Proctoring Proctoring
Antoni Shkraba Studio | Pexels

Think of a classroom. Not the brick-and-mortar room with a chalkboard and a proctor at the door, but the modern student moving between a library alcove, a cramped kitchen table, and a campus café. That's the reality of learning today: classrooms are wherever students are, and assessments have followed. The challenge is obvious and urgent. If learning happens across time and space, how do we know that the measurement of that learning—the exam—still measures the student's knowledge and not their access to help, shortcuts, or clever ways to game the system? The blunt answer is: we need systems that preserve trust, and proctoring is one of them.

Balancing Integrity and Rights: The Core Dilemma

This isn't an argument for surveillance for its own sake. It's an argument for credible credentials, for protecting students who play fair, and for enabling institutions to scale rigorous assessment without asking every student to show up at a gymnasium on a given Saturday. Done thoughtfully, proctoring supports learning by preserving the meaning of grades and certificates. Done carelessly, it erodes trust, invades privacy, and creates barriers to participation. So the real question isn't whether to proctor; it's how to proctor in ways that are fair, transparent, legally defensible, and pedagogically sound.

What Proctoring Actually Is: Supervision Beyond Four Walls

What proctoring is, practically speaking, is supervision of the assessment process when it's not feasible to stand in the room. It's an umbrella term that covers several different ways to ensure identity, monitor behavior, and document the conditions under which a test was taken. At its best, proctoring supplies evidence: who sat the test, under what conditions, and whether any actions during the session require human review. At its worst, it becomes a blunt instrument that treats every student like a suspect and every test like a surveillance operation. The choice between those outcomes is not dictated by the technology; it's decided by the policies, communications, and design choices of the institution.

The Three Models of Proctoring and Their Trade-Offs

There are three practical models institutions use today, each with trade-offs that affect fairness, cost, and student experience.

Automated Proctoring: Speed with Caveats

Automated proctoring relies on software to analyze video and device activity for anomalies: unexpected faces in the frame, long absences from camera view, multiple voices, or attempts to switch windows and access forbidden resources. The software flags items for human review and produces reports that instructors or integrity officers can examine.

Record-and-Review: Recorded Evidence for Later Judgment

Record-and-review captures the session—video, audio, and sometimes screen activity—and stores it for later human inspection. This is often used when institutions want documented evidence without the expense of live human monitoring.

Live Proctoring: Human Oversight in Real Time

Live proctoring places a human in the loop in real time; the proctor can intervene, pause a session, or verify identity on the spot, which is valuable for high-stakes professional certifications.

Limits and Risks: No Silver Bullets

None of these models magically guarantees honesty. They are tools to provide evidence and deterrence. Automated systems might generate false positives when a student glances off-camera to think or when a pet wanders by. Human review can miss things or bring bias into judgments. Live proctors can be effective but expensive at scale and stressful for students who feel constantly watched. The point is that proctoring supports integrity when integrated into a larger system of thoughtful assessment design, clear policies, and transparent communication.

Proctoring vs. Plagiarism Detection: Process vs. Product

There is an important distinction to be made between proctoring and plagiarism detection. Plagiarism detection looks at products—the essays, reports, code, and submissions—and compares text to known sources. It is blind to process; it cannot tell you whether the student actually produced the work under the conditions you intended. Proctoring looks at the process. It verifies identity, observes behavior during the exam, and gathers evidence about the testing environment: was the student alone, did they use unauthorized devices, did someone else appear on camera? Together, they provide complementary evidence: one shows whether the output is original; the other shows whether the process was honest.

The AI Challenge and Pedagogical Response

Recent advances in generative AI have complicated the landscape. AI makes it easier to produce text that can bypass traditional similarity checks, and that pushes educators to rethink what assessments measure and how. In that sense, proctoring has become more than a matter of policing; it's about preserving the integrity of the credential in an era when the means of production are changing. But proctoring is not the only or even the principal pedagogical strategy to deal with AI. Good assessment design—open-book formats, authentic tasks that require reflection, iterative assignments with process evidence, oral defenses, and applied projects—reduces the value of cheating and creates learning experiences that AI cannot easily mimic. Proctoring and redesign go hand in hand.

How to Decide When to Proctor: Purpose and Proportionality

If you're an educator or an administrator choosing a solution, begin with questions about purpose and proportionality. What are you trying to protect? Is it a final exam for a degree program or a short formative quiz? Are you dealing with a professional credential where reputational risk is high? Proctoring makes most sense when the stakes make it necessary to verify identity and exam conditions. For low-stakes formative work, the harms of invasive monitoring usually outweigh the benefits. Always calibrate your approach to the risk and significance of the assessment.

Integration and Accessibility: The Practical Must-Haves

Integration matters. The best proctoring solutions plug into your learning management system so the student experience stays consistent and instructors don't have to stitch together multiple workflows. They should support single sign-on, grade integration, and clear reporting dashboards. Equally important are accessibility and inclusivity. Any tool you adopt must be usable by students with disabilities, compliant with reasonable accommodations, and sensitive to bandwidth and device constraints. That means offering alternatives—such as on-campus testing or other assessment formats—when a student's circumstances or preferences make remote proctoring impractical or unfair.

Transparency and Consent: Legal and Ethical Fundamentals

Transparency is nonnegotiable. Institutions must clearly explain what the technology will collect, why it's collected, who will have access, and how long the data will be retained. Students should be told, in plain language and well before the exam, about camera and microphone requirements, whether screen recording will occur, and whether facial recognition or biometric checks will be used. Where biometric technologies are in play, institutions must justify their use and comply with applicable laws and best practices. Consent matters, but it must be informed consent; it's not enough to bury clauses in a long-term terms of service. And where legal frameworks require it, institutions must provide a meaningful opt-out—whether that is an alternative assessment or an in-person option.

Data Security and Lifecycle: Questions You Must Ask Vendors

Data security is another dimension where policy must meet practice. Proctoring platforms handle sensitive data—video, audio, IP addresses, device metadata, and sometimes biometric templates. Good vendors follow best practices in encryption, minimal data retention, and third-party audits. Ask for evidence of compliance with relevant regulations and certifications. Don't accept vague assurances. Ask the vendor to document their data lifecycle: how long the data is stored, where it is stored (geographic location matters for legal compliance), how it is deleted, and who can access it. Institutions should also think through the internal workflows for handling flagged cases: who reviews them, what training do reviewers have, how disputes are resolved, and what remedies are available for students who contest findings?

Student Experience: Benefits and Potential Harms

From the student's perspective, there are tangible benefits when these guardrails are in place. Proctoring preserves fairness by reducing the advantage gained by dishonest behavior. It preserves the value of the credential by ensuring that a diploma or certificate reflects demonstrated competence. It also offers flexibility: students can take exams without traveling, and institutions can offer assessments at scale. But the student experience can be fragile. Poorly designed processes—exams with punitive time windows, systems that require expensive equipment, or opaque reporting—create anxiety and can push otherwise honest students into precarious situations. Communicate early, test the system with students before high-stakes events, provide clear troubleshooting resources, and be ready with alternatives.

Vendors and Platforms: Fit Over Hype (with a Note on SMOWL)

When it comes to vendors and platforms, the landscape is diverse. Solutions range from lightweight tools that simply record and upload sessions for later review to comprehensive platforms that combine identity verification, device checks, screen capture, and automated behavioral analysis. Some vendors emphasize integrations with major LMS platforms; others specialize in the needs of professional certification bodies. If you are evaluating platforms, ask vendors how their algorithms are tested for bias and false positives, what their human review protocols are, how they handle appeals, and how they support accessibility.

One name that has become increasingly visible in certain markets is SMOWL. Vendors like SMOWL position themselves as partners for institutions navigating this new terrain: they combine different monitoring modes—webcam observation, device checks, record & review, and automated flagging—while offering LMS integrations and compliance documentation. The value of any vendor, including SMOWL, comes down to how well they align with the institution's policies and pedagogical goals. A vendor's participation in research programs, adherence to legal frameworks like GDPR, and willingness to publish clear privacy and retention policies can be strong indicators of a vendor committed to transparency. But again, vendors are tools; the institution's policies and communications determine the lived student experience.

Communication and Change Management: Treat Proctoring as a Rollout, Not a Purchase

A practical piece of advice for institutions is to treat proctoring as a communications challenge as much as a technology purchase. Marketing and messaging matter here. Explain to students why the system exists, not as a threat but as a protection for their peers and for the value of the credential. Walk them through what to expect with clear, localized guides. Show sample recordings and anonymized reports so students understand what will be reviewed. Provide a sandbox or practice exam environment so students can test their systems without stress. And be explicit about accommodations: publish a clear, accessible process for students who require adjustments, and don't make them beg for consideration.

Faculty Readiness: Training and Assessment Redesign

Faculty need guidance, too. Proctoring changes classroom dynamics and assessment design. Work with instructors to redesign assessments where appropriate, to write clear rubrics for what constitutes an integrity violation, and to create workflows that make review efficient and fair. Provide training for staff who will review flagged sessions so that they understand the limits of automated flags, the possibility of error, and the need to avoid snap judgments based on faulty assumptions.

Measuring Success: Beyond Incident Counts

It's also worth thinking about the metrics you'll use to evaluate your proctoring strategy. Don't measure success purely by the number of incidents flagged. Look beyond that to student satisfaction, the rate of disputes and their outcomes, accessibility metrics, false positive rates, and whether your assessments are still reliably measuring the learning outcomes you care about. Collect feedback from students and faculty after each exam cycle and iterate.

Trust as the Ultimate Metric

At the heart of this is trust. Students must trust that their institution will treat their data with respect. Instructors must trust that the evidence they receive is reliable and defensible. Employers and the public must trust that degrees and certifications actually represent competence. Proctoring, when done right, contributes to that trust. When done poorly, it undermines it.

A Practical Roadmap for Implementation

If you're implementing proctoring, here's an integrated set of practices to guide you. First, map your assessments: identify which ones truly require proctoring and which can be redesigned. Second, select a vendor for fit rather than hype: prioritize integration, accessibility, data practices, and transparent reporting. Third, build policies and workflows before you turn the cameras on: define who reviews flags, how appeals are handled, and what accommodations exist. Fourth, communicate: provide clear, student-friendly explanations, practice opportunities, and technical support. Fifth, audit and iterate: regularly review the system's performance, its impact on students, and whether it's meeting the institution's pedagogical goals.

Pedagogy First: Use Proctoring to Strengthen Assessment Design

Finally, don't forget the larger pedagogical shifts. Technology alone won't fix bad assessment design. The rise of remote proctoring should encourage educators to ask deeper questions about what they are measuring and why. Authentic assessments—projects that require applied knowledge, critical thinking, and process evidence—reduce the incentives to cheat. Oral exams, portfolios, and staged assessments capture learning that a single high-stakes test cannot. When proctoring is combined with better assessment design, the result is not merely policing but a stronger educational system that values learning over shortcuts.

Deliberate Choices for Fair Credentials

Proctoring is a practical answer to a practical problem: how to preserve the credibility of assessment in an era when learning happens everywhere. The technology provides evidence; the institution provides context, policy, and humanity. The choices institutions make about proctoring reveal their priorities—not only about academic integrity but about equity, privacy, and the kind of learning they want to encourage. Make those choices deliberately, communicate them plainly, and keep the focus where it belongs: on supporting honest learning and fair credentials in a world that no longer fits inside four walls.