I agree with Jesse here. For those that will not be swayed by the ethical, compassionate argument, though, you should also know that proctoring software fails miserably when you check it against the science of learning. (a short thread) 1/x https://twitter.com/Jessifer/status/1311446997262569474">https://twitter.com/Jessifer/...

First, no matter how it is utilized, proctoring software adds to students& #39; cognitive load. In addition to trying to take the test, they are dealing with the additional burden of "Are my eyes in the right place?" "I didn& #39;t move my head too much, did I?" etc. 2/x

This uses resources that students *could* be using to demonstrate learning. It edges out the capacity to do the high level work you are expecting of them. How does it make sense to inflict these completely irrelevant elements on them that prevent them from doing their best? 3/x

Furthermore, proctoring software can increase the nervousness &, in many cases, the anxiety that students already feel about exams. Every bit of evidence we have shows us that as these negative emotions increase, our cognitive abilities decrease. 4/x

Again, isn& #39;t this counterproductive? In the end, when you use proctoring software you are measuring a student& #39;s ability to manage cognitive load & to regulate their emotions just as much (maybe more?) as you are their knowledge/ understanding/ideas. We can do so much better. /end