30].”
Virtual Classrooms and Real Harms: Remote Learning at U.S. UniversitiesPreprint
Cohney, S., Teixeira, R., Kohlbrenner, A., Narayanan, A., Kshirsagar, M., Shvartzshnaider, Y., & Sanfilippo, M. R. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.05867 · Cited by 30 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Importantly, the privacy policies and practices of these services, and of online education, generally, significantly impact students and their privacy rights [4].”
BackgroundA Study of Grade Equivalency between Proctored and Unproctored Exams in Distance Education
Goedl, P. A., & Malla, G. B. (2020) · American Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.1080/08923647.2020.1796376 · Cited by 27 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, like Hyl-ton et al., they found students consistently took less time to complete their exams when proctored [8].”
BackgroundGood proctor or "Big Brother"? AI Ethics and Online Exam Supervision TechnologiesPreprint
Coghlan, S., Miller, T., & Paterson, J. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.07647 · Cited by 22 · cited 1× · see citing works
“highlight ethical considerations when integrating machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques into online proctoring services [3], and Swauger opines that the algorithms that underpin online monitoring have been shown to “[reinforce] white supremacy, sexism, ableism, and transphobia” and that proctoring se…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The fear of big brother: The potential negative side‐effects of proctored exams
Conijn, R., Kleingeld, A., Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. C. P. (2022) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12651 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Fiebig, T., Gürses, S. F., Gañán, C., Kotkamp, E., Kuipers, F. A., Lindorfer, M., Prisse, M., & Sari, T. (2023) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.56553/popets-2023-0044 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“From a student perspective, Balash et al. [15] focused on online proctoring services.”
BackgroundXue, Y., Chinapah, V., & Zhu, C. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15060650 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Patael, S. Z., Shamir, J., Soffer, T., Livne, E., Fogel‐Grinvald, H., & Kishon‐Rabin, L. (2022) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12746 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Ingber, A. S. (2022) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2022.101815 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Kilhoffer, Z., Zhou, Z., Wang, F., Tamton, F., Huang, Y., Kim, P., YEH, T. P., & Wang, Y. (2023) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179333 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“This relates to an ethical dilemma identified in the literature: balancing students’ privacy and exam integrity during the pandemic [6].”
BackgroundMelo, G., Monteza‐Quiroz, D., Colson, G., & Zhang, Y. Y. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276745 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Hasan, R. (2023) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.56553/popets-2023-0110 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
What is the student experience of remote proctoring? A pragmatic scoping review
Marano, E., Newton, P. M., Birch, Z., Croombs, M., Gilbert, C., & Draper, M. J. (2024) · Higher Education Quarterly · doi:10.1111/hequ.12506 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Remote Proctoring: Understanding the Debate
Dawson, P. (2024) · Springer international handbooks of education · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_150 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Tazi, F., Shrestha, S., & Das, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610055 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“Software and tools like these can easily be exploited, resulting in a devastating breach of privacy [5].”
BackgroundKangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., Wan, X., & Fute, A. Z. (2024) · Social Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s11218-024-09939-7 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“In addition, the learning climate (Ninković et al., 2023; f 2 = 0.12) and proc-toring (Balash et al., 2021; f 2 = 0.18) are significant moderators of the effect of self-regulation on academic cheating in online examinations’ context.”
InfluentialPrivacy as Contextual Integrity in Online Proctoring Systems in Higher Education: A Scoping Review
Mutimukwe, C., Han, S., Viberg, O., & Pargman, T. C. (2023) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.010 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Mutimukwe, C., Viberg, O., McGrath, C., & Pargman, T. C. (2025) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-025-09461-5 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“…research–that does address privacy– often focuses general privacy concerns or solely on student perspectives, without considering the views of other key stakeholders (e.g., Angiolini et al., 2020; Balash et al., 2021; Burgess et al., 2022; Coghlan et al., 2021; Cuijpers, 2021; Mita, 2022 ).”
InfluentialTrenholm, S. (2023) · Asian Journal for Mathematics Education · doi:10.1177/27527263231166415 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“So, when human supervision is not available, either all summative assessments must be designed as “open book” or new remote computer invigilation systems must be used, despite ongoing concern about both assessment approaches (Balash et al., 2021; Iannone, 2020).”
Mukherjee, S., Rohles, B., Distler, V., Lenzini, G., & Koenig, V. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104925 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“It's been Lovely Watching you”: Institutional Decision-Making on Online Proctoring Software
Shioji, E., Meliksetyan, A., Simko, L., Watkins, R., Aviv, A. J., & Cohney, S. (2025) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp61157.2025.00018 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationRemote Proctoring: Understanding the Debate
Dawson, P. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_150-1 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Belzak, W. C. M., Lockwood, J., & Attali, Y. (2024) · Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice · doi:10.1111/emip.12591 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
da Silva, M., Viterbo, J., Salgado, L. C. D. C., & Mourão, É. (2023) · Journal on Interactive Systems · doi:10.5753/jis.2023.3046 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“A study conducted in the USA noted that despite the importance of covering the topic of privacy in computer science curricula aimed at high school and undergraduates, this still needs to be done (Egelman et al., 2016).”
BackgroundEducational Assessment Experiences of College Students during COVID-19Preprint
Ober, T. M., Cheng, A. S., Hong, M. R., & Morse, K. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/kq5yd · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Ahn, J., & Roh, S. (2024) · Asia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research Interchange · doi:10.47116/apjcri.2024.04.52 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Ober, T. M., Xu, X., Kane, E., Hong, M. R., & Cheng, A. S. M. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/kv4ta · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Unmonitored Online Exams: Valid Assessment or Score Inflation?
Lannin, D. G., Flinn, T., Ilie, A., & Ispas, D. (2025) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1177/00986283251324172 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Incorporating proctoring technologies or supervised exam environments could also help mitigate cheating, although these solutions come with challenges, including privacy concerns and accessibility issues (Balash et al., 2021).”
Yıldırım, D., Ilgaz, H., Bayazıt, A., & Akçapınar, G. (2023) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7145 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Security and privacy issues in terms of data protection and usage are the main concerns when these tools have been used (Balash et al., 2021; Draaijer et al., 2018).”
MethodExploring AI-Assisted Students Online Proctoring System
Jaisingh, W., & Thangavel, M. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2440-0.ch007 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Adam, S. K. (2023) · Education and human development · doi:10.5772/intechopen.109555
Remote Proctoring: Understanding the Debate
Dawson, P. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_150
Instructor Perceptions of e-Proctoring Software
Chaudhry, K. (2024) · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-15861
Professors Call it Cheating, Students Call it Teamwork
Walsh, J. A., Krienert, J. L., Cannon, K. D., & Honan, S. (2024) · Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.14434/josotl.v24i2.35191 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
EXPLORING ONLINE LEARNERS’ PERSPECTIVES IN RELATION TO PROCTORED EXAMS
Aydemir, M., Erdoğdu, E., & Uçar, H. (2024) · Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.17718/tojde.1459600
Crafting a Speaker Authentication System for Online Proctored Exams
Welsen, S., Chen, Z., & Rankin, R. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85649-5_1
GDPR in the Small: A Field Study of Privacy and Security Challenges in Schools
Ciclosi, F., Varni, G., & Massacci, F. (2025) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp61157.2025.00243
“Zhong et al. [41] study the parents’ awareness of privacy and security risks at schools, whereas Balash et al. [42] investigate students’ concerns about sharing their data with third parties (proctor-ing platforms).”
Alizadeh, F., Imanova, N., Guliyeva, A., Eyyubova, G., & Mirzapour, F. (2026) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-026-00472-2
“Surveillance techniques that attack the privacy of students and use sensitive biometric data impose major privacy risks, especially when there are no specific consent protocols (Balash et al., 2021; Mutimukwe et al., 2023).”
- Authors
- Balash, D. G., Kim, D., Shaibekova, D., Fainchtein, R. A., Sherr, M., & Aviv, A. J.
- Affiliations
- George Washington University (US)
- Georgetown University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 633-652
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2106.05917
- OpenAlex
- W3171693627
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Keywords
- online proctoring, student privacy, perceived security, remote examinations, cheating prevention, video surveillance, eye tracking, network traffic analysis, browser extension, online reviews, COVID-19 pandemic, distance education, institutional trust, data sharing
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
