Electronic Proctoring and Identity Validation in Online Programs
Motives for pilot testing Reduce costs Manage growth Provide anywhere/anytime online experience Ensure legitimacy and integrity of programs Address possible 2008 HEOA requirements
Goals of pilot testing Conduct basic proof of concept Determine burden on students, faculty, and staff Articulate institutional requirements  Develop strategies for implementation
Key technical components  Model 1   Asynchronous video/audio monitoring Physiological biometrics Secure lock-down Full exam creation, delivery, and management.
Key technical components  Model 2 Synchronous video/audio monitoring  Behavioral biometrics Secure lockdown  Full exam creation, delivery, and management
Key technical components  Model 3 Synchronous video/audio monitoring  Non-biometric authentication Control of screen by live proctor
Key technical components  Model 4 Behavioral biometrics (authentication using a computer mouse)
Internal study of evaluative assessment at UMUC   Role of high-stakes final proctored exam Stakeholder perspectives Key conclusions: External pressures for testing Internal pressures for testing Decoupling academic and academic integrity decisions
Conclusions and next steps for UMUC Results of pilot testing RFP preparation: determining institutional requirements Example: “Integration” questions Relationship between electronic proctoring and authentication solutions
Overall lessons from UMUC experience Conduct institution-wide conversation on quality online teaching and learning Use pilot testing to help determine and refine institutional requirements Please contact me: Matthew Prineas [email_address] 301-985-7931

Matt

  • 1.
    Electronic Proctoring andIdentity Validation in Online Programs
  • 2.
    Motives for pilottesting Reduce costs Manage growth Provide anywhere/anytime online experience Ensure legitimacy and integrity of programs Address possible 2008 HEOA requirements
  • 3.
    Goals of pilottesting Conduct basic proof of concept Determine burden on students, faculty, and staff Articulate institutional requirements Develop strategies for implementation
  • 4.
    Key technical components Model 1 Asynchronous video/audio monitoring Physiological biometrics Secure lock-down Full exam creation, delivery, and management.
  • 5.
    Key technical components Model 2 Synchronous video/audio monitoring Behavioral biometrics Secure lockdown Full exam creation, delivery, and management
  • 6.
    Key technical components Model 3 Synchronous video/audio monitoring Non-biometric authentication Control of screen by live proctor
  • 7.
    Key technical components Model 4 Behavioral biometrics (authentication using a computer mouse)
  • 8.
    Internal study ofevaluative assessment at UMUC Role of high-stakes final proctored exam Stakeholder perspectives Key conclusions: External pressures for testing Internal pressures for testing Decoupling academic and academic integrity decisions
  • 9.
    Conclusions and nextsteps for UMUC Results of pilot testing RFP preparation: determining institutional requirements Example: “Integration” questions Relationship between electronic proctoring and authentication solutions
  • 10.
    Overall lessons fromUMUC experience Conduct institution-wide conversation on quality online teaching and learning Use pilot testing to help determine and refine institutional requirements Please contact me: Matthew Prineas [email_address] 301-985-7931