What is proctoring – and when is it the right choice?

Supervision beyond the exam room

Traditional exams rely on invigilators in the room. But not every exam can take place in a hall: students may study at a distance, live in another country or need to sit an exam at home for practical or personal reasons. And even on campus, invigilators cannot see every screen at once. Proctoring uses technology to extend supervision in these situations – most often through the student’s webcam, microphone and screen.

In North America, “proctoring” is also the everyday word for in-person invigilation. In Europe, the term usually refers to technology-supported or remote supervision – online proctoring – which grew rapidly when exams moved online during the COVID-19 pandemic.

How does it work?

The details vary between solutions, but proctoring usually involves one or more of the following:

• Identity checks. The student shows their face, and sometimes an ID card, to confirm who is taking the exam.
• Webcam and audio. Images, video or sound from the student’s surroundings are captured during the exam – sometimes with a second camera, such as a mobile phone, showing the room from another angle.
• Screen and device monitoring. Screenshots or logs show which applications and websites are used.
• Live or record-and-review. A person may watch in real time, or recordings may be reviewed afterwards.
• Automated flags. Software highlights moments that may need a closer look – such as a face that does not match, a second voice or a new application – for a person to review.

Why does proctoring matter?

The main reason is flexibility without giving up integrity. Proctoring makes it possible to offer supervised exams to students who cannot attend in person, and to run exams in places and at times that would otherwise be impossible. For distance learning, international programmes and continuing education, that can be the difference between offering an exam and not offering it at all.

It can also strengthen exams on campus. Webcam checks and device monitoring can support invigilators in large halls, and give institutions documentation if a case needs to be reviewed later.

What proctoring cannot do

Proctoring cannot guarantee that no one cheats. Determined students may find ways around it, and automated flags can be wrong – a student looking away to think, background noise or poor lighting can all trigger an alert. Flags are therefore signals for human review, never conclusions in themselves.

Proctoring also raises important questions. It involves personal data – sometimes from inside students’ homes – so it must have a clear legal basis, be proportionate to the purpose and comply with data protection rules such as the GDPR. Students need clear information, and institutions should consider alternatives for those who cannot or should not be monitored at home. Used without care, proctoring can add stress and erode trust rather than build it.

How does WISEflow approach it?

In WISEflow, proctoring is a set of tools the institution can choose from, not a fixed package. Our understanding goes a little further than surveillance:

• Layers to choose from. Institutions decide which level of supervision each exam needs – from a lockdown browser alone to device monitoring, facial and audio detection or live proctoring.
• Device monitoring. The WISEflow Device Monitor can take screenshots at random intervals and log applications, and students can see their own monitored activity.
• Facial and audio detection. Combined with the lockdown browser, facial comparison checks periodic webcam snapshots against a reference image, and voice detection captures and transcribes audio for review.
• Live proctoring. For exams that need it, UNIwise also offers live proctoring, where students are supervised in real time by a person. The student’s mobile phone camera adds a second angle, so the proctor can see both the student and the room around them.
• People decide. Flags highlight what may need attention, while invigilators, proctors and managers review the evidence and make the decisions – and recordings are only kept for a set period.

What should institutions consider?

• Purpose: decide which exams genuinely need proctoring – and which are better served by in-person invigilation or a different assessment design.
• Legal basis: carry out a data protection impact assessment and be clear about the legal grounds.
• Students: explain clearly what is monitored and why, and offer alternatives where needed.
• Human review: make sure no decision is ever based on an automated flag alone.

Proctoring is not a substitute for good assessment design. Used well, and in proportion to the need, it makes supervised exams possible where they otherwise would not be – while keeping students’ rights in view.