By Scott McFarland

…AI was never going to be an effective substitute for human monitoring. My company, ProctorU, has always championed live monitoring by a trained proctor, who can correct behaviour proactively to prevent a situation that a faculty member has to review and make a judgement call on. This is the best way to truly prevent cheating.

Nevertheless, this approach is clearly labour intensive and faces capacity issues when everyone makes the switch at once. In this context, artificial intelligence looks like a lifeboat in the storm.

The software is trained in what to look for and flags potential test violations, which can then be checked. The problem is that when institutions are required to do the checking, they either don’t do so (only 11 per cent of the sessions we have recorded are being reviewed) or do so incorrectly…Read full article here.