Thoughts on invigilation, prompted by this thread.

https://twitter.com/JamesBSumner/status/1264819934741311488

Invigilation">https://twitter.com/JamesBSum... has two purposes: (a) make honesty an easier option than cheating; (b) persuade candidates that everyone else sees it the same way.

1/7
If you don& #39;t achieve (b) then you& #39;ll get rampant cheating whether or not it& #39;s rational, because no-one will want to lose ground to the cheats.

I have seen this happen.

2/7
Traditional exams are awful in many ways but they more or less achieve (a).

[Yes, I can think of some *almost* undetectable ways to cheat. They are the fruit of many hours of thought while walking the rows, and I& #39;m not going to share them here.]

3/7
Traditional exams also, crucially, achieve (b), because everyone can see what every other candidate is experiencing.

It& #39;s reminiscent of those logic puzzles set on an island of perfect reasoners with perfect knowledge of each other& #39;s reasoning powers and one strange taboo.

4/7
Leaving all else aside, remote invigilation will engender misconduct because that reciprocity is lost, and a lot of candidates will then cease to believe (a).

5/7
Rumours and suspicion will multiply; My Mate In The Year Above will know someone who fooled the system; and instead of invigilating 300 approximately honest people you& #39;re trying to invigilate 300 potential cheats.

Hopeless.

6/7
If we have to abandon the traditional exam, we have to abandon it completely.

I don& #39;t want to do that. But let& #39;s not take a form of assessment the sole virtue of which is its resistance to cheating, remove that virtue, and pretend we& #39;ve done something clever.

/end
You can follow @ncdominie.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: