1. Risk and Reward: Implementing a New Online Proctor System
Janet Lenart, Ashley Bond, Sharee Squires
Online Education Team, School of Nursing
Janet slide
Decided to take a look at
Accreditation stardards

2. Introduction
Janet slide

3. Vetting – Winter 2016 Motivation Screening Stakeholders
Accreditation Standards Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
Student Request
Cheating in higher education 50% to 95% (Josien, 2013)
Screening
21 Vendors
7 In-depth
2 Final
Stakeholders
Students, Administration, Faculty, Committees, Executive Team, Technology Team
Janet slide:
Autumn 2015
Accreditation standards.

4. Piloting - Spring 2016 Course Characteristics Large course Instructors
Enthusiastic
Flexible
Technology skills
Problem Solvers
Ashley Slide:
Key Points for successful Piloting:
picking your pilot courses
instructors key
Having a team capable of problem solving and instructors willing to work with you

5. Piloting Support Created technology team Developed Instructions
Instructors
Students
Regular Contact
Analysis of process
Improvements
Funding explored with administration
Ashley Slide:
Communication support essential

6. Implementation Fall 2016 Winter 2017 7 courses 7 Courses Janet slide:
Course sizes ranged from 20 students to 140 students
Different styles: Open book, hybrid (half in class half at home, not open to collaboration but open book
Allowed to problem solve in a variety of situations.

7. Implementation Payment Messaging One to One Consultations Testing
Newsletter
Departmental Meetings
SoN webpage and intranet
One to One Consultations
Testing
Review of Proctorio Gradebook
Improvements
Janet slide:
Payment / Cost to students $20 per course or $ 100 life time fee
Messaging early for the requirement fall 2016
Approach was to offer one to one consultations, Only 4 people attended a workshop not very effective
Canvas quizzes support
Worked with Proctorio to integrate Proctorio into canvas courses
Issues: Cheating, Technical issues, instructors changing or editing test once test is open.
Improvements: communication to students, instructions on home page revised, Developed FAQ for students, mandate one on one consultations, Remove ability to use Proctorio without first consultation, On going, cost method is a block

8. Evaluation Pilot Implementation Online Student feedback
Weekly Meetings Faculty
Implementation
Debriefing with Faculty
Survey of Students
Sharee slide
Students were able to express their concerns whether good or bad During the pilot
Fear of software install on their computer,
Anxiety of wondering if their behavior of looking up or around would be flagged as suspicious.
Not able to talk out loud
Wi Fi problems
Accidently losing connection
Not remembering to share scratch paper at end
Having a quiet place to take quiz/test with good connection
Having family interrupt them in error
Feedback was also positive
Flexibility
Pleased with the use of technology
Suggestions
White board
Last question to show white board or scratch paper
Instructors,
Rewards out weighted the negative
Good use of class time
Flexibility of student work schedules
Some students have very strong feelings about Proctorio that were negative. We still need to complete our evaluation.
Survey of courses and DNP Curriculum committee waiting for those results from both students.
We will be debriefing the instructors that used Proctorio during the Winter quarter.

9. Evaluation Current Survey Results Frequency of student preference:
69 Responses of 205 students surveyed
Leadership committees are evaluating results
Results
Frequency of student preference:
31% In person test
20% Option to take test online or in person
20% 24 hour window for online test
20% Standard weekly window for online testing
4% No preference
6% Other
Sharee slide
Results
In person test 31%
Option to take test online or in person 20%
24 hour window for online test 20%
Standard weekly window for online testing 20%
No preference 4%
Other %

10. Conclusions Lessons Learned Centralize Enabling Proctorio
Evaluate Negative Feedback
One to One Consultation Critical
Shared Language
Improvement in Messaging
Responding to Innovative use of Canvas Quiz
Provide Make-up Quiz Option
Janet
Lesson learned:
Have shared language,
Instructors not to edit test once available to students

11. Resources 17 Minute Overview of Proctorio
Accreditation Standards Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
References
Josien, L., & Broderick, B. (2013). Cheating in Higher Education: The Case of Multi-Methods Cheaters. Academy Of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(3),
Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

12. Questions
Janet Lenart
Ashley Bond

13. Thank You