Repost: Do any of your campuses have/exploring policies limiting the use of #AI or other predictive analytics tools in student assessment?

I'm a University Senator and Chair of our Academic Policy committee. A few weeks ago our Senate Executive Committee heard a presentation about academic misconduct during COVID. We learned that a significant number of accusations came from the use of Respondus Monitor, which is now discouraged (but still in limited use here). While we didn't see data broken down by demographics, everything I've read about this technology (and facial recognition technology more broadly) disproportionately harms students of color. So I began a conversation with the Chair of our Senate about whether we should develop a policy limiting or possibly banning usage in student assessment.

If your institution is exploring this type of policy, I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks to those who previously responded! I lost the original post in our recent server migration.

@pam Hey Pam - yes our campus has banned remote proctoring completely. The big takeaway is that it is more complicated than simply banning it. If you are going to go this route you also need to provide more human supports. We wrote a paper about it - https://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tia/17063888.0039.308/--what-happens-when-you-close-the-door-on-remote-proctoring?rgn=main;view=fulltext
What Happens When You Close the Door on Remote Proctoring? Moving Toward Authentic Assessments with a People-Centered Approach

@Autumm this is fantastic! Thanks for sharing

@pam This might also be helpful https://www.baneproctoring.com/

Set up by Fight for the Future

Ban Eproctoring

Digital and human rights groups are calling on schools to end the use of invasive eproctoring apps.

Ban Eproctoring
@Autumm I should add that there have been ongoing conversations/efforts to support faculty in moving away from high-stakes assessment and creating assessments that discourage academic misconduct. But as I understand it, we also have several licensure and accredited programs that require these high-stakes tests.
@pam Yes there is a whole other need for those brave enough to push back on the accreditation bodies. But requiring high stakes testing is not the same as requiring remote proctoring - if that is the conversation the points you originally made about the unequal treatment of people of color should go a long way. You might also find our "harm index" from this paper to be helpful https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/back-doors-trap-doors-and-fourth-party-deals-how-you-end-up-with-harmful-academic-surveillance-technology-on-your-campus-without-even-knowing/
Back Doors, Trap Doors, and Fourth-Party Deals: How You End up with Harmful Academic Surveillance Technology on Your Campus without Even Knowing /

@pam

Hi Pam. Also a University Senator on our Academic Policy committee (University of British Columbia). Our senate voted to stop the use of remote proctor tech for exams last year. Here's the official announcement:

https://academic.ubc.ca/academic-community/news-announcements/news/senate-vote-remote-proctoring-software

Message to the community regarding Senate vote on use of remote proctoring software | Vice President Academic

UBCV Senate has voted in favor of a motion to direct UBCV Faculties to stop using remote invigilation tools that involve automated recording and algorithmic analysis of data captured during invigilation, except in cases where the use of such 'remote proctoring software' is required by external accreditation bodies.

@hishamzerriffi thanks for sharing this! I neglected to mention that our systemwide academic senate passed a resolution in 2021 addressing remote proctoring technologies, but that still leaves a lot of room on each of the 23 campuses to develop our own policies (https://www.calstate.edu/csu-system/faculty-staff/academic-senate/resolutions/2020-2021/3474.pdf)