Tag: Invigilated Exams

The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed Exams: A Critical Examination and Guidance for Writing Centre Support (Part 2 of 2)

~ CWCA/ACCR

Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter 2024)

Liv Marken, Contributing Editor, CWCR/RCCR

This is Part Two of two in this series. You can read Part One, The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed, and Invigilated Exams: Causes, Context, and the Perpetuation of Ableism here. CWCR/RCCR Editor

My previous post discussed the resurgence of traditional handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated exams as a response to pandemic-era cheating and GenAI. While some post-secondary instructors return to these assessments, they risk moving backwards: the nature of these exams is inconsistent with commitments to equity and inclusion practices. Accommodation gains, it seems, were a corollary of pandemic remote learning, and these gains have gradually diminished due to an attitude of “returning to normal.” Continue reading “The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed Exams: A Critical Examination and Guidance for Writing Centre Support (Part 2 of 2)” →

The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed, and Invigilated Exams: Causes, Context, and the Perpetuation of Ableism (Part 1 of 2)

~ CWCA/ACCR

Vol. 4, No. 3 (Summer 2023)

Liv Marken, Contributing Editor, CWCR/RCCR

Part two, The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed Exams: A Critical Examination and Guidance for Writing Centre Support, is here. CWCR/RCCR Editor

When post-secondary institutions resumed in-person classes this year, many instructors and programs brought back handwritten, in-person, timed, and invigilated examinations (Hoyle, 2023; McLoughlin, 2023). This return to tradition was partly spurred by anxieties around the increase in student cheating during the remote phase of the pandemic (Bilen, Matros & Matros, 2021; Eaton, et al., 2023; Lancaster & Cortolan, 2023; Noorbehbahani, Mohammadi, & Aminazadeh 2022; Peters, 2023, Reed, 2023). Then, with OpenAI’s November 30, 2022 release of the artificial intelligence text generator, ChatGPT, anxieties about cheating escalated rapidly (Heidt, 2023). The AI language model’s ability to quickly generate natural-sounding text (in addition to its abilities in language tasks such as translation, summarization, and question answering) were exciting but also alarming (Cotton, Cotton, & Shipway, 2023; Susnjak, 2022), Since its release, ChatGPT’s steady improvement, as well as the proliferation of similar AI writing tools, have led to newly intensified anxieties around maintaining academic integrity (Cotton, Cotton, & Shipway, 2023; Susnjak, 2022).  AI detectors, which may seem like a silver bullet to prevent and catch plagiarism, have been shown to make false accusations (Drapkin, 2023) and show bias against non-native English speakers (Liang et al., 2023). OpenAI found that their own detection tool, AI Classifier, was just not effective at catching cheating, leading the company to “quietly” shut it down (Nelson, 2023): “As of July 20, 2023, the AI classifier is no longer available due to its low rate of accuracy” (OpenAI, 2023). With pandemic and generative AI cheating concerns, and no easy solutions, post-secondary institutions are in is a race against the clock to redesign assessment before the fall semester (Fowler, 2023; Heidt, 2023; Hubbard, 2023). Continue reading “The Pandemic, GenAI, & the Return to Handwritten, In-Person, Timed, and Invigilated Exams: Causes, Context, and the Perpetuation of Ableism (Part 1 of 2)” →