Clemson University’s Centralized Proctoring Story

http://marketing.softwaresecure.com/acton/fs/blocks/showLandingPage/a/10395/p/p-002f/t/page/fm/0

e-Campus news offers a proctoring model: http://www.ecampusnews.com/whitepapers/5-step-guide-to-how-clemson-university-online-is-centralizing-online-proctoring/ conveniently presented in a 5-step outline, webinar and “case study” paper.

According to them, you just “Follow their story and learn how the team at Clemson Online implemented RPNow, and how they’re planning to centralize remote proctoring to increase student convenience, faculty efficiency and reduce the costs of exam administration.”

It is, of course, sponsored by the company, who will be paid for the proctoring
http://www.softwaresecure.com/product/remote-proctor-now/

Here are my issues with the proposal:

1. step 5 of the five-step outline: “Take control of the payment model. Institutional payment (as opposed to student pay) creates a better experience for the student and cost savings for all.”
   so, if the institution pays, then student don’t pay? I find this and illusion, since the institution pays by using students’ tuition. which constantly grows. so, the statement is rather deceptive.
2. As with the huge controversy around Turnitin (e.g., this 2009 article, and this 2012 article), “mechanizing” the very humane process evaluation is outright wrong. The attempt to compensate the lack of sufficient number of faculty by “outsourcing” to machines is en vogue with the nationwide strive of higher ed administration to create an “assembly line” type of education, which makes profit, but it is dubious if it teaches [well].
3. Pedagogically (as per numerous discussions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and similar sources), if the teaching materials and exams are structured in an engaging way, students cheat much less. The “case study” paper claims reduction of cheating, but it is reduction based on fear to be caught, not based on genuine interest in learning.