Read on Twitter
I& #39;m not going to share the video of the weeping student& #39;s horrible experience of virtual proctoring -- I don& #39;t need to because I& #39;m sure you& #39;ve seen it, and while I hope this visceral affective experience helps us make change, I worry about the longterm impact on the student.
However, these experiences are not unique. Virtual proctoring tools employed across the world are surveillance technologies. They harm because they undo any relationship of trust that once existed between student and teacher, student and institution.
You are not entitled to access to your student& #39;s private domestic space; you are not entitled to police their mannerisms and affect during their exams. There is nothing about your role as the teacher, there is nothing inherent to the institution, that entitles you to this.
Pandemic teaching and learning does not demand more surveillance and more policing; it demands care, reframing, and time. Our institutions fail us by choosing -- choosing! -- not to provide us with the tools, space, and resources to do good teaching.
I am tired. I am angry. I am frustrated. I feel completely at a loss to talk about this. EdTech can be good, and drive good pedagogy, can make meaningful change, but not like this.
Our colleague @Linkletter is being sued for trying to make us all aware of these very explicit harms. This is exactly what he was warning us about. If you are new to this conversation, please stand up for Ian: https://blog.communityofpraxis.ca/2020/09/03/in-defence-of-ian-linkletter/">https://blog.communityofpraxis.ca/2020/09/0...
Also please miss me with "well, we use ProctorU, but not like *that*." The ethical failure is baked in. The policing of students is a feature, not a bug. The cruelty is the point. Enough already. Enough.
