[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-393912-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-393912-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","re-examining-the-examiners-changes-in-privacy-and-security-perceptions-of-exam-proctoring","Re-Examining the Examiners - Changes in Privacy and Security Perceptions of Exam Proctoring","","Remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of exam proctoring software intended to support online test integrity. Yet surveillance mechanisms introduce substantial privacy and security tradeoffs, as shown by earlier findings that test-takers had concerns but accepted proctoring under pandemic conditions. This study replicates that work four years later with 127 participants, revealing a significant shift toward greater acceptance of monitoring methods, likely driven by convenience and increasing resignation, and it outlines implications and future research directions.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/re-examining-the-examiners-changes-in-privacy-and-security-perceptions-of-exam-proctoring/393912/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/re-examining-the-examiners-changes-in-privacy-and-security-perceptions-of-exam-proctoring/393912.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"lilac","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-26",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What privacy and security tradeoffs does exam proctoring software involve?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Exam proctoring systems use surveillance mechanisms that can be intrusive, such as room scanning and granting access to devices or sensors like microphone and camera. These mechanisms create significant privacy and security tradeoffs for test-takers.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the study compare today’s perceptions to Balash et al.’s 2020 results?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The study replicates Balash et al.’s work with 127 participants and finds a significant shift in favor of proctoring software, with greater acceptance of monitoring methods compared to 2020.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What factors does the paper suggest for the change in acceptance?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The paper suggests that convenience of remote exams and growing resignation to privacy trade-offs likely contribute to the increased acceptance of proctoring methods.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},393912,1791279856,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":127,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},3985747861865,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Re-Examining the Examiners: Changes in Privacy and Security  \nPerceptions of Exam Proctoring  \nAdryana Hutchinson  \nDepartment of Computer Science The George Washington University Washington, District of Columbia, USA [adryana.hutchinson@gwu.edu](adryana.hutchinson@gwu.edu)  \nCollins W. Munyendo  \nComputer Science The George Washington University Washington, District of Columbia, USA[cmunyendo@gwu.edu](cmunyendo@gwu.edu)  \nElaine Ly  \nComputer Science Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts, USA [ly.el@northeastern.edu](ly.el@northeastern.edu)  \nAdam J Aviv  \nComputer Science The George Washington University Washington, District of Columbia, USA [aaviv@gwu.edu](aaviv@gwu.edu)  \nAbstract  \nWith the shift to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, educators turned to remote exam proctoring software to support integrity for online tests. However, due to the mechanisms used to surveil test-takers, these systems come with significant privacy and security tradeoffs. At the height of the pandemic, Balash et al. (SOUPS ’21) found that test-takers had privacy concerns with remote proctoring but acquiesced due to a number offactors. We investigate how perceptions have changed four years later. To gain a fuller perspective on how users experience these tools now, we replicate Balash et al.’s study with 127 participants who have experienced exam proctoring. We found a significant shift in favor of proctoring software, with greater acceptance of all monitoring methods compared to 2020 . This is likely due to the convenience of remote exams and a growing resignation to privacy trade-offs. We discuss these implications and suggest future directions.  \nCCS Concepts  \n• Human-centered computing → User studies; Human computer interaction (HCI) .  \nACM Reference Format:  \nAdryana Hutchinson, Elaine Ly, Collins W. Munyendo, and Adam J Aviv.  \n2026. Re-Examining the Examiners: Changes in Privacy and Security Perceptions of Exam Proctoring. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’26), April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318](https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318) . 3790794  \n1 Introduction  \nThere has been a steady uptick in the use of remote exam proctoring software [8] that enables students and other test-takers to complete exams remotely under supervision to ensure academic integrity. This trend accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic  \nThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4 .0 International License. CHI’26, Barcelona, Spain  \n© 2026 Copyright held by the owner/author(s) .  \nACM ISBN 979-8-4007-2278-3/26/04  \n[https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790794](https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790794)  \nwhen schools moved to remote learning; one poll in 2020 noted that 77% of institutions were already using or planning to use these software solutions [29] . Remote proctoring is also applied beyond educational settings [9], including in conducting driving and/or certification exams. Remote exam proctoring software come in various forms: browser extensions, standalone applications, and integrations within learning management systems. To ensure academic integrity, these tools can be highly intrusive, often requiring test-takers to perform a manual room scan, give access to their network, and allow microphone and camera access [13, 57] . While studies have found that students cheat less on online proctored exams compared to in-person exams [6, 24], research is inconclusive as to whether online proctored exams affect the overall performance during exams, with some studies showing that it stays the same [17, 39] and others showing otherwise [35, 88] . Additionally, studies have shown that students are more stressed when taking online proctored exams [8, 79, 88] .  \nAt the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Balash et al. [8] investigated students’perceptions ofthe privacy of exam proctoring systems and their comfort level","cbCairWGdI1aYQX5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairWGdI1aYQX5","pdf",846269,"English","# Introduction\n## Research questions and study goals\n## Replication approach and evaluation of proctoring software\n## Survey protocol and current permission practices","[{\"question\":\"What privacy and security tradeoffs does exam proctoring software involve?\",\"answer\":\"Exam proctoring systems use surveillance mechanisms that can be intrusive, such as room scanning and granting access to devices or sensors like microphone and camera. These mechanisms create significant privacy and security tradeoffs for test-takers.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the study compare today’s perceptions to Balash et al.’s 2020 results?\",\"answer\":\"The study replicates Balash et al.’s work with 127 participants and finds a significant shift in favor of proctoring software, with greater acceptance of monitoring methods compared to 2020.\"},{\"question\":\"What factors does the paper suggest for the change in acceptance?\",\"answer\":\"The paper suggests that convenience of remote exams and growing resignation to privacy trade-offs likely contribute to the increased acceptance of proctoring methods.\"}]","Re-Examining the Examiners - Changes in Privacy and Security Perceptions of Exam Proctoring | PDF",1790396122,48]