matt

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

mprineas@umuc.edu

301-985-7931