- 196comments
- 60comments
- 29comments
- 41comments
- 1comments
- 9comments
- 10comments
- 31comments
- 402comments
- 13comments
- 383comments
- 1comments
- 13comments
- 23comments
- 434comments
- 65comments
- 135comments
- 18comments
- 13comments
- 34comments
- 96comments
- 25comments
- 5comments
- 14comments
- 39comments
- 392comments
- 222comments
- 7comments
- 203comments
- 19comments
Trying to control someone's eye movements, or even just claiming you can understand the motivation behind someone's eye movements is completely draconian, awful, and wrong.
I've seen this quite a bit during the pandemic, universities seem almost more concerned with exams than how to teach well in the current situation.
The amount of money being poured into tools to prevent cheating (which can be circumvented relatively easily) is astonishing.
Doesn't surprise me. They're in the certification business more than the education business.
Promising rigorous proctored tests gives their degrees more credibility than a self-awarded collection of MOOC course completions.
So many kids (and adults) already have terrible anxiety when it comes to test taking - and now these companies think that the best way to handle cheating is to have computers monitoring them every moment of an exam? I am glad I am no longer in school - this would make me five times more anxious and uncomfortable. Cheating is a problem, of course, but it’s a problem that really only affects the cheater. As long as an institution is making an honest effort to maintain academic integrity, that should be good enough. Tools like these seem extremely out of line.
If someone can easily cheat on your exam by using a cheat sheet and get a good grade what value are you as an educator providing, really?
So we can't safely assume it's possible - and reasonable to expect - to have exams which can't be cheated upon? Is it that hard to do?