Exam invigilator

Last updated
A proctor invigilating an exam in the US Navy US Navy 120119-N-GZ832-006 Chief Damage Controlman Ty Griffin proctors the chief petty officer exam aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ca.jpg
A proctor invigilating an exam in the US Navy
An invigilator proctoring an exam in Tanzania Invigilation of Examinations.jpg
An invigilator proctoring an exam in Tanzania

An exam invigilator, exam proctor or exam supervisor is someone appointed by an educational institution or an examination board to maintain proper conduct in a particular examination in accordance with exam regulations. Typically, the main duty of an exam invigilator is to watch examination candidates to prevent cheating. [1] The purpose of exam invigilating is to ensure each candidate sits the examination under equal conditions.

Contents

Exam invigilators are appointed to a position of trust and are expected to possess integrity and vigilance to conduct examinations in exact accordance with the board’s instructions.

Purpose

The purpose of exam invigilation is to ensure that all candidates are under active surveillance for the entire examination to provide a fair examination for all candidates. [2] In order to do so, they prevent any kind of communication between candidates such as by copying, whispering or any kind of signal, exchange of paper or objects, and any kind of access to unauthorized books, papers, or electronic media of any kind for the exam duration. [3]

Invigilators also ensure the security of the examination room before, during and after the examination. [4] Typically, exam envigilators patrol vigilantly from the moment the question papers are given out until all answers are collected, with particular emphasis given to multiple-choice and short-answer questions, the main goal being to prevent possible academic dishonesty and administrative failures.

The minimum number of invigilators required for different kinds of examinations depends on the type of examinations held. For general written examinations in the United Kingdom, there are typically at least one invigilator per 30 students in the examination room. [5] Specialist invigilators may be present in some cases, for example invigilators with specific IT skills may be present for tests conducted using computers. [6]

Duties

General duties

The main duty of an exam invigilator is to ensure the fair conduct of examinations and an environment permitting candidates to demonstrate their achievement.

Tasks performed by an invigilator may include: [7]

  1. Setting up the examination venues by placing candidate numbers, booklets, examination papers, stationery and equipment at desks in accordance with strict procedures.
  2. Implementing the exam rules and regulations and remaining vigilant throughout the examination duration.
  3. Assisting the candidates before, during and after the examination by directing them to their seats, advising them about possessions permitted at examination venues and dealing with queries raised by candidates.
  4. Invigilating carefully, making sure that candidates do not talk inside examination venues and also responding to any examination irregularities immediately.
  5. Checking attendance during examinations, recording details of late arrivals and ensuring that proper seating plans are followed.
  6. Escorting candidates during water breaks or washroom breaks as required and detecting any unauthorized materials inside the examination hall.
  7. Delivering and collecting scripts carefully at the start and end of the examination in accordance with strict examination procedures.
  8. Assisting with the packing of examination scripts, stationery and other equipment from the examination venues.
  9. Supervising candidates in leaving the examination venues in a quiet and disciplined manner and ensuring that candidates do not remove equipment or stationery from the examination venue without the permission of the authority.

During the exam

During the examination, exam invigilators give their whole attention to the examination process and are typically prohibited from performing any other tasks throughout the examination’s duration.

Exam invigilators respond to queries from candidates and assist them per their needs. Invigilators also take attendance and check identifying information of the candidates. [8]

Exam invigilators also deal with students who arrive late at the examination venue, recording their attendenace, and determine whether extra time will be granted to such candidates depending on specific school policies.

Invigilators may prevent the candidates from leaving the examination hall room at specific times and take immediate actions against candidates caught cheating during the examination. Invigilators confiscate unauthorized materials found inside the examination hall. In the event of an emergency or fire alarm, invigilators follow emergency exit procedures and lead the candidates safely outside the examination hall.

Invigilators remain silent during the examination and often do not respond to questions from candidates or allow any other person to ask questions of, or read answers to, the candidates. [9]

After the exam

After the examination is over, the exam invigilators collect the scripts, question papers, stationery and other reference booklets from the candidates and check that all the required information (name, candidate number, venue, date, etc.) have been filled out by the candidates on their scripts properly. When all the scripts are collected, invigilators release the candidiates and direct them towards the exit of the examination hall.

E-proctoring

E-proctoring, also known as remote proctoring, [10] is a form of exam proctoring which involves monitoring student behaviour during exams administered electronically, including those given as part of e-learning or remote learning and in-class digital exams]. Some of the use cases of proctoring include admission exams, certification exams, assessments conducted by recruiters and HR as part of their hiring, and training processes. [11] [12]

Concerns about the use of commercial e-proctoring services include the non-functionality of the software; it mostly fails to identify any actual fraud, while it can falsely flag innocent students for suspicious behavior. Some people claim it violates students' privacy, [13] [14] security, and impact to students' mental health. [15] They also claim it is prone to technical issues that can negatively impact students' exam performance. In addition, there have been multiple reports of user data from commercial e-proctoring services being hacked, resulting in thousands of colleges' and hundreds of thousands of users' data being released. [16] [17]

Ineffectiveness

There is clear evidence to that it is easily possible for candidates to circumvent e-proctoring software. [18] A scientific test of the Proctorio software at the University of Twente showed that the software was not able to detect any of the cases of examination fraud it was subjected to. It showed that classic, non-technical methods of exam fraud, such as the use of cheat sheets and notes, were nearly undetectable by Proctorio. Moreover, the software could also not identify any cases of committed digital/technical fraud, such as the use of a phone, chat apps and social media during the exam, looking up information on the internet while taking the test, and others. The conclusion was that the sensitivity of Proctorio should be considered at very close to zero. [19]

Controversy

Controversy over e-proctoring escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic, [20] when many universities, [13] [15] [21] [22] [23] K–12 schools, [24] and standardized testing organizations turned to commercial e-proctoring suppliers for services. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Students across the world protested the use of commercial e-proctoring services at their post-secondary institutions. [14] [13] [15] [31] [32] [33] It has been noted that online proctoring technologies use algorithms that discriminate against students of darker skin tones, including Black students and other persons of colour. [34] [35]

Proctorio lawsuits

In 2020, e-proctoring software company Proctorio sued a university employee at the University of British Columbia over alleged breach of copyright. [36] The employee was critical of Proctorio on social media and posted links to unlisted YouTube videos produced by the company. [37] [38] [39] A court ruling on the case was published on 15 June 2021 and another on 11 March 2022, dismissing the case. [40] [41] In late 2022, the employee appealed the dismissal. [33] In November 2025, the case was settled out of court. The exact terms of the settlement were kept confidential, but both parties confirmed no money was exchanged. [42]

In 2020 a computer engineering student at a different college publicly shared excerpts of code installed by Proctorio on their personal computer. The student sued Proctorio after they had the material removed. Proctorio countersued arguing copyright infringement and defamation. [33] The case was settled out of court. [43]

Class-action lawsuits were brought up against Proctorio and two other companies. The companies were accused of failing to provide legally required data retention and destruction policies and failing to obtain consent for gathering biometric information. [33] The lawsuit against Proctorio was dismissed by a judge in August 2022.

References

  1. ↑ "invigilator" – via The Free Dictionary.
  2. ↑ Anonymous (13 July 2012). "What I'm really thinking: the exam invigilator". TheGuardian.com .
  3. ↑ "British Council Invigilators Job requirements – Job description / Code of Practice". Archived from the original on July 14, 2014.
  4. ↑ "Exams administration: information for exam centres – Detailed guidance – GOV.UK".
  5. ↑ "Invigilators FAQs". Cambridge International Examinations. Archived from the original on July 14, 2014.
  6. ↑ Joint Council for Qualifications, Instructions for conducting examinations, p. 61, September 2024, accessed on 27 December 2024
  7. ↑ "The Ridgeway School Examination Invigilator Job Description" (PDF).
  8. ↑ "How to be a School Exam Invigilator". careerpath360.com. June 23, 2009. Archived from the original on June 28, 2014.
  9. ↑ "Invigilator – English Language Tutorials". English Language Tutorials. February 13, 2010.
  10. ↑ McCorkle, Rory (2018-08-13). "Dispelling the concerns around utilizing remote proctoring systems". EdScoop. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  11. ↑ Bacow, Lawrence; Bowen, William; Guthrie, Kevin; Lack, Kelly; Long, Matthew (2015). "Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education". Ithaka S+R. doi: 10.18665/sr.22432 . Retrieved 2020-09-06.
  12. ↑ James, Rosalind (2016). "Tertiary student attitudes to invigilated, online summative examinations" (PDF). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 13 (1): 19. doi: 10.1186/s41239-016-0015-0 . ISSN   2365-9440. S2CID   5640.
  13. 1 2 3 Alden, Charlotte. "Facing student privacy concerns, UBC maintains relationship with Proctorio". The Ubyssey. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  14. 1 2 Chrysanthos, Natassia (2020-05-21). "'You're being watched and recorded, every breath': Students unsettled by exam software". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  15. 1 2 3 Waitson, Byline: Emily (2020-05-27). "UPDATED: Students raise concerns over an increase in academic misconduct allegations". The Cord. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  16. ↑ "Hacker leaks 386 million user records from 18 companies for free". BleepingComputer. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  17. ↑ "ProctorU confirms data breach after database leaked online". BleepingComputer. Retrieved 2020-12-01.
  18. ↑ "How ProctorU and Examity make cheating on college exams easier than ever". blog.rchase.com. 2018-01-18. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  19. ↑ https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/275927505/3e2a9e5b2fad237a3d35f36fa2c5f44552f2.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  20. ↑ "E-Proctoring: Understanding the debate about invigilating remote exams". Learning, Teaching and Leadership. 2020-05-12. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  21. ↑ Alden, Charlotte (July 3, 2020). "Facing student privacy concerns, UBC maintains relationship with Proctorio". The Ubyssey. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  22. ↑ Waitson, Emily (2020-05-27). "UPDATED: Students raise concerns over an increase in academic misconduct allegations". The Cord. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  23. ↑ Harris, Sherina (June 29, 2020). "Canadian Medical Students Demand Change After 'Inhumane' Exam Conditions". HuffPost. Retrieved November 15, 2021.
  24. ↑ Harwell, Drew (1 April 2020). "Mass school closures in the wake of the coronavirus are driving a new wave of student surveillance". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  25. ↑ Strauss, V. (2020, April 16). College Board says it can give valid, secure online SATs at home. Washington Post.
  26. ↑ "Perspective | An open letter to the College Board about online, at-home AP tests". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  27. ↑ Flaherty, Colleen. "Online proctoring is surging during COVID-19". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  28. ↑ Hubler, Shawn (2020-05-10). "Keeping Online Testing Honest? Or an Orwellian Overreach?". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  29. ↑ Lee, Shereen. "Proctorio CEO releases student's chat logs, sparking renewed privacy concerns". The Ubyssey. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  30. ↑ Swauger, Shea (2020-06-07). "Taking Back the Narrative of Ed Tech". sheaswauger. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  31. ↑ Waitson, Emily (2020-05-08). "Laurier math department faces backlash over mandatory external webcams needed for spring exams". The Cord. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  32. ↑ Harwell, Drew. "Cheating-detection companies made millions during the pandemic. Now students are fighting back". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2020-11-23.
  33. 1 2 3 4 "'I'm afraid': critics of anti-cheating technology for students hit by lawsuits". the Guardian. 2022-08-26. Retrieved 2022-09-29.
  34. ↑ Parnther, C., & Eaton, S. E. (2021, June 23). Academic integrity and anti-Black aspects of educational surveillance and e-proctoring. Teachers College Record. https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/TCZ/Commentaries%20Collection/2021%20Commentaries/Academic%20Integrity%20and%20Anti-Black%20Aspects%20of%20Educational%20Surveillance%20and%20E-Proctoring-1650325575.pdf
  35. ↑ McKenzie, L. (2021, April 6). Proctoring Tool Failed to Recognize Dark Skin, Students Say. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/04/06/proctoring-tool-failed-recognize-dark-skin-students-say#
  36. ↑ "Software company sues UBC employee over tweets involving confidential videos". vancouversun. Retrieved 2023-01-19.
  37. ↑ Chin, Monica (2020-10-22). "An ed-tech specialist spoke out about remote testing software — and now he's being sued". The Verge. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
  38. ↑ Feathers, Todd (21 October 2020). "An Exam Surveillance Company Is Trying to Silence Critics With Lawsuits". Vice. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
  39. ↑ "Ed-Tech Specialist Fights Proctorio Lawsuit | Inside Higher Ed". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 2020-12-01.
  40. ↑ "2021 BCSC 1154 Proctorio, Incorporated v. Linkletter". www.bccourts.ca. Retrieved 2021-06-16.
  41. ↑ "2022 BCSC 400 (CanLII) | Proctorio, Incorporated v Linkletter".
  42. ↑ Belanger, Ashley (2025-11-19). "He got sued for sharing public YouTube videos; nightmare ended in settlement". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2025-11-20.
  43. ↑ "LEGAL UPDATE". Proctorio. Retrieved 2022-09-29.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.